[NeedKarma]

Call me crazy but I'll choose to stay in a place where there are NO rockets and bombs aimed at me.

[ETWolverine]

Fine by me. I'd prefer to stay here too. Bu that will depend on what the guy YOU voted for decides to do.

[NeedKarma]

What would he do that would make you leave the USA?

[ETWolverine]

Drive taxes through the roof.

Create penalty-type taxes that take 90% of income away from me.

Create a Universal Health Care system that isn't universal, doesn't provide health and doesn't care for anyone.

Eliminate or abrogate the Bill of Rights.

Drive commerce into the ground and eliminate the concept of contracts being binding.

Ignore the constitution.

Allow terrorists to run amok in the USA.

Create massive debt that destroys the ability of my kids and grandkids to have a good life.

Drive inflation through the roof so that cost of living is prohibitive.

Eliminate the ability of common citizens to use energy for their own purposes, as and when they wish.

Create a class war of massive proportions.

Place so many regulations on businesses that it becomes a losing proposition to open and operate small businesses.

Get the idea?

[NeedKarma]

Drive taxes through the roof.

Create penalty-type taxes that take 90% of income away from me.
That's quite an extrapolation don't you think?

Create a Universal Health Care system that isn't universal, doesn't provide health and doesn't care for anyone.
What's the point of implementing a system if if does that? Seriously who would set up a system that does what you say? Hiw can a universal health care system not care for anyone? Or not provide good health for anyone?

Eliminate or abrogate the Bill of Rights.
Bush started that.

Drive commerce into the ground and eliminate the concept of contracts being binding.

Ignore the constitution.
Bush started that.

Allow terrorists to run amok in the USA.
Sensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Create massive debt that destroys the ability of my kids and grandkids to have a good life.
Bush started that.

Drive inflation through the roof so that cost of living is prohibitive.
Bush started that.

Eliminate the ability of common citizens to use energy for their own purposes, as and when they wish.
Has something changed there in the last year?

Create a class war of massive proportions.
Yes, the neocons do advocate this.

Place so many regulations on businesses that it becomes a losing proposition to open and operate small businesses.
It hasn't hampered the small business in other countries. Some regulation would have saved you from your meltdown.

[galveston]

I think Elliot's OP shows deep thought and should receive serious consideration by those who make decisions for all of us.

Given the current make-up of Washington, I can't see much hope of ANY serious consideration requiring an IQ greater than their average shoe size.

[George_1950]

I have said before that as Obama makes known his plans for America, that he will become more and more unpopular. I totally agree with the emotions of frustration with Congress and Obama; however, this is not the stiffest test yet for this country. A great indicator will come in 2010; every seat in the House is up for challenge. If the actions and inactions of Obama, Nancy, Harry, Barney, and the Chicago cabal are ratified, then so-be-it: every man for himself. I do not believe ratification of Obama will be the course the voters will choose. 18 months of Clinton were enough in 1994; think what things will be like in July, 2010, after 18 months of this fiasco.

[George_1950]

On a much lighter note, an explanation of 'financial crisis' by a concerned father to his son: YouTube - The Financial Crisis Explained

[ETWolverine]

Drive taxes through the roof.

Create penalty-type taxes that take 90% of income away from me.
That's quite an extrapolation don't you think?

Not really. If he can levy punitive 90% taxes for AIG employees, why can't he levy them on everyone else too? That's the precedent he and his Congress are setting.

Create a Universal Health Care system that isn't universal, doesn't provide health and doesn't care for anyone.
What's the point of implementing a system if if does that? Seriously who would set up a system that does what you say? Hiw can a universal health care system not care for anyone? Or not provide good health for anyone?

THAT IS WHAT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE DOES!!!

Take a look at any "universal healthcare system" in the world. They don't provide care to everyone... only to those who the bureaucrats say are "worthy" or "best able to benefit" or whatever other criterion they use to make that determination. Those who don't qualify under their criterion don't get the care they want/need. Universality is the first thing to go out the window.

Secondly, in universal health care systems, there is no CARE given. The system is run by bureaucrats who don't know you, couldn't care less about you, and are sitting in front of charts that tell them what medical services you get.

And as for the "health" part, universal health care systems don't allow for incentives for the creation of new cures, techniques and systems that would actually make people healthy.

Just as the Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, wasn't Roman and wasn't an Empire... just as the Irish Republican Army wasn't Irish, wasn't republican and wasn't an army... similarly, universal health care isn't universal, doesn't provide health, and doesn't care.

Eliminate or abrogate the Bill of Rights.
Bush started that.

I'm not interested in having this argument right now. Suffice it to say that from a legal, historical and moral standpoint, you continue to be wrong about that.

Drive commerce into the ground and eliminate the concept of contracts being binding.

This one's already being done. And it is having the very effect that I predicted... the major hedge funds are afraid to go along with Geithner's plan to purchase toxic assets for fear that once the assets start turning around and becoming profitable, the government will penalize them for being profitable and take away their earnings by either breaking their contracts or taxing 90% of their income. And without some form of assurance, the hedge funds won't go for the plan. Unfortunately, there can be no such assurance if Congress can simply make contracts non-binding at will.

Ignore the constitution.
Bush started that.

Again you are wrong about that. At no point did Bush violate the constitution or any of its provisions. In fact, every action he took (which are no different than the actions of his war-time predecessors) was within the legar REQUIREMENTS of the War Powers Act.

Allow terrorists to run amok in the USA.
Sensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He has already stated that he's closing Gitmo. The countries that the terrorists actually come from don't want them back. Europe doesn't want them either... despite the fact that they were the loudest voices calling for the closure of Gitmo. As soon as Europe found out that they'd actually have to WATCH them, they refused to take them. So what's left? The only other option is to let them go or put them in another jail. Care to guess which option will be chosen?

Create massive debt that destroys the ability of my kids and grandkids to have a good life.
Bush started that.

Yup. Over a period of 8 years, Bush created a budget deficit of $480 billion dollars. And in less than two months, Obama more than quadrupled it to $1.9 trillion. We could live with $480 trillion. We've done it before. But nobody has ever seen a deficit of $1.9 trillion before.

Drive inflation through the roof so that cost of living is prohibitive.
Bush started that.

What is your basis for that statement? In fact, the inflation rate dropped every month between August 2008 and December 2008. It has risen in January and February.

It's easy to point a finger at Bush, but inflation didn't start increasing until Obama came to office. Nevertheless, it isn't "through the roof" yet... just modestly higher than under Bush.

Eliminate the ability of common citizens to use energy for their own purposes, as and when they wish.
Has something changed there in the last year?

Yes. Obama was elected.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Yeah, a lot has changed.

Create a class war of massive proportions.
Yes, the neocons do advocate this.

Oh, baloney. We're not the ones advocating stealing from the "rich" to give to the "poor". We don't advocate "redistribution of wealth". We don't advocate taking over companies because they are making too much money... or for that matter because they are losing too much money.

"And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um… would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies."

---Representative Maxine Waters (D- Calif), May 23, 2008.

THAT is class warfare.

Place so many regulations on businesses that it becomes a losing proposition to open and operate small businesses.
It hasn't hampered the small business in other countries. Some regulation would have saved you from your meltdown.

Ah... wrong. Every place where government regulation has taken hold of ANY industry, anywhere in the world, that industry has suffered. There is NO CASE IN HISTORY where that isn't true. Furthermore, it wasn't a lack of regulation that caused the meltdown... it was overregulation and government interference in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the creation of Fannie and Freddie. If none of those three things existed, the meltdown would never have occurred, because bankers would have never been forced to make bad loans to people who couldn't afford them. It is government overregulation that created not only the market conditions for this disaster to exist, but also REQUIRED that banks lend in those market conditions under threat of sanctions, penalties and being shut down for not following the rules of CRA.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Universal health care Canadian style . Natasha Richardson bumps her head on a beginners ski slope. She starts to get head aches. After picking her up from the hotel, there was a 40-minute drive to the community hospital, the Centre Hospitalier Laurentien. She did have a CT scan there, and the decision was made within 2 hours to transport her to a tertiary care center, another 2 1/2-hours away in Montreal.

Would the same have happened in the US ;probalby except that instead of the drive to a center she would've been air lifted by helicopter .

Montreal's top head trauma doctor said Friday that may have played a role in Richardson's death.
"It's impossible for me to comment specifically about her case, but what I could say is... driving to Mont Tremblant from the city (Montreal) is a 2 1/2-hour trip, and the closest trauma center is in the city. Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States," said Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre, which represents six of Montreal's hospitals.

Did that time cost her her life ? Possibly . The treatment for this was to drill into the scull to relieve the pressure. Valuable time was wasted in the ambulance ride.

[NeedKarma]

THAT IS WHAT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE DOES!!!

Take a look at any "universal healthcare system" in the world. They don't provide care to everyone... only to those who the bureaucrats say are "worthy" or "best able to benefit" or whatever other criterion they use to make that determination. Those who don't qualify under their criterion don't get the care they want/need. Universality is the first thing to go out the window.

Secondly, in universal health care systems, there is no CARE given. The system is run by bureaucrats who don't know you, couldn't care less about you, and are sitting in front of charts that tell them what medical services you get.

And as for the "health" part, universal health care systems don't allow for incentives for the creation of new cures, techniques and systems that would actually make people healthy.

That is the most uninformed answer I have ever read. Remember that I live in a universal health care environment so I'm in a better place to tell you how wrong you are. Everyone gets care, we have doctors and nurses like you do, we have top class research facilities, the large majority of us will never ever require the services of a lawyer related to mediacl insurance matters.

[ETWolverine]

You're in Canada, aren't you?

The place where Natasha Richardson just died after a 2 1/2 hour trip to the medical center because the medical center that she first went to didn't have any doctors capable of emergency cranial surgery? Because they weren't given authorization for one in that area of Montreal.

You mean that universal health system?

[NeedKarma]

Yup. Even Tom admitted the same would have happened in the US. You can spend your days finding exceptions to every system known to man. I dare you to point me to a perfect system.

[ETWolverine]

Also, how long are the lines for a hip replacement where you are? Or a colonoscopy? How many people wait months for surgeries and procedures that would take place within days in the USA? How many medical professionals are there per capita? How many new drugs and new medical techniques are created in a single year where you are?

[excon]

Hello Elliot:

When I was a youngster, I lived in the little ski town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. We didn't have a doctor capable of emergency cranial surgery, because the market didn't call for one.

We had plenty of orthopedic dudes, though.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Or a colonoscopy?

I waited about 3 months once my doctor sent the request in. All went quite well. As for your other questions I guess you'll have to find someone who has the answers because I don't, I'm not in that field. All I know is I'm happy here.

[ETWolverine]

I waited about 3 months once my doctor sent the request in. All went quite well.

I'm glad it went well.

My uncle got the same surgery done in a couple of weeks.

As for your other questions I guess you'll have to find someone who has the answers because I don't, I'm not in that field. All I know is I'm happy here.

I'm glad you are happy there.

But in answer to these questions, I direct you to this article:

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/sp_Do_Other...he_Answers.pdf

It discusses a number of these questions in detail, including medical outcomes, the effect of a lack of medical insurance on health and on wealth, etc.

Then, there's this article, U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One - Brief Analysis #596
Which discusses cancer outcomes in a comparison of the USA, Canada and Europe.

And the final argument against government-run health care is a simple one... The VA system is a shambles. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt. Every time the government gets involved in providing health care, it fails miserably. What makes you think that any government is capable of handling universal healthcare when they are a disaster in every other area where they provide health benefits.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I'm sure you've all heard that stocks soared today on news of "Geithner's plan" to finally purchase a trillion dollars of toxic assets. What you probably haven't heard is this plan appears to have been a vote of "no confidence" in Geithner by the Fed last week.

Despite the trillions of dollars pouring out of the federal government, neither Wall Street nor the Federal Reserve has confidence in President Obama or Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

In an unprecedented action last week, the Federal Reserve decided to purchase $1 trillion in toxic mortgage-backed securities in order to take them off the books of banks whose assets were so tied up in them that they could no longer lend. The Fed's decision put into action a version of the plan that was first demanded by then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, then legislated quickly only to have Paulson change his mind and not purchase the securities. And the Fed's action apparently was taken after two months of dithering by the Obama administration.

It was a direct repudiation of the Obama administration’s failure to act to solve the credit crisis: the clearest vote of “no confidence” in the White House since the financial crisis erupted last fall.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) characterized the Fed’s action just that way. Price told me, “The Fed just cast a $1 trillion dollar vote of no confidence on the Treasury Secretary. Months into the administration, we would have hoped Geithner would at least formulate a workable plan to stabilize the economy. Hopefully they will learn there is a positive solution out there before future generations lose another trillion dollars.”

Spin it some more guys...

[tomder55]

Yup. Even Tom admitted the same would have happened in the US

For the record I said it would probably have NOT happened that way in the US because even the most remote areas of the country can afford to provide a medical evac helicopter .

[NeedKarma]

for the record I said it would probably have NOT happened that way in the US because even the most remote areas of the country can afford to provide a medical evac helicopter .

From this post: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - The end of commerce
You said:

Would the same have happened in the US ;probalby except that instead of the drive to a center she would've been air lifted by helicopter .