Looks like America WILL have National Health Care after tonight

While there are some good bits in the bill, most of it won't do much good. I bet the insurance companies have already found the loopholes that will let them deny coverage & block payouts.

Overall, I can't see it really making life much better or worse for most people and as for the cost to the taxpayer, well it's just a big fuck-off distraction.. compare the costs of this to spending on the military, the bailout, the debt owed to China...

I think it's hard for most of us Europeans to understand the American attitude to this issue. I don't think you'll find many people living in a country with a single-payer state-run healthcare system that would prefer it to be as it is in America.

Reading some of the opinions here it seems to come down to the larger issue of the extent of federal government. How united are the states?

As someone else mentioned, maybe things would be better if states left the union and did their own thing, but if you think there's a lot of bureaucracy in federal government, imagine how it would be if California set import tariffs on goods from Nevada or citizens from New York had to wait 6 months to get a visa to visit Hawaii. (Ok, exaggeration as I'm sure it would be more like the EU, but still life would be a hell of a lot more complicated for anyone that travelled to or dealt with the foreign former-states.)
 


Overall, I can't see it really making life much better or worse for most people and as for the cost to the taxpayer, well it's just a big fuck-off distraction.. compare the costs of this to spending on the military, the bailout, the debt owed to China...

I think it's hard for most of us Europeans to understand the American attitude to this issue. I don't think you'll find many people living in a country with a single-payer state-run healthcare system that would prefer it to be as it is in America.

Problem is, unfunded liabilities to Medicare, Prescription drug plans, and Social Security add up to well over $100 trillion. This is far larger than any war, any bailout, or our debt to China.

The American attitude against it, is that we don't like government intrusion into our private lives. We can solve things on our own better than an overarching government can for us.

As for the states issue, nobody is advocating back to the Articles of Confederacy, in which what you mentioned was true. States even had their own currencies. That's where the commerce clause of our constitution comes in. The 10th Amendment, however, says that any powers not enumerated in the constitution should be left to the states. i.e. Education, Healthcare, etc.
 
we have that shit in europe and itell u it sucks.
u pay for others, and then u need the healthcar u dont get it on time and have to pay to private companies anyway.
 
we have that shit in europe and itell u it sucks.
u pay for others, and then u need the healthcar u dont get it on time and have to pay to private companies anyway.

amen brah. i'd to pay €2000 for a circumcision if i wanted it ASAP or be put on the waiting list and wait 9 months minimum! fuck that, i can't be out of action for 9 months.

also, GP visits cost a fortune but some 'unemployed' (lazy ass) pikey with a medical card can visit the GP on my dime as many times as he wants. A few Indian doctors I know tell me the pikeys with their medical cards come in every time they've a hangover which is very often. Every Indian doctor I know say's healthcare if this country is FUCKED.
 
amen brah. i'd to pay €2000 for a circumcision if i wanted it ASAP or be put on the waiting list and wait 9 months minimum! fuck that, i can't be out of action for 9 months.

also, GP visits cost a fortune but some 'unemployed' (lazy ass) pikey with a medical card can visit the GP on my dime as many times as he wants. A few Indian doctors I know tell me the pikeys with their medical cards come in every time they've a hangover which is very often. Every Indian doctor I know say's healthcare if this country is FUCKED.

I didn't realise it was so different in Ireland to the UK.

Re: ya circumcision, unless it's for medical reasons too right you should pay. I bet insurance in places like America doesn't cover cosmetic surgery (other than re-construction) and it fucking pisses me off when our health service here pays for shit like breast implants (rather than dealing with the psychological shit) and fertility treatment (don't get me started on that one).

You wanna lose ya foreskin 'cos you think it looks pretty, you fucking pay for it. If you're born a bit deformed and need to lose it, you shouldn't have to wait 9 months.
 
How is public health care any different than public education? If you believe there to be a difference please make sure to explain the right to education but not to health.

You don't have a right to either.

...Que the line of people who don't understand the fundamentals on which this country was founded who think it obviously is.

You have a right to your life, and a right to your liberty. In a truly free market jobs are always made available because overhead (such as tax) aren't there. Or are there to a much lesser degree.

Before 1979 education wasn't a federal issue. Before that kids were arguably smarter than they've ever been. So why is federal education a good idea?

In different states you hold different values. In Maine your overall thought process is different than that of those in California. By handling public education on federal level what are you hoping to achieve?

Here's a little history lesson from between the Victorian Era and the 20th century era. Draw similarities and read it over.

The Path To The Welfare State (England)

The negative ideas of the 20th century took away the people's understanding of the worth of the individual soul. If man were merely an animal, then he would not need to be treated as a responsible individual. Society, rather than the individual, became the focus of attention of the English public.

Social planners rationalized that for the good of society, individual ambitions and convictions might have to be sacrificed (sound familiar to the earlier part of this century in the US?) The novelist George Orwell (1903-1950) graphically described the dangers of this attitude and thought process in his novels 1984, which predicted the grim future of English Socialism, and Animal Farm, a brilliant satire on the realities of Communism.

Many writers hastened England's decay by using their talents to attack and Christianity and promote the materialism thought the redistribution of wealth. George Bernard Shaw and H.G Wells, for instance, were prominent members of the Fabian Society of Socialists, and they dedicated their creative abilities to socialist and anti-Christian causes. They rejected the idea that responsible individuals are what makes society good and called for direct government intervention in economic affairs to remove economic inequality.

The Fabian Society played a large part in the formation of the Labour Party, which began shortly after the turn of the twentieth century.

During the Victorian Era (the era just before the 20th century era), the greatest reforms in England had been brought about by concerned individuals who took upon themselves the responsibility of helping people who were in need. The political reformers at the end of the nineteenth century had concerned themselves with reforms toward political freedom and freedom of thought and speech and had carefully refrained from intervening in the private affairs of individuals and families. They had realized that if the government assumes the individuals responsibilities, the light of true freedom will be dimmed.

The YMCA and The Salvation Army are just a few of the programs that have stood the test of time. Started by individual that cared, not by a heat-less big government.

As the twentieth centruy dawned, powerful forces were at work to bring about a different kind of reform.

The first changes were made in the schools. In Victorian England (just a few decades before), education had been viewed as a way to train the individual to use his own, unique abilities to help his fellow man and succeed in whichever way he so chose. Every student was different so why teach them all in the same way?

Educators aimed at developing the ability, improving the habits, and forming the character of the individual so that he could conform to his chosen career. The new philosophies of the twentieth century called for a new philosophy towards education. Education came to be viewed as the most advanced phase of the evolutionary process; the new goal of education was to adjust the individual to his environment and to control the child for the sake of welfare and society. To teach everyone in the same way. Curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods were revised to fit this goal.

In 1899, a centralized Board of Education was created. In 1902, the Balfour Education Act was passed, despite vigorous protests by groups. The act reorganized the administration of secondary and elementary schools and laid the foundations for a national system of secondary education (public schools). Most important, it gave tax money to the voluntary schools and brought them under the control of the public education authorities.

From this time on, the central government became increasingly involved in education, and traditional education was looked down upon as "old-fashioned". An opening worship ceremony and religious instruction were required in all tax-aided schools, but as the century progressed and Humanism became commonplace this was forced to stop. Academic standards deteriorated to levels never before imaginable in these newly formed "public" schools.

Today, only about 5% of England's schools are completely independent of the government. The most famous of these, the private high schools that are called public schools in England (examples would be Eton, Harrow, and Winchester), have traditionally emphasized character, discipline, and high scholarship, and they have turned out a high percentage of Britain's leaders (including the last two).

In recent years, attempts have been made by the government to incorporate these schools into the government system.

End

Basically all this is saying is that the government dumbed down the privileged and the poor. Note that all kids that wanted to go to school could. Church run schools, often called "ragged schools", took in any child and gave them a proper eduction.

The parents, not the government, made the call.

When the government came in these private schools were forced to shut down due to pressures and taxation. They were giving charity but weren't aloud to. Choices were eliminated and it was either expensive private school or public school - just like it is now.

The government in an attempt to give more choice took it all away. Reading further into this era you'll realize that in the Victorian Era it was truly a free market and England then prospered more than any other time period.

...Anyone who wanted a job could get a job. There wasn't a "poor class" per say. You had those that wouldn't get a job, the drunks, the mentally ill. But that was a very small portion of the population.

What you saw was that those that worked hard, and worked long, could get by very well. You saw that the majority were middle class, a lesser amount were rich, and very few were poor (homeless).

Moving into the 20th century as taxation, and regulation gripped the nation the official "poor class" was born and it boomed. During times when social programs were being rolled out heavily more people were becoming poor.

What scares me. What really scares me...

Is that England today, arguably, accepts it's socialist ways. They have been around for years and years and are ingrained in their blood. For years, nearly a century, people fought so hard to go back to what it was like in the Victorian Era during the 20th century. Revolts were everywhere, people were dying for their country. Just like during the civil war for the Americans.

...But as the politicians wouldn't change and as the fighters slowly died off over time the fighting died and the practices/laws were accepted.

Right now there's a little fight, a little spark in the step of those angry at the government. But for how long? How long do we keep down this path and accept all the taxation and regulation that has occurred over the past century?

When will the fight die? We're already so far from where we were supposed to be and there's been little fighting for our rights, for our constitution.

So now what? In a few months they'll be another huge strive to socialism and another huge strive to the destruction of America. What are you going to do about it?

If nothing is done, if nothing happens, if voices aren't heard, I can guarantee you one thing. America will never see another time of economic boom lasting more than three years (if there's ever a true economic boom again).
 
...in the Victorian Era it was truly a free market and England then prospered more than any other time period.

...Anyone who wanted a job could get a job. There wasn't a "poor class" per say. You had those that wouldn't get a job, the drunks, the mentally ill. But that was a very small portion of the population.

What you saw was that those that worked hard, and worked long, could get by very well. You saw that the majority were middle class, a lesser amount were rich, and very few were poor (homeless).

Hmmm...

The slums in Victorian England were comparable to those currently in Mumbai. The divide between rich and poor then was a lot greater than now and while opportunities did exist, if you were born to poor parents the chances were you would stay poor.

I'm not going to disagree with you about education being aimed at producing conforming sheeple but this method of control isn't unique to what you perceive as socialism. All governments seek to control their population via education. (Funny how a lot of Americans don't mind their state doing this, but object to it being done on a national level.)

Regarding public schools, citing the last couple of prime ministers (maybe that's a bit out of date, Brown was state educated) isn't really an example of them encouraging free thinking, is it? The standard of education is higher as class sizes are smaller and they can attract good teachers along with many of them being residential which has it's pros and cons in terms of social development but does appear to affect academic ability positively.

As for church ran schools, well they still exist though fortunately religion is normally down-played (if they get state funding, which I think most do). Despite governments having their own motives and generally seeking to control their citizens via education I'd much rather them do that than some religion.

It's one thing your kids being indoctrinated to think they have to get a career and be a good productive member of society, it's a whole different ball game them being indoctrinated to BELIEVE in some religious bullshit and think it's as valid as everything else they learn at school.
 
Last edited:
I stay out of these threads because they consume too much time and time means fucking dollars.

I do want to remind you guys that if you look carefully- no woman on this forum is ever on the same line as the men who make it happen. Riddarhuset, turbolapp, BlueYonder they all, always embrace plans of supposed security, safety, care etc. above any libertarian initiative. I suppose because ultimately that's the keepsake of a woman. Re-read this thread and see the point yourself. Re-read threads regarding most social issues and you will see it again.

PS: no personal attack towards the girls. just sayin'
 
Errr? What have you been snorting, and can I have some?

No.. serriously, evelynds, that was the stupidest thing I have heard so far in this debate.

::emp::
 
You don't have a right to either.

...Que the line of people who don't understand the fundamentals on which this country was founded who think it obviously is.

You have a right to your life, and a right to your liberty. In a truly free market jobs are always made available because overhead (such as tax) aren't there. Or are there to a much lesser degree.

Before 1979 education wasn't a federal issue. Before that kids were arguably smarter than they've ever been. So why is federal education a good idea?

In different states you hold different values. In Maine your overall thought process is different than that of those in California. By handling public education on federal level what are you hoping to achieve?

Here's a little history lesson from between the Victorian Era and the 20th century era. Draw similarities and read it over.

The Path To The Welfare State (England)

The negative ideas of the 20th century took away the people's understanding of the worth of the individual soul. If man were merely an animal, then he would not need to be treated as a responsible individual. Society, rather than the individual, became the focus of attention of the English public.

Social planners rationalized that for the good of society, individual ambitions and convictions might have to be sacrificed (sound familiar to the earlier part of this century in the US?) The novelist George Orwell (1903-1950) graphically described the dangers of this attitude and thought process in his novels 1984, which predicted the grim future of English Socialism, and Animal Farm, a brilliant satire on the realities of Communism.

Many writers hastened England's decay by using their talents to attack and Christianity and promote the materialism thought the redistribution of wealth. George Bernard Shaw and H.G Wells, for instance, were prominent members of the Fabian Society of Socialists, and they dedicated their creative abilities to socialist and anti-Christian causes. They rejected the idea that responsible individuals are what makes society good and called for direct government intervention in economic affairs to remove economic inequality.

The Fabian Society played a large part in the formation of the Labour Party, which began shortly after the turn of the twentieth century.

During the Victorian Era (the era just before the 20th century era), the greatest reforms in England had been brought about by concerned individuals who took upon themselves the responsibility of helping people who were in need. The political reformers at the end of the nineteenth century had concerned themselves with reforms toward political freedom and freedom of thought and speech and had carefully refrained from intervening in the private affairs of individuals and families. They had realized that if the government assumes the individuals responsibilities, the light of true freedom will be dimmed.

The YMCA and The Salvation Army are just a few of the programs that have stood the test of time. Started by individual that cared, not by a heat-less big government.

As the twentieth centruy dawned, powerful forces were at work to bring about a different kind of reform.

The first changes were made in the schools. In Victorian England (just a few decades before), education had been viewed as a way to train the individual to use his own, unique abilities to help his fellow man and succeed in whichever way he so chose. Every student was different so why teach them all in the same way?

Educators aimed at developing the ability, improving the habits, and forming the character of the individual so that he could conform to his chosen career. The new philosophies of the twentieth century called for a new philosophy towards education. Education came to be viewed as the most advanced phase of the evolutionary process; the new goal of education was to adjust the individual to his environment and to control the child for the sake of welfare and society. To teach everyone in the same way. Curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods were revised to fit this goal.

In 1899, a centralized Board of Education was created. In 1902, the Balfour Education Act was passed, despite vigorous protests by groups. The act reorganized the administration of secondary and elementary schools and laid the foundations for a national system of secondary education (public schools). Most important, it gave tax money to the voluntary schools and brought them under the control of the public education authorities.

From this time on, the central government became increasingly involved in education, and traditional education was looked down upon as "old-fashioned". An opening worship ceremony and religious instruction were required in all tax-aided schools, but as the century progressed and Humanism became commonplace this was forced to stop. Academic standards deteriorated to levels never before imaginable in these newly formed "public" schools.

Today, only about 5% of England's schools are completely independent of the government. The most famous of these, the private high schools that are called public schools in England (examples would be Eton, Harrow, and Winchester), have traditionally emphasized character, discipline, and high scholarship, and they have turned out a high percentage of Britain's leaders (including the last two).

In recent years, attempts have been made by the government to incorporate these schools into the government system.

End

Basically all this is saying is that the government dumbed down the privileged and the poor. Note that all kids that wanted to go to school could. Church run schools, often called "ragged schools", took in any child and gave them a proper eduction.

The parents, not the government, made the call.

When the government came in these private schools were forced to shut down due to pressures and taxation. They were giving charity but weren't aloud to. Choices were eliminated and it was either expensive private school or public school - just like it is now.

The government in an attempt to give more choice took it all away. Reading further into this era you'll realize that in the Victorian Era it was truly a free market and England then prospered more than any other time period.

...Anyone who wanted a job could get a job. There wasn't a "poor class" per say. You had those that wouldn't get a job, the drunks, the mentally ill. But that was a very small portion of the population.

What you saw was that those that worked hard, and worked long, could get by very well. You saw that the majority were middle class, a lesser amount were rich, and very few were poor (homeless).

Moving into the 20th century as taxation, and regulation gripped the nation the official "poor class" was born and it boomed. During times when social programs were being rolled out heavily more people were becoming poor.

What scares me. What really scares me...

Is that England today, arguably, accepts it's socialist ways. They have been around for years and years and are ingrained in their blood. For years, nearly a century, people fought so hard to go back to what it was like in the Victorian Era during the 20th century. Revolts were everywhere, people were dying for their country. Just like during the civil war for the Americans.

...But as the politicians wouldn't change and as the fighters slowly died off over time the fighting died and the practices/laws were accepted.

Right now there's a little fight, a little spark in the step of those angry at the government. But for how long? How long do we keep down this path and accept all the taxation and regulation that has occurred over the past century?

When will the fight die? We're already so far from where we were supposed to be and there's been little fighting for our rights, for our constitution.

So now what? In a few months they'll be another huge strive to socialism and another huge strive to the destruction of America. What are you going to do about it?

If nothing is done, if nothing happens, if voices aren't heard, I can guarantee you one thing. America will never see another time of economic boom lasting more than three years (if there's ever a true economic boom again).

Repubicans, arguing without any observable data since 1932

LOL how are ppl in Maine different than those in california? Facts dont change because Republicans want to cram down rhetoric. Dude, you're so fucking stupid I'm not even gong to argue with you

Yes dude education in the 1970 was better than it is now. In fact, you should keep on yearning for the good ol' days. Ask any old person and they'll tell you the good ol' days were.... shit

The free market leads to consolidation and serfdom just short of monopoly
 
LOL how are ppl in Maine different than those in california?

Why are some states heavily Democrat while others are heavily Republican?

States do differ and I'm not even going to both to reply to the rest of your post because it's clear you're a little slow in the head - no worries it's all good, bro.

The purpose of the history lesson was to draw similarities to what is happening now and what has been happening. When the free market reigns things aren't perfect but they are better than when socialism reigns. Those that want to get ahead often do. With socialism no one can truly get ahead, there's no incentive to succeed.

I wonder how many times history will have to show this before people start realizing it.
 
Hmmm...

The slums in Victorian England were comparable to those currently in Mumbai. The divide between rich and poor then was a lot greater than now and while opportunities did exist, if you were born to poor parents the chances were you would stay poor.

I'm not going to disagree with you about education being aimed at producing conforming sheeple but this method of control isn't unique to what you perceive as socialism. All governments seek to control their population via education. (Funny how a lot of Americans don't mind their state doing this, but object to it being done on a national level.)

Regarding public schools, citing the last couple of prime ministers (maybe that's a bit out of date, Brown was state educated) isn't really an example of them encouraging free thinking, is it? The standard of education is higher as class sizes are smaller and they can attract good teachers along with many of them being residential which has it's pros and cons in terms of social development but does appear to affect academic ability positively.

As for church ran schools, well they still exist though fortunately religion is normally down-played (if they get state funding, which I think most do). Despite governments having their own motives and generally seeking to control their citizens via education I'd much rather them do that than some religion.

It's one thing your kids being indoctrinated to think they have to get a career and be a good productive member of society, it's a whole different ball game them being indoctrinated to BELIEVE in some religious bullshit and think it's as valid as everything else they learn at school.

Of course this was hundreds of years ago. Society as a whole has grown and thus you have to think more about the history and less at the specifics of it.

Point is there is no reason to have education done through the federal government in the US. At the very least it should be done at a state level.
 
States do differ and I'm not even going to both to reply to the rest of your post because it's clear you're a little slow in the head - no worries it's all good, bro.

How about replying to mine with some actual evidence to support your claim that life was better in Victorian England..

Life expectancy?

Infant mortality?

Ya know, the usual stats used to assess quality of life.

Well, I guess there was a fair bit of opium about so if you could afford it it you probably didn't care that much that you'd be lucky to make it to 45.
 
Of course this was hundreds of years ago.

Only a hundred or so, not quite hundreds. A relatively short period of time really.

Society as a whole has grown and thus you have to think more about the history and less at the specifics of it.

Your whole epic cut-n-paste post was about the specifics, now you say that's not important?

Point is there is no reason to have education done through the federal government in the US. At the very least it should be done at a state level.

Why do you perceive state government to be less likely to use education for control than national government?

If that was the point of your post then you really picked the wrong example. You could argue that state government is (or is perceived to be) more accountable, or that the smaller the electorate the more likely it is their representatives will act in most peoples' interests but trying to draw comparisons to some idyllic view of Victorian England...?
 
I know Spanish/Americans who go back and forth and NEVER pay on income earned outside the country. While it may be "true", it is not enforced worth a damn.

And last I checked, customs checks my name to terrorist lists, not an IRS list.

This is absolute bunkus. Enforcement is at an all time high. The IRS just finished with UBS (swiss bank). Ever heard of the FBAR? The amnesty period is over. They are cracking down BIG TIME. Tangent: I was just on an international flight with someone. They let the guy board normally. Didn't tell him a THING. When he landed in New York, federal agents boarded the flight when the door opened and he was placed in handcuffs - one of the agents later told me it's an IRS MATTER!

On the issue of this healthcare bill - it's pure garbage. I get the intentions, but come on, deal with the JOBS, the ECONOMY, the RECESSION! I predict republicans get back in power next election.

The US of A is not doing well :-(