Obamamania

[steve_spackman]

whats the big deal and why is it a world wide thing?? he is the US president not the worlds..i

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7837456.stm

[Drew]

He'll be the first black president of the USA, 46 years after Luther King's I have a dream speech. Is that too much of a huge turn around for you?

[BDunnell]

I just think that, for what it's worth, it is nice for the US to have a President who is not an international laughing stock or figure of hatred — for a while, at least.

[steve_spackman]

He'll be the first black president of the USA, 46 years after Luther King's I have a dream speech. Is that too much of a huge turn around for you?

couldnt care if he was yellow, blue, purple or green

[anthonyvop]

I just think that, for what it's worth, it is nice for the US to have a President who is not an international laughing stock or figure of hatred — for a while, at least.
What a Shame.
I want a president who is feared by the rest of the world.

[TOgoFASTER]

We know, we know
You just go right on fearin that fear vop.
After all the only way to overcome fear is by having more to pass around.
Grade school play ground 101

[schmenke]

What a Shame.
I want a president who is feared by the rest of the world.

I'd want one that's respected.

[Easy Drifter]

Trouble is no man can live up to all the hype and expectations. No matter how good he is and how hard he tries he cannot live up to it.
I just hope the US and the world do not turn on him too quickly and he gets a fair chance.

[Roamy]

I'll go with Anthony on this one !! Matter or fact if it was up to me
his nickname would be "Nuke"

[Azumanga Davo]

What a Shame.
I want a president who is feared by the rest of the world.

We just had one (well, he sure scared the sh** out of me every time he operated/snacked on/garbled a door/pretzel/speech...) :D

[Dave B]

Obama is probably going to be the most scrutined man on the planet.

Obviously the Presidency a huge responsibility at the best of times, but Obama is taking over at a time when there is such an appitite for change and an expectation that he can lift America out of her current economic and military failures.

He's not got the luxury of a settling-in period to get used to the role, he needs to be taking tough decisions from day one. Failure simply isn't an option, as they say. I hope the 44th President is an order of magnitude better than the 43rd - although it's rather hard to imagine he could be any worse.

[Hondo]

There have been no military failures, as of yet, that I'm aware of. Afghanistan is still in progress. In Iraq, the military accomplished the mission they were given. The failures occured in the diplomatic, basic understanding, and civil administration end of things.

[Roamy]

There have been no military failures, as of yet, that I'm aware of. Afghanistan is still in progress. In Iraq, the military accomplished the mission they were given. The failures occured in the diplomatic, basic understanding, and civil administration end of things.

Basically it is the failure of the Euro's to understand the Trojan Horse theory as they become the Islamic Republic of Europe. The new theme shortly will be "Burkas on the Beach" This is where the guys sit around smoking heroin trying to guess which wife is theirs. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[Dave B]

Afghanistan is still in progress.
Ah yes, Operation Enduring Freedom. The purpose of which was to capture Bin Laden, round up Al Qaeda, and disband the Taliban. It's been nearly eight years, how's it going out there?

Bin Laden's apparently alive and well, AQ still exist and the Taliban are getting their drug business back on track. And only a few thousand civilians killed in the crossfire. Result. :dozey:


In Iraq, the military accomplished the mission they were given. The failures occured in the diplomatic, basic understanding, and civil administration end of things.

With Iraq, whatever the legalities of the war, I'll grant you that the troops on the ground did to some extent achieve their mission. They captured Saddam, and it's not their fault if the WMD intelligence was fatally flawed, nor that there was no workable plan for after the regime change. Even Bush now accepts that saying "mission accomplished" was a mistake.

So whose "basic understanding" of the situation failed? Bush? Cheney? Powell?

Maybe I was incorrect to use the phrase "military failure", but by no stretch of the imagination is either war a success.

[slinkster]

I happen to think it is a pretty historical moment... and it does affect the rest of the world who's leading particular countries. Of course it does.

[Hondo]

Thanks Dave. For us as for you, the mission of the military is defined by the civilian government. In Iraq, our military was charged with removing Saddam and ending the threat of weapons of mass destruction. This has been done, and done well regardless of whether we think it should have been done or not. The failure of our civilian government was in thinking and assuming that the run-of-the-mill Iraqi was willing or even capable of implementing and enjoying a democratic style government. To some degree, I can't completely fault their thinking based upon what different tribes, sects, and Iraqi civilian and military people were saying if "they could only get rid of Saddam"

In Afghanistan, the military mission was to throw out the Taliban government, capture bin Laden, and close the al-Qaeda training camps. The central taliban government is gone, most of the training camps have moved out of the country and the ones that remain no longer enjoy government protection, and bin Laden is still hiding in caves. Although the jury is still out, the Afghanistan operations have rocked the organizations back on their heels.

In neither case was the US looking to colonize the countries. If that were the case, we'd be paying nothing for Iraqi oil instead of market price when we do buy it.

To call the actions military failures is a slap in the face to the soldiers, ours, yours, and everybody else's that continue their mission.

[Roamy]

Jesus Christ - Obama is walking right down the middle of the street in DC. This guy really does have a pair!!

[steve_spackman]

Ah yes, Operation Enduring Freedom. The purpose of which was to capture Bin Laden, round up Al Qaeda, and disband the Taliban. It's been nearly eight years, how's it going out there?

Bin Laden's apparently alive and well, AQ still exist and the Taliban are getting their drug business back on track. And only a few thousand civilians killed in the crossfire. Result. :dozey:



With Iraq, whatever the legalities of the war, I'll grant you that the troops on the ground did to some extent achieve their mission. They captured Saddam, and it's not their fault if the WMD intelligence was fatally flawed, nor that there was no workable plan for after the regime change. Even Bush now accepts that saying "mission accomplished" was a mistake.

So whose "basic understanding" of the situation failed? Bush? Cheney? Powell?

Maybe I was incorrect to use the phrase "military failure", but by no stretch of the imagination is either war a success.

that sounds like failure to me...

[Breeze]

whats the big deal and why is it a world wide thing?? he is the US president not the worlds..i

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7837456.stm

Imagine if a Punjabi were to become Prime Minister, then multiply the enormity of that by some factor equal to the greater degree of worldwide influence the US President has over a British PM. Easy math.

[steve_spackman]

equal to the greater degree of worldwide influence the US President has over a British PM. Easy math.

i think your mistaken somehow mate.

[steve_spackman]

Imagine if a Punjabi were to become Prime Minister, then multiply the enormity of that by some factor equal to the greater degree of worldwide influence the US President has over a British PM. Easy math.

yes thats because the US uses force against people who dont submit to their every whim.a very very prime example would be saddam and iraq

US Imperialism (just like the roman and britsh) has come to a grinding halt...time for someone else to run the show

[Roamy]

yes thats because the US uses force against people who dont submit to their every whim.a very very prime example would be saddam and iraq

US Imperialism (just like the roman and britsh) has come to a grinding halt...time for someone else to run the show


You know Spac you are so far in last place you think you are in first place.
Lets say for some reason we didn't make it. We would sell out to the Russians or China and you would still be fuched!! You will and are going to be the Islamic Republic of Europe - just deal with it and get yourself a new wardrobe!

[TOgoFASTER]

When is a mirror a mirror and a reflection a reflection?
Which could be a mirrored reflection?

[Jag_Warrior]

Jesus Christ - Obama is walking right down the middle of the street in DC. This guy really does have a pair!!

Surrounded by 1.7 million Obamamaniacs, he was as safe as a cub being guarded by a pride of lions. The sharpshooters could have taken naps - no one was going to touch that guy.

IMO, the people who pose the biggest threat to Obama (and the nation) weren't in the street, they were up there with him: Feinstein, Reid, Pelosi and the neocon rabble. Get rid of the extremists and the bribe takers (on both sides) and we might have a 50/50 shot of making it.

[Rollo]

The media down here in the 55th State of America (Australia) are calling the inauguration the biggest television event of all time. What crap!

One would have thought that for sheer numbers then the Opening Ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics would hold that for quite some time.
In terms of percentages, then the landing of Apollo 11 probably had a higher percentage of tellys that were on tuned into that broadcast.

Grant that it's big, but it's not that big is it? Surely?

[Jag_Warrior]

As I posted, CNN reported that earlier today as well, Rollo. I personally don't have access to the numbers. But our lil pal Steve_Spackman claims that such an assertion is a sign of American ignorance. He apparently has seen the numbers and is going to provide the global viewship figures so that we can analyze the data. I expect him to have that information any...second... soon... maybe...

[ShiftingGears]

I'm a bit sick of all the salivating over it.

[Azumanga Davo]

Obamamaniacs

Great cartoon. My favourite characters would have to be Pinky and The Biden...

[Valve Bounce]

There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which .....will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality.

[anthonyvop]

yes thats because the US uses force against people who dont submit to their every whim.a very very prime example would be saddam and iraq

US Imperialism (just like the roman and britsh) has come to a grinding halt...time for someone else to run the show

I wish the US was Imperialistic.
It would solve our garbage Problem...we would just use our European Territories.

[ST205GT4]

Obama is on a hiding to nowhere. No way can he live up the expectations people have of him. Especially with the can of a situation he's been handled with Iraq, Afghanistan and the economic meltdown.

The US would have been better of with Gandalf the Wizard!

[555-04Q2]

I think Obama will be a great president. Lets hope he delivers on his proposals. I watched the entire process on CNN yesterday and really hope he will become a great leader.

[Roamy]

I think Obama will be a great president. Lets hope he delivers on his proposals. I watched the entire process on CNN yesterday and really hope he will become a great leader.

first of all you need to get off CNN (Communist News Network) Then you life will get better as Obama kicks some butt out there!!

[steve_spackman]

first of all you need to get off CNN (Communist News Network) Then you life will get better as Obama kicks some butt out there!!

where do you get your news from?

[Roamy]

My news come fair and balanced !! al jeerza what else.

[TOgoFASTER]

Funny.
But I have seen more fair and balanced reporting on Al Jazeera English than the opinion pieces on the Fox Neoconned News Network or most other cable news channels.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am just on an internet terminal with time running out...but Obamamania will hopefully go away and we will realize he is flawed the same way any of them are flawed. What annoyed me was the fuss and bother Canadian media went to for this. Our changes of Gov't barely make an hour interruption on the tv, Obama's inaguaration was like all of them, a little over the top.

I wish the guy well, Ihope he governs from the center more than he sounded like he might, and I hope he makes people change their minds about things, but I do also think in the end, we will squak about him like we do any other US President...and in the end...maybe THAT is a better affirmation of the MLK jr.s dream eh?

[anthonyvop]

Funny.
But I have seen more fair and balanced reporting on Al Jazeera English than the opinion pieces on the Fox Neoconned News Network or most other cable news channels.
Is it really fair and balance or do you just agree with them?

[Valve Bounce]

OBOY!! I posted a contentious quote from Abraham Lincoln and nobody commented :(

[chuck34]

OBOY!! I posted a contentious quote from Abraham Lincoln and nobody commented :(

I knew it was from 'ole Abe, just didn't comment because I wasn't sure your point?

[Valve Bounce]

I knew it was from 'ole Abe, just didn't comment because I wasn't sure your point?

I thought it was quite appropros !

[Easy Drifter]

For a bit of a laugh read Mike Stobel in the Toronto Sun.
www.torontosun.com/columnists/ (http://www.torontosun.com/columnists/)
Was ol' Abe a Black President? Is Obama the 5th Black president?

He must of done a ton of research to come up with that column.

[ShiftingGears]

He must of done a ton of research to come up with that column.


Even a cool cucumber like Obama can recite an oath of 35 words and screw up 20 of them.

Except there.

[Valve Bounce]

It is interesting how this thread does not reflect the widespread fawning and admiration we see on colored TV for the new president.
I, for one, don't think his wife is anything as attractive or stunning like Jackie Kennedy. Maybe I need to borrow Oprah's glasses.

[TOgoFASTER]

Is it really fair and balance or do you just agree with them?

Unlike you I'm not a parrot.

[anthonyvop]

Unlike you I'm not a parrot.
This from a person who just recites leftwing talking points.

BTW While I do find Fox basically fair I do have many differences with many of their pundits. Especially O'Reily.

[TOgoFASTER]

It is interesting how this thread does not reflect the widespread fawning and admiration we see on colored TV for the new president.
I, for one, don't think his wife is anything as attractive or stunning like Jackie Kennedy. Maybe I need to borrow Oprah's glasses.

I agree the thread doesn't reflect much of what is going on with the spectacle. Thankfully the pomp and such is pretty well over.
The President got right to work today.

The glamour part of the story is done every time in excess the same as the last, and was said about Lady Bird, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Rosalyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush as I recall. With that noted it would take more than just Oprah's glasses and more than a few pints. Not that it really matters. ;)

[TOgoFASTER]

This from a person who just recites leftwing talking points.

BTW While I do find Fox basically fair I do have many differences with many of their pundits. Especially O'Reily.

I should just came up with a standard reply for your latent prepubescents. And that would be ~ LOL
Being anti neoconned is far from being anti American. Nor is it the sole territory of leftwingers, moderates or conservatives. I have a very strong dislike of all fringes, extremists, and the absolutism that come with them.

I'm generally considered a strongly unaffiliated moderate living in a fairly sensible conservative non neoconned State. (Though the nuts do come to the surface every once and a while, they never last for long.)
To you I would be known as an intellectual. I can read with understanding, think, reason and form personal opinion on my own and haven't recited since grade school, thank you. LOL

Cable news is about ratings not facts, nor true reporting anymore. More like talk radio every year.
Good for a laugh and that is it. Watching their parrots, parroting is also an entertainment.

Vop in need of another neoconned cracker? LOL
Doug would be so proud.

[Hondo]

It is interesting how this thread does not reflect the widespread fawning and admiration we see on colored TV for the new president.
I, for one, don't think his wife is anything as attractive or stunning like Jackie Kennedy. Maybe I need to borrow Oprah's glasses.

You are correct Valve. In addition, allow me to add that since Jackie Kennedy, no First Lady has been as gracious or charming either.

Times gone by my friend.

[F1boat]

Obama is a "Harry Potter" fan, so I am very happy that he is President ;)
Now, seriously, he seems charming, charismatic and smart, so I wish him best luck!

[Valve Bounce]

Obama is a "Harry Potter" fan, so I am very happy that he is President ;)
Now, seriously, he seems charming, charismatic and smart, so I wish him best luck!

Yeah!! and his pastor was Jeremiah Wright.

[gadjo_dilo]

whats the big deal and why is it a world wide thing?? he is the US president not the worlds..i

If I have to take after his inaugural speech ( "And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to LEAD once more.").....


Basically it is the failure of the Euro's to understand the Trojan Horse theory as they become the Islamic Republic of Europe
Still we don't have a "Hussein" leader.... :laugh:


I, for one, don't think his wife is anything as attractive or stunning like Jackie Kennedy.
Probably a matter of taste. Personally I think Jackie was an ugly woman.

[555-04Q2]

first of all you need to get off CNN (Communist News Network) Then you life will get better as Obama kicks some butt out there!!

I watched it mostly on CNN as they had full coverage and a number of exclusive live interviews with past heads of state and political analysts. I also watched it on our satellite channels; Russia Today, BBC News, BBC World, Aljazeer to name the main channels.

[F1boat]

I watched it mostly on CNN as they had full coverage and a number of exclusive live interviews with past heads of state and political analysts. I also watched it on our satellite channels; Russia Today, BBC News, BBC World, Aljazeer to name the main channels.

555, they are all part of a demonic union, controlled by the Illuminati and created by Max Mosley and the devil itself against the GOP and the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes team. ;)

[F1boat]

Yeah!! and his pastor was Jeremiah Wright.

Compared to some of the pastors who supported GOP he sounds almost OK.

[555-04Q2]

555, they are all part of a demonic union, controlled by the Illuminati and created by Max Mosley and the devil itself against the GOP and the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes team. ;)

:laugh: rotflmfao :laugh:

[Valve Bounce]

Compared to some of the pastors who supported GOP he sounds almost OK.

You think??

[PolePosition_1]

I am slightly fascinated by this Obama hype.

My view is that he will be a good president.

I think politics have changed greatly over the years, but that change has picked up in speed greatly over the last 10 years, where the internet has grown into medium of connecting everyone to the extremes no one could have predicted.

We now live in a world where the media is everywhere, we have 24 hour news channels, we have people in work on news websites throughout the day, we have daily papers where ever we go.

And with globalisation, we have a case where the media is run by huge co-operate companies. I've researched this extensively, in America, something like 90% of all national media outlets are run by one company. Albeit many different companies, but their origins all lie with one company.

That’s a pretty mental thought, if you take into account that the media has huge power of people. All media is biased to a certain extent.

I remember in the UK during the 1997 election which Tony Blair won, once he won The Sun (biggest paper in UK.....and a tabloid) over, who declared they wanted him to win with a front page, it was seen as significant. And that’s scary, as unfortunately people are (understandably in many respects) hugely influenced in their views on what they read and see. And that information is second hand, its been open to interpretation and bias.

Corporations basically run the world. With governments in the “civilised” world acting as merely a face for democracy, in an effort to keep everyone happy.

We have international organisations such as the World Bank, IMF etc all controlling the global economic finances, which are run by primarily western democracies, which are hugely influenced by corporations who fund them to get them elected in the first place.

Obama, basically seems to want to change this. He wants a re-distribution of wealth, and that’s going to be incredibly hard with the corporate influence in congress. I agree with much of his ideals. And watching a programme on the American Health System, I hope he succeeds, having 23,000 Americans a year die because they couldn’t afford basic health care is simply not acceptable.

So, basically we have Obama with his ideology, which flies in the face of corporate rule, and yet we see that his campaign is funded by these corporations. One of his biggest fundraisers was JPMorgan, and with Obama promising billions more to the banks, they’re going to get a nice return for funding him.

Will it be a huge change we’re hoping for? I highly doubt it, because he has to go with the system currently in place in order to get to the top place. He’s done this. And hopefully he can work towards tearing down this corporate rule in order to redistribute the wealth fairly. This will be a slow and progressive process. But if we can have a succession of similar minded ideological presidents, there is a chance to have a much more Keynesian approach to world economics, in which the governments are in charge, and not at the mercy of businesses.

And to people who don’t care because they ain’t American, that’s a very ignorant view to take.

[chuck34]

I should just came up with a standard reply for your latent prepubescents. And that would be ~ LOL
Being anti neoconned is far from being anti American. Nor is it the sole territory of leftwingers, moderates or conservatives. I have a very strong dislike of all fringes, extremists, and the absolutism that come with them.

I'm generally considered a strongly unaffiliated moderate living in a fairly sensible conservative non neoconned State. (Though the nuts do come to the surface every once and a while, they never last for long.)
To you I would be known as an intellectual. I can read with understanding, think, reason and form personal opinion on my own and haven't recited since grade school, thank you. LOL

Cable news is about ratings not facts, nor true reporting anymore. More like talk radio every year.
Good for a laugh and that is it. Watching their parrots, parroting is also an entertainment.

Vop in need of another neoconned cracker? LOL
Doug would be so proud.

Faster, this post explains the problem exactly. Good post.

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is an un-intellectual boob who can't think for himself. I can read with understanding, think, reason and form personal opinion on my own and haven't recited since grade school as well, thank YOU.

Why must you assume that anyone with a conservative view point has come up with that view only by watching Fox News and "talk radio"? Perhaps we have studied history and have seen how conservative principals have bettered this country and how liberal ideas have deepend recessions and made things worse. Perhaps you only have liberal views because the only things you read is the HuffPost and Daily Kos? Is that the case? I thought not, so stop saying that all us conservatives do is listen to O'Rielly. I listen sometimes, but mostly he's a crass @sshole.

I try to refrain from calling people names. Sure I slip sometimes, but so have you, so has Vop, and pretty much everybody. But the constant bashing of people with conservative values is getting a bit old.

[chuck34]

I am slightly fascinated by this Obama hype.

My view is that he will be a good president.

I think politics have changed greatly over the years, but that change has picked up in speed greatly over the last 10 years, where the internet has grown into medium of connecting everyone to the extremes no one could have predicted.

We now live in a world where the media is everywhere, we have 24 hour news channels, we have people in work on news websites throughout the day, we have daily papers where ever we go.

And with globalisation, we have a case where the media is run by huge co-operate companies. I've researched this extensively, in America, something like 90% of all national media outlets are run by one company. Albeit many different companies, but their origins all lie with one company.

That’s a pretty mental thought, if you take into account that the media has huge power of people. All media is biased to a certain extent.

I remember in the UK during the 1997 election which Tony Blair won, once he won The Sun (biggest paper in UK.....and a tabloid) over, who declared they wanted him to win with a front page, it was seen as significant. And that’s scary, as unfortunately people are (understandably in many respects) hugely influenced in their views on what they read and see. And that information is second hand, its been open to interpretation and bias.

Corporations basically run the world. With governments in the “civilised” world acting as merely a face for democracy, in an effort to keep everyone happy.

We have international organisations such as the World Bank, IMF etc all controlling the global economic finances, which are run by primarily western democracies, which are hugely influenced by corporations who fund them to get them elected in the first place.

Obama, basically seems to want to change this. He wants a re-distribution of wealth, and that’s going to be incredibly hard with the corporate influence in congress. I agree with much of his ideals. And watching a programme on the American Health System, I hope he succeeds, having 23,000 Americans a year die because they couldn’t afford basic health care is simply not acceptable.

So, basically we have Obama with his ideology, which flies in the face of corporate rule, and yet we see that his campaign is funded by these corporations. One of his biggest fundraisers was JPMorgan, and with Obama promising billions more to the banks, they’re going to get a nice return for funding him.

Will it be a huge change we’re hoping for? I highly doubt it, because he has to go with the system currently in place in order to get to the top place. He’s done this. And hopefully he can work towards tearing down this corporate rule in order to redistribute the wealth fairly. This will be a slow and progressive process. But if we can have a succession of similar minded ideological presidents, there is a chance to have a much more Keynesian approach to world economics, in which the governments are in charge, and not at the mercy of businesses.

And to people who don’t care because they ain’t American, that’s a very ignorant view to take.

I am very interested to know why you seem to think that re-distribution of wealth is a good thing?

[PolePosition_1]

I am very interested to know why you seem to think that re-distribution of wealth is a good thing?

I'm not for communism or anything to that extreme, but when the polarization of wealth is to the extent that 23,000 people a year die due to lack of basic health care, or 37 million people don't have any kind of healthcare cover, because they simply can't afford it - I think re-distrubtion in form of a compromise in producing a system which encourages wealth, but looks after those in poverty is needed. Whilst at the moment we have a system in place which looks to increase wealth of the wealthy. And while I believe that providing an environment to encourage wealth is hugely important, I think there needs to be a safety net for those who need it to have the basics.

I'm not sure on the figures for America, but I know on the world stage, 80% of wealth belongs to 20% of the world population. Personally, I find that totally irrational, and that figure is kept up by organistations such as the WB and IMF, which is in turn controlled by the richer countries, who are influenced over transnational companies, as its become a case of goverments fighting over TNCs.

[F1boat]

I agree with PolePosition.

[chuck34]

I'm not for communism or anything to that extreme, but when the polarization of wealth is to the extent that 23,000 people a year die due to lack of basic health care, or 37 million people don't have any kind of healthcare cover, because they simply can't afford it - I think re-distrubtion in form of a compromise in producing a system which encourages wealth, but looks after those in poverty is needed. Whilst at the moment we have a system in place which looks to increase wealth of the wealthy. And while I believe that providing an environment to encourage wealth is hugely important, I think there needs to be a safety net for those who need it to have the basics.

I'm not sure on the figures for America, but I know on the world stage, 80% of wealth belongs to 20% of the world population. Personally, I find that totally irrational, and that figure is kept up by organistations such as the WB and IMF, which is in turn controlled by the richer countries, who are influenced over transnational companies, as its become a case of goverments fighting over TNCs.

Perhaps you are unaware that no one that is in NEED of care can be turned away from a hospital. We have a system Medicare/Medicaid/etc. set up to take care of these people. They are government run health care providers.

So knowing that you and I can both agree that the government hasn't done too good a job in taking care of those 23,000 people (I don't know where you got that number, but I'll take it as true). So your solution is to add more government to this problem? Not sure I follow your logic.

By the way if we take your figure of 23,000 in a country of 300,000,000 that is only .007%. Do you really think any governmental agency will do better?

Again lets take your numbers of 80% of the wealth is held by 20% of the population as being true. Please tell me two things. 1) What exactly is stopping the other 80% of the people from becoming wealthy? opportunity, or desire? 2) When and where throughout history has there been a "developed" country where this ratio hasn't been about the way things are?

[steve_spackman]

If I have to take after his inaugural speech ( "And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to LEAD once more.").....

lead..lead what?

[F1boat]

lead..lead what?

The FIA. Barack is tired of Max! ;)

[chuck34]

Here is an interesting read. I'm not saying that I agree 100%, but some of it seems to be plausable.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

[F1boat]

"We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden"
Chuck, I assure you that France and Germany, the countries in which I have been, are fantastic and not poor, nothing like true socialist states like Bulgaria prior to 1989. Even if Obama does all of these, people won't be poor, hungry or unhappy IMO. Except some very reach individuals, who can become Swiss or citizens of the Principality of Monaco.

[chuck34]

"We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden"
Chuck, I assure you that France and Germany, the countries in which I have been, are fantastic and not poor, nothing like true socialist states like Bulgaria prior to 1989. Even if Obama does all of these, people won't be poor, hungry or unhappy IMO. Except some very reach individuals, who can become Swiss or citizens of the Principality of Monaco.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that those countries are true socialist states. I would suggest that there are aspects of those countries that I do not think are "good".

[PolePosition_1]

Perhaps you are unaware that no one that is in NEED of care can be turned away from a hospital. We have a system Medicare/Medicaid/etc. set up to take care of these people. They are government run health care providers.

So knowing that you and I can both agree that the government hasn't done too good a job in taking care of those 23,000 people (I don't know where you got that number, but I'll take it as true). So your solution is to add more government to this problem? Not sure I follow your logic.

By the way if we take your figure of 23,000 in a country of 300,000,000 that is only .007%. Do you really think any governmental agency will do better?

Again lets take your numbers of 80% of the wealth is held by 20% of the population as being true. Please tell me two things. 1) What exactly is stopping the other 80% of the people from becoming wealthy? opportunity, or desire? 2) When and where throughout history has there been a "developed" country where this ratio hasn't been about the way things are?


You do have government health care providers. I watched a documentation of it. where people waited outside from 2am in morning in their cars in tempertures below 0 degrees for the opening time in morning.

I'm sorry mate, but I just don't find that acceptable. People who have recovered from cancer can't afford the pills needed to greatly stop it coming back, because legislation says the government can't set price on pills, so where in America it costs $75, in Europe and Canada its 1/6 of the price.

I'm not saying have an NHS system like we have in the UK, where large majority of healthcare is free and government run. Because this also has its flaws.

I'm saying take a more keynesian approach to healthcare, have the governments in charge of the drug companies and health insurance companies. The government is meant to look after its people. At the moment, the drugs companies and health insurance companies dictate what they want.

And how you can say 23,000 people is only 0.007%, as if to suggest that this figure is actually positive is beyond me. We're talking about basic health care here now, we're not talking about people who died of hugely complicated operations etc etc. Basic healthcare would have prevented this.

You also have over 10% of the population with no healthcare insurance. Do you find that acceptable?

Why should people who cannot afford health insurance be forced into a second class, below basic healthcare system?

Do I think a government agency could do better? Yes I do, 0.007% of Britians don't die due to lack of basic health care. But I'm not suggest America adopts this, its simply too big a change.

The average family in America spend $12,000 a year on health insurance. These companies make huge amounts of money, they reward staff on savings, on making sure the ill don't get cover. Now I'm sorry, but with profit being a priority, you automatically excluding the ill from a decent healthcare service.

I must be honest, I don't see how anyone can reasonably say that America has a good fair healthcare system.

1) What exactly is stopping the other 80% of the people from becoming wealthy? opportunity, or desire?

Opportunity mate, do you think that Africa has not got the desire to develop?

With the introduction of Thatcher and Regan in the 1980's, the world changed. For the worst in my view. Their neo-liberalised views and influences on the world has put us in a situation where TNC's have more power than ever before.

What stops the less developed countries from developing? Legislation put in place by the world bank etc, global organisations which regulate world economies, the developed countries have a much larger presence within these companies than the less developed countries, and therefore the developed countries look out for their own self interest.

We've got a situation in the 70s where the gap between rich countries and poor countries was closing. then we had the OPEC crisis, where these countries could no longer afford to sustain their economies, therefore increasing their borrow.

Later, we then have the IMF and WB only allowing these extra loans on the condition that they take "neo-liberal reforms" - these basically mean that they got to accept "free trade" - which is anything but free, it puts the poor countries in a position where they have no right to restrict imports or exports. They have no control and are at the mercy of these organisations.

They have no choice but to take these conditions, otherwise they can't survive.

And going back to the origin of IMF and WB influence on putting these conditions on, the richer governments have ruling majority on any issues they choose, and these governments are dependent on big TNCs who fund their campaigns to get into power in the first place.

2) When and where throughout history has there been a "developed" country where this ratio hasn't been about the way things are?

The rich - poor divide in America has not been so large since the 1930's, and has a continous trend of increasing.

On a world stage, the rich poor gap was decreasing, until the 1980s which saw a huge increase and we are in a continous trend of increasing rich-poor gap.

[PolePosition_1]

Here is an interesting read. I'm not saying that I agree 100%, but some of it seems to be plausable.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

Thats a pretty good article, and I agree with most of the suggestions in this.

However where as I believe most of the negatives in this article are postives.

I like this part.....democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

To me see, its common sense that the government should dominate the economy. Because the government has to look after its people, and in a capitalist society, the economy is a way of doing this.

The idea that the economy should dominate the government, as I believe is to some extent the case in America at moment, is ludicrous, because companies aren't there to look after people, they're there to make money.

[chuck34]

Pole. You have very communistic/socialistic tendencies in your world view. Note that I did not call you a communist, just that you actually express that view. You would probably really like reading Marx.

Where did you see that there were people sitting in their cars at 2AM? That is very hard to believe. If for no other reason that most doctors are not around at 2AM except for in ER's where there are waiting rooms. So I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.

As for your drug cost, you are correct in saying that the cost for the PILL is cheaper in Canada. However, the taxes that people pay in Canada are higher than in the US so factor that in and you will see that the costs are not that much different. I don't have that much experience with socialized health care. I'm sure you can come up with a million example of how the US is no good, but I can come up with the same amount for the socialized brand. My brother-in-law is Canadian. He needed back surgury, was deemed not to be in an "emergency" so he had to lay flat on his back for 6 months waiting to have surgury. I find that unacceptable as well.

I don't know where to find the numbers like you did, but I would be surprised to know that the UK has less that 0.007% "mortality" rate. Just due to the fact that people don't always go to the doctor when they need to.

Sure the drug companies make too much profit. But probably according to you all companies make too much profit. Think about it for a second, without profit what incentive do people have for making better products?

You say "Now I'm sorry, but with profit being a priority, you automatically excluding the ill from a decent healthcare service." I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that the UK/Canada systems are any better.

Ok you say that people in Africa do not have the opportunity of becoming wealthy. Why is it that they do not have this opportunity? You say the World Bank? Well I as an American also have to deal with the WB. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. But if I work hard and keep my nose to the grind-stone, I will be. Look at the richest guys around, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Neither of these guys started out with anything, and they sure made it. So if the people in Africa do not have the opportunity to become rich, it's not because of the World Bank. Don't get me wrong I don't think the World Bank is a good thing either, it's just not an excuse.

"The rich - poor divide in America has not been so large since the 1930's, and has a continous trend of increasing." Why do you think this is? I would suggest to you that it is because of the socialistic programs put in place by FDR in the Depression. You see, the dirty little secret of Socialism is that it is really all about control. Make the people dependent upon the government and they will become more and more dependent on the government. That gives those IN the government more and more power.

"To me see, its common sense that the government should dominate the economy. Because the government has to look after its people, and in a capitalist society, the economy is a way of doing this." That is where you and I differ. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The rich don't necessarily get rich by taking from the poor. The rich can, and usually do, get rich and bring the poor up along with them.

I would agree with your last statemen that the economy should not dominate the government. The government is there to insure that the people all have equal access to the economy. They do not and should not guarante equal results.

[steve_spackman]

"The rich - poor divide in America has not been so large since the 1930's, and has a continous trend of increasing." Why do you think this is? I would suggest to you that it is because of the socialistic programs put in place by FDR in the Depression. You see, the dirty little secret of Socialism is that it is really all about control. Make the people dependent upon the government and they will become more and more dependent on the government. That gives those IN the government more and more power.

that is not true..its what you have been told by your great leaders

the US is socialistic..USPO, LIBARIES, POLICE, FIRE SERVICE, MEDICARE, STATE FUNDED EDUCATION and all other forms of state and fed funded programs.

i suggest you move to a country that does not practice any forms of soclalism if you are against it my friend, or do not use any state/fed funded programs at all, including the above

[Abraham Lincoln]

OBOY!! I posted a contentious quote from Abraham Lincoln and nobody commented :(

Yea verily, I did not think that it was grounded in contentiousness. It is duly noted that this writer resides in a collection of colonies whose peoples are on the whole ne'er-do-wells and hooligans.

[TOgoFASTER]

Faster, this post explains the problem exactly. Good post.

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is an un-intellectual boob who can't think for himself. I can read with understanding, think, reason and form personal opinion on my own and haven't recited since grade school as well, thank YOU.

Why must you assume that anyone with a conservative view point has come up with that view only by watching Fox News and "talk radio"? Perhaps we have studied history and have seen how conservative principals have bettered this country and how liberal ideas have deepend recessions and made things worse. Perhaps you only have liberal views because the only things you read is the HuffPost and Daily Kos? Is that the case? I thought not, so stop saying that all us conservatives do is listen to O'Rielly. I listen sometimes, but mostly he's a crass @sshole.

I try to refrain from calling people names. Sure I slip sometimes, but so have you, so has Vop, and pretty much everybody. But the constant bashing of people with conservative values is getting a bit old.


You assume way too much and didn't understand any of my post plus ignored a good part of it.
I was speaking to vop as an individual. Never assumed or said where or what you listen to or get your information from as an individual or a group. What I said was cable news and talk radio are no places to get information on which to base an objective opinion as it is not and has not ever been objective. Which was a clear answer to his post.
Some in your conservative group here have set the tone that is being reaped.
vop and I have have been long term combatants.
I enjoy laughing at any fringe extremes amid their parroting of "talking points" and it shows in my postings.

This by the way is where the 'intellectual' use and meaning came from in the first place and why it was used in my post.
A vop quote:
"So please spare us your lame attempt of pretending to be some type of intellectual moralist."
That was aimed at another poster here. (Guess I should have included "moralist" in my post.)
I simply mirrored that back as most of my post mirrored other points back at him as well.
An old wise saying, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

[TOgoFASTER]

that is not true..its what you have been told by your great leaders

the US is socialistic..USPO, LIBARIES, POLICE, FIRE SERVICE, MEDICARE, STATE FUNDED EDUCATION and all other forms of state and fed funded programs.

i suggest you move to a country that does not practice any forms of soclalism if you are against it my friend, or do not use any state/fed funded programs at all, including the above

You forgot to add unending subsides to agriculture and businesses in many forms. Lobbists guiding the government by all means legal and mostly illegal to control/form the governement into a friendly non threating body that supports big agriculture, big business etc. even if to the extent of being a detriment of the people's common good and health. Taking more from the people leads to more and more from the people with less and less accountability over time. Those in the military complex run their business models counting on the government money train and aid deals with foreign countries that specify buying US made arms. Also makes great retirement plans for those that reap the kickbacks of a job well done.
As a whole it is a more rampant and dangerous form of socialism.

[chuck34]

You forgot to add unending subsides to agriculture and businesses in many forms. Lobbists guiding the government by all means legal and mostly illegal to control/form the governement into a friendly non threating body that supports big agriculture, big business etc. even if to the extent of being a detriment of the people's common good and health. Taking more from the people leads to more and more from the people with less and less accountability over time. Those in the military complex run their business models counting on the government money train and aid deals with foreign countries that specify buying US made arms. Also makes great retirement plans for those that reap the kickbacks of a job well done.
As a whole it is a more rampant and dangerous form of socialism.

Except for the fact that only the USPS (not O), Medicare, and the farm subsidies are the only Federal programs on that list. I do not like the way Medicare is run and hope that it gets overhauled to be more efficient in the future. I alway have and always will vote for the candidate that wants to reform Medicare/Medicaid. I do not take Medicare bennifets. I also do not take farm subsidies and hope those go away. I vote as such. And as for the USPS, I would gladly send my bill via UPS if I could get them to take letters. As it is I do most of my "banking" on-line now.

"Taking more from the people leads to more and more from the people with less and less accountability over time." So I am supposed to give up more to the government so they can take care of my medical bills now?? I'm not following again.

The military is the one are that I will give up some of my liberties to a "socialistic" idea. That is until I can figure out how to defend my nation without a common, uniform military. Sure there's waste, and again, I vote for those who will try and correct such waste.

[Rollo]

"To me see, its common sense that the government should dominate the economy. Because the government has to look after its people, and in a capitalist society, the economy is a way of doing this." That is where you and I differ. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The rich don't necessarily get rich by taking from the poor. The rich can, and usually do, get rich and bring the poor up along with them.

No they do not.

What benefit is there for the rich to bring the poor up along with them?

Any business's prime motive is to make a return to its owners. The way you do this is by taking in more money than you put out. If you want to reduce input costs, to increase profit margin, then you do exactly that - reduce input costs.
If one of those input costs is labour, then a business will look for the cheapest practical source of that labour. If a business can pay a worker less, then they will, it's as simple as that. Simple economics suggests that if two workers are competing on price to supply labour then the business will employ the cheaper of the two.

The motives of business and workers run contrary to each other. There is no motive whatsoever for a business to bring the poor up along with them.

[leopard]

You are correct Valve. In addition, allow me to add that since Jackie Kennedy, no First Lady has been as gracious or charming either.

Times gone by my friend.

I guess so, different men who like challenge might have different preference will chose Cecilia Sarkozy...

[chuck34]

No they do not.

What benefit is there for the rich to bring the poor up along with them?

Any business's prime motive is to make a return to its owners. The way you do this is by taking in more money than you put out. If you want to reduce input costs, to increase profit margin, then you do exactly that - reduce input costs.
If one of those input costs is labour, then a business will look for the cheapest practical source of that labour. If a business can pay a worker less, then they will, it's as simple as that. Simple economics suggests that if two workers are competing on price to supply labour then the business will employ the cheaper of the two.

The motives of business and workers run contrary to each other. There is no motive whatsoever for a business to bring the poor up along with them.


This is much easier than you are making it. Basically rich people buy stuff. That gives people jobs. If people have jobs, they buy stuff. The rich get richer, and the poor get richer.

Rich people are no longer buying things because the "economy is tight". I know for a fact that most of the RV manufacturers are going under. I just heard that one of the business jet makers is going down the tubes. Wine stores, cigar shops, on and on. Who do you think works at those places? But by all means, lets take from the rich and give to the poor. Robin Hood is a fairy tale my friend. As great as it sounds in theory, it doesn't work in real life!

Do you work for a poor person? As soon as you can find me the poor person that is hiring, is the day I say socialism works.

[Rollo]

This is much easier than you are making it. Basically rich people buy stuff. That gives people jobs. If people have jobs, they buy stuff. The rich get richer, and the poor get richer.

Do you work for a poor person? As soon as you can find me the poor person that is hiring, is the day I say socialism works.

Right then, if a rich person is hiring, who then are they more likely to employ? Someone who can do the job for $5 or someone who can do it for $4? The person/business/company whatever it is, is going to hire the cheapest labour source they can. The person who was going to do the job for $5 now has to do it for $4 if they still want to do it. Earning $4 is less than $5.

If I was a business and I could find a labour source to do the same job even cheaper still, I'd run with them. If I could find someone who could do the same job for $3 then the first two people would need to lower their expectations again.
The poor do not get richer. Quite the opposite. The first person who could have done the job for $5 is now only doing it for $3.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but if I have $3 and I could have had $5, I'm poorer am I not?

[555-04Q2]

and the poor get richer.

It's a proven fact that worldwide the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The divide is growing by the day. Over 90% of the worlds money is controlled by less than 3% of its population.

[Easy Drifter]

I disagree. We ran a small business, actually several, for about 29 years.
We payed well over legislated minium wages all the time.
We had some good staff and some layabouts.
What we found was that the more little perks we gave the good staff the less productive they were. Quite possibly our judgement was at fault.
I have now retired but I would never try and try and run a small business again in the current nanny state.
Yes I am rather cynical.

[chuck34]

Right then, if a rich person is hiring, who then are they more likely to employ? Someone who can do the job for $5 or someone who can do it for $4? The person/business/company whatever it is, is going to hire the cheapest labour source they can. The person who was going to do the job for $5 now has to do it for $4 if they still want to do it. Earning $4 is less than $5.

If I was a business and I could find a labour source to do the same job even cheaper still, I'd run with them. If I could find someone who could do the same job for $3 then the first two people would need to lower their expectations again.
The poor do not get richer. Quite the opposite. The first person who could have done the job for $5 is now only doing it for $3.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but if I have $3 and I could have had $5, I'm poorer am I not?


$3 is still better than $0, right?

Look at it another way. There are two plumbing companies (or construction, or electrical, whatever) in an area. They are both hiring. They both have the same reputation. Everything else is equal except one is offering $5 an hour and the other is offering $3 an hour. Where do you think the people looking for work are going to go? Right the $5 an hour guy. Now that company has the ability to choose which worker to hire. So they are going to pick the "better" choice. The "lesser" choice goes to the $3 an hour guy. Now the $3 an hour guy's business isn't quite as good as the $5 an hour guy's. So his reputation is now down a bit. He gets less jobs. Eventually he might have to lay that guy off, and/or go out of business alltogther.

You see the marketplace doesn't just work for goods you buy. There are also market forces at work for services, labor, jobs, everything out there. If the government would just get out of the way of the market, things will work much better.

[chuck34]

It's a proven fact that worldwide the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The divide is growing by the day. Over 90% of the worlds money is controlled by less than 3% of its population.

It may be a proven fact that the gap is growing. I really can't say, and I'm not sure how you can measure that. But lets just say that it is a fact. Now is it really a fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, or could it be that they are both getting richer, just the rate is greater for the rich?

At what point throughout history has there ever been a time where a small number of people have not controlled a large amount of the wealth? That has always been the case and always will be. Is it right? Probably not. But I don't see a way to "fix" it without bringing everyone's wealth down.

[555-04Q2]

Now is it really a fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, or could it be that they are both getting richer, just the rate is greater for the rich?

The World Health Orginisation (WHO) studies confirm that the rich are getting richer every year, the number of rich people in the world is increasing every year, the number of middle class people in the world is shrinking every year and the number of people living on less than 1 US Dollar a day is increasing every day, not year. The current world economic crisis wont be helping the poor at the moment either.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Lack of responsibility among all people, and poor too, is partly to blame. If people stopped pretending wealthier that they actually are and buying "luxury" stuff, that they cannot afford, they would be better off. I know people who live on a shoestring yet ask for loans to go on overseas vacation. Now who makes them poorer?

[555-04Q2]

Found this on "current news":

"The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger in the world's richest countries -- and particularly the United States -- as top earners' incomes soar while others' stagnate, according to a 30-nation report released Tuesday.

In a 20-year study of its member countries, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said wealthy households are not only widening the gap with the poor, but in countries such as the U.S., Canada and Germany they are also leaving middle-income earners further behind, with potentially ominous consequences if the global financial crisis sparks a long recession."

The only two counttries I can think of where the middle class may be growing is in China and India. Their poor though are being left behind. When I travel to China on business every year I cannot believe how the middle class is emerging at a phenomenal rate, while the poor are not better of than they were before the last time round.

[555-04Q2]

Lack of responsibility among all people, and poor too, is partly to blame. If people stopped pretending wealthier that they actually are and buying "luxury" stuff, that they cannot afford, they would be better off. I know people who live on a shoestring yet ask for loans to go on overseas vacation. Now who makes them poorer?

The problem is the middle class are being squeesed, but they can at least afford to buy some luxury items at the mall for example, some even go on holiday as you say when they shouldnt.

The problem with the poor is they dont even have bus money to get to the mall, let alone buy anything when they get there.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Quite frankly, I have not seen too many people who cannot afford a bus ride once in a while. They make a negligible per cent of the whole population, if we are speaking about developped and even transitional countries.

In any case, I know of no successful attempts to reduce the rich/poor gaps other than encouraging the poor to show more initiative and catch up. All attempts to redistribute the existing wealth ended up in replacing the former crop of the rich with revolutionaries and other advocates of the poor. The revolutionaries then quickly master the art of high life and the poor get left behind as usual.

[555-04Q2]

In any case, I know of no successful attempts to reduce the rich/poor gaps other than encouraging the poor to show more initiative and catch up. All attempts to redistribute the existing wealth ended up in replacing the former crop of the rich with revolutionaries and other advocates of the poor. The revolutionaries then quickly master the art of high life and the poor get left behind as usual.

Handouts never work. It just means people will be back for another one later. Self motivation and willingness to succeed is the only way people are going to get out of their povery cycle. Thousands of people come from nothing to make a better life for themselves, it just takes effort, self-belief and sometimes streetsmarts. I should know, I came from one of those backgrounds and now live a very comfortable life. I made no excuses, didnt rely on other people to help me with handouts, I made a success of myself. Everyone can do it if they really want to.

[schmenke]

Quite frankly, I have not seen too many people who cannot afford a bus ride once in a while. ....

I have seen billions.

[chuck34]

Handouts never work. It just means people will be back for another one later. Self motivation and willingness to succeed is the only way people are going to get out of their povery cycle. Thousands of people come from nothing to make a better life for themselves, it just takes effort, self-belief and sometimes streetsmarts. I should know, I came from one of those backgrounds and now live a very comfortable life. I made no excuses, didnt rely on other people to help me with handouts, I made a success of myself. Everyone can do it if they really want to.

Excellent post. But it is a bit confusing when you look at your other posts. Some around here would suggest that the only way to lift up the poor is to tear down the rich. I thought you were in this column until this last post, so now I'm not sure.

As to the post I quoted you on here. I agree 100%, as long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed then that is all I ask from my government. If there is something holding a person back (racism, sexism, ageism, any other 'ism) then that is where the government should step in. They can't just come in and take from "the rich" and give to "the poor" that just creates a society of moochers.

Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" How well has that ever worked?

[Rollo]

$3 is still better than $0, right?

Look at it another way. There are two plumbing companies (or construction, or electrical, whatever) in an area. They are both hiring. They both have the same reputation. Everything else is equal except one is offering $5 an hour and the other is offering $3 an hour. Where do you think the people looking for work are going to go? Right the $5 an hour guy. Now that company has the ability to choose which worker to hire. So they are going to pick the "better" choice. The "lesser" choice goes to the $3 an hour guy. Now the $3 an hour guy's business isn't quite as good as the $5 an hour guy's. So his reputation is now down a bit. He gets less jobs. Eventually he might have to lay that guy off, and/or go out of business alltogther.

You see the marketplace doesn't just work for goods you buy. There are also market forces at work for services, labor, jobs, everything out there. If the government would just get out of the way of the market, things will work much better.

What you have described is the other side, the supply side of the equation. Where demand and supply meet each other, a the market price is set.

If the government were to get out of the way, then the power of the markets falls to those who have the greatest influence over the market itself. This in general falls to whoever the price makers are - by inference in general this also follows "the golden rule" ie whoever has the gold makes the rules.

A good explanation of the statistics that relate to income equality/inequality actually can be explained statisically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
For the record, the trend line for the US has been showed a tread towards more income inequality and has been for some time:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Gini_since_WWII.gif



As to the post I quoted you on here. I agree 100%, as long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed then that is all I ask from my government. If there is something holding a person back (racism, sexism, ageism, any other 'ism) then that is where the government should step in.

Where are poor people who can't afford to go to university, who can't afford to live in decent area where there are good schools, who can't afford even basic medical care etc ever going to get any opportunity from?
Poverty is the biggest thing that's likely to holding someone back.



Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" How well has that ever worked?

Quite well if you consider that for the last 20 years Ireland has had free university education and they now have probably the world's fourth biggest IT industry. That certainly didn't come about because rich people "pulled" the
poor up.



They can't just come in and take from "the rich" and give to "the poor" that just creates a society of moochers.

Done responsibly, it's done through taxation and government spending. The thing is that you can elect the government, unless you own shares (which if your poor you're unlikely to) you have no say at all.

[chuck34]

Where are poor people who can't afford to go to university, who can't afford to live in decent area where there are good schools, who can't afford even basic medical care etc ever going to get any opportunity from?
Poverty is the biggest thing that's likely to holding someone back.



Quite well if you consider that for the last 20 years Ireland has had free university education and they now have probably the world's fourth biggest IT industry. That certainly didn't come about because rich people "pulled" the
poor up.



Done responsibly, it's done through taxation and government spending. The thing is that you can elect the government, unless you own shares (which if your poor you're unlikely to) you have no say at all.



Where are people who can't afford to go to college going to get the money? Loans, grants, rich uncle, I don't know there is plenty of money out there if you ask for it.

Again with the Health insurance? We have Medicare/Medicaid. Sure it isn't great, but no one is denied needed treatment. How is that so hard to understand?

Poverty is not holding anyone back. If you really want to you can get out of poverty. Poverty is an excuse not a reason for failure.

Ireland has had free university for 20 year, well great for them. But if you don't think that this is an example of the rich helping out, then just who do you think is paying the taxes that pay for those schools? At some point all taxes become a burdon on people and they start to move away. I don't know what the tax level is in Ireland, but I can pretty well tell you that if they tried something like that here in the states you would so overburdon people that the ones who can afford to would move away. The others would have so little disposable income left that they couldn't buy too many things. Then the whole vicious cycle starts over where people start loosing jobs, can't afford things, more people loose jobs, on and on.

I'm sorry I just can not trust the government with more of my money. They have proven time and time again that they will just waste it. Your graph is a perfect example of this. We keep giving more and more money to the government so that they can "even things out" and look where it has gotten us.

Free markets work. The govenment just needs to get out of the way.

I tend to agree with Regan "Government is not the solution to a problem, they are the problem"

But I guess you agree with Obama "Only government can solve our problems".

That's fine if you want to agree with O on this one, but I don't, and have historical evidence to back me up.

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

[Rollo]

I'm sorry I just can not trust the government with more of my money. They have proven time and time again that they will just waste it. Your graph is a perfect example of this. We keep giving more and more money to the government so that they can "even things out" and look where it has gotten us.

Free markets work. The govenment just needs to get out of the way.

Do they?
AIG, Lehmann Brothers, General Motors, Royal Bank of Scotland, Fortis, Wachovia, General Motors, Chrysler, Citigroup - all perfect examples of the market "working".

I totally agree, the government needs to get out of the way and let these businesses die (and as quickly as possible). Because it was so the governments fault that between them these companies pissed billions of dollarpounds against the wall.

[BDunnell]

I'm sorry I just can not trust the government with more of my money. They have proven time and time again that they will just waste it.

...

But I guess you agree with Obama "Only government can solve our problems".

That's fine if you want to agree with O on this one, but I don't, and have historical evidence to back me up.

I have historical evidence to back my view up — that private sector involvement in the UK's public services has often proved to be a complete disaster, completely giving the lie to the notion that the private sector automatically provides a better service for less money and with increased competence.

I fear that your respect for the superiority of the private sector is somewhat misplaced.

[chuck34]

I have historical evidence to back my view up — that private sector involvement in the UK's public services has often proved to be a complete disaster, completely giving the lie to the notion that the private sector automatically provides a better service for less money and with increased competence.

I fear that your respect for the superiority of the private sector is somewhat misplaced.

I would agree that the private sector does not automatically provide a better service for less money. But the government pretty much never provides a better service for less money. Again, no government does or should guaruntee results, just oportunity.

I fear that your respect for the superiority of the government is somewhat misplaced.

Tell me one time that government spending, alone, has brought us out of a recession.

[Rollo]

Again with the Health insurance? We have Medicare/Medicaid. Sure it isn't great, but no one is denied needed treatment. How is that so hard to understand?

No-one is "denied" treatment, but I would wager that millions don't get it because they can not afford it in the first place. I really don't know why you'd cite Medicare or Medicaid as good. Compared to Canada, Britain or Australia, they're positively pathetic.

Medicare is only available to people aged 65 and over or who meet other limited criteria. Medicaid is supposed to cover low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities but about 60% of people in technical poverty still aren't eligible anyway.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

The 2007 Census tells us that 47 million people have no health coverage whatsoever :eek: Sorry, but that's simply staggering - and it certainly is not "good"

http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_34117_41809843_1_1_1_1,00.html
Notwithstanding very high health spending (about 15% of GDP) and the use of cutting edge technology, the health status of the US population does not appear to fare well by international comparison. The United States ranks poorly in terms of life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and “amenable mortality” (i.e. mortality that can be averted by good health care).

Oh dear.


Tell me one time that government spending, alone, has brought us out of a recession.

Never :D It can't alone.

I don't need to because that would be the tail wagging the dog. There are however, lots of examples when business greed, market failure and unchecked activity has had huge effects completely devoid of any government action.
1819, 1837, 1857, 1873-1879, 1893, 1907, 1929-1939, 1990, 2000 and 2007-2013 were all caused by gross failures of business to manage itself prudently.



I would agree that the private sector does not automatically provide a better service for less money. But the government pretty much never provides a better service for less money.

Government almost never provides a better service for less money, so what? It's better than not providing a service at all. And why do think that governments provide such horrible services anyway?
SNCF, the BBC, the NHS, Telstra (before it was privatised), the US Defence Dept, the Interstate Highway System, are all examples where government might not have provided something for less money per se, but is pretty damn good.
Besides, in a lot of cases, it's not about providing a better service for less money, but the best service that there is.

[Alexamateo]

Do they?
AIG, Lehmann Brothers, General Motors, Royal Bank of Scotland, Fortis, Wachovia, General Motors, Chrysler, Citigroup - all perfect examples of the market "working".

I totally agree, the government needs to get out of the way and let these businesses die (and as quickly as possible). Because it was so the governments fault that between them these companies pissed billions of dollarpounds against the wall.

Yes they do if they are allowed to. Weak companies should die/be acquired by competitors etc. I keep thinking about Ford who foresaw this type of crisis coming and secured financing etc just in case. I feel like they are being punished for making good decisions. Instead of being a position to pounce on the competition, they are almost being forced to go along with their weaker sisters.

The banking/investment situation is more complicated, it's a combination of overregulation in some areas, underregulation in others, social engineering by congress, human greed, and companies going out of business because they are following the law.

The underregulation was not fully understanding the 2000 law that allowed credit default swaps to be treated as futures contracts. Companies responded by creating all sorts of financial products and asset backed securities that I don't believe that they themselves even understood.

Meanwhile, changes in the community reinvestment act in 1995 encourage banks to loan more in areas where they ordinarily would not have, leading to a much greater # of sub-prime loans to higher risk borrowers. Banks don't want to hold onto these riskier loans so they securitize them and sell them off. Greed comes in where someone says "hey we can make a lot of money originating all these loans and then selling them off" so the push comes to write more and more loans.

The overregulation comes in where in the wake of the Enron scandal (bringing to mind the admonition of John Adams "Legislate in Haste, Repent at Leisure"
Financial accounting standards were changed to FASB 157, the "mark to market" rules. That's all well and good when markets are rising, but can lead to a "death spiral" when markets are declining as critics of the rule stated when it was enacted. These investment banks held these asset backed securities which were inflated in value with the housing bubble. Suddenly, there was a rise in defaults, people realize prices are overinflated, and the housing bubble pops. Now these banks have to mark down the value of their assets by law, but now by law they are out of their capital reserve requirements, so they have to sell off some of said assets, but no one wants to buy them so they have to sell them at fire-sale prices, forcing them to mark down the value of their assets even more, putting them out of their capital reserve requirements, forcing them to sell off more assets etc. etc. etc., a death spiral because of "toxic asets." Going out of business complying with the law.

But are they really toxic? It's real estate. Foreclosure rates are high, but 97% of loans are performing (people paying their mortgages), and even a foreclosed property is not valuless even though it's being treated as such.

Yet it has happened, you can blame the market, but that would be inaccurate, you can blame government, but that would also be inaccurate. It's a little of both, and also yours and mine. We've lived beyond our means for a little bit too long and also told the people managing our 401k's and pensions they'd better perform or else. A lot of irrational exuberence in the tech boom led us to plow money into real estate, and then commodities and oil. But we forgot that the market is always right, and always finds it's true value eventually. Although now we are in a time of irrational pessimism. It will even out soon enough, and the seeds of recovery are already out there even in the face of bad news.

Markets work and are self correcting, they are self correcting now even if it hurts. Perhaps the Fed was wrong not to let us have a couple of mini-recessions along the way and think they could maintain a constant boom. I don't know. All I know is that I will ride the wave I am presented and get ready for the next boom whenever that occurs. :s mokin:

[anthonyvop]

The World Health Orginisation (WHO) studies confirm that the rich are getting richer every year, the number of rich people in the world is increasing every year, the number of middle class people in the world is shrinking every year and the number of people living on less than 1 US Dollar a day is increasing every day, not year. The current world economic crisis wont be helping the poor at the moment either.
And where are those people who are living on less than $1 a day?
I'll tell you where.
In countries with Socialistic, Centralized economic systems and totalitarian governments.
Countries that embrace the freedom of the free market are all doing well.

BTW. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the number of rich people in the world is increasing that is a good thing? Did you even think that the number of middle class is shrinking because they are joining the ranks of the rich?

[chuck34]

Alexmateo pretty well said what I would say only better. Thanks.

I would go one step further when you say, "Meanwhile, changes in the community reinvestment act in 1995 encourage banks to loan more in areas where they ordinarily would not have" In many cases the banks were not "encouraged" to loan, they were down right forced to. Janet Reno told them that they had to give home loans to more minority borrowers or be prosecuted under the red-lining laws.


Rollo, I never said that Medicare/Medicaid were good. In fact I argue that they are horrible. So do you want the same people who run those programs to run all the health care now? I sure don't. And I don't know much about the UK's system, but Canada isn't some sort of shining beacon on a hill. Again, I think I've said this before, but my brother-in-law had to lay flat on his back for 6 months waiting for back surgury. Is that what you call good health care? I sure don't! Maybe we pay too much for health care here in the states, but it is actually not bad coverage.

I know you're going to call me selfish, and I know I am. But don't bring the quality of my health care down just to "cover" everyone. Let's work on solutions where the under-insured can start to afford the same coverage I have. There are solutions other than turning the whole thing over to the government for them to muck up. Just because the rest of the world does it doesn't mean we have to. We (America) are supposed to show the rest of the world how things should be done.

"the US Defence Dept, the Interstate Highway System, are all examples where government might not have provided something for less money per se, but is pretty damn good. " If you think the highways here are pretty damn good, or that there isn't a boat load of waste in the DOD then you need your head examined. But I'll grant you that those are two things the Federal government has to do. As for all the other orgaizations you mention, I don't live in those countries so I can't speak to them so much. But I haven't heard too much bad about French Rail. The BBC is ok I guess. But there is a lot of anecdotal (sp?) evidence that says the NHS isn't all it's cracked up to be either.

[race aficionado]

Countries that embrace the freedom of the free market are all doing well.



Anthony.
Unfortunately - and if you look around you - this is not the case.

I am not going to give you solutions right now, it's not my area of expertise, even though my sig. would be a good start - but what I do know is that what is happening to the countries that embrace the freedom of "free" market, are starting to get a taste of what "the others' are experiencing daily.

Man! Have you seen the amount of people loosing their jobs? It's shocking emotionally but when you see what caused it, it's not shocking at all - the system had it coming.

[Roamy]

Race
We have far surpassed the question of free market. We are so corrupt that we will be on a down spiral until the American people get off their dead spoiled asses and take care of business. A house cleaning like the world has never known is in order. In many corrupt countries people know and are trying, like the vigilantes in Juarez. In this country we just put a suit on it. But now it has caught us. So lets see what Obama can do he has been served a giant pot of sh!t and he can either stir it or throw it out.

Right now this country is actually being controlled by some very disgusting people. We are letting it happen right in front of us. That is sad because we have the power to do something about it. Just the fact that Bernie Madoff is living at home should boil the blood of every US citizen alive!

[555-04Q2]

Excellent post. But it is a bit confusing when you look at your other posts. Some around here would suggest that the only way to lift up the poor is to tear down the rich. I thought you were in this column until this last post, so now I'm not sure.

As to the post I quoted you on here. I agree 100%, as long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed then that is all I ask from my government. If there is something holding a person back (racism, sexism, ageism, any other 'ism) then that is where the government should step in. They can't just come in and take from "the rich" and give to "the poor" that just creates a society of moochers.

Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" How well has that ever worked?

Whats up chuck. I dont believe in tearing down the rich. People who make a lot of money should be able to keep it. Even guys like Bill Gates should be entitled to keep their money, even as obscene as his wealth is, he was smart enough to get it. If he chooses to give something back to society (which he does generously through his charity) is up to him, I dont see why a successful person should be forced to help others if they dont want to.

While I agree that there are some circumstances where it is difficult for people to move forward due to their position in life, many people have proven that even in the most hopeless of situations, where there is a will there is a way. Unfortunately, too many people just give up. I look at projects like the Aid To Africa projects that I have been involved in for our rural communities in northern Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa. While the projects are meant to do good, they actually just create more problems as the people see an endless pot of money and free handouts that dont motivate them to progress as a people. What they need is a dose of reality and the fact that they need to start uplifting themselves and not rely on the handouts.

[555-04Q2]

And where are those people who are living on less than $1 a day?
I'll tell you where.
In countries with Socialistic, Centralized economic systems and totalitarian governments.
Countries that embrace the freedom of the free market are all doing well.

BTW. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the number of rich people in the world is increasing that is a good thing? Did you even think that the number of middle class is shrinking because they are joining the ranks of the rich?

The majority of people living on less than $1 a day live in Africa, China and India.

Of course the increasing number of rich people in the world is a good thing. Who said otherwise :?: The problem is more people from the middle class are becoming poor than are becoming rich. Thats where the problem lies. Look at the currrent economic crisis, there is only so much available money/economy in the world, the more rich people who have it, the more poor people they create.

[chuck34]

The majority of people living on less than $1 a day live in Africa, China and India.

Of course the increasing number of rich people in the world is a good thing. Who said otherwise :?: The problem is more people from the middle class are becoming poor than are becoming rich. Thats where the problem lies. Look at the currrent economic crisis, there is only so much available money/economy in the world, the more rich people who have it, the more poor people they create.

I agree with your post previous to this one. It is a very good post.

However, I must vehemently disagree with the last line in the quoted post. There is NOT only so much money/economy available. The economy is NOT a zero sum game. Just because I made a dollar does not mean that I took it from someone else. There is an economic effect known as a multiplier. It goes something like, for every dollar spent there are X more dollars created. I'm not an economist, so I'm sure someone will correct me on this.

[race aficionado]

Race
We have far surpassed the question of free market. We are so corrupt that we will be on a down spiral until the American people get off their dead spoiled asses and take care of business. A house cleaning like the world has never known is in order. In many corrupt countries people know and are trying, like the vigilantes in Juarez. In this country we just put a suit on it. But now it has caught us. So lets see what Obama can do he has been served a giant pot of sh!t and he can either stir it or throw it out.

Right now this country is actually being controlled by some very disgusting people. We are letting it happen right in front of us. That is sad because we have the power to do something about it. Just the fact that Bernie Madoff is living at home should boil the blood of every US citizen alive!
:up:
fousto, you hit so many sore spots right on target.
The "house cleaning" being the main one.

As for Madoff - that's where I start believing in public caning.

Just this weekend I spoke with a dear friend that works in the construction business. They had their good run for 7 years and things of course got slow because of the crap hitting the fan but what did them was the fact that they had 20 million invested with Murdoff. Not only did they lose that money but once the banks that were giving them credit knew of this, they also cut the money being allowed to go in the company and 4 of their 5 building projects had to be frozen. Two days after Murdoff's arrest, 80% of my friends employees had to be laid off - no more salary, no more medical coverage, no Christmas bonus - nada!

and this is just one of many unfortunate stories.

Murdoff is a manifestation of the "suits" that are running this country down the gutter and yes, after his public caning, Murdoff should be locked for good.

peace dam it!
:s mokin:

[chuck34]

:up:
fousto, you hit so many sore spots right on target.
The "house cleaning" being the main one.

As for Madoff - that's where I start believing in public caning.

Just this weekend I spoke with a dear friend that works in the construction business. They had their good run for 7 years and things of course got slow because of the crap hitting the fan but what did them was the fact that they had 20 million invested with Murdoff. Not only did they lose that money but once the banks that were giving them credit knew of this, they also cut the money being allowed to go in the company and 4 of their 5 building projects had to be frozen. Two days after Murdoff's arrest, 80% of my friends employees had to be laid off - no more salary, no more medical coverage, no Christmas bonus - nada!

and this is just one of many unfortunate stories.

Murdoff is a manifestation of the "suits" that are running this country down the gutter and yes, after his public caning, Murdoff should be locked for good.

peace dam it!
:s mokin:


We all know that Madoff is an @ss. He broke laws that he will hopefully go to jail for, for a long long long long time. So how are more laws/government regulations going to help this?

[anthonyvop]

Man! Have you seen the amount of people loosing their jobs? It's shocking emotionally but when you see what caused it, it's not shocking at all - the system had it coming.
You are right.
Socialism hurts everyone

[Roamy]

:up:
fousto, you hit so many sore spots right on target.
The "house cleaning" being the main one.

As for Madoff - that's where I start believing in public caning.

Just this weekend I spoke with a dear friend that works in the construction business. They had their good run for 7 years and things of course got slow because of the crap hitting the fan but what did them was the fact that they had 20 million invested with Murdoff. Not only did they lose that money but once the banks that were giving them credit knew of this, they also cut the money being allowed to go in the company and 4 of their 5 building projects had to be frozen. Two days after Murdoff's arrest, 80% of my friends employees had to be laid off - no more salary, no more medical coverage, no Christmas bonus - nada!

and this is just one of many unfortunate stories.

Murdoff is a manifestation of the "suits" that are running this country down the gutter and yes, after his public caning, Murdoff should be locked for good.

peace dam it!
:s mokin:

I don't want to pay for Madoff - He needs a trip to see Dr Winchester as do many many more in this country. How about Pelosi earmarking 55 million for Samoa while her husband reaps the bene's from StarKist. They go look at all the money politicians took out of fannie and freddie. This country needs to be outraged and put a new very fast track impeachment process in place - We can do it and I just may be the guy to start it!!

[BDunnell]

I would agree that the private sector does not automatically provide a better service for less money. But the government pretty much never provides a better service for less money. Again, no government does or should guaruntee results, just oportunity.

I fear that your respect for the superiority of the government is somewhat misplaced.

Tell me one time that government spending, alone, has brought us out of a recession.

I'm not talking of spending one's way out of a recession — I'm talking about the provision of public services which, time after time after time, the private sector in the UK has proved itself unable to do with any degree of competence.

[chuck34]

I'm not talking of spending one's way out of a recession — I'm talking about the provision of public services which, time after time after time, the private sector in the UK has proved itself unable to do with any degree of competence.

Time after time in the US the government has proved itself unable to do pretty much anything with any degree of competence.

When do people have to start taking responsibility for themselves?

[BDunnell]

Time after time in the US the government has proved itself unable to do pretty much anything with any degree of competence.

When do people have to start taking responsibility for themselves?

This notion that those of us who believe in the state having a role in service provision are somehow utterly dependent on it and unable to strike out on our own in any way is simply ridiculous and actually quite offensive. It is also based on the entirely incorrect notion that public services simply cannot be made to operate in a businesslike fashion, when there are plenty of examples to prove that they can.

[race aficionado]

You are right.
Socialism hurts everyone
Come on Anthony, that was petty lame.
:dozey:
So you are saying that socialism is the cause of our U. S. of A's misfortunes?


Dang! where have I been!

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

This notion that those of us who believe in the state having a role in service provision are somehow utterly dependent on it and unable to strike out on our own in any way is simply ridiculous and actually quite offensive. It is also based on the entirely incorrect notion that public services simply cannot be made to operate in a businesslike fashion, when there are plenty of examples to prove that they can.

I'm not saying that public services can't be made to operate in a businesslike fashion, just that in the US they never have. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. And yes I have seen enough people utterly dependent on public services to know that does happen, and it isn't pretty.

So government should take over your health insurance, what about car insurance, what about your mortgage? Where does it stop? I say we have quite enough socialism here the way it is.

Government can not give anything that it does not first take.

[BDunnell]

I'm not saying that public services can't be made to operate in a businesslike fashion, just that in the US they never have. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. And yes I have seen enough people utterly dependent on public services to know that does happen, and it isn't pretty.

I agree that this can happen, but I do not consider the fact that people abuse the system to be reason enough to abolish all state-run services.



So government should take over your health insurance, what about car insurance, what about your mortgage? Where does it stop? I say we have quite enough socialism here the way it is.

Most countries in western Europe seem to have stopped at a perfectly sensible point, if you ask me. The UK has gone far too far, though, in allowing private sector firms to have a role in the provision of basic services and continuing to tolerate their appalling performance on the grounds that to do otherwise does not fit in with the desire to be 'business-friendly'.

[chuck34]

I agree that this can happen, but I do not consider the fact that people abuse the system to be reason enough to abolish all state-run services.



Most countries in western Europe seem to have stopped at a perfectly sensible point, if you ask me. The UK has gone far too far, though, in allowing private sector firms to have a role in the provision of basic services and continuing to tolerate their appalling performance on the grounds that to do otherwise does not fit in with the desire to be 'business-friendly'.

Who is saying that we should abolis all state-run sercvices? I am saying that we shouldn't add new ones. That's all. You think western Erope has stopped at a sensible point, I think they are already over the top. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one I guess.

What is your definition of "basic services"? I'm willing to bet that it is different than mine. My "basic services" include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. And I would say that any government run "service" cuts into my right to liberty. My "liberty" extends right up to the point that it starts infringing on your "liberty".


Listen maybe we're getting a bit to "philisophical" here. Let's break it down to the nuts and bolts.

You have been advicating for state run health care, and I am against that (at least in part).

In the US we DO have state run health care under Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Can you honestly tell me that those three services are run efficiently and well? Now do you really want to turn my (and yours if you were in the US) health care over to the same people that run those three services?

Let's do what we have well before we screw up everything else. Is that really too much to ask for?

[Rollo]

Let's start with the things that everyone aught to have access to, regardless of income:

Roads, streets, highways, bridges, airports, railways, water, waste, electric, gas, telecommunications, schools, universities, hospitals, medical, police, fire, ambulance, defence, law, the arts, parks, national parks, some public broadcasting.

Public ownership of those things is reasonable, and prudent and certainly wise.

[555-04Q2]

I agree with your post previous to this one. It is a very good post.

However, I must vehemently disagree with the last line in the quoted post. There is NOT only so much money/economy available. The economy is NOT a zero sum game. Just because I made a dollar does not mean that I took it from someone else. There is an economic effect known as a multiplier. It goes something like, for every dollar spent there are X more dollars created. I'm not an economist, so I'm sure someone will correct me on this.

I maybe should have worded the post better. I was talking about todays situation where we have an imploding world economy where the market place and the availability of money has almost halved.

In normal conditions, yes, as long as people are investing money, governments are allocating budgets and people want more and more goods, then there is more money available for everyone. Unfortunately, the smaller, richer parts of society see far more of the percentage of "new" money than the majority poor do.

[PolePosition_1]

Pole. You have very communistic/socialistic tendencies in your world view. Note that I did not call you a communist, just that you actually express that view. You would probably really like reading Marx.

Where did you see that there were people sitting in their cars at 2AM? That is very hard to believe. If for no other reason that most doctors are not around at 2AM except for in ER's where there are waiting rooms. So I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.

As for your drug cost, you are correct in saying that the cost for the PILL is cheaper in Canada. However, the taxes that people pay in Canada are higher than in the US so factor that in and you will see that the costs are not that much different. I don't have that much experience with socialized health care. I'm sure you can come up with a million example of how the US is no good, but I can come up with the same amount for the socialized brand. My brother-in-law is Canadian. He needed back surgury, was deemed not to be in an "emergency" so he had to lay flat on his back for 6 months waiting to have surgury. I find that unacceptable as well.

I don't know where to find the numbers like you did, but I would be surprised to know that the UK has less that 0.007% "mortality" rate. Just due to the fact that people don't always go to the doctor when they need to.

Sure the drug companies make too much profit. But probably according to you all companies make too much profit. Think about it for a second, without profit what incentive do people have for making better products?

You say "Now I'm sorry, but with profit being a priority, you automatically excluding the ill from a decent healthcare service." I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that the UK/Canada systems are any better.

Ok you say that people in Africa do not have the opportunity of becoming wealthy. Why is it that they do not have this opportunity? You say the World Bank? Well I as an American also have to deal with the WB. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. But if I work hard and keep my nose to the grind-stone, I will be. Look at the richest guys around, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Neither of these guys started out with anything, and they sure made it. So if the people in Africa do not have the opportunity to become rich, it's not because of the World Bank. Don't get me wrong I don't think the World Bank is a good thing either, it's just not an excuse.

"The rich - poor divide in America has not been so large since the 1930's, and has a continous trend of increasing." Why do you think this is? I would suggest to you that it is because of the socialistic programs put in place by FDR in the Depression. You see, the dirty little secret of Socialism is that it is really all about control. Make the people dependent upon the government and they will become more and more dependent on the government. That gives those IN the government more and more power.

"To me see, its common sense that the government should dominate the economy. Because the government has to look after its people, and in a capitalist society, the economy is a way of doing this." That is where you and I differ. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The rich don't necessarily get rich by taking from the poor. The rich can, and usually do, get rich and bring the poor up along with them.

I would agree with your last statemen that the economy should not dominate the government. The government is there to insure that the people all have equal access to the economy. They do not and should not guarante equal results.



I do believe that I'm partly socialist. I'm not ashamed about that. Though I do believe that things have to be compromised, if you provide to many benefits to the poor, it can become a case of being better off not working than working. So I do have more right wing elements in my views.

The documentary I watched, people were waiting at 2am in their cars, because the need for care was so great they were happy to start waiting at 2am for the opening (presumably at 8am or whatever). Call it BS if you wish, but its true - and you'll simply be justifying your opinion by disregarding facts which are hugely important.

If you can somehow get access to http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer check out the Panorama progromme on it. They give a great insight into the American healthcare system.

I find it amusing that you find 23,000 people dying due to lack of available basic healthcare acceptable as its only 0.007% of population, yet find it unacceptable that your brother in law had to wait 6 month for a back operation.

Whilst all due respect to your brother in law, I'm sure if possible, he could have gone private to get the care more quickly. So whereas in Canada you can either pay to get care quickly, but if you can't at least it will get looked after. In America this is not the case.

With regards to the drug companies - you can still create that incentive of producing better medical care, whilst at same time limiting how much they charge. Surely you can see its not right that the government is at the mercy of these companies, to me, I don't think the market is perfect, it has its flaws, and the government is needed to overcome these flaws, in respect to looking after its civilians. This can easily be achieved by regulating costs of drugs, in the rest of western countries, countries can regulate the cost, the these companies still invest in these markets, because they can still make money. So if America done the same, its not as if they would leave.

I'm not familiar with the Canadian system, so cannot comment too much in UK. Whilst America has the capacity to provide better healthcare, the UK is much more standard. Whereas in America the rich have amazing healthcare, and poor have a 3rd world type healthcare, compared to UK, where all have access to the same standard of healthcare, rich or poor.
You may not be convinced healthcare in UK / Canada is better, I can’t talk for Canada, but in UK, if your poor, you will receive better healthcare than a poor American. If you choose not to believe it, I can see your point of view, because you refuse to acknowledge fact which puts your views in the ‘wrong’.
And mate, you not being rich by any stretch of the imagination – your taking a very selfish line here, how on earth can you compare your wealth to that of an average civilian in Africa? Your arguments are laughable – are you actually denying that America has a huge presence with the WB and it uses that presence for preserve its wealth?
Fact that your denying the WB is not a blocking factor in the poorer nations shows your lack of understanding of how world economics work.
” The rich can, and usually do, get rich and bring the poor up along with them. – that’s obviously not working with the rich poor gap increasing.

And I’m not asking for equal results, just a decent level of care.

[BDunnell]

What is your definition of "basic services"? I'm willing to bet that it is different than mine. My "basic services" include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.

I am talking about things like electricity, gas and water supplies, transport, healthcare and benefit provision. With the provision of utilities, I feel that the consumer has been given too much choice for too little benefit.


And I would say that any government run "service" cuts into my right to liberty.

How does a state-run public transport system (as opposed to the privately-run transport arrangements that we now have in the UK) infringe on your liberty, exactly? I hardly consider deciding which train company to take - not that competition between operators on the railways works at all, as has been proved to everybody's satisfaction - as being a tenet of liberty. There are some areas in which competition is simply unworkable or pointless, except for ideological reasons.



Let's do what we have well before we screw up everything else. Is that really too much to ask for?

I agree with you there, but in the UK many examples of privatisation have been of public services that were working perfectly well.

[chuck34]

I do believe that I'm partly socialist. I'm not ashamed about that.

Ok so we'll have to agree to disagree. You are not going to convince me to be a socialist, and I am not going to convince you to be a conservative.

What is this documentary you are talking about. It isn't "sicko" is it by Michael Moore?

I no I do not find 23,000 people dying acceptable. All I am saying is I would susspect that number wouldn't change much even with "Universal" healthcare. Some people will not be forced into going to the hospital even when it is obvious they need help. And for the last time, IF THEY ARE IN EMERGENT NEED OF CARE, THEY CAN NOT BE TURNED AWAY!

[chuck34]

I am talking about things like electricity, gas and water supplies, transport, healthcare and benefit provision. With the provision of utilities, I feel that the consumer has been given too much choice for too little benefit.



How does a state-run public transport system (as opposed to the privately-run transport arrangements that we now have in the UK) infringe on your liberty, exactly? I hardly consider deciding which train company to take - not that competition between operators on the railways works at all, as has been proved to everybody's satisfaction - as being a tenet of liberty. There are some areas in which competition is simply unworkable or pointless, except for ideological reasons.



I agree with you there, but in the UK many examples of privatisation have been of public services that were working perfectly well.


You think that there is too much choice with gas, electricity, water, etc? Where I live I don't have any choice on those things. There are lots of options out there for health care, but you are sort of stuck with what your employeer picks for you. I am currently investigating going "private" myself but I loose a big chunk of tax breaks, so it's hard for the math to work out right.

How does public transportation infringe on my liberty? Easy. I have no option for taking public transportation to my work, the store, the mall, restauraunts, etc. But I sure am paying for it. So there it isn't a matter of choice, it's a matter of no availibilty but still paying for it.

Again, I'm sure you have examples of public going private and not working, and I have examples of private going public and not working. What's your point? Let's see if we can fix what is already broken in the public sector before we go f'ing EVERYONE over with public health care.

[Rollo]

I would like to summarise Mr 34's arguments. They can be summarised in broad terms and illustrated thusly:

1. Government is less competent to provide services than the private sector


Let's work on solutions where the under-insured can start to afford the same coverage I have. There are solutions other than turning the whole thing over to the government for them to muck up.

2. If I don't see an immediate benefit to the taxes I'm paying, then I don't see the point.

I know you're going to call me selfish, and I know I am. But don't bring the quality of my health care down just to "cover" everyone.

Point 1 is perhaps excusable considering that he lives in America. Generally the government actually IS incompetent. The reason for this is mainly due to the lobby system, whereby interested parties influence the decisions made by the government. Notwithstanding the fact that it was probably business groups who paid the funds to get people elected in the first place.

Point 2 is quite reasonably grounded in the principle that one wants the benefits which one has paid for. The fundamental flaw with this is the question of what should and shouldn't be a "public good"


What is your definition of "basic services"? I'm willing to bet that it is different than mine. My "basic services" include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I would say that any government run "service" cuts into my right to liberty. My "liberty" extends right up to the point that it starts infringing on your "liberty".


Firstly, the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are not contained within the constitution so although they should be "self-evident" they hold as much water as a sieve.

Secondly, I'm not entirely surely if the term liberty can be used like this:

Liberty n.
1. Freedom from captivity, slavery, imprisonment or oppression
2. The right or power to do as one chooses
3. A right or privilege granted by authority

Unless you could prove that a public service or payment for that service is somehow unduly onerous then I fail to see how it impinges on one's liberty at all. Quite the contrary, public provision of services enables dialog by the community as a collective to decide what gets provided. Then again a great number of Americans can't even be bothered to vote, so public participation is scarcely an issue. Still it's better than power in private hands where that power shifts to company owners.

What would happen for instance if the Fire Department was purely run on an insurance basis? If there was a largish fire that swept several properties, then it would follow that the Fire Service would only be obliged to help those who were paid up to that company. Don't laugh - in the city of London, you can still find evidence of plaques affixed to walls for precisely that reason.

Alternatively:
"If you don’t have the smarts or the money to insure yourself, then you must bear the consequences of not taking personal responsibility."
- Ronald Reagan, AHIP Conference, Jan 8, 1979

[chuck34]

Rollo, you are quite correct in saying that the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness is not in our Constitution. However, it goes a bit deeper than that, to our actual founding document, the Declaration of Independence. So it does hold more water than a sieve.

Your definition of Liberty has my point right there in the first definition. Freedom from ... OPRESSION. The second one is pretty good too. The right or power to do as one chooses.

You are correct though, some public services are "good". But mostly the ones run locally such as police, and fire. No one is arguing that the Fire Department should be privatly run. That would be silly. As would police, military, and interstate highways. There may be a way to do these things privately, but probably not too efficiently. I know that San Fran used to (maybe they still do?) have priviate police force somewhat managed by the city. I'll have to look into that and see how it went. Also toll roads work fairly well around here.

Anyway, the point is there are certain things that the government must do. They must protect our Life, our Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happyness. Police and fire departments protect these things from threats within our boarders. The military protects these things from threats from outside our boarders. Interstate commerce is also protected/garunteed through provisions such as the interstate highway commission.

Universal health care does not meet the standard of government protection of these three things. In so far as we already have a provision that does not allow hospitals from turning away emergency cases. In fact it is (or at least could be) inpinging upon my liberty. Once the government controls things, they tend to place controls, restrictions, rules, regulations, etc. upon one. Can you not see that once they have control of health care, they may (and probably will) start to mandate that you live "healthy" to keep costs low. This may take simple forms such as you must visit your doctor once a year, fine no problem. But then it may become more oppressive. They may start to ban certain food items. Twinkies, those have too much sugar. French Fries, those have too much fat. Beer, well I can't even think about that :-)

It all comes back to the fact that government can not give something that it first does not take.

[chuck34]

Tell you what, if anyone can prove to me that if the US goes to some "Universal" system that a few thing happen, then I may be open to it.

1) The 23,000 "preventable" deaths that have been put out there will go down significantly.

2) No one that currently has health care will see a drop in the quality of said health care.

3) No one that currently has health care will see a rise in premiums (that includes taxes).

4) There will be less waste than the current system.

5) No one will have to wait for care.

6) There will still be the profit motive for drug companies to develop new drugs, new tests, new procedures, and new equipment.

7) Government will not mandate that I stop eating foods that I want, or mandate that I do X amout of exercise a day, or anything like that.

If you can absolutely garuntee me that those 7 conditions will be met then maybe we can start to talk.

[anthonyvop]

Unless you could prove that a public service or payment for that service is somehow unduly onerous then I fail to see how it impinges on one's liberty at all. Quite the contrary, public provision of services enables dialog by the community as a collective to decide what gets provided.
Taking of one's hard earned income impinges on one's liberty.

While I do believe the Gov should provide some services these are by no way shape or form a right.

Police and fire protection are a privilege we pay for but we do not have a right to police protection
In fact our supreme court has said that we cannot sue a police department for failing to provide protection.

[Rollo]

How do you reconcile this:

Anyway, the point is there are certain things that the government must do. They must protect our Life, our Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness.

With this:


Universal health care does not meet the standard of government protection of these three things.

Doesn't it now?
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650
France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

France, Japan and Australia all have a universal health care system.

What in the bloody hell is health care for? Health Care by its very definition is the preservation of health. You can not honestly tell me that people's life, liberty or happiness are being protected if they're dead now can you?

Mr Vop, of course it stands to reason that if you want something then you have to pay for it. Are you suggesting that the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution impinges on your Liberty? That would be very interesting if you did manage to get that through.

[chuck34]

How do you reconcile this:


With this:


Doesn't it now?
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650
France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

France, Japan and Australia all have a universal health care system.

What in the bloody hell is health care for? Health Care by its very definition is the preservation of health. You can not honestly tell me that people's life, liberty or happiness are being protected if they're dead now can you?

Mr Vop, of course it stands to reason that if you want something then you have to pay for it. Are you suggesting that the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution impinges on your Liberty? That would be very interesting if you did manage to get that through.

Didn't read my post at all did you?

There is a very great risk with "Universal" health care of the government interfering with my liberty.

Listen, I'm sounding like a heartless b@stard here. I'm not. I really do wish that more people had better health care. Anyone that has died of a preventable disease is a tragedy. But we have safety nets in place to help these people. As your article points out, we obviously aren't doing a very good job with the programs we already have. So lets try working on that before we go f'ing with everyone elses coverage.

From your article: "I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" So why not expand access to what we already have, instead of scrapping the whole thing?

[Roamy]

Taking of one's hard earned income impinges on one's liberty.

While I do believe the Gov should provide some services these are by no way shape or form a right.

Police and fire protection are a privilege we pay for but we do not have a right to police protection
In fact our supreme court has said that we cannot sue a police department for failing to provide protection.

Thats why we have guns - man I can't wait to get my new glock 29c with night sights and laser!!

[gadjo_dilo]

Thats why we have guns - man I can't wait to get my new glock 29c with night sights and laser!!
Looks like you'll be happy to be attacked just for the pleasure to use your new gun....

[PolePosition_1]

Ok so we'll have to agree to disagree. You are not going to convince me to be a socialist, and I am not going to convince you to be a conservative.

What is this documentary you are talking about. It isn't "sicko" is it by Michael Moore?

I no I do not find 23,000 people dying acceptable. All I am saying is I would susspect that number wouldn't change much even with "Universal" healthcare. Some people will not be forced into going to the hospital even when it is obvious they need help. And for the last time, IF THEY ARE IN EMERGENT NEED OF CARE, THEY CAN NOT BE TURNED AWAY!

Fair enough, agree to disagree, who I do feel that your ignoring some hardcore facts which totally disprove of your theory of private sector will look after poor people better than public sector.

And in documentary I watched, a woman with 3 cancers could not get treatment. Maybe being run over etc you would get seen too, but slow forms of death, such as cancer etc aren't supported well compared to UK.

People find themselves in thousands and thousands of dollars debt paying for medication which is essential, but not regarded as emergency.

[chuck34]

Fair enough, agree to disagree, who I do feel that your ignoring some hardcore facts which totally disprove of your theory of private sector will look after poor people better than public sector.

And in documentary I watched, a woman with 3 cancers could not get treatment. Maybe being run over etc you would get seen too, but slow forms of death, such as cancer etc aren't supported well compared to UK.

People find themselves in thousands and thousands of dollars debt paying for medication which is essential, but not regarded as emergency.

Alright fine, selfish b@stard hat on.

I have worked hard in my life, made fairly good decisions, so I have a good job, with ok benefits. Why should that be taken from me so that I can "help out" someone who has made bad choices in their life? If I choose to donate to a charity to help out, that's good on me. And if I don't chose that path, I will be judged accordingly.

Freedom comes at a price. That price is the chance you might fail. But with that chance of failure also comes the chance for great success.

So tell you what, you keep living in your socialistic paradise. I'll keep living in the US and hoping that we get back to free market pricipals so that we can get back to being the greatest, most powerful, most envied nation ever.

Sorry that I may seem a bit harsh, but life is hard... wear a helmet.

[steve_spackman]

Some people will not be forced into going to the hospital even when it is obvious they need help. And for the last time, IF THEY ARE IN EMERGENT NEED OF CARE, THEY CAN NOT BE TURNED AWAY!

But they can expect a huge bill, not to mention the prospect of bankruptcy. The largest cause of bankruptcy in the US is due to medical treatment

This is why alot of people dont recieve the medical treatment they need (problem gets worse and can die), because they are too scared to seek it.

[steve_spackman]

Alright fine, selfish b@stard hat on.

I have worked hard in my life, made fairly good decisions, so I have a good job, with ok benefits. Why should that be taken from me so that I can "help out" someone who has made bad choices in their life? If I choose to donate to a charity to help out, that's good on me. And if I don't chose that path, I will be judged accordingly.

Freedom comes at a price. That price is the chance you might fail. But with that chance of failure also comes the chance for great success.

So tell you what, you keep living in your socialistic paradise. I'll keep living in the US and hoping that we get back to free market pricipals so that we can get back to being the greatest, most powerful, most envied nation ever.

Sorry that I may seem a bit harsh, but life is hard... wear a helmet.

not harsh at all..damn right selfish and ignorant

you have no clue do you..you need to get out of your lil bubble and see the world for what it really is

[Roamy]

Looks like you'll be happy to be attacked just for the pleasure to use your new gun....

well I don't know if I would go that far. but I wouldn't advise fuching around in my yard at 3am.
:p

[anthonyvop]

But they can expect a huge bill, not to mention the prospect of bankruptcy. The largest cause of bankruptcy in the US is due to medical treatment
So?


This is why alot of people dont recieve the medical treatment they need (problem gets worse and can die), because they are too scared to seek it.
Scared?
What do you want us to do? Go house to house and check on every man, woman and child to see if they are sick and drag them to a hospital?

[anthonyvop]

What in the bloody hell is health care for? Health Care by its very definition is the preservation of health. You can not honestly tell me that people's life, liberty or happiness are being protected if they're dead now can you?
Yes. I can. We all die. Nobody is TAKING their Life. Nobody is TAKING their Liberty and nobody is PREVENTING them from being happy.


Mr Vop, of course it stands to reason that if you want something then you have to pay for it. Are you suggesting that the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution impinges on your Liberty? That would be very interesting if you did manage to get that through.
Of course it does. Tax is paid for the PRIVILEDGE of residence in the US and the services you recieve. Don’t want to pay taxes? Move.

[steve_spackman]

Yes. I can. We all die. Nobody is TAKING their Life. Nobody is TAKING their Liberty and nobody is PREVENTING them from being happy.


Of course it does. Tax is paid for the PRIVILEDGE of residence in the US and the services you recieve. Don’t want to pay taxes? Move.

where does your tax dollar go??

[steve_spackman]

Yes. I can. We all die. Nobody is TAKING their Life. Nobody is TAKING their Liberty and nobody is PREVENTING them from being happy.


Of course it does. Tax is paid for the PRIVILEDGE of residence in the US and the services you recieve. Don’t want to pay taxes? Move.

what services do you recieve from your tax dollar..

[anthonyvop]

where does your tax dollar go??
My federal Tax dollars go mostly to waste.
Social engineering programs, welfare.
Military and security are the few programs where waste isn't as rampant.
State and local are another story. They are worse.

[steve_spackman]

My federal Tax dollars go mostly to waste.
Social engineering programs, welfare.
Military and security are the few programs where waste isn't as rampant.
State and local are another story. They are worse.

but isnt that the same with every government?

[steve_spackman]

So?


Scared?
What do you want us to do? Go house to house and check on every man, woman and child to see if they are sick and drag them to a hospital?

from what i can tell you dont care if people cant afford healthcare..you would rather your government waste billions on a war that only a few people wanted, than give everyone the right to have access to healthcare?

[BDunnell]

Military and security are the few programs where waste isn't as rampant.


You are startlingly naive, if I may say so. A 'lack of waste' in the defence industry? Complete nonsense. Let's take your nation's air arms this past year as a set of examples. The US Air Force is effectively wasting money keeping ageing aircraft that should have been retired long ago flying, not least its oldest air refuelling tankers. The US Army cancelled its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter programme after Bell — an American company, don't forget, not some 'pinko leftie liberal bunch trying to sabotage our great nation's armed forces' or some such rubbish — won the deal and produced a helicopter that was unsuited to the role. The F-35 programme is years late and massively over budget, a fact that is affecting many other nations that have signed up for the aircraft and will have their capabilities affected as a result of making the questionable decision of going for the American option. The bidding process for the USAF's new combat search and rescue helicopter had to be restarted a long way down the line, after much expense, after the decision in favour of Boeing was protested.

Wastage is simply rife in the defence industry, making this another one of your 'views' (though how anyone can actually have a 'view' when they have blinkers on) that lacks all credibility.

[anthonyvop]

but isnt that the same with every government?
Yep.

But at least the US isn't as wasteful as most other countries.

[anthonyvop]

You are startlingly naive, if I may say so. A 'lack of waste' in the defence industry? Complete nonsense. Let's take your nation's air arms this past year as a set of examples. The US Air Force is effectively wasting money keeping ageing aircraft that should have been retired long ago flying, not least its oldest air refuelling tankers. The US Army cancelled its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter programme after Bell — an American company, don't forget, not some 'pinko leftie liberal bunch trying to sabotage our great nation's armed forces' or some such rubbish — won the deal and produced a helicopter that was unsuited to the role. The F-35 programme is years late and massively over budget, a fact that is affecting many other nations that have signed up for the aircraft and will have their capabilities affected as a result of making the questionable decision of going for the American option. The bidding process for the USAF's new combat search and rescue helicopter had to be restarted a long way down the line, after much expense, after the decision in favour of Boeing was protested.

Wastage is simply rife in the defence industry, making this another one of your 'views' (though how anyone can actually have a 'view' when they have blinkers on) that lacks all credibility.

Another case of a kneejerk Liberal reading what he wants to read,

What part of "waste isn't as rampant." did you miss?
I know there is waste in the military but it pales in comparison with other agencies.
Take the Dept of Education. 100% Waste.

[BDunnell]

Another case of a kneejerk Liberal reading what he wants to read,

What part of "waste isn't as rampant." did you miss?
I know there is waste in the military but it pales in comparison with other agencies.
Take the Dept of Education. 100% Waste.

Reading what I want to read? All of the examples I cited are entirely accurate and not open to debate, because those are the bare facts.

If you can prepare detailed figures proving that wastage is more rampant in other areas, then I will take you seriously for once. But you have no facts at your disposal here, merely your opinions.

[BDunnell]

Yep.

But at least the US isn't as wasteful as most other countries.

Statistics to back this up?

I hope the South Florida Motorsports Report is better researched than your posts here.

[Rollo]

http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091107nr.cfm
Washington, D.C. – Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent in 2007, less than the 7.7 percent increase reported last year but still higher than the increase in workers’ wages (3.7 percent) or the overall inflation rate (2.6 percent).

Are you getting a net 5.1% better health care service? Because I'd seriously question what your net 5.1% increase in premiums is actually doing, if it's not giving you a better service, then you're being done.

The USA has the highest spending per capita on medical and health care services but still have the worst mortality rates from preventable causes.


But at least the US isn't as wasteful as most other countries.

Obviously :D

[anthonyvop]

Statistics to back this up?
.
Sure.

Every Dollar in the The Dept. of Education's budget is a waste.

That is 100%.

[anthonyvop]

http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091107nr.cfm
Washington, D.C. – Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent in 2007, less than the 7.7 percent increase reported last year but still higher than the increase in workers’ wages (3.7 percent) or the overall inflation rate (2.6 percent).

Are you getting a net 5.1% better health care service? Because I'd seriously question what your net 5.1% increase in premiums is actually doing, if it's not giving you a better service, then you're being done.

The USA has the highest spending per capita on medical and health care services but still have the worst mortality rates from preventable causes.
The Kaiser Foundation?
You are using the Kaiser Foundation as a source about Healthcare in the US?

Here is a fact for you.
The vast majority of Medical advances over the past 200 years happend in the US or by Americans.

[BDunnell]

Sure.

Every Dollar in the The Dept. of Education's budget is a waste.

That is 100%.

I grant that what the Department of Education spent on your education was probably a waste, but the rest of it?

[BDunnell]

The Kaiser Foundation?
You are using the Kaiser Foundation as a source about Healthcare in the US?

Here is a fact for you.
The vast majority of Medical advances over the past 200 years happend in the US or by Americans.

I love the fact that, earlier on, you referred to me as 'Another case of a kneejerk Liberal reading what he wants to read'. Your opinions are of course so even-handed and reasoned, aren't they?

[steve_spackman]

The Kaiser Foundation?
You are using the Kaiser Foundation as a source about Healthcare in the US?

Here is a fact for you.
The vast majority of Medical advances over the past 200 years happend in the US or by Americans.

i would say that the US is on par with other countries when it comes to medical advances....

[Camelopard]

Take the Dept of Education. 100% Waste.

Yep in your case it was a 100% waste! Of time, money and effort................

Still waiting to see how you SERVED your country vop........ :)

[Camelopard]

Here is a fact for you.
The vast majority of Medical advances over the past 200 years happend in the US or by Americans.

Come on vop another rather rash generalisation isn't? How about for once, just once, backing your points up with some meaningful facts and figures and I don't mean the kindergarten crap that you usually come out with like 'it's true because I say it is'.

[Roamy]

Hey I finally figured out what they do with people with IQ's of 14 or less - They have them make remote controllers for TV's

What a crock of sh!t these TV controllers are.

obviously I am venting cause this POS is causing me agro

Go Cardinals

Obama vs Rush whew where did this come from!!

[anthonyvop]

i would say that the US is on par with other countries when it comes to medical advances....
Really?
You actually believe that?

[Roamy]

Well the Brits are a medical marvel. You guys created Aids to keep control of Africa. Now look at the freaking mess you made for the rest of us. The next time you guys invent a disease make it fast with no cure. I guess you were just jealous that the rest of the world didn't have to wear a "raincoat" so you just had to screw up sex for pleasure. Nice going after all we did for you. And then you didn't have the balls to send it over here via some gorgeous woman - you had to send a fag airline stewardard via Canada.

[PolePosition_1]

Alright fine, selfish b@stard hat on.

I have worked hard in my life, made fairly good decisions, so I have a good job, with ok benefits. Why should that be taken from me so that I can "help out" someone who has made bad choices in their life? If I choose to donate to a charity to help out, that's good on me. And if I don't chose that path, I will be judged accordingly.

Freedom comes at a price. That price is the chance you might fail. But with that chance of failure also comes the chance for great success.

So tell you what, you keep living in your socialistic paradise. I'll keep living in the US and hoping that we get back to free market pricipals so that we can get back to being the greatest, most powerful, most envied nation ever.

Sorry that I may seem a bit harsh, but life is hard... wear a helmet.

So you say that those working 14 hour days 7 days a week doesn't work hard for his/her graft?

Of course they do, only difference is that the economic set up, controlled by western countries, are set up in a fashion as to protect their economic dominance on a global stage, therefore limiting how much these poorer nations can catch up economically.

Unless you say being born in 'wrong' country is a bad choice?

[BDunnell]

Really?
You actually believe that?

Again, some proof for your assertions would be appreciated. If you can provide categorical evidence that the US has been responsible for most - i.e. more than 50 per cent of - the world's medical advances, then, again, I might be prepared to believe you. But we all know this isn't going to happen.

[steve_spackman]

The Kaiser Foundation?
You are using the Kaiser Foundation as a source about Healthcare in the US?

Here is a fact for you.
The vast majority of Medical advances over the past 200 years happend in the US or by Americans.

ok i believe that the US over the last 200 hundred years had more wars than any other nation..ha ha

[anthonyvop]

Again, some proof for your assertions would be appreciated. If you can provide categorical evidence that the US has been responsible for most - i.e. more than 50 per cent of - the world's medical advances, then, again, I might be prepared to believe you. But we all know this isn't going to happen.
Please.

The US is on par with other countries in medicine?
Countries like Russia? France, Germany? They aren't even close.
Not to even go to countries like Mali and Laos.

[BDunnell]

Please.

The US is on par with other countries in medicine?
Countries like Russia? France, Germany? They aren't even close.
Not to even go to countries like Mali and Laos.

I think a psychologist would have a field day with your constant need to assert superiority. Why do you persist with it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Far be it for me to get involved, but Anthony, you really are embarassing for anyone with a right of center argument. Stop now before you completely...oh never mind..we already know you are out on an island here.

Here is the dirty little secret Anthony. The US military is more efficient than the rest of the US government which actually means they waste only about half the money they get. 35000 dollar toilet seats for KC-135's was not a story some libreal made up Anthony, it actually happened.

Of coruse...a libertarian such as myself would also point out it is the reason no governement is fit to run much of anything for any system that allows abuses like that to happen obviously shouldn't be running really important stuff like healthcare. They should manage and fund it to a point, but give the private sector the incentives to actually provide the service people need.

[BDunnell]

Of coruse...a libertarian such as myself would also point out it is the reason no governement is fit to run much of anything for any system that allows abuses like that to happen obviously shouldn't be running really important stuff like healthcare. They should manage and fund it to a point, but give the private sector the incentives to actually provide the service people need.

The trouble is that, in a lot of the cases I cited in relation to the defence aerospace sector, a large part of the problem is caused by the contractors being incompetent, arrogant or worse. In these cases, greater control is required on the part of the state, yet this is often frowned upon. You end up in a vicious circle.

[steve_spackman]

Please.

The US is on par with other countries in medicine?
Countries like Russia? France, Germany? They aren't even close.
Not to even go to countries like Mali and Laos.

im talking about countries like france, germany, england and australia

my sis in law works for a drug company in the US and she told me that most of the drugs that they get come from countries like france...

Now a drug rep surely cant be wrong...

[555-04Q2]

Please.

The US is on par with other countries in medicine?
Countries like Russia? France, Germany? They aren't even close.
Not to even go to countries like Mali and Laos.

Actually ant, my wife works for Umhlanga Hospitals Medical Centre and she confirms that Europe researches and develops the majority of medical supplies that are used worldwide.

Even little old South Africa has an advanced medical research and development industry and is one of the world leaders in organ and heart research work and consumables amongst other medical areas.

[anthonyvop]

Here is the dirty little secret Anthony. The US military is more efficient than the rest of the US government which actually means they waste only about half the money they get. 35000 dollar toilet seats for KC-135's was not a story some libreal made up Anthony, it actually happened.

.
Even a nimrod knows that those expensive Toilet Seats are just ways of funding other projects that are off the books.
How do you think the F-117 got funded?

[anthonyvop]

im talking about countries like france, germany, england and australia

my sis in law works for a drug company in the US and she told me that most of the drugs that they get come from countries like france...

Now a drug rep surely cant be wrong...
Well A sales girl knows everything right?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Even a nimrod knows that those expensive Toilet Seats are just ways of funding other projects that are off the books.
How do you think the F-117 got funded?

First off...I am not a nimrod. If you persist on calling me THAT then you really need to have your head read for half of my post backs up a lot of what you would argue yourself if you applied 10% of the intellectual capacity you would have us all believe you have.

Second of all that $35000 toilet seat likely didn't fund the F-117 at all. That was most likely someone not paying attention when passing bills and some congressmen being promised "favours" in terms of contributions. There is a lot of waste Anthony. If you are going to argue the US Gov't isn't fit to run healthcare and it wastes money left and right, you are dreaming if you think for one second the military supply chain is filled with people making this stuff at cost because they love their country. There is tons of waste...

[Mark in Oshawa]

The trouble is that, in a lot of the cases I cited in relation to the defence aerospace sector, a large part of the problem is caused by the contractors being incompetent, arrogant or worse. In these cases, greater control is required on the part of the state, yet this is often frowned upon. You end up in a vicious circle.

You are not all wrong. There is waste, graft and just greed at some points in the supply chain for any procurement any military makes. That said, the US gov't has stuff that works for the most part (just ask Saddam Hussein...oh never mind) and while miltary contractors have been as shady as anyone making or producing product for the government, the state has allowed this all to happen. Corruption by political hacks and politicians in all levels of government is something that happens and in the case of the US Government is especially true when it comes to congressmen and Senators making darn sure their districts or states get juicy government contracts for their political PAC's getting money.

This isn't unique to the US but government is as much part of the problem as they are to the solution. Greater control only works if the people applying it are clean, and in the case of the US Senate and Congress, there are many dirty fingers in there. You need to look no further than 2/3's of the money in the latest stimulus package being sent to pet projects and programs that will not actually do a damned thing for 2 years. This is all about getting re-elected and serving some left wing goals that the Democrats are now able to achieve now they have marginilized the equally inept opposition. IF I lived in the US right now I would be looking to emigrate......both parties are flushing the country down the toilet...

[Tomi]

Well the Brits are a medical marvel. You guys created Aids to keep control of Africa. Now look at the freaking mess you made for the rest of us.

I guess you are quite safe with your buttplug, but just in case dont borrow it to your brother.

[BDunnell]

You are not all wrong. There is waste, graft and just greed at some points in the supply chain for any procurement any military makes. That said, the US gov't has stuff that works for the most part (just ask Saddam Hussein...oh never mind) and while miltary contractors have been as shady as anyone making or producing product for the government, the state has allowed this all to happen. Corruption by political hacks and politicians in all levels of government is something that happens and in the case of the US Government is especially true when it comes to congressmen and Senators making darn sure their districts or states get juicy government contracts for their political PAC's getting money.

This isn't unique to the US but government is as much part of the problem as they are to the solution. Greater control only works if the people applying it are clean, and in the case of the US Senate and Congress, there are many dirty fingers in there. You need to look no further than 2/3's of the money in the latest stimulus package being sent to pet projects and programs that will not actually do a damned thing for 2 years. This is all about getting re-elected and serving some left wing goals that the Democrats are now able to achieve now they have marginilized the equally inept opposition. IF I lived in the US right now I would be looking to emigrate......both parties are flushing the country down the toilet...

But this happens in country after country with military equipment. Politicians are often blamed, but in reality the military top brass are at least as complicit, if not more so, to say nothing of the civil servants. I have experience of UK politics and it is far cleaner than many would care to think, yet military (and other) programmes continue to overrun drastically in terms of time and budget, without a hint of actual corruption. I think we have to draw the conclusion that far greater penalties are needed in the event of poor performance, and that politicians need to be able to admit when they have made a mistake and cancel programmes before they get out of hand.

[Roamy]

I think a psychologist would have a field day with your constant need to assert superiority. Why do you persist with it?

Is it assertion of superiority or just plain facts ???

[BDunnell]

Is it assertion of superiority or just plain facts ???

No 'facts' are ever presented.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But this happens in country after country with military equipment. Politicians are often blamed, but in reality the military top brass are at least as complicit, if not more so, to say nothing of the civil servants. I have experience of UK politics and it is far cleaner than many would care to think, yet military (and other) programmes continue to overrun drastically in terms of time and budget, without a hint of actual corruption. I think we have to draw the conclusion that far greater penalties are needed in the event of poor performance, and that politicians need to be able to admit when they have made a mistake and cancel programmes before they get out of hand.

Maybe so. I am still of the belief that a lot of it is a form of corruption in the sense that the politicians making up the conditions of tender are complicit in the game because they do NOT make penalties for non performance strong enough. They are usually favouring companies for some perceived benefit down the road or they are just inept. I don't know. I do know that military procurment in Canada has been been a minefield of ineptitude and all the parties have stepped in it who have governed. There are examples of tenders not followed through on for procurement because the winning bid was not favourable to the government in power, or the cost of the procurement was deemed to high by someone getting elected and of course was cancelled when that politician did get promoted to power. The fact people were dying because of the equipment not replaced was just a little fact many ignored (for those who want to know, it was the replacement of the 35 year old plus Sikorsky Sea King's in the Canadian Armed forces. It took 13 years and 3 changes of government before the replacement orders were made).

Lets face the reality. Military contracts and tenders for equipment are often political footballs, and while the process may be cleaner than for other things governments order or buy, lets just remember that if this is government at their most effcient, then god help us all....

[BDunnell]

Maybe so. I am still of the belief that a lot of it is a form of corruption in the sense that the politicians making up the conditions of tender are complicit in the game because they do NOT make penalties for non performance strong enough. They are usually favouring companies for some perceived benefit down the road or they are just inept.

I don't consider not making the penalties strong enough to be corruption, but do take the point. I believe that politicians of all parties are now so concerned to be seen as 'business-friendly' that they go out of their way not to offend private companies involved in public procuremnents, whether by criticism, cancellation or financial penalty. A lot of them, especially those who expect to win every contract going in their sector(s) and then either perform badly or complain when they don't win, actually need a good kick up the backside by government rather than having their egos massaged by the awarding of more work.


I do know that military procurment in Canada has been been a minefield of ineptitude and all the parties have stepped in it who have governed.

True of the UK too.

We now have a situation where it is generally believed that a Conservative government in the UK will improve things for the armed forces, and this has become received wisdom in historical terms too, largely due to the fact that it was a Labour government that cancelled the now almost talismanic TSR2 strike aircraft in the 1960s. That programme had gone massively over-budget and I believe cancellation was right, but still the received wisdom holds, conveniently forgetting the plans of a previous Conservative administration to scrap all manned fighter aircraft. The truth is that all parties continue to cock up defence spending, and that this is true all around the world. I think this says as much about the companies involved as the politicians.


There are examples of tenders not followed through on for procurement because the winning bid was not favourable to the government in power, or the cost of the procurement was deemed to high by someone getting elected and of course was cancelled when that politician did get promoted to power.

The latter course can be genuinely honourable, and ought perhaps to be followed more.



Lets face the reality. Military contracts and tenders for equipment are often political footballs, and while the process may be cleaner than for other things governments order or buy, lets just remember that if this is government at their most effcient, then god help us all....

I agree - except that I certainly don't think it may be cleaner than other areas of government!

[steve_spackman]

Well A sales girl knows everything right?

you cant admit your wrong mate...oh dear

[steve_spackman]

Tell you what, if anyone can prove to me that if the US goes to some "Universal" system that a few thing happen, then I may be open to it.

1) The 23,000 "preventable" deaths that have been put out there will go down significantly.

2) No one that currently has health care will see a drop in the quality of said health care.

3) No one that currently has health care will see a rise in premiums (that includes taxes).

4) There will be less waste than the current system.



5) No one will have to wait for care.

6) There will still be the profit motive for drug companies to develop new drugs, new tests, new procedures, and new equipment.

7) Government will not mandate that I stop eating foods that I want, or mandate that I do X amout of exercise a day, or anything like that.

If you can absolutely garuntee me that those 7 conditions will be met then maybe we can start to talk.

quote

Human beings need care, no matter what is happening in the economy. This is why we need National Health Care. I am not seeing swift movement in this area at all. The money is there. If we can bail out banks we can help people. Why is it that tiny counties like Cuba can do it, but Big Almighty America can't, and/or won't? In spite of all the euphoria about the election of President Obama, I am concerned that. once again, health care has been pushed to the back burner, and that President Obama has chosen to appease the health care industry. "Change You Can Believe In"? Let's see it now, Right Now!

[Mark in Oshawa]

quote

Human beings need care, no matter what is happening in the economy. This is why we need National Health Care. I am not seeing swift movement in this area at all. The money is there. If we can bail out banks we can help people. Why is it that tiny counties like Cuba can do it, but Big Almighty America can't, and/or won't? In spite of all the euphoria about the election of President Obama, I am concerned that. once again, health care has been pushed to the back burner, and that President Obama has chosen to appease the health care industry. "Change You Can Believe In"? Let's see it now, Right Now!

Steve...you got to understand a couple of things. First off Cuba is a crap hole you wouldn't sentence your dog to live in. Canadian tourists know you can tip your hotel staff with aspirins, tampons and over the counter drugs and be a hero in Cuba. Face it, if the man on the street cannot get his hands on Asprin, your vaunted health care system isn't worth the price mate.

Second of all, the US has healthcare subsidies and no one is refused care in hospitals. How they get their money back is always a crap shoot, but people do get care at some point in the proceedings. That said, there is medicaid programs and most people with jobs have benefits of some sort. Is it perfect? Nope..but I live in a country that has a gold plated all you could want health care system on paper. I am told I get EVERYTHING for free. I get no choice of course in whether I wanted to pay for something better. I cannot unless I go to the US. WHich many Canadians do. Why? Simple really, they don't want to wait in line. MRI's, one of the greatest inventions to diagnose disease since the invention of the X-Ray machine were all over the place in America by the end of the 80's. You could go to your local clinic in Buffalo NY and get your MRI the same day you saw your GP. A Canadian had to wait 5 monthes because there was at one point very few MRI's up here and people were raising money for the local hospitals to buy the damned things. Fully public health care in a rich country like Canada and we were having damned baked sales to buy the newest diagnostic machinery that was coming in a happy meal in the US. Don't tell me about this 100% coverage mate, it is is total BS.

I am all for the Gov't having a role in the health care delivery system but they should be there to ensure standards are met and some sort of insurance program is available for the less fortunate. But don't take away choice like we have in Canada. Only 3 nations have fully nationalized healthcare in this world and the other two are North Korea and Cuba. I already told you what I think of Cuba's system (bad enough Castro imported his docs when HE got sick) and we wont even start on the wonders of North Korea where leeches and a dull bone saw are likely new developments.

No mate, you can yip away at how crappy the American system is and how unfair it is, but I know if I am working down there and I get sick, I at least can access the best and brightest available if I have the money. At the very least, I will find care that is pretty similar to what I get here but I wont be waiting until I am really sick to get it.

There is no perfect system, and the Yanks could use some sort of organization in helping provide health care to the poor, but never take out the incentives docs and medical centers down there have to provide the best care.......because up here, the bureaucracy, unions and stupidity have choked the national health system to the point where I have little faith that they really give a damn about the poor patient.

[Tazio]

http://kalman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/the-inauguration-at-last/?emc=eta1

Halleluah!!!! This link speaks for itself! :)
Deal with it Conservative, Red-neck, Bigoted, fellow Americans! :laugh:

[steve_spackman]

Steve...you got to understand a couple of things. First off Cuba is a crap hole you wouldn't sentence your dog to live in. Canadian tourists know you can tip your hotel staff with aspirins, tampons and over the counter drugs and be a hero in Cuba. Face it, if the man on the street cannot get his hands on Asprin, your vaunted health care system isn't worth the price mate.

Second of all, the US has healthcare subsidies and no one is refused care in hospitals. How they get their money back is always a crap shoot, but people do get care at some point in the proceedings. That said, there is medicaid programs and most people with jobs have benefits of some sort. Is it perfect? Nope..but I live in a country that has a gold plated all you could want health care system on paper. I am told I get EVERYTHING for free. I get no choice of course in whether I wanted to pay for something better. I cannot unless I go to the US. WHich many Canadians do. Why? Simple really, they don't want to wait in line. MRI's, one of the greatest inventions to diagnose disease since the invention of the X-Ray machine were all over the place in America by the end of the 80's. You could go to your local clinic in Buffalo NY and get your MRI the same day you saw your GP. A Canadian had to wait 5 monthes because there was at one point very few MRI's up here and people were raising money for the local hospitals to buy the damned things. Fully public health care in a rich country like Canada and we were having damned baked sales to buy the newest diagnostic machinery that was coming in a happy meal in the US. Don't tell me about this 100% coverage mate, it is is total BS.

I am all for the Gov't having a role in the health care delivery system but they should be there to ensure standards are met and some sort of insurance program is available for the less fortunate. But don't take away choice like we have in Canada. Only 3 nations have fully nationalized healthcare in this world and the other two are North Korea and Cuba. I already told you what I think of Cuba's system (bad enough Castro imported his docs when HE got sick) and we wont even start on the wonders of North Korea where leeches and a dull bone saw are likely new developments.

No mate, you can yip away at how crappy the American system is and how unfair it is, but I know if I am working down there and I get sick, I at least can access the best and brightest available if I have the money. At the very least, I will find care that is pretty similar to what I get here but I wont be waiting until I am really sick to get it.

There is no perfect system, and the Yanks could use some sort of organization in helping provide health care to the poor, but never take out the incentives docs and medical centers down there have to provide the best care.......because up here, the bureaucracy, unions and stupidity have choked the national health system to the point where I have little faith that they really give a damn about the poor patient.

we cant really base socialised healthcare on one country...

the french have the best healthcare system in the world..and its socialised

[BDunnell]

we cant really base socialised healthcare on one country...

the french have the best healthcare system in the world..and its socialised

By which measure is it 'the best'?

[Mark in Oshawa]

we cant really base socialised healthcare on one country...

the french have the best healthcare system in the world..and its socialised

Who says it is the best? The French? It likely is very good, don't get me wrong. That said, the French pay the highest taxes in the world and their economy has been pretty much stagant as a result. 10% unemployment and heavy restrictions on working hours say the socialised economy of France isn't all it is cracked up to be.

The economic system supporting the health care in France is rotten and Americans wouldn't never accept that much pain in the tax burden and restraints on freedom to support that health care system. Heck...us Canadians have NO choice in our health care system and we are constantly told we have the best system by its supporters but we know I think better.

Socialized health care is a necessary evil on some levels but a blend of private and public providers work best. France has this although with the way their economy is restricted, I would argue no business in France is entirely without smothering regulation.

I hear all the time how the NHS in the UK can be awful at times, but you at least have options in the private sector. Us Canucks don't have that option unless we go to the states. Remember, the running joke in the US is the biggest reason they don't want socialized health care is all the Canadians coming south for a lot of serious issues. I think there are good points to the US system or lack therof, and that is they are much more responsive to the needs of the patient if the coverage is there. You have cancer or a worsening condition, you are not in a line awaiting your condition to be life threatening before the gov't system to act.

Another point that also has to be made is socialized medicine means the gov't will feel it has the right to dictate your behaviour. Last time I looked, I was free to be a doofus or eat and drink things I liked. That is what personal freedom should be about. The consequences are I will have health issues and in the US, you pay for those consequences out of your pocket. If the gov't is doing it...they will tell you what you should eat or smoke and cut you off if you DON"T follow. That may make sense...but free it isn't.

[Easy Drifter]

Don't be to sure it isn't happening here Mark.
McGuinty tried to ban Sushi a couple of years ago.
Sausages on hot dog carts have to be parboiled in Simcoe County. Fresh or frozen are not allowed.
You cannot buy unpastuerized milk. There is a court case over that now where the farmer sells a cow to an individual and then supplies the milk. He keeps the cows on his farm. You can drink unpastuerized milk if you are a farmer keeping cows.
You cannot smoke in your own car if you have someone under 16 in it.
Elizabeth May, Maude Barlow and the usual suspects are trying to ban bottled water. Several municipalities have banned it in municipal buildings.
Ever tasted Orillia water in the late summer?
I keep jugs of water in the fridge in the summer because the tap water is so warm and full of chlorine. Letting it sit gets rid of the chlorine.
I usually do not bother with bottled water. For Mosport I take jugs (old Juice containers) of water from here that I freeze. Keeps the food cold and other supplies :eek: also cold and provides good cold drinking water.

[BDunnell]

Who says it is the best? The French? It likely is very good, don't get me wrong. That said, the French pay the highest taxes in the world and their economy has been pretty much stagant as a result. 10% unemployment and heavy restrictions on working hours say the socialised economy of France isn't all it is cracked up to be.

The economic system supporting the health care in France is rotten and Americans wouldn't never accept that much pain in the tax burden and restraints on freedom to support that health care system. Heck...us Canadians have NO choice in our health care system and we are constantly told we have the best system by its supporters but we know I think better.

Socialized health care is a necessary evil on some levels but a blend of private and public providers work best. France has this although with the way their economy is restricted, I would argue no business in France is entirely without smothering regulation.

I hear all the time how the NHS in the UK can be awful at times, but you at least have options in the private sector. Us Canucks don't have that option unless we go to the states. Remember, the running joke in the US is the biggest reason they don't want socialized health care is all the Canadians coming south for a lot of serious issues. I think there are good points to the US system or lack therof, and that is they are much more responsive to the needs of the patient if the coverage is there. You have cancer or a worsening condition, you are not in a line awaiting your condition to be life threatening before the gov't system to act.

Another point that also has to be made is socialized medicine means the gov't will feel it has the right to dictate your behaviour. Last time I looked, I was free to be a doofus or eat and drink things I liked. That is what personal freedom should be about. The consequences are I will have health issues and in the US, you pay for those consequences out of your pocket. If the gov't is doing it...they will tell you what you should eat or smoke and cut you off if you DON"T follow. That may make sense...but free it isn't.

Very good post... except, in my opinion, the last bit. You are only dictated to by government in this regard if you feel dictated to. I think public health programmes to encourage people not to smoke, and to eat more responsibly, are perfectly reasonable and an admirable use of public money, because clearly a lot of people need educating at the very least in this respect. It's not as if we are forced to only eat certain foodstuffs available from government-owned shops, after all.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Very good post... except, in my opinion, the last bit. You are only dictated to by government in this regard if you feel dictated to. I think public health programmes to encourage people not to smoke, and to eat more responsibly, are perfectly reasonable and an admirable use of public money, because clearly a lot of people need educating at the very least in this respect. It's not as if we are forced to only eat certain foodstuffs available from government-owned shops, after all.

Mr. Dunnell. It was a rumour I heard on a talk show somewhere ( being stuck listening to the radio is an occupational hazard) that someone in Britain was being refused heart surgery because of his lifestyle in the food he ate and the fact he was a smoker. Now I have no idea on where this came from, whether it was an urban legend or not, but I have no problem believing it. As Drifter pointed out, our provincial premier wanted to regulate the selling of SUSHI because of a scare with bacteria and such and the regulations were so onerous that no one would bother selling the stuff. We are regulated out the ying yang by this province based on the "common good" and doing "what is best". How big a stretch is it going to be for some doofus in a bureaucracy to start telling people how to live their lives based on the idea that the health care system wont look after you if you don't alter your behaviour. One think about the Yanks, down there you are free to abuse your body the way you like and if you have the money to fix the issue, then you can afford the consequences.

[Rollo]

I keep jugs of water in the fridge in the summer because the tap water is so warm and full of chlorine. Letting it sit gets rid of the chlorine.


Really? What of the Law of Conservation of Matter which states: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged from one form to another?

I want to know how your system works such that I may patent it and make a Zillion Dollarpounds. :D

[steve_spackman]

Who says it is the best? The French? It likely is very good, don't get me wrong. That said, the French pay the highest taxes in the world and their economy has been pretty much stagant as a result. 10% unemployment and heavy restrictions on working hours say the socialised economy of France isn't all it is cracked up to be.

The economic system supporting the health care in France is rotten and Americans wouldn't never accept that much pain in the tax burden and restraints on freedom to support that health care system. Heck...us Canadians have NO choice in our health care system and we are constantly told we have the best system by its supporters but we know I think better.

Socialized health care is a necessary evil on some levels but a blend of private and public providers work best. France has this although with the way their economy is restricted, I would argue no business in France is entirely without smothering regulation.

I hear all the time how the NHS in the UK can be awful at times, but you at least have options in the private sector. Us Canucks don't have that option unless we go to the states. Remember, the running joke in the US is the biggest reason they don't want socialized health care is all the Canadians coming south for a lot of serious issues. I think there are good points to the US system or lack therof, and that is they are much more responsive to the needs of the patient if the coverage is there. You have cancer or a worsening condition, you are not in a line awaiting your condition to be life threatening before the gov't system to act.

Another point that also has to be made is socialized medicine means the gov't will feel it has the right to dictate your behaviour. Last time I looked, I was free to be a doofus or eat and drink things I liked. That is what personal freedom should be about. The consequences are I will have health issues and in the US, you pay for those consequences out of your pocket. If the gov't is doing it...they will tell you what you should eat or smoke and cut you off if you DON"T follow. That may make sense...but free it isn't.

The French smoke, drink wine and eat all that food, yet live longer and have better life styles than the Americans...im sure the health system has alot to do with it.

[steve_spackman]

Who says it is the best? The French? It likely is very good, don't get me wrong. That said, the French pay the highest taxes in the world and their economy has been pretty much stagant as a result. 10% unemployment and heavy restrictions on working hours say the socialised economy of France isn't all it is cracked up to be.



The economic system supporting the health care in France is rotten and Americans wouldn't never accept that much pain in the tax burden and restraints on freedom to support that health care system. Heck...us Canadians have NO choice in our health care system and we are constantly told we have the best system by its supporters but we know I think better.

Socialized health care is a necessary evil on some levels but a blend of private and public providers work best. France has this although with the way their economy is restricted, I would argue no business in France is entirely without smothering regulation.

I hear all the time how the NHS in the UK can be awful at times, but you at least have options in the private sector. Us Canucks don't have that option unless we go to the states. Remember, the running joke in the US is the biggest reason they don't want socialized health care is all the Canadians coming south for a lot of serious issues. I think there are good points to the US system or lack therof, and that is they are much more responsive to the needs of the patient if the coverage is there. You have cancer or a worsening condition, you are not in a line awaiting your condition to be life threatening before the gov't system to act.

Another point that also has to be made is socialized medicine means the gov't will feel it has the right to dictate your behaviour. Last time I looked, I was free to be a doofus or eat and drink things I liked. That is what personal freedom should be about. The consequences are I will have health issues and in the US, you pay for those consequences out of your pocket. If the gov't is doing it...they will tell you what you should eat or smoke and cut you off if you DON"T follow. That may make sense...but free it isn't.

http://www.truthout.org/020109Y


so what about people like this?

Starla Darling, pregnant and due for delivery, had just taken maternity leave from her factory job at Archway & Mother's Cookie Company, in Ashland, Ohio, when she received a letter informing her that the company was going out of business. In three days, the letter said, she and almost three hundred co-workers would be laid off, and would lose their health-insurance coverage. The company was self-insured, so the employees didn't have the option of paying for the insurance themselves - their insurance plan was being terminated. "When I heard that I was losing my insurance, I was scared," Darling told the Times. Her husband had been laid off from his job, too. "I remember that the bill for my son's delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself." So she prevailed on her midwife to induce labor while she still had insurance coverage. During labor, Darling began bleeding profusely, and needed a Cesarean section. Mother and baby pulled through. But the insurer denied Darling's claim for coverage. The couple ended up owing more than seventeen thousand dollars

[Easy Drifter]

Rollo: When water sits in an open container the Chlorine disapates into the atmosphere as a gas. That is common practice for those who keep aquarium fish as Chlorine is very toxic to fish. Aereation does the same thing.
Chloramine, which is used by many municipal water systems is a different matter as the Chlorine molecules bond to Ammonia molecules creating Chloramine and it stays in suspension in the water. Then you have to use another chemical to neutralize it. There are several products readily available in pet stores to deal with Chloramine and Chlorine as well.
We were commercial breeders, importers and wholesalers of Tropical Fish and luckily only had to deal with Chlorine. We had approx. 10,000 gallons of water and over 200 tanks.
I have had articles published on the subject and on water chemistry and filtration for aquariums. My partner was a well known speaker in both Canada and the US.

[ShiftingGears]

Really? What of the Law of Conservation of Matter which states: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged from one form to another?

I want to know how your system works such that I may patent it and make a Zillion Dollarpounds. :D

Chlorine evaporates...

[chuck34]

http://kalman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/the-inauguration-at-last/?emc=eta1

Halleluah!!!! This link speaks for itself! :)
Deal with it Conservative, Red-neck, Bigoted, fellow Americans! :laugh:

Forgot about this one:

Halleluah, for not having to pay taxes anymore ... At least if you are are a cabinet sec.

I am sick of people saying that if you are a Conservative you are a re-neck, bigoted, racist. Who emacipated the slaves, who integrated the schools, who actually passed the civil rights legislation?

Sorry for the off-topic I just couldn't let this slide. Sorry again.

[chuck34]

Very good post... except, in my opinion, the last bit. You are only dictated to by government in this regard if you feel dictated to. I think public health programmes to encourage people not to smoke, and to eat more responsibly, are perfectly reasonable and an admirable use of public money, because clearly a lot of people need educating at the very least in this respect. It's not as if we are forced to only eat certain foodstuffs available from government-owned shops, after all.

Encouraging people not to do unhealthy things is great. Maybe more should be done there. But people have been dictated to by the government. Why do you think there is such a thing as a "sin tax"? You know, taxes on tabacco, alcohol, and the like. NY is trying to tax soda, and other "un-healthy" things.

Once you give up any control to the government they will take more and more. It is a very slippery slope, my friend.

[steve_spackman]

Encouraging people not to do unhealthy things is great. Maybe more should be done there. But people have been dictated to by the government. Why do you think there is such a thing as a "sin tax"? You know, taxes on tabacco, alcohol, and the like. NY is trying to tax soda, and other "un-healthy" things.

Once you give up any control to the government they will take more and more. It is a very slippery slope, my friend.

The state of Arkansas already has the 'sin tax' i believe

But from my view its a sin to buy beer from that part of the country..the beer is sh!t..

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://www.truthout.org/020109Y


so what about people like this?

Starla Darling, pregnant and due for delivery, had just taken maternity leave from her factory job at Archway & Mother's Cookie Company, in Ashland, Ohio, when she received a letter informing her that the company was going out of business. In three days, the letter said, she and almost three hundred co-workers would be laid off, and would lose their health-insurance coverage. The company was self-insured, so the employees didn't have the option of paying for the insurance themselves - their insurance plan was being terminated. "When I heard that I was losing my insurance, I was scared," Darling told the Times. Her husband had been laid off from his job, too. "I remember that the bill for my son's delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself." So she prevailed on her midwife to induce labor while she still had insurance coverage. During labor, Darling began bleeding profusely, and needed a Cesarean section. Mother and baby pulled through. But the insurer denied Darling's claim for coverage. The couple ended up owing more than seventeen thousand dollars




I didn't say it was perfect and I didn't say there shouldn't be some sort of public assistance. That said why should expensive medical procedures be free to all and yet people will save and spend money on big screen TV's and fancy cars when they don't have medical coverage. Priorities have to have some role in life do they not?

I live in a society with full cradle to grave medical coverage in theory. IN reality, if I have something undiagnosed but not really life threatening, I could wait 6 months for a test to diagnose it. Oh is that cancer? Oh if we saw that 6 months ago you would have a chance.....

Not to mention I am taxed out the yingyang for this crap service. Don't dismiss the benefits of US style medical insurance with just bringing up the negative. For every story like the one above, you hear about people being diagnosed within days of noticing there is a problem and getting immediate treatment. Gov't does things on its schedule and the medical system it provides often runs like that. Furthermore, I only need to look at my teeth to know how the private system works. If I have a cavity, I pay for the dentist to look at it and fix it. Dental isn't coveraged under our socialized medicine and I can get the best care possible and pay for it right away. I don't whine about the cost and if I can I have benefits through my employer to pay for it. IT WORKS. If I didn't have a job I wouldn't have dental coverage but I know I would have to not whine about having to get my teeth fixed because that is reality. Why shouldn't you be willing to pay for your own health care? You pay to maintain your car. You would pay money to put a roof on a house. Since when is it MY responsiblity to pay for my neighbour to have a heart bypass? I have no problem giving to a charity willingly to do this and I don't like but would tolerate a health care provider through the gov't doing it as long as he was truly needy. But where does anyone get off telling me I HAVE TO DO THIS? If he was making 100000 a year and living in Hawaii half the year to avoid winter, why should my money help pay for his heart? Shouldn't he have the wherewithal to supply his own health insurance?

I have no issue with some form of gov't provided health insurance but it should be basic coverage. I should be able to have additional coverage through my employer or out of my own pocket. In Canada, we have the first, but we cant have the second...and rich or poor in Canada get a basic level of health care. Problem is, you may stand in line for certain procedures or be told you cant have them at all if you don't meet THEIR standards.

The idea that everyone has to pay for everyone else's healthcare and that it is a "right" still over looks the basic premise that people at some point should carry some personal responsibility for their actions and lifestyle.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

The state of Arkansas already has the 'sin tax' i believe

But from my view its a sin to buy beer from that part of the country..the beer is sh!t..

Mate...most American beer is kind of crap. Arkansas doesn't even HAVE a beer native to their state of any note. That water you were drinking must have been from Texas or something....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Forgot about this one:

Halleluah, for not having to pay taxes anymore ... At least if you are are a cabinet sec.

I am sick of people saying that if you are a Conservative you are a re-neck, bigoted, racist. Who emacipated the slaves, who integrated the schools, who actually passed the civil rights legislation?

Sorry for the off-topic I just couldn't let this slide. Sorry again.

Chuck...the name calling means you are making sense to them at some level and the libreal in question doesn't want to admit it...

As for the Civil Rights thing....I think both sides were asleep at the switch. It took 100 years after Lincoln for anyone to finally put a stop to a lot of the nonsense many Americans want to put behind them, and LBJ had as much to do with the passing of that as the Republicans. In short, you have a great country there but what happened to black America is a stain that will never go away. There is lots to blame to go around on that and I wouldn't hold it against you or any other American personally. It just went to show the power of government and politicians to ignore an injustice right under their noses for 100 years....

[steve_spackman]

I didn't say it was perfect and I didn't say there shouldn't be some sort of public assistance. That said why should expensive medical procedures be free to all and yet people will save and spend money on big screen TV's and fancy cars when they don't have medical coverage. Priorities have to have some role in life do they not?

I live in a society with full cradle to grave medical coverage in theory. IN reality, if I have something undiagnosed but not really life threatening, I could wait 6 months for a test to diagnose it. Oh is that cancer? Oh if we saw that 6 months ago you would have a chance.....

Not to mention I am taxed out the yingyang for this crap service. Don't dismiss the benefits of US style medical insurance with just bringing up the negative. For every story like the one above, you hear about people being diagnosed within days of noticing there is a problem and getting immediate treatment. Gov't does things on its schedule and the medical system it provides often runs like that. Furthermore, I only need to look at my teeth to know how the private system works. If I have a cavity, I pay for the dentist to look at it and fix it. Dental isn't coveraged under our socialized medicine and I can get the best care possible and pay for it right away. I don't whine about the cost and if I can I have benefits through my employer to pay for it. IT WORKS. If I didn't have a job I wouldn't have dental coverage but I know I would have to not whine about having to get my teeth fixed because that is reality. Why shouldn't you be willing to pay for your own health care? You pay to maintain your car. You would pay money to put a roof on a house. Since when is it MY responsiblity to pay for my neighbour to have a heart bypass? I have no problem giving to a charity willingly to do this and I don't like but would tolerate a health care provider through the gov't doing it as long as he was truly needy. But where does anyone get off telling me I HAVE TO DO THIS? If he was making 100000 a year and living in Hawaii half the year to avoid winter, why should my money help pay for his heart? Shouldn't he have the wherewithal to supply his own health insurance?

I have no issue with some form of gov't provided health insurance but it should be basic coverage. I should be able to have additional coverage through my employer or out of my own pocket. In Canada, we have the first, but we cant have the second...and rich or poor in Canada get a basic level of health care. Problem is, you may stand in line for certain procedures or be told you cant have them at all if you don't meet THEIR standards.

The idea that everyone has to pay for everyone else's healthcare and that it is a "right" still over looks the basic premise that people at some point should carry some personal responsibility for their actions and lifestyle.....

The dentists in the US are expensive, plus if you dont have dental insurance you have to pay a arm and a leg to get seen (or if you cant afford it your teeth go to poo). I know a guy..he had a bad tooth..he didnt have dental insurance..they wanted $700 just to pull it out. CRAZY!! Whereas in the UK its around 25GBP to have a tooth out...

When people in the US go looking for a job, they base the searches mainly on what medical coverage it offers..

[Mark in Oshawa]

The dentists in the US are expensive, plus if you dont have dental insurance you have to pay a arm and a leg to get seen (or if you cant afford it your teeth go to poo). I know a guy..he had a bad tooth..he didnt have dental insurance..they wanted $700 just to pull it out. CRAZY!! Whereas in the UK its around 25GBP to have a tooth out...

When people in the US go looking for a job, they base the searches mainly on what medical coverage it offers..

Cost of dental work drops when you have no coverage. Trust me. I go to my dentist and offer to pay cash, I am paying half what he will charge an insurance company. You want to know what is wrong with healthcare in North America that will tell you all you need to know....

[steve_spackman]

Mate...most American beer is kind of crap. Arkansas doesn't even HAVE a beer native to their state of any note. That water you were drinking must have been from Texas or something....

Vino's

[steve_spackman]

Cost of dental work drops when you have no coverage. Trust me. I go to my dentist and offer to pay cash, I am paying half what he will charge an insurance company. You want to know what is wrong with healthcare in North America that will tell you all you need to know....

If you have insurance its cheaper..if you dont it cost more..way more

[chuck34]

Mate...most American beer is kind of crap. Arkansas doesn't even HAVE a beer native to their state of any note. That water you were drinking must have been from Texas or something....

You missed the point. All beer (crap or not) is fairly heavily taxed in the states. Same with tobacco.

And there are quite a few good American beers. Just steer clear of the "big boys".

[chuck34]

Chuck...the name calling means you are making sense to them at some level and the libreal in question doesn't want to admit it...

As for the Civil Rights thing....I think both sides were asleep at the switch. It took 100 years after Lincoln for anyone to finally put a stop to a lot of the nonsense many Americans want to put behind them, and LBJ had as much to do with the passing of that as the Republicans. In short, you have a great country there but what happened to black America is a stain that will never go away. There is lots to blame to go around on that and I wouldn't hold it against you or any other American personally. It just went to show the power of government and politicians to ignore an injustice right under their noses for 100 years....

I'm not saying that Republicans are blameless in any of this. At times they were just as racist as anyone. But the big stuff tended to happen under a Republican watch. The fact that most Democrats up until JFK were stauch segregationists is lost on most people now. And somehow Republicans are seen as the racist bigots. I don't get it, never have, never will.

And LBJ didn't have too much to do with passing the '64 bill. Remember he was picked as JFK's running mate to appease the southern segregationist wing of the Dems. He may have seen the light at the end, but I'm not sure how much he really cared or pushed the deal.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck...that may be so but a lot of people ignored the plight of the American black for a long time and many of them didn't think to pressure their congressmen or senators about it either. That was my main point. It is a collective failure to do what is right and every nation has instances where such injustices happen. It is then to the credit of America to now have a black president, even if you don't agree with his politics...

[chuck34]

Chuck...that may be so but a lot of people ignored the plight of the American black for a long time and many of them didn't think to pressure their congressmen or senators about it either. That was my main point. It is a collective failure to do what is right and every nation has instances where such injustices happen. It is then to the credit of America to now have a black president, even if you don't agree with his politics...

Mark, I think we're agreeing to agree here. ALL Americans are culprits in the plight of the African-Americans. Their treatment is a huge black eye on all of us. That being said, I hear a lot of liberals trying to pin most of the blame on Republicans (even those like me who weren't alive druring segregation). I just get fired up about that when they are just as much to blame for the situation as anyone.

It is to the credit of America that we have a black president. Now can we start judging people on the content of their character not the color of their skin? Nah, that's way too radical.

[steve_spackman]

Mark, I think we're agreeing to agree here. ALL Americans are culprits in the plight of the African-Americans. Their treatment is a huge black eye on all of us. That being said, I hear a lot of liberals trying to pin most of the blame on Republicans (even those like me who weren't alive druring segregation). I just get fired up about that when they are just as much to blame for the situation as anyone.

It is to the credit of America that we have a black president. Now can we start judging people on the content of their character not the color of their skin? Nah, that's way too radical.

just being curious here, and a straight serious question...

if the blacks are african americans..are the whites called european americans?

[Easy Drifter]

And our treatment of our native Indian population was and still is absymal.
Read Mark Bonokowski's 15 part story in the Toronto Sun, the Red Line. I think it is still available on line.

[chuck34]

And our treatment of our native Indian population was and still is absymal.
Read Mark Bonokowski's 15 part story in the Toronto Sun, the Red Line. I think it is still available on line.

I would agree with you there.

But hey, they're getting our money back at the casinos right? :-)

[Jag_Warrior]

I am sick of people saying that if you are a Conservative you are a re-neck, bigoted, racist. Who emacipated the slaves, who integrated the schools, who actually passed the civil rights legislation?

Sorry for the off-topic I just couldn't let this slide. Sorry again.

You're confusing "conservative" with "Republican". The (social) conservatives didn't emancipate anyone or integrate anything - quite the opposite, in fact. Add to that, you have independents who are more fiscal conservatives and more social libertarians, like myself. You have Democrats who are social conservatives, especially in the south, and they may be fiscal liberals. And you have Republicans who are social liberals (the pro gay Log Cabin Republicans come to mind), but they may be more fiscally conservative.

Even within the broad label "conservative," you have the Straussian neo-conservatives and the more traditional paleo-conservatives.

But I agree with you that it is wrong to assume that anyone who can be called a "conservative" is necessarily a redneck, racist or bigot... and anyone who can be called a "liberal" is as pure as the driven snow. Life is never that simple.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What gets me Chuck ( and I agree with you that one side is hung up on hanging the ills of the Whites towards minorities on the GOP) is the fact that now Obama is elected, the scape goating wont stop. The Dem's have both houses AND the White House. Within 4 years everything should just be beautiful if we are to believe all the crap they have spouted in the last few decades. No one will be hungry and everyone will have a job right? Hang onto your wallets...because here comes that misery index, last seen in the bad old days of Jimmy Carter. Man I wish sometimes you guys would have some form of sanity in Congress at least...

[chuck34]

You're confusing "conservative" with "Republican". The (social) conservatives didn't emancipate anyone or integrate anything - quite the opposite, in fact. Add to that, you have independents who are more fiscal conservatives and more social libertarians, like myself. You have Democrats who are social conservatives, especially in the south, and they may be fiscal liberals. And you have Republicans who are social liberals (the pro gay Log Cabin Republicans come to mind), but they may be more fiscally conservative.

Even within the broad label "conservative," you have the Straussian neo-conservatives and the more traditional paleo-conservatives.

But I agree with you that it is wrong to assume that anyone who can be called a "conservative" is necessarily a redneck, racist or bigot... and anyone who can be called a "liberal" is as pure as the driven snow. Life is never that simple.


No, no Jag, it's not me that confuses conservatives and Republican. It is the people that try to label me as a racist when I espouse conservative views. Like you I am fiscally conservative and a bit socal libertarian (mostly).

And you're right life is never simple.

[chuck34]

What gets me Chuck ( and I agree with you that one side is hung up on hanging the ills of the Whites towards minorities on the GOP) is the fact that now Obama is elected, the scape goating wont stop. The Dem's have both houses AND the White House. Within 4 years everything should just be beautiful if we are to believe all the crap they have spouted in the last few decades. No one will be hungry and everyone will have a job right? Hang onto your wallets...because here comes that misery index, last seen in the bad old days of Jimmy Carter. Man I wish sometimes you guys would have some form of sanity in Congress at least...

Right on Mark.

I think that maybe the House Republicans have finally found their back-bone by voting down the latest "stimulus".

[Jag_Warrior]

No, no Jag, it's not me that confuses conservatives and Republican. It is the people that try to label me as a racist when I espouse conservative views. Like you I am fiscally conservative and a bit socal libertarian (mostly).

And you're right life is never simple.

OK. I just got a little confused when you said:


I am sick of people saying that if you are a Conservative you are a re-neck, bigoted, racist. Who emacipated the slaves, who integrated the schools, who actually passed the civil rights legislation?

I figured you meant to use the word "Republican", because the social conservatives (Democrat, Republican or Dixiecrat) didn't do any of those things. No big deal...

[chuck34]

OK. I just got a little confused when you said:



I figured you meant to use the word "Republican", because the social conservatives (Democrat, Republican or Dixiecrat) didn't do any of those things. No big deal...

No prob. I said it sort of to prove my point. I guess it only makes sence in my mind. Happens all the time ... Unfortunatly. I guess I need to work on my typing sence of humor.