Rant

tcmtech said:

you mean when a person runs for mayor of a big city and spends 15 million dollars of his own money on a campaign to get a $300,000 a year job he didn't do it just out of the goodness of his heart?

Click to expand...

If I were wealthy and had money like Donald Trump, and if I felt I could use my expertise to assist my fellow man as in being mayor. I might consider spending a portion of my bank account in order to run for office.

After all, being rich does not mean you sit on your laurels, one did not become rich by doing so. Surely they still have much to offer and feel the may be a benefit.

Sometimes I think people just get too cynical and assume everyone has an agenda. Maybe that agenda is to do good, yet the system holds them back? It seems that so many are ready to assume the worse in our world.

3v0 said:

If I have my information correct the government/public schools were started to mold students minds. Yes they wanted to defragment the countries thinking. It worked.

Click to expand...

That sounds a bit paranoid.

If what you say is true, it isn't working properly or there wouldn't be so many US people on this forum who criticise their government.

Not that it isn't possible for a state run educational system to be used for thought control. It's done very effectively in China where most people love their corrupt government which has little respect for their rights.

Some of our prisons are privately owned an run.

Click to expand...

Same here and I don't see how it's making the situation any better, if anything it's only getting worse.

The post office is slowly moving in that direction.

Click to expand...

Same here. I think it'll probably be a good thing as mail is an area where competition and capitalism should work.

I'm not some left wing extremist. I'm all for the free market and capitalism. I just think there are some services which should be in the hands of the people rather than private individuals.

What we need are election reforms that would allow people to successfully run for office without selling their soul to the devil.

Click to expand...

Same over here.

As Nigel says:

Nigel Goodwin said:

I thought they spend other peoples money, not their own?.

I don't know if it makes the news in the USA, but there's a long running news story over here about MP's fiddling their expenses

Click to expand...

It's true, the MPs create their own rules, claim as much money as they can then say they aren't doing anything wrong.

The system needs changing. An independent body for pay and expenses needs to be set up. There's also an argument for doing away with expenses altogether and giving them a flat rate salary which would be cheaper but perhaps less fair.

Hero999 said:

That sounds a bit paranoid.

Click to expand...

I should know better then to talk about little know bits.
http://www.cloudnet.com/~edrbsass/educationhistorytimeline.html

1916 - John Dewey's **broken link removed** is published. **broken link removed** help advance the ideas of the "progressive education movement." An outgrowth of the progressive political movement, progressive education seeks to make schools more effective agents of democracy.

Click to expand...

Another effort was made to push political/social agendas in the second half of last century.

It is a fundamental right to criticize the government. Freedom of speech.

Hero999 said:

I'm not some left wing extremist. I'm all for the free market and capitalism. I just think there are some services which should be in the hands of the people rather than private individuals.

Click to expand...

Same here. We just disagree about which should be which.

Hero, the only reason China functions it all is because the government keeps a black bag of their populations head.

3v0 said:

It is a fundamental right to criticize the government. Freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

That didn't stop 1000s of people from being purged from the US political life under McCarthyism.

By the way they may be an element of truth in the statement I made earlier on in this thread.

Hero999 said:

Universal healthcare seems to be pretty accepted in the rest of the world so why is it so controversial in the US?

Does it have its roots in the cold war? Is it the red scare McCarthyism and all that bad stuff that's putting you off?

Click to expand...

McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sceadwian said:

Hero, the only reason China functions it all is because the government keeps a black bag of their populations head.

Click to expand...

China's constitution also permits free speech, for what good it does.

By the way I don't think the Chinese government are as bad as we in the west are led to believe. Yes, they don't have much respect for human rights but they've done a lot of good things: the main being keeping the economy growing in the mist of a global recession. Mao may have been a tyrant but the current regime at least seems to want to do good.

It permits free speech on paper, but saying anything bad about the government can be considered dissent and immediately punished by death.
Stats from 2004 show there were 3797 people executed in 25 countries. China was responsible for about 3400 of them.
And part of the global economic problem right now IS China, because they have such abundant cheap labor.

The US constitution permits free speech but if you said anything to support communism under McCarthy you would pay.

I'm not sure things are any better today: try supporting the Taliban and see what happens to you.

We benefit from China's supply of cheap labour to give us cheap electrical goods.

Hero, McCarthyism was a bad period in the 40s and 50s all those laws were stricken down eventually, not a bright moment in American history mind you, but you're comparing the imprisonment of a few hundred people and about ten thousand people that lost their jobs, with the intentional execution of thousands of individuals every year, and the right wing religious and political fanaticism of the Taliban which openly advocates murder as one of it's primary political tools.

If McCarthyism has anything to do with the US health care debate it is at or near the noise level. Too long ago and so much has happened since.

The tales we hear about nationalized health care in other countries is more then enough fuel to fire the debate.

One fear is: If you think it is bad now wait till the government takes over.

If the government took over I expect they would close our local clinic and hospital. They are not cost effective, and redundant to similar units in towns 50 or 100 miles away. But who want to drive that far to get sewn up or to be looked at when in pain ?

The federal government will not even allow us to use our city landfill. It is up to snuff in all regards but for one. We can not afford the outrageous fee's required to have it certified for use. It is less expensive to haul the garbage to another state and pay them to handle it. Part of the federal one size fits all mindset.

In short even if nation health care worked for the rest of the country I am sure the small communities would take a huge hit.

I would be interested to know how it has worked out for small towns in Canada with 1000 people or less where the nearest larger town is 50 or more miles away.

I would be interested to know how it has worked out for small towns in Canada with 1000 people or less where the nearest larger town is 50 or more miles away.

Click to expand...

People who live in remote areas can't have the nearest neighbor five miles away and still have a hospital just up the street. It just doesn't work that way.

Wherever you are in the UK you won't be far from a hospital and the remote areas will have an air ambulance.

There are ways to prevent the government messing it up. Take the BBC for example: a state owned cooperation which isn't directly controlled by the government. They're regulated by a separate body the BBC trust which has the job of ensuring they provide value for money for the licence fee and are impartial. They frequently broadcast things the government don't like on thier news service e.g. the recent expense scandal and there's nothing the government can do about it.

A similar system for providing healthcare could be set up in the US. It could be run as a separate charitable trust which is monitored by and independent regulatory body.

I am talking about small towns of 1000 people or so. Places that currently have hospitals and clinics.

Not people living 5 miles from the nearest neighbor.

mneary said:

People who live in remote areas can't have the nearest neighbor five miles away and still have a hospital just up the street. It just doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

The hospitals in Canada are planned and operated by the government. My city is pretty big and has about 8 hospitals. The one very close to me specialises in cancer and kidneys. I was treated there for my recent heart attack then I was transported about 5km to the hospital that specialises in hearts for my heart operation. There is little waste.

I have been reading https://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php.

It is of interest because the author has personal experience with both Canadian and US health care. While not 100% accurate he makes some good points.

What I take away from this article is that we should replace our private insurance with a government insurance, leave the rest in place. I view the insurance companies as blood sucking vultures. In short I agree.

If we limit it to a nation healt insurance plan rather then a national healt care system it has my vote. But how to you make and inforce that limit ? The goverment will withhold payments when things do not go as they want them. Still aboslute power. hmmm

I believe that capitalism drives innovation and if you get the government involved that slows down the process with needless meddling, bureaucracy and overhead. That said... insurance companies ARE blood sucking parasites and serve very little but to cause private practices to artificially raise rates and pass those costs onto the customer.

I don't know what the answer is but a storm is brewing and we've seen in the past if companies can't regulate themselves the government will step in and it's usually not for the benefit of that particular industry.

3v0 said:

What I take away from this article is that we should replace our private insurance with a government insurance, leave the rest in place. I view the insurance companies as blood sucking vultures. In short I agree.

Click to expand...

That would be a step in the right direction but the cost of healthcare needs to come down a bit or you'll be paying too much tax.

By the way, I'm not saying the US should nationalise all hospitals but maybe build some public hospitals. Treating civilians in veteran association hospitals could also be considered.

Don't forget that the US probably needs more doctors not less. Currently healthcare is only available to those that can afford it, not to those that need it. If healthcare was given to everyone that needs it then current capacity would probably be exceeded. Public hospitals could fill the void and compete with private hospitals which should drive prices down and improve care.

The lack of insurance with not prevent some level of access to doctors or services. It is worst for the working poor.

Anyone in the US can walk into an emergency room and be treated. Not cost effective but it is there.

According to this link:

we spend $170 Billion to provide health care to the uninsured. Much of this may be the cost of covering the emergency room bills, and preventable hospitalizations.

What can't the government ever be honest about anything?

What can't they say "We think it would be a good idea to implement a universal healthcare system. Here are the benefits, risks and what it will cost you."?

They should do research, case studies of other countries, pilot projects to test different models and implement the best subject to a referendum.

Your government, just like ours is horribly broken.