National healthcare for all

[kristo]

I thought we could have an intelligent discussion here. I was obviously wrong. I won't be posting more to this thread.

[JPINFV]

Huh, I'm confused now. You want an intelligent discussion, but such issues as constitutionality [which, albeit constantly trampled by out legislative branch and not always backed by the judiciary [cough medical marijuana ruling cough], is written to be really constrictive for the federal government. Furthermore, legislation by constitutional amendment has been a disaster when it was tried [prohibition].

As far as the War in Iraq, my understanding is that the intelligence at the time, including intelligence from foreign sources, provided a convincing argument that Saddam was actively working towards weapons of mass destruction. In fact, there have been a few cases of chemical weapons being found in Iraq following the start of the invasion [ex, House of Representatives Select Committee on Intelligence report]. I guess we *could* start removing our forces from Eastern Europe, Korea, and the like, but I doubt that the EU would be supportive of that move.

Foreign aid, both militarily, material, and financial, does make up a large part of the US budget. That said, our government does not spend as much as a percent of GDP on foreign aid as other first world governments do. The difference, of course, is that the foreign aid when totaled by government donations and private sector donations puts the USA near, if not over, the top.

Finally, illegal immigration was touched on. Illegal immigration is a MAJOR issue [which, needs to be said, the USA has one of the most liberal legal immigration policies in the world, especially compared to most European countries] that comes from a broken down legal system, a neighboring government that encourages illegal immigration, and a vast differences in wealth that can be in large part attributed to the differences between how the governments are run. Illegal immigrants do put a strain on the local governments, especially since they are not counted in census reports since they do not report themselves. This makes it harder for local governments to request state and federal tax funds. That said, illegal immigration is a different thread altogether.

So, I'm just wondering, which subject that was brought up, which since one of the main issues regarding government programs is the cost, turned you off to this discussion?

[kristo]

Okay, I've cooled a little bit, I was pretty rash in my previous post.

What ticked me off were Dust and reaper's posts, which both seem to assume that the US is the best thing that happened to the world since sliced bread.

We could easily pay for it by forgoing all the economic aid we send to Europaean countries every year. Or Africa. Or every other third and fourth world shytehole we dump money into.

I suppose if your people are too stupid and lazy to manage their own affairs there, then they need big daddy to take care of them. To each his own. We don't.

Hasn't the rest of the world made it quite clear, that we do not want or need the American "big daddy"?

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject:

Kristo,

You don't seem to get it. We Americans don't want the government ruling our lives. In this country we work for what we want!

We do not amend our constitution on a whim. This is why our country has made it work, when others have failed. There is a reason why every other countries population wants to come here. If we didn't have to please the rest of the world with being PC, we could solve our problems alot faster.

This "we do what we want" is just anarchy, but if you want it like that, that is of course your business. I realise we shouldn't force other cultures to evolve. What really ticked me off here was the assumption that the US had succeeded and everyone else failed - and that everyone wants to go to America...while that is true for Mexico, that is not true for the rest of the world.

And the US foreign policy is everything but PC right now.

Finally; JPINFV, why do you think the EU doesn't want you out of Eastern Europe? From what I can gather, it is the general consensus in Europe that your actions there are a serious threat to political stability in the region, especially recent developments in the US installing long-range missile launchers there. Don't know about Korea, if the Koreans want you there, by all means stay.

So, as a European, and as a citizen of a country occupied by the US military for over 50 years, I may be a little sensitive to the good ol' American arrogance.

[reaper]

A lot of people here are tired of the EU's stance that America is always wrong. We are wrong to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictator, but were we wrong to liberate Europe from a dictator? Oh wait, that's ancient history and that doesn't count any more. If not for the US military presence in your country for 50 years, you might not have a country to call home.

So let us decide if we want government health care. Don't tell us we should have it because every other country does. The U.S. is the oldest surviving Republic because we do things our way, not how the world thinks we should do it.

[kristo]

A lot of people here are tired of the EU's stance that America is always wrong. We are wrong to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictator, but were we wrong to liberate Europe from a dictator? Oh wait, that's ancient history and that doesn't count any more. If not for the US military presence in your country for 50 years, you might not have a country to call home.

Do the Iraqi people feel liberated? I don't think the Icelanders that were killed or imprisoned by the allied occupation in WW2 did. And why, exactly, would I not have a country to call home if the US hadn't occupied it?

So let us decide if we want government health care. Don't tell us we should have it because every other country does. The U.S. is the oldest surviving Republic because we do things our way, not how the world thinks we should do it.

I do and will feel free to participate in an open forum political discussion, while, of course, trying not to offend anyone (tricky sometimes) and obeying the forum rules. You should (and I'm sure you do) feel free to ignore me. You can relax, though. My opinion won't be a factor when the decision is made - just like your opinions don't (or shouldn't) matter over here.

Is it just me, or isn't it a little strange, considering your stance on current US foreign policy, that you should criticise Europeans for meddling in other countries internal affairs?

Edit: The actual reason there are a few Europeans posting on this topic is simply to tell you about our experience with the system you are discussing. One would think such input would be welcomed, after all, it's relatively cheap to learn from other people's mistakes or successes.

[WelshMedic]

Hi,

I do believe that Kristo was a little misguided in mentioning the Iraq situation but I also think the reactions were out of proportion.

Dust, when it comes to a reaction on the justification of US presence in Iraq I don't think you can really mean the EU, I credit you with more intelligence. Isn't the UK a european member state? I'm also pretty sure that my own country has troops in the Middle East (Uruzgan). Each member state has it's own independent opinion on the subject, so please don't tar us all with the same brush.

I'm also keen to find out which EU member states receive US aid as a result of foreign policy. I'm pretty sure we've finished with the Marshall plan.

Although you may have a point about some being too lazy or stupid to manage their affairs, I think you'll find that it's a tiny majority. It's not about pandering to the ne'er do-wells that every society has, it's about protecting our most vulnerable citizens: children, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor. To have anything less than decent health care is morally bankrupt, especially for the only true superpower left.

In 1999 the average American could expect to live 76.9 years, the average African American could only expect to live 71.4 years (National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Health U.S., 2002, Table 28.)

I find this figure appalling, are you still telling me that the American way is the only way?

WM

[reaper]

Kristo,

I am sorry for getting a little testy! :wink:

We do look at other countries health systems. Some do work decent and some don't. No offense to our friends to the north, but I don't want any thing like that system. Yes, every one has health care, but you have long waits to get the care you need. I can walk in to the Dr's and hand them my insurance card and get the treatment I need, right away. Why is this? Because, I work hard and pay for my health care.

We already have health care for our poor (Medicaid) and the elderly(Medicare). The only thing I agree with is each state should have free health care for anyone under 18 yo. A lot of states are already doing this. We just need to get the rest on board.

Again, sorry I went a stray on the subject. It can be a little touchy issue.

[kristo]

Kristo,

I am sorry for getting a little testy! :wink:

Same here. :wink:

We do look at other countries health systems. Some do work decent and some don't. No offense to our friends to the north, but I don't want any thing like that system. Yes, every one has health care, but you have long waits to get the care you need. I can walk in to the Dr's and hand them my insurance card and get the treatment I need, right away. Why is this? Because, I work hard and pay for my health care.

Isn't that just the consequence of too many patients, too few doctors? Get more doctors. There's no shortage of very competent people who want to become doctors. Medical schools could probably accept twice as many without taking anyone in I wouldn't trust to treat me or my family.

How about a mixed system? Some doctors accept the "poor man's insurance" and some don't. Those who do don't provide as good service (longer waits, lack of room service, etc.)

We already have health care for our poor (Medicaid) and the elderly(Medicare). The only thing I agree with is each state should have free health care for anyone under 18 yo. A lot of states are already doing this. We just need to get the rest on board.

How poor do you have to be to get Medicaid? I'm not too familiar with it, but it is my understanding that, like ERDoc mentioned, there are a lot of people who earn too much to get Medicaid and too little to be able to afford their own insurance.

How about something like this:

The individual states will have companies pay a tax every month by the following scheme (for each employee paid over $1,500 that calendar month):

If the employer provides 3rd party insurance for the employee and his family: $0

If the employer provides 3rd party insurance for the employee: $80

If the employee already has 3rd party insurance: $100

If the employee does not have any kind of insurance: $320

The state will collect this money and use it to buy insurance from a private company (or simply provide the service itself, which may be more cost-effective in some cases). If they do business with a private insurance company, they should re-negotiate at least every second year, the offers from the insurance companies should be public and the state should publically release its reasons for choosing one over another. This insurance would cover anyone not insured by anyone else. Don't most companies already provide health insurance for their employees? The $80 would, at most, be like paying the employees an extra day at work. That's nothing. They could look at it as a 5% pay rise for everyone.

Only problem here is that many companies would probably simply not hire people who don't have their own insurance. Haven't quite figured out how to bypass that. :roll:

Another thing. Both you (reaper) and Dust specifically mentioned that this is something that you do not want. Why is that? If it's not for financial reasons, we could find a way to do this for free and it still wouldn't happen, so there's no real point in doing it. If it is for financial reasons, maybe you would change your mind if it was made very cost-effective? If you're worried about the government taking control, then maybe the best implementation would be on state or even county/municipality level? At least I'm pretty sure you absolutely do not want the government to actually provide the healthcare, but would you be fine with them paying for it (given that it would be made very, very cost-effective)?

Are you perhaps worried that it will make people less motivated to earn their own living? I personally believe that most of the lazy bums are already on welfare and maybe even Medicaid, so that change will be negligible...

[CBEMT]

Hasn't the rest of the world made it quite clear, that we do not want or need the American "big daddy"?

Excellent. We'd like our money back now, please.

And since you don't need us, we'll also be closing our borders.

With concrete walls.

Have a nice day. Y'all play nice now. No more Uncle Sam to fight your wars for you.

[Scaramedic]

Wow, you guys (As in members of the EU) have really short memories...

Americans killed in WW1 - 100,000

Americans wounded in WW1- 200,00

Total Troops Deployed - 4.5 million

Total American Costs - $33 Billion (1917 dollars)

Americans killed WW2 - 400,00

Americans wounded WW2 - 650,000

Total Troops Deployed - 16,000,000

Total American Costs - $360 billion (1945 dollars)

Marshall Plan - $13 billion (1945 dollars) Iceland received $43 million, just for the record.

Half a million dead, almost a million wounded and over 20 million sent to fight wars started by Europeans to free Europeans from tyranny. $400 billions dollars of American cash spent on these wars. Damn if we could have put that money in an interest bearing checking account we would have enough now to pay for Worldwide healthcare.

:wink:

Oh and let's talk about the "occupation" of Iceland by the U.S. I am assuming you are speaking of the NATO bases in Iceland.

Def; occupation, military control

the control of a country by military forces of a foreign power.

I'm sorry exactly at what point did we take over your government and dictate the laws of Iceland? NATO had air bases there because they took responsibility for your protection after YOUR government asked them to. It was not the United States in was NATO.

...manned by American, Canadian, Danish, Norwegian and Dutch personnel...

So I guess according to you Canada, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands were also occupiers.

If you are talking about the WW2 occupation just for the record it was not us that rolled ships into Icelandic harbors it was the British. May 10, 1940, we weren't even involved in WW2 yet. We were not responsible for that, talk to WelshMedic about that one.

If you want to talk about real occupation talk to the Dutch they ruled you for what 700 years?

Look I know it easy to get on some websites and bash the U.S., hell we've made mistakes. Just for the record we DO NOT want to be involved with most of the stuff we are involved in. It's just that many times we are the first country people look at for help. South Korea wants us there to protect them from North Korea. Europe wanted us there when the Soviet Union was breathing down their neck. Hell, I'll bet money that if Putin keeps on his path they will want us back. Why? Because like it or not we are the big kid on the block.

Finally, a quote from you...

What really ticked me off here was the assumption that the US had succeeded and everyone else failed - and that everyone wants to go to America...while that is true for Mexico, that is not true for the rest of the world.

...another quote from you...

I would have to come to the US to take the course, I wouldn't be doing anything else while the class is going on, so I could devote all my time to studying.

So we're a bunch of egotistical, arrogant, occupying bastards but yet you want to come here and learn EMS to take back home.

Peace,

Marty

P.S. I tried to find Icelandic causalities in WW1 and WW2, couldn't find any. Must be nice to watch the fight for freedom from the cheap seats.

P.S.S. I am not the flag waving hillbilly type, I just hate it when history gets twisted around by people to bash the U.S.