Turn on thread page Beta

Operation "Blessing" : PeeWeeDan prays hard to Obama watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If obamas was a reign of terror what was bushes? a reign of stupidity?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Great, we get to continue having the worst health care distribution in any industrialized country. Yaaaaay.

    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    Yes and the public knew what would come if they voted this guy in - one more seat against reform.
    Are you completely unaware that the entire country doesn't get to vote in one state's senate election?

    Way to make an ass of yourself. That goes for the rest of you too who are saying "Americans are sooooo stupid!" based on ONE SENATE ELECTION in ONE SINGLE STATE. Dear lord, some of you are so thick.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    East Jerusalem looks like a massive building site with the number of settlements and that is the strategy of the current far-right Israeli government. Tbh at the moment, the debate is a Israeli-Arab one but if the Holy Mosque somehow ends up on the wrong side of the border it will definitely turn into a Israeli-Muslim problem. Switching the argument from a nationalistic struggle to a religious one will definitely be perilous to Israel but even more so to al the Arab dictators who in one way or another aide Israel and that's without adding Iran into the equation. I just hope Israel forgets about the Americans and sorts things out before the get messy.
    Laughably poor argument in every way. Before I deconstruct the poor logic in this **** I'm going to point out inaccuracies.

    1. The Israeli government is central... it has both Labour and Likud, and Yisrael Beitenu is far more to the left than ignorant idiots think.

    2. Israel is willing to return to the negotiating table... the Palestinians are not.

    Now your logic is that there is building in East Jerusalem, therefore negotiations shouldn't start... however there was building in East Jerusalem while negotiations were on going with Sharon during the Bush era, Olmert during the Bush era, and Rabin during the Clinton era. So this new condition is essentially nothing but ******** to stall negotiations. We provided a settlement freeze, and East Jerusalem should be discussed on the negotiating table not before.

    And in either case Jordan took control of the West bank inc. East Jerusalem in 1948 in an unlawful war, while Israel then took East Jerusalem/the West Bank in a lawful war... therefore Israel is well within it's rights to annex East Jerusalem... as it has done and therefore is will within it's rights to build wherever it wishes in East Jerusalem... regardless of who recognizes the annexation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    But he was still seen and, I assume, treated and recovered? Would this have been the same in America? Would he be able to afford/be eligible for health insurance and if not, would he have been able to afford to pay for his treatment himself?

    Of course the NHS has its flaws but generally it is a brilliant service that many people would be frankly screwed without! xx
    He had the treatment, and yes he did receive the treatment. I can't say he would have the treatment in US. However those members of my family that settled in the US (I'm an ethnic Afghani) have worked hard and have an income that has afforded my family better treatment than my UK relatives. That's part and parcel of American culture.

    The waiting times, the budgeting means it simply can't compete with those in the US who do have insurance. It's driven innovative technology, and given patients quick access to specialists and treatment options.

    (Original post by generic hybrid)
    A personal anecdote from someone I know who went to the emergency room with severe pain in his chest and was stuck there for most of the night with no medical attention because he'd forgotten some of his insurance details and the insurance forms had to be sorted out first. Turned out he had bone cancer in some of his ribs. If he didn't have insurance then yeah, he would still get treatment, but the price of surviving would be years and years of debt.

    Not a news article or anything but I figure it's worth as much as your anecdote. :o:
    I'm sorry to hear about your friend. If your in need of Emergency treatment, your entitled to it on the spot. If say you've suffered a heart attack or serious trauma.

    The problem is that your friend had no coverage which is precisely what Obama wants to ensure with the Bill that's going through Congress. Sadly big pharmaceuticals and insurance companies have been holding the country to ransom, and even this watered down bill won't go far enough in dealing with that problem, but it will get more people insured.

    Of course your anecdote is valid (I didn't mean to suggest otherwise). I thought you were suggesting that if you had a heart attack, or were in a car accident they wouldn't treat the injured person. Also bare in mind there are differences depending on which state your from.

    (Original post by InvoluntarySlacker)
    We pay for something that is considerably cheaper in the long run. It's inclusive in our taxes and we benefit from it. The beauty of the NHS is that it caters for all social classes whereas in America, healthcare is limited. It's a sad state when people can not afford to pay for something that will save them because they can't pay for insurance. The only thing culturally different between America and Britain in this context, is that America has a bigger divide between the rich and poor. From what I can gather, the only people that are opposed to the health care reform are the people with considerable wealth. I may am be wrong. Hardly into foreign affairs. :iiam:
    The United States as a nation is opposed to big government initiatives. Americans want to be able to choose their doctor and change with ease, see a specialist or several quickly until their satisfied. They want to feel empowered in their treatment.

    I don't want to pay my taxes and loose my right to choose and not get the full benefit of my hard work. You haven't even touched on limits of the NHS budget in dealing with many ailments. Or the cutting edge technology and quality of American hospitals.

    Our approach has indeed created a big wealth divide. However, it has also created a far more dynamic economy, afforded Americans opportunities to move up the social ladder.

    (Original post by missbrowneyes)
    I think the NHS is a monopoly which works for good. Perfect competition for hospitals wouldn't be such a hot idea either, and I think the option to go private is well within the means of a middle class citizen..patients on the NHS actually have a choice of which hospital they go to or even which GP they register under,NICE makes generally good enough decisions on medical innovation/advancement, so I dont think the NHS suffers much as a result of decreased competition.
    I also don't think what america needs is a'monopoly' like the NHS, but I see no honest reason to be opposed to a system which does something about the shortfall in health coverage for so many people. America spends way more on healthcare per person than the UK does - with worse 'results' - something obviously has to give.
    I don't believe any monopoly is good. Competition drives innovation and patient satisfaction, not government targets and political interference.

    Private care is limited for the patient who already pays a very large sums in taxes and funds the NHS anyway. Thus the quality of your private care providers is limited. That's the reality of a monopoly. The NHS doesn't allow you to change specialists with ease. You don't check the reputation of your Doctors before you see them. What their qualifications are what treatments they specialise in.

    It can take around four months to see for example a dermatologist, and then a follow up appointment is another four months. And even then the treatments are limited to cost. Another anecdote from someone I know who has Hydes disease. The NHS took 10 years to diagnose his condition. It's not serious but it's left him with scarring and a decade of severe itching.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Great, we get to continue having the worst health care distribution in any industrialized country. Yaaaaay.


    Are you completely unaware that the entire country doesn't get to vote in one state's senate election?

    Way to make an ass of yourself. That goes for the rest of you too who are saying "Americans are sooooo stupid!" based on ONE SENATE ELECTION in ONE SINGLE STATE. Dear lord, some of you are so thick.
    Yes, I do know this. Who exactly do you think you are talking to people like that?

    I havn't made an ass of myself at all and there's no need to be abusive... you redneck **** stain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    Yes, I do know this. Who exactly do you think you are talking to people like that?

    I havn't made an ass of myself at all and there's no need to be abusive... you redneck **** stain.
    You have made an ass of yourself by generalizing the entire country based on the actions of a fraction of the population of one single state. Do you seriously lack the comprehension to figure out how ridiculous that is? That's like me assuming that all of Britain is a bunch of racist pricks because Nick Griffin was voted into the EU Parliament.

    And me being abusive? "Americans are an absolute bunch of dicks." Right. Learn what hypocrisy means, then call me abusive. And redneck, that was original.
    Offline

    13
    I've been following this in the last week or so, and I'm SO happy that the republicans actually did it, they got a senator in the bluest of states, hopefully this means that in three years time there will be a new president.

    I just hope they don't choose an awful candidate like Bush, Palin, McCain who all actually seem to support spending to the same extent as democrats, just look what happened to the deficit under Bush! Ron Paul would be the best republican leader, he'd even legalise drugs and end the war on terror - but it wont happen, sadly.

    Hope this healthcare reform is rejected though, Canada started off with something a lot like Obamacare and it soon ended up as nationalised healthcare. I admit that insurance companies need more regulation, but Obama had no reason to add a public option to his proposal, if he really cared about the regulations and the impact it'd have on millions of lives he'd take away the public option and let everybody agree on passing some crucial reforms right away.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I feel I need to say that the NHS is a superb system and generally provides excellent healthcare.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    Laughably poor argument in every way. Before I deconstruct the poor logic in this **** I'm going to point out inaccuracies.

    1. The Israeli government is central... it has both Labour and Likud, and Yisrael Beitenu is far more to the left than ignorant idiots think.

    2. Israel is willing to return to the negotiating table... the Palestinians are not.

    Now your logic is that there is building in East Jerusalem, therefore negotiations shouldn't start...
    I never said that or in anyway suggested it. In fact I wasn't even talking about the negotiations. I certainly do think that the current project should be put on hold. BUILDING IN EAST JERUSALEM IS ILLEGAL, /discussion.

    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    And in either case Jordan took control of the West bank inc. East Jerusalem in 1948 in an unlawful war, while Israel then took East Jerusalem/the West Bank in a lawful war... therefore Israel is well within it's rights to annex East Jerusalemm... as it has done and therefore is will within it's rights to build wherever it wishes in East Jerusalem... regardless of who recognizes the annexation.
    If your the "friendly neighbourhood Israeli" then I feel sorry for the future of your nation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I've been following this in the last week or so, and I'm SO happy that the republicans actually did it, they got a senator in the bluest of states, hopefully this means that in three years time there will be a new president.

    I just hope they don't choose an awful candidate like Bush, Palin, McCain who all actually seem to support spending to the same extent as democrats, just look what happened to the deficit under Bush! Ron Paul would be the best republican leader, he'd even legalise drugs and end the war on terror - but it wont happen, sadly.

    Hope this healthcare reform is rejected though, Canada started off with something a lot like Obamacare and it soon ended up as nationalised healthcare. I admit that insurance companies need more regulation, but Obama had no reason to add a public option to his proposal, if he really cared about the regulations and the impact it'd have on millions of lives he'd take away the public option and let everybody agree on passing some crucial reforms right away.
    Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is wrong with nationalised healthcare? Doesn't the NHS fall under that category and from what I hear, it's better than the current system in the USA.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is wrong with nationalised healthcare? Doesn't the NHS fall under that category and from what I hear, it's better than the current system in the USA.
    I wouldn't say it's better than our system... it's nice that everyone gets health care in the UK, but NHS is rife with imperfections.

    In fact, I partly blame the NHS for our lack of reform. Whenever socialized health care is mentioned in the US, people look to all the problems the NHS has as reasons not to have socialized health care.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i dont particularly like obama but why all the hate??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A year ago all Americans were screaming for Obama and now they hate him.



    How predictable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cinematographic)
    This.

    Obama hasn't pushed through the reforms he promised. He too much of a consensus guy. If even the watered down Health Reform legislation isn't passed it's going to damage the rest of his Presidency, and truely hurt the long term prospects of the country.

    This is so depressing.
    It's only been one year. I'm sure it's not as simple and quick as people think.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    I never said that or in anyway suggested it. In fact I wasn't even talking about the negotiations. I certainly do think that the current project should be put on hold. BUILDING IN EAST JERUSALEM IS ILLEGAL, /discussion.



    If your the "friendly neighbourhood Israeli" then I feel sorry for the future of your nation.
    Building in a countries capital city isn't illegal whether you like the fact it's being built or not is up to you. East Jerusalem isn't part of any settlement... it's part of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel - undivided.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liptease)
    He had the treatment, and yes he did receive the treatment. I can't say he would have the treatment in US. However those members of my family that settled in the US (I'm an ethnic Afghani) have worked hard and have an income that has afforded my family better treatment than my UK relatives. That's part and parcel of American culture.

    The waiting times, the budgeting means it simply can't compete with those in the US who do have insurance. It's driven innovative technology, and given patients quick access to specialists and treatment options.

    I'm sorry to hear about your friend. If your in need of Emergency treatment, your entitled to it on the spot. If say you've suffered a heart attack or serious trauma.

    The problem is that your friend had no coverage which is precisely what Obama wants to ensure with the Bill that's going through Congress. Sadly big pharmaceuticals and insurance companies have been holding the country to ransom, and even this watered down bill won't go far enough in dealing with that problem, but it will get more people insured.

    Of course your anecdote is valid (I didn't mean to suggest otherwise). I thought you were suggesting that if you had a heart attack, or were in a car accident they wouldn't treat the injured person. Also bare in mind there are differences depending on which state your from.

    The United States as a nation is opposed to big government initiatives. Americans want to be able to choose their doctor and change with ease, see a specialist or several quickly until their satisfied. They want to feel empowered in their treatment.

    I don't want to pay my taxes and loose my right to choose and not get the full benefit of my hard work. You haven't even touched on limits of the NHS budget in dealing with many ailments. Or the cutting edge technology and quality of American hospitals.

    Our approach has indeed created a big wealth divide. However, it has also created a far more dynamic economy, afforded Americans opportunities to move up the social ladder.

    I don't believe any monopoly is good. Competition drives innovation and patient satisfaction, not government targets and political interference.

    Private care is limited for the patient who already pays a very large sums in taxes and funds the NHS anyway. Thus the quality of your private care providers is limited. That's the reality of a monopoly. The NHS doesn't allow you to change specialists with ease. You don't check the reputation of your Doctors before you see them. What their qualifications are what treatments they specialise in.

    It can take around four months to see for example a dermatologist, and then a follow up appointment is another four months. And even then the treatments are limited to cost. Another anecdote from someone I know who has Hydes disease. The NHS took 10 years to diagnose his condition. It's not serious but it's left him with scarring and a decade of severe itching.
    From what I gather, both systems have their faults. Nationalisation will help those who wouldn't afford it and ensure everyone is covered while the US system of insurance increases speed of service and the competition ensures quality care.

    Can't you have a mix of both? And countries like Germany have amazing healthcare, what's their system?

    I think the fear in America has more to do with the hatred of socialism than anything else.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by In2deep)
    Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what is wrong with nationalised healthcare? Doesn't the NHS fall under that category and from what I hear, it's better than the current system in the USA.
    Ok you need to remember that around 90% of the UK support the NHS, so I am in the minority here. America has always been more right-wing than the UK, and I consider myself to be an American republican, which makes me UKIP over here, or far-right conservative (I like Douglas Carswell, John Redwood, Daniel Hannan etc.)

    I actually admit that our NHS is better than the US private system, but I believe regulations on insurance companies could be a better way of resolving their issues without the expense of nationalised care, and a lot of Obamas agends IS these regulations that I would want. That's my problem with him really, the republicans admit they agree with 80% of his plan but he's too stubborn to just take that last 20% off the table.

    While private care in the states is working badly, in other countries like Holland and Singapore it's working better than the NHS is. Holland have been ranked as having the best healthcare system in the EU for two years running now and they have a private system.

    My issue with public care like the NHS is that it's virtually a monopoly, private options aren't realistically available for many people at all. The NHS knows you have no choice but to use it, so they can treat you however they want really, because if you don't pay them (via taxes), you go to jail.

    In contrast if it's a private insurance company and it's a business, and you're the customer - they have a reason to treat you well, it'll make you recommend them to other people and it'll make you come back. The profit motive drives effective servise, the same applies in all areas of servise and industry - I support private competition over public monopoly.

    The obvious issue is those who cannot afford healthcare, and in these cases I support government subsidies for the poor to ensure health coverage is universal. But there is no need to go for a system as expensive and all-encompassing as the NHS simply to provide universal coverage. (The NHS is an absolutely massive part of our budget and without it our deficit and taxes could be decreased a vast amount - in fact you would be able to exempt millions of low income families from income tax alltogether, giving them more disposable income, in turn allowing them to then afford health insurance anyway.)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    Building in a countries capital city isn't illegal whether you like the fact it's being built or not is up to you. East Jerusalem isn't part of any settlement... it's part of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel - undivided.
    Israel is a country based on hypocrisy and lies. It wasn't their before and it won't be there in the future.

    Don't bother replying, I won't.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    I fight fire with fire:cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I like to take this approach to Americans who **** off the NHS.

    "You can moan all you like about the NHS, then I'll use the extra year I'm expected to live to catch up on my sleep"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    You have made an ass of yourself by generalizing the entire country based on the actions of a fraction of the population of one single state. Do you seriously lack the comprehension to figure out how ridiculous that is? That's like me assuming that all of Britain is a bunch of racist pricks because Nick Griffin was voted into the EU Parliament.

    And me being abusive? "Americans are an absolute bunch of dicks." Right. Learn what hypocrisy means, then call me abusive. And redneck, that was original.
    :facepalm: It was meant to be ironic.
    Of course I understand what you're saying that not the point though.
    Obama actually "won" Massachusetts though when he was voted in, so my point stands - they are idiots.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2010
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.