Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Operation "Blessing" : PeeWeeDan prays hard to Obama watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    :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.
    Well if you understand that, then "people in Massachusetts are absolute dicks" would have been a much more appropriate response wouldn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HotCoco.)
    It's only been one year. I'm sure it's not as simple and quick as people think.
    It wasn't his fault but he should have got a better deal passed when there was time and he was still popular during the honeymoon period. He waited too long to intervene and use his clout.

    The Bill was watered down to please in particular Joe Liberman who is independent and a former Democrat (but usually votes with them) However he has a lot of insurance companies based in his home state, so he held the bill effectively to ransom for a long time before it was finally watered down and passed.

    The Bill has only recently been sent to the House who were unhappy with a lot of the watering down and wanted to send it back to the Senate with a better offer for poor Americans.

    But because of the unexpected loss of Kennedy's seat the Republicans can filibuster (kill it). So if the left wingers in the House sends the Bill back to the Senate now the Republicans can effectively kill health care reform.

    A few still want to try. It would be stupid. Best get what they have now passed by sending to the President. He should have acted sooner.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.)
    I agree. I was born in Holland and can guarantee you that their system works amazingly but you have to remember that something that works for one country won't necessarily work for another. Obama is shoving the USA towards nationalisation but their hatred for socialism mean he's practically committing political suicide.

    I don't approve of the UKIP though, conservatism is ok but some of their recent legislations are undemocratic imo. but whatever rocks your boat

    mixing healthcare with politics is unhealthy but it has to be done.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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
    International law says no such thing. Waging a lawful war does not enable one state to annex the territory of another under even the most unorthodox understandings of international law that exist.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    International law says no such thing. Waging a lawful war does not enable one state to annex the territory of another under even the most unorthodox understandings of international law that exist.
    :congrats:
    Since when did Israel follow any laws. The stubbornness of both sides can only lead to one thing surely.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    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.
    as much as they do have a good health care system, medical cost are high

    its someone like lower pay people pay a capped premiums and the government makes it up i think

    and the rich pay premium based pay

    these a lot less rich that moan in germany that they have to pay for the poor, they pretty much accept it

    the big problem is that it is more expensive

    the NHS has issue with red type and all these targets, targets are just so bad
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by In2deep)
    I don't approve of the UKIP though, conservatism is ok but some of their recent legislations are undemocratic imo. but whatever rocks your boat
    I don't support UKIP either, I just like their stance on the EU, taxes, healthcare etc. Their recent call to ban the burkha is an abomination, and so is their stance on immigration.

    LPUK (see my sig) are who I really support, right-wing economically and liberal socially (a bit like Holland is, I love Hollands politics actually, and it's a fantastic country in general.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    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.
    Of course. I'm not suggesting the American system is perfect. In fact I have been a vocal activist for health care reform back in the US.

    I just don't think it's as easy as some people make out to compare health systems. Also the cultural differences are ones of values and priorities which differ across the developed world. Americans are irrational about anything that remotely resembles socialism particularly when big insurance companies and pharmaceuticals run propaganda campaigns. You could though say the same about the British and private care or even payment.

    The think the Conservatives had a reasonable idea awhile back, where if someone wanted to get off the NHS waiting list the NHS would fund the equivalent cost of the treatment on the NHS and they would be free to top it up. It was killed though. I don't know about Germany but in France or Scandinavia patients are forced to make personal contributions.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I don't support UKIP either, I just like their stance on the EU, taxes, healthcare etc. Their recent call to ban the burkha is an abomination, and so is their stance on immigration.

    LPUK (see my sig) are who I really support, right-wing economically and liberal socially
    I know who I'm voting for from now on


    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    (a bit like Holland is, I love Hollands politics actually, and it's a fantastic country in general.)
    The government has a great system but the people are quite harsh tbh, the Danish and the French are in the same boat. It's a shame that people don't understand how great this country is. Mixing with Europe is the last thing it needs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liptease)
    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.
    There is a problem when you use extreme anecdotes to discuss the NHS. There isn't really a way of seeing how that person would have faired in a US hospital. It might have taken just as long to diagnose that individual, but cost him tens of thousands of pounds in the process.

    Personally I love the NHS. If it wasn't for the NHS I would certainly be in a wheelchair and have a very low standard of living. I am 20 and have already had 2 major and 2 minor operations on the NHS, and may be having another major next year. I have been in A&E 8 different times in my life - waiting times have varied from 30 mins to 5 hours but I was always seen and treated. (they have improved since 1997 certainly). I have undergone courses of physiotheraphy on 3 separate occasions and the treatment I received was flawless and allowed me to resume a relatively ordinary lifestyle when I was once told I would be disabled.

    Admittedly, there have been negatives. I have an undiagnosed heart condition that obviously has not been treated - but I am satisfied that all that could be done was done for me and I can accept the limits of modern medicine and diagnosis technology at the moment.

    My point is - I would never have been able to afford any of this myself. I know that my surgery last year cost ~£120,000 - for the operation alone (nevermind hospital stay, rehab etc). If it wasn't for the NHS I wouldn't be here.

    xx
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    International law says no such thing. Waging a lawful war does not enable one state to annex the territory of another under even the most unorthodox understandings of international law that exist.
    However if you consider the West Bank was disputed territory before the Six Day War we have to assess whether it is Jordan or Israel who has a more legitimate claim... and it's clearly Israel... so Israel is the party with the most legitimate claim to the West Bank including East Jerusalem... we don't particularly want the West Bank. If you dispute this with your amazing arguing technique of making unsubstantiated claims (where's any evidence? You've just made statements) then try PMing Folderol... he's the expert on In it ternational law... and he's patient enough to explain it to even people like you.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    Americans are an absolute bunch of dicks
    They vote a man into power then vote against the reforms which they voted him in for.
    Obama wasn't elected because Americans wanted quadrupled deficits, the nationalization of car companies, banks, or healthcare. He was elected because people were tired of Bush. Obama suffered crushing defeats in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. New Jersey and Massachusetts are 2 of the most left wing states in the US, states that were thought to be completely owned by the democrat party. If that's not a repudiation of Obama's policies, I don't know what is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    However if you consider the West Bank was disputed territory before the Six Day War we have to assess whether it is Jordan or Israel who has a more legitimate claim... and it's clearly Israel... so Israel is the party with the most legitimate claim to the West Bank including East Jerusalem... we don't particularly want the West Bank. If you dispute this with your amazing arguing technique of making unsubstantiated claims (where's any evidence? You've just made statements) then try PMing Folderol... he's the expert on In it ternational law... and he's patient enough to explain it to even people like you.
    That's a completely different point. I agree that the ownership of the West Bank is controversial and unclear. But to say that waging a lawful war somehow permits you to annex territory under international law just isn't true.

    I know international law extremely well, thanks.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Obama wasn't elected because Americans wanted quadrupled deficits, the nationalization of car companies, banks, or healthcare.
    The collapse of the global economy had absolutely nothing to do with Obama and tbh he dealt with it pretty well. Its irrelevant to any discussion of his success imo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)

    I know international law extremely well, thanks.
    Don't you have a 1st from Cambridge or something lol?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Don't you have a 1st from Cambridge or something lol?
    Nah, got 2 marks off :rant:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    There is a problem when you use extreme anecdotes to discuss the NHS. There isn't really a way of seeing how that person would have faired in a US hospital. It might have taken just as long to diagnose that individual, but cost him tens of thousands of pounds in the process.

    Personally I love the NHS. If it wasn't for the NHS I would certainly be in a wheelchair and have a very low standard of living. I am 20 and have already had 2 major and 2 minor operations on the NHS, and may be having another major next year. I have been in A&E 8 different times in my life - waiting times have varied from 30 mins to 5 hours but I was always seen and treated. (they have improved since 1997 certainly). I have undergone courses of physiotheraphy on 3 separate occasions and the treatment I received was flawless and allowed me to resume a relatively ordinary lifestyle when I was once told I would be disabled.

    Admittedly, there have been negatives. I have an undiagnosed heart condition that obviously has not been treated - but I am satisfied that all that could be done was done for me and I can accept the limits of modern medicine and diagnosis technology at the moment.

    My point is - I would never have been able to afford any of this myself. I know that my surgery last year cost ~£120,000 - for the operation alone (nevermind hospital stay, rehab etc). If it wasn't for the NHS I wouldn't be here.

    xx
    It actually happened in Leicester where i see is where you may be studying or from? The Royal Infirmary in the city center.

    The point I'm making is he had to rely on the NHS system and when that system failed he had no options or choices opened to him. He was essentially passively involved in his treatment, rather than an active participant. it's not as extreme as you may think if your ailment is not deemed serious.

    My sisters acne treatment a less severe case of a skin problem involved a variety of treatments that were administered by a dermatologist of our choice who closely monitored her bi-monthly. If she was dissatisfied she could have moved to another dermatologist. They could have diagnosed him had they monitored him regularly, and carried out a skin biopsy.

    I understand and respect your position and the NHS for offering universal health care. I can't say I could have afforded the kind of treatments you have required. However, my insurance would have covered it and I am by no means rich. If the US could get all Americans insured they could all benefit from the excellent health care that most enjoy and lower costs.

    oxo (I like that you leave kisses)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Whats with the constant name changes of the thread lmao?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    generally if it's literally life or death they won't ask questions, they'll treat first. THEN they find out you have no insurance, you get a bill for £15,000 which you can't afford, and so you lose your home to pay for it. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
    That's not always true. I had a 30,000 dollar operation on my spine and I had no insurance and the hospital's clinic paid for it. It didn't cost me a dime. There are plenty of safety nets already in place for people who don't have insurance. I have no idea where these crazy stories come from.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    I'm frankly astonished. Massacheussetts electing a Republican? What is this ********?

    Boston is the most liberal city in the entire US, or at least is reputed to be.

    ******* Republicans.
    San Francisco is even worse than Boston. I would say that's the most liberal city with Boston being a close second.
 
 
 
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
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.