Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Anti-Americanism

Scroll to see replies

Supersonic

Incorrect there is no NHS. And for clarification 15% and all americans have NO medical coverage state provided or private. Geeez. All this work for one point ffs.

There IS state provided healthcare in the US.

As Bismark has pointed out, its rather bleeding obvious that there is as if you take 70% away from 85% you get a result larger than 0.

Reply 201

Lawz-

Made in the USA

Bush is used as an excuse for hating the US, but if Bush wasn't president, the america-haters would come up with another reason for not liking me. On my last visit, Clinton was president and I wouldn't say the red carpet was rolled out for me when the plane landed. I didn't have any problems in London, but I almost got into a physical confrontation in a pub in wales because 5 guys didn't like my accent. I thought it was an isolated incident, but maybe not?

Bush has increased it, I assure you... but hating people on the basis of nationality is still the result of having an open sewer for a brain.

Made in the USA

It is a bit ironic to see the BBC reporting news on Anti-Americanism when it's the BBC that is responsible for perpetuating so many negative American stereotypes.

I'm certianly not a lefty, and CERTAINLY not anti-american. I have lived there, and am marrying one... but I dont see that the BBC is anti-american... one MIGHT contend it was anti-Bush, but even that is hard to make stick.

Reply 202

Lawz-

deedee7

Not my point although maybe badly put! Would it not seem logical for the purpose of a railway system to be the conveyance of those who want or need to use it to get from A to B? That’s not it’s purpose according to our capitalist rules; it’s to make money for a few, presumably very largely those who don’t want or need to use it.

As said, it isnt for a few - its for shareholders, who actually comprise of many average people.

Additionally, as I have said, the market forces involved will keep a check on their ability to price gouge, as will political pressure, as will media coverage. I wouldnt even be surprised if there was some level regulation in place.

deedee7

That capitalism should need rules & regulations (which can be virtually ignored by international companies who operate 'abroad') perhaps is to admit it’s faults.

Perhaps. But then would you really contend that having a law against mugging, so thus preventing an efficient mugger market is to admit capitalism is a failure?

Yes - companies CAN go abroad and benefit from overly-lax laws elsewhere. However, those countries are very often not even capitalist. the problem is not the result of capitalism per se. Additionally, as said, to have certain minimum standards of behaviour within which the market can operate is not to negate a capitalist system.

deedee7

Generally I think you’ll find most rules would be aimed at protecting the environment in the country where the capitalists involve live, not elsewhere

So if everywhere was capitalist - everyone would have such laws!

deedee7

Kyoto mayhelp highlight the problem. Firstly the need for it was surely an admittance of the damage we’re doing and the incredible outcome of ‘carbon trading’ is surely bizarre. What are we saying to our ‘underdeveloped’ neighbours? Don't start building up your own industries and polluting the Planet, we'll do it for you and pay you (bribe?) for not producing the pollution that we will produce on your behalf? Maybe we're not destroying the planet but maybe we are. Shall we just wait-and-see?

My point was a simple one - market forces are a powerful tool in any arena, including the quest to lower carbon emissions.

deedee7

Again maybe the war wasn't for money. Although it's an over-simplification did we not put Saddam in power and support him until he started threatening our oil supplies?

That was 1990.

This war, was, IMO, down to an over-zealous US administration whose post 9/11 stratergy was perhaps rather short-sighted. However, I firmly believe that Bush's reasons for championing the removal of Sadam wered dominated by a belief that to install a democratic government in Iraq would be to help stablise the region, and in the long run protect the US from further attack. Whether you think was misguided is another matter altogether.

deedee7

What do we now claim to be our aim; to install a democratic government? We have a democratic government in this country, do we not?

Yes.

deedee7

I would argue that we do not, we have an elected dictatorship (albeit initially benign) which at regular intervals we can vote out of office to make way for a new bunch who can set about learning the ropes and once they've been learnt, normally through incompetence mess things up, get voted out and so the cycle repeats.

Lord Hailsham aside, that is really beside the point. The fact of the matter is that, as any pollster will tell you, politics today is mroe than ever, beholden to the will of the electorate. You think that all this spin, focus group forming, pandering, and poll taking is due to the impotence of the populous?

If you think the only thing that can constitute democracy is to have the people determining every issue themselves, then fine. But then a democracy has NEVER existed in the form of a nation state. We have representative democracy, and the people have far more power and influence than Mr. Hailsham would lead you to believe.

deedee7

The view accepted by many as being the cause of the war with

Iraq is the threat of terrorism. Who and what causes terrorism, the West or the East? If it isn't us, or even if it is us, doesn't it go some way to suggesting we’re not as clever as we think, since it clearly exists and is a growth industry.

Well, like most things in life, the causes as multifarious. But what’s your point?

deedee7

Good for the armaments industry?

Maybe, but let’s not confuse correlation with causation. Just because someone benefits doesn’t mean they were the driving voices behind the war in o0rder to reap profit.

deedee7

Are we increasingly locking-up our students in ‘educational zoo’s’ to teach them our existing (mainly capatalist) values (brain-washing?) I hope not.

Considering most academics are more leftist than the majority of the population, I would doubt it.

Plus, having been at university for 4 years, I can honestly say that I NEVER felt brainwashed at all. We were never indoctrinated… Indeed universities still see a hotbed of left leaning societies and socially conscious ones.

I don’t think that the charge that tertiary education is some kind of right wing cult sticks at all really.

deedee7

There’s more to life, or should be, than ever-increasing technology and if we can’t kick the habit of ‘money’ let’s try and modify it.

For some there is, for some there’s not.

However technology, for the most part, offers the best hope of improving the environment at this point, raising standards of living, increasing life expectancy, and generally improving things.

deedee7

If the value of a gallon of oil is £1 let’s value the cost of a walk in an undisturbed part of the country as £1 billion.

That’s the beauty of the market. The people determine the value of things. Very democratic actually.

Reply 203

Lawz-

deedee7

I do think 'education' should be voluntary

And when the children who decide that education is not for them can't find jobs, who is going to feed clothe and take care of them? Those with education I'll hazard.

I cant begin to gree with the idea that education should be an opt-in opt out club.

deedee7

Thaty leaves a single monopoly organisation, something very close to socialism or even communism? and so the cycle repeats! It seems to me we have most things the wrong way round. Perhaps the government (UK Ltd) should be 'privatised' and be accountable to it's shareholders, the citizens, and all other activities 'nationilsed'

Didnt we do this already?

There are regulations to prevent market abuse. Lots of them actually.

Reply 204

deedee7

OK I give up. Don't think we're getting anywhere. Long live Capitalism.

Reply 205

Supersonic

BellaCat

Google 'medicaid' and 'Section 8 Housing'.

I have researched it...right this is the last time:

70% covered by private insurance
15% covered by medi-care and medi-caid
15% Have no medial coverage at all

Reply 206

ForeverIsMyName

Ok so 15% have no cover at all. Didn't you recently quote that 10% of UK citizens aren't covered by the NHS either?

Reply 207

Lawz-

Supersonic

I have researched it...right this is the last time:

70% covered by private insurance
15% covered by medi-care and medi-caid
15% Have no medial coverage at all

Dont say - "this is the last time" as if you have been conssitently putting forward a coherent position we have failed to grasp.

Reply 208

Made in the USA

Rusty33

Wouldn't have mattered; we all know the Welsh are a bunch of Miss Nancy's anyways.

I'm not sure it's wise to get in a serious fight with several people when alcohol is involved...even with 5 Miss Nancys. I just got up and left

Reply 209

Lawz-

Miss Nancy's?

Heh...

Never heard THAT before.

Reply 210

Vienna

naivesincerity

Margaret Thatcher's completely lost her marbles? :rolleyes:

No, like many, she believes the US should offer global leadership.

To whom?

Lawz-

Dont say - "this is the last time" as if you have been conssitently putting forward a coherent position we have failed to grasp.

i'll say what i want...and i haven't been putting forward an argument...just stating simple facts.

And to who asked...no 100% of UK citizens are covered by the NHS. Just 10% choose to go private. But they are still entitled to be treated by the NHS.

Reply 213

Lawz-

Supersonic

i'll say what i want...

sure sure... type away.

Supersonic

and i haven't been putting forward an argument...just stating simple facts.

In a way that made little sense.

Reply 214

Lawz-

Supersonic

30% do not have full medical coverage!!!

Supersonic

15% Have no medial coverage at all

Supersonic

i'll say what I want...

Regardless of logic and consistency? Yes – it seems you will.

Reply 215

naivesincerity

Vienna

No, like many, she believes the US should offer global leadership.

Yes. And she has also lost her marbles.

Reply 216

Supersonic

ohh my

Medi-caid does not provide FULL coverage. Do the sums idiot.

70% Have private = FULL COVERAGE

15% have medi-caid = PARTIAL COVERAGE

15% have NO COVERAGE

Therefore logical to conclude:

"30% do not have full medical coverage!!!"

"15% Have no medial coverage at all"

FFS this is just boring.

Reply 217

Bismarck

Supersonic

Thanks for proving your ignorance of the American healthcare system. Medicaid offers more coverage than a large portion of private insurance firms. Medicaid recipients get absolutely everything for free, including drugs and optional surgeries. The only drawback is that they have to pick from a list of approved doctors.

Reply 218

Lawz-

Supersonic

Well idiot... I was going to explain why your comments were asinine ... but it seems Bismark seem to have done it for me.

Reply 219

Bismarck

I should also add that a large portion of those uncovered 15% are young professionals who feel they have no need for health insurance as they have a very low chance of getting sick, and paying the doctor a visit every few months is cheaper than having health insurance. It is also illegal for any hospital to deny a seriously ill person treatment if they don't have enough money to cover the stay.