Why Am I for nationa healthcare?

[Fran65]

Regarding your assertion that the population in the UK has little role to play in politics and that we live in a 'soft tyranny. What utter nonsense.

We are a democratic country that holds general elections every 4-5 years. The parliament is a healthy mix of political parties - Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, and it includes a number of minority parties (Green, UKIP, SNP etc).

We have a media that is the envy of the free world in terms of the quality and extent of it’s reporting; we have extremely active locally elected councils for each geographic region. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies as well as representation in the British parliament. Each has representatives voted for by the local population.

We have an extremely robust legislative procedure and the whole idea of a political party was developed in Britain, with ther Conservative party being the oldest political party in the world!

With the private finance initiative in the NHS we have a health service that is able to set it’s own locally driven targets and agendas. All of this is driven by what the population want via meetings and pressure groups such as the Patients’ Alliance.

We have an enviable participation rate in both local and national elections. Nor have we have been invaded or occupied for almost 1000 years -something that very few other countries can claim!

Here are some facts about political activism in the UK:
68% of women and 66% of men voted in the last general election. 17% of women and 20%of men had contacted a politician in the 12 months previous to the survey. 6% of women and 9% of men had given money to a party. 2% of women and 4% of men are members of political parties. etc…

Source:
electoralcommission.org.uk/data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0019/16129/Final_report_270404_12488-9470__E__N__S__W.pdf

I am proud to live in a country that has a strong democratic tradition and one that encourages political engagement in it’s population.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Regarding your assertion that the population in the UK has little role to play in politics and that we live in a 'soft tyranny. What utter nonsense.

We are a democratic country that holds general elections every 4-5 years. The parliament is a healthy mix of political parties - Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, and it includes a number of minority parties (Green, UKIP, SNP etc).

We have a media that is the envy of the free world in terms of the quality and extent of it’s reporting; we have extremely active locally elected councils for each geographic region. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies as well as representation in the British parliament. Each has representatives voted for by the local population.

We have an extremely robust legislative procedure and the whole idea of a political party was developed in Britain, with ther Conservative party being the oldest political party in the world!

With the private finance initiative in the NHS we have a health service that is able to set it’s own locally driven targets and agendas. All of this is driven by what the population want via meetings and pressure groups such as the Patients’ Alliance.

We have an enviable participation rate in both local and national elections. Nor have we have been invaded or occupied for almost 1000 years -something that very few other countries can claim!

Here are some facts about political activism in the UK:
68% of women and 66% of men voted in the last general election. 17% of women and 20%of men had contacted a politician in the 12 months previous to the survey. 6% of women and 9% of men had given money to a party. 2% of women and 4% of men are members of political parties. etc…

Source:
electoralcommission.org.uk/data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0019/16129/Final_report_270404_12488-9470__E__N__S__W.pdf

I am proud to live in a country that has a strong democratic tradition and one that encourages political engagement in it’s population.

Um correct me if I’m wrong. But in humanity’s striving for freedom the signeing of the MAgnacarta was a big advance. Wasn’t it Britain who signed the Magana carta? Which was the bass for commonlaw.

 

[Ella]

Regarding your assertion that the population in the UK has little role to play in politics and that we live in a 'soft tyranny. What utter nonsense.

Thank You Lord Jesus that some people from the countries often maligned on here have stepped up and posted the truth about where they live.

 

[wabrams]

Regarding your assertion that the population in the UK has little role to play in politics and that we live in a 'soft tyranny. What utter nonsense.

Not according to ex-patriots of your country I know.

We have a media that is the envy of the free world in terms of the quality and extent of it’s reporting;

That’s a joke, right?

With the private finance initiative in the NHS we have a health service that is able to set it’s own locally driven targets and agendas. All of this is driven by what the population want via meetings and pressure groups such as the Patients’ Alliance.

Your healthcare system is bleeding out and is a joke.

Nor have we have been invaded or occupied for almost 1000 years -something that very few other countries can claim!

and you are welcome for that, by the way.

 

[tjm190]

Methinks you don’t understand how economics works, To lower the price consumers pay, your options include-

1. Subsidizing- Either give people money or give the firm’s money. This doesn’t actually lower the price.
2. Reduce the costs- Since high quality medical care has high costs, this essentially means cutting quality.
3. Reduce demand or ration- We see this in most nations with socialized healthcare; to keep prices down, the government must decide who gets to purchase care and when.
4. Increase supply- Provide incentives to enter the field- this would take time of course, but it isn’t a bad idea.

Which of these are you fine with?

And also-
Let’s say I invented a drug. The drug is taken once a month, and can be taken in one’s own home with no professional help. The effects are phenomenal- the drug can extend life expectancy well into the 150’s, cures most diseases, and increases mental function. However, the drug costs 300,000 dollars to make. Now when this drug hits the market, you’re going to start seeing horror stories of people who used to be well off going under trying to afford the drug. There will be cries for action of course- how is it fair that some people get to use this miracle drug and others don’t? It isn’t. So people will expect the government to step in and provide for everyone.
Obviously the government can’t spend that kind of money on everyone- so the fairest thing to do is to help nobody and leave the decision of who gets what to the market.

 

[iluvburpees]

“It doesnt matter how the job gets done, only that it gets done."

“The worst possible thing we can do is nothing.”

As Oscarthecat pointed out, your logic throughout this thread is appalling. Your above two statements are incredibly flawed and, purely based on your public assertions, make me hesitate how sincere of a Catholic you are.

Let’s make this nice and simple. You claim that this particular health care bill is “better than doing nothing,” correct?

OK, let’s go one step at a time:

-No intrinsically evil thing can be supported by Catholics.
-Abortion is an intrinsically evil thing.
-Therefore, abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.

Do you agree with the above?

If so, please respond so we can move onto the next question.

Oh, BTW, this quote by Corki:

“I would gladly sell my home to pay for life-saving medical treatment for my spouse. I will not so gladly sell my home to pay the government.”

…should be enough to enlighten the OP as to realize that our government is a communistic, anti-God, selfish, and disgusting group of individuals (with few exceptions) who deserve as much punishment as Hitler would have had he been captured.

 

[Fran65]

wabrams,

You have not substantiated any of your assertions. Asserting the strengths of one country does not mean that the US is being criticised. As for healthcare, your own government acknowledges that the US system is in dire need of reform. Ours also needs some work. I know that too and I have never said that it is perfect.

Regarding the non-invasion of the UK. I’m assuming that you’re referring to the WWII?

At the point when the Nazis were on the coast and threatening the invasion of the UK the American forces were not involved. They became involved only after Pearl Harbour, and we (the UK) were charged by the US for their involvement via the system of lease lend. We also had the economic plug pulled by the US, including the cessation of any and all aid, immediately after the conclusion of the war which plunged us into dire straights for many years post war.

However, Europe as a whole is grateful to the Americans for their support during WWII. To be fair, it was not their fight, but they were willing to lose lives for Europeans. And that is to be lauded.

 

[aspawloski4th]

“It doesnt matter how the job gets done, only that it gets done."

“The worst possible thing we can do is nothing.”

As Oscarthecat pointed out, your logic throughout this thread is appalling. Your above two statements are incredibly flawed and, purely based on your public assertions, make me hesitate how sincere of a Catholic you are.

Let’s make this nice and simple. You claim that this particular health care bill is “better than doing nothing,” correct?

OK, let’s go one step at a time:

-No intrinsically evil thing can be supported by Catholics.
-Abortion is an intrinsically evil thing.
-Therefore, abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.

Do you agree with the above?

If so, please respond so we can move onto the next question.

Oh, BTW, this quote by Corki:

“I would gladly sell my home to pay for life-saving medical treatment for my spouse. I will not so gladly sell my home to pay the government.”

…should be enough to enlighten the OP as to realize that our government is a communistic, anti-God, selfish, and disgusting group of individuals (with few exceptions) who deserve as much punishment as Hitler would have had he been captured.

So is the community of big business of the USA, but I don’t hear one little complaint about them. You throw in the big oil CEOs as well is the insurance CEOs ill go along with you Corki must be lucky to have a way to live if she sells her home for the sake of health reasons. Iv’e been foreclosed on, come April I’m homeless maybe dead soon after because of homelessness. Unless a mericle happens I don’t plan to be alive at the end of 2010.

 

[Oscarthecat]

So is the community of big business of the USA, but I don’t hear one little complaint about them. You throw in the big oil CEOs as well is the insurance CEOs ill go along with you Corki must be lucky to have a way to live if she sells her home for the sake of health reasons. Iv’e been foreclosed on, come April I’m homeless maybe dead soon after because of homelessness. Unless a mericle happens I don’t plan to be alive at the end of 2010.

First, you didn’t substantively respond to anything in this post except the last few lines “iluvburpees” wrote.

Second, what does your unfortunate jobless condition have to do with this debate? Do you believe there is some direct connection between your desire to impose government run healthcare on everyone else and all of the ills that have befallen you after you were fired. Would government healthcare somehow provide housing for you?

Third, since you have brought up your jobless state and your impending homelessness several times, I think it is fair, without intending any rudeness, to point out that the government has recently doled out lots of money in the name of fighting homelessness because many people were at risk of losing their homes. Should I assume that the government has not been particularly helpful to you in your time of need?

Think this through… you are still facing homelessness- despite all of these housing bail outs and new government programs specifically designed to keep people from losing their homes–
Doesn’t that make you wonder whether the government will really do what it is promising to do in the healthcare arena??

If they can’t solve the problem of homelessness, which affects a relatively small number of people, how can they handle healthcare, which affects us all???

Lastly, I have made at least 3 points in this post- please respond to all of them, and don’t just come back at me with some empty attack like “well, what has big business done to help me?” We’ve all heard enough of that.

 

[Corki]

Corki must be lucky to have a way to live if she sells her home for the sake of health reasons. Iv’e been foreclosed on, come April I’m homeless maybe dead soon after because of homelessness. Unless a mericle happens I don’t plan to be alive at the end of 2010.

I would live day to day and that’s better than the alternative. Your original link was probably a bad choice for this discussion. To equate being a (gasp) renter with a loss of humanity is a stretch. Actually, with Obamacare, my family will likely fall into the new group of uninsured. The current bill just shifts who is insured. I am lucky – now. But I have lived on food stamps and the money I could get selling my blood. I have been evicted (twice) and laid off four times.

Hopefully, the many organizations that help the homeless will be allowed to continue their work and you will find support. I wish you the best.

 

[iluvburpees]

Think this through… you are still facing homelessness- despite all of these housing bail outs and new government programs specifically designed to keep people from losing their homes–
Doesn’t that make you wonder whether the government will really do what it is promising to do in the healthcare arena??

This brings us to rule #1 concerning our government:

1. They’re liars.

 

[aspawloski4th]

First, you didn’t substantively respond to anything in this post except the last few lines “iluvburpees” wrote.

Second, what does your unfortunate jobless condition have to do with this debate? Do you believe there is some direct connection between your desire to impose government run healthcare on everyone else and all of the ills that have befallen you after you were fired. Would government healthcare somehow provide housing for you?

Third, since you have brought up your jobless state and your impending homelessness several times, I think it is fair, without intending any rudeness, to point out that the government has recently doled out lots of money in the name of fighting homelessness because many people were at risk of losing their homes. Should I assume that the government has not been particularly helpful to you in your time of need?

Think this through… you are still facing homelessness- despite all of these housing bail outs and new government programs specifically designed to keep people from losing their homes–
Doesn’t that make you wonder whether the government will really do what it is promising to do in the healthcare arena??

If they can’t solve the problem of homelessness, which affects a relatively small number of people, how can they handle healthcare, which affects us all???

Lastly, I have made at least 3 points in this post- please respond to all of them, and don’t just come back at me with some empty attack like “well, what has big business done to help me?” We’ve all heard enough of that.

Before Republican cut sect8 I would at least some where to go. So it was solved at one time. As far as it not having anything to do wit the debate, I was making comparisons. My mind is comparing and contrasting all my waking hours,and that will never stop.

 

[aspawloski4th]

This brings us to rule #1 concerning our government:

1. They’re liars.

So are most bigbusiness CEO’s.

 

[iluvburpees]

So are most bigbusiness CEO’s.

Are you going to respond to my question? If not, I will assume that you feel you won’t win the battle. If so, please stop arguing around it and simply respond to my straightforward question.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Are you going to respond to my question? If not, I will assume that you feel you won’t win the battle. If so, please stop arguing around it and simply respond to my straightforward question.

Yes I agree abortion is an intrinsic evil. At the young age of 11 I embarssed a leader in planned parenthood on national radio on a phone in talkshow. If we take at as far as you do, youhave to account for private policies that support it. Funny how private insurance supporting it is 110% ignored but it is a red herring when we talk about national healthcare. Look through this whole debate concerning the posts I have made on the behalf of a memeber here named Pathia. I consider what has been done to her intrinsic with no excuses eveil two.

 

[iluvburpees]

Yes I agree abortion is an intrinsic evil.

Alrighty, we’re getting somewhere.

Now that you agree with that conclusion, let’s make another syllogism…

-If abortion cannot be supported by Catholics, then no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.
-Abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.
-Therefore, no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.

Do you agree with the above? If not, point out the apparent fallacy/fallacies.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Before Republican cut sect8 I would at least some where to go. So it was solved at one time. As far as it not having anything to do wit the debate, I was making comparisons. My mind is comparing and contrasting all my waking hours,and that will never stop.

did you even read any other part of my post? or did you just scan the last few sentences?

Your reply doesn’t help your argument as it only reinforces the fact that the government is failing to help the homeless.

And as far as comparisons go, here’s mine again…

The government is failing to help the homeless.
You want the government to help the sick.
If the government can’t help the homeless, what makes you think they can help the sick?

Please respond to that comparison directly.
Please don’t just dodge the issue by pointing the finger at something else.

 

[iluvburpees]

If the government can’t help the homeless, what makes you think they can help the sick?

Well, don’t forget, we’ll have more abortions and euthanasia. That’ll help the sick. :bigyikes:

The only sick people who will be helped are the sick political leaders pushing for this demonic bill to help satisfy their murderous pleasures.

 

[aspawloski4th]

did you even read any other part of my post? or did you just scan the last few sentences?

Your reply doesn’t help your argument as it only reinforces the fact that the government is failing to help the homeless.

And as far as comparisons go, here’s mine again…

The government is failing to help the homeless.
You want the government to help the sick.
If the government can’t help the homeless, what makes you think they can help the sick?

Please respond to that comparison directly.
Please don’t just dodge the issue by pointing the finger at something else.

Ultimately they have more money than anybody else without worrying about netting a profit. Because of the floating currecy system, if they don’t have enough money they can print it. There, quit badgering me!

 

[aspawloski4th]

Well, don’t forget, we’ll have more abortions and euthanasia. That’ll help the sick. :bigyikes:

The only sick people who will be helped are the sick political leaders pushing for this demonic bill to help satisfy their murderous pleasures.

And the same goes on with the insurance companies. Your meladramticness doesn’t impress me.