Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gee, an Army facility, Bush is CinC, and you blame Clinton?
Research me and you will find I am no fan of El Presidente King George. The point I am making here is that this is her platform---> Universal Healthcare. The recent goings on at Walter Reed are an indicator of what is to come from Universal(Government) Healthcare. Get it?
OldTimer, while I am a HIllary Hater of the Jedi Order, I am not above making pithy little plays on words such as Hellthcare meaning that HER Universal healthcare would be hell to deal with. Get it?
[quote=pslOldTimer;440241]The Hilary haters are getting ridiculous. what on EARTH does the Walter Reed fiasco have to do with Hilary Clinton? What does it have to do with Universal health care? And, what is "hellthcare"? Can't you people say ANYTHING without coming up with cutesy, derogatory names?
What does Hillary have to do health care?? Short selective memory there pslOldTimer.
Wasn't it Hillary that told us all that we got two for the price of one , and then gather her troops illegally behind closed doors and put together a plan which under the cover of universal health care would have in reality grabbed a huge portion of the countries economy. Additionally in would have made it a CRIME to pay for your on health care and bypass her system. Do you remember that ?
The point made, and seemingly missed by you, re the Walter Reed situation is that no program ,however small, can avoid being completely screwed up when the gov. gets involved.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electron
Research me and you will find I am no fan of El Presidente King George. The point I am making here is that this is her platform---> Universal Healthcare. The recent goings on at Walter Reed are an indicator of what is to come from Universal(Government) Healthcare. Get it?
And my point is the care of returning combat troops is a very SPECIFIC area of healthcare, has NOTHING to do with UNIVERSAL healthcare and bringing Hilary into it is irrelavent.
what he is trying to say is, Government run anything under Bush, clinton, reagan, carter etc is always lacking. It is due to big bureacracies and inefficient care.
go to Canada, britain , germany or other EU countries, sure basic things are cared for but specialists forget it. Also, do you know what the tax rate is in those countries and the unemployment rates? Spain hovers around 17% compared to 4.5% here. Lots on dole.
No american health care, while not perfect by any stretch is still the envy of the world, as well as higher ed.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinajack
what he is trying to say is, Government run anything under Bush, clinton, reagan, carter etc is always lacking. It is due to big bureacracies and inefficient care.
go to Canada, britain , germany or other EU countries, sure basic things are cared for but specialists forget it. Also, do you know what the tax rate is in those countries and the unemployment rates? Spain hovers around 17% compared to 4.5% here. Lots on dole.
No american health care, while not perfect by any stretch is still the envy of the world, as well as higher ed.
I don't know that we're still the envy of the world. Among other things our infant mortality rate is higher and our life expectancies lower than a number of industrialized nations. And while in terms of $ and material goods we're right up there there are someplaces that have a lot to offer lifestyle wise.
what he is trying to say is, Government run anything under Bush, clinton, reagan, carter etc is always lacking. It is due to big bureacracies and inefficient care.
Sure government bureacracy can be inefficient. But so is private bureacracy. That's the great myth of laissez-faire capitalists, that business is somehow inherently more efficient than government. Ain't so. Tell you what: Call up your insurance company or Internet service provider right now with a simple question. See how long you're on hold, how many times you're transferred, how many machines you have to talk to, and how many times your question goes unanswered.
All bureacracies are prone to inefficiency, but that's just as true of private enterprise as government. The big difference is that government's mission is to serve the people, not enrich the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.
And the crucial different: If your government isn't serving you, you can vote the *******s out -- or run yourself. Go try getting rid of Halliburton or Bechtel's CEO and board of directors and see how far you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinajack
go to Canada, britain , germany or other EU countries, sure basic things are cared for but specialists forget it.
Also a falsehood. I have family in Canada and friends in Europe. They LOVE their health care system and look at the US health care system in horror. No, their system isn't perfect, but it meets their needs.
Big Business is even discovering this. Last year when Toyota had to choose between opening a new plant in the US or Canada, they chose Canada. Why? Because the company's healthcare costs for a US plant would have been crippling. So all that money and all those jobs are going to Canada now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinajack
No american health care, while not perfect by any stretch is still the envy of the world, as well as higher ed.
No, it isn't. Again, I have family in Canada and friends in Europe. They have their gripes, sure, but they in no way envy our healthcare system here in the US. They are horrified by it.
i have familyand friends in both canada, lived there myself for a time, and Europe and they still think the American health system is far and away better and more efficient.
Sure government bureacracy can be inefficient. But so is private bureacracy. That's the great myth of laissez-faire capitalists, that business is somehow inherently more efficient than government. Ain't so.
Sure it is. Compare the education one gets from private institutions vs. public schools. If this was the case, why aren't grocery stores run by the government, or gas stations.
Quote:
Tell you what: Call up your insurance company or Internet service provider right now with a simple question. See how long you're on hold, how many times you're transferred, how many machines you have to talk to, and how many times your question goes unanswered.
All bureacracies are prone to inefficiency, but that's just as true of private enterprise as government. The big difference is that government's mission is to serve the people, not enrich the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.
You obviously haven't dealt with many government agencies. These people typically have very little fear of losing their jobs. They get raises "across-the-board", so they have little incentive to do a good job, with very few receiving merit raises.
Quote:
And the crucial different: If your government isn't serving you, you can vote the *******s out -- or run yourself. Go try getting rid of Halliburton or Bechtel's CEO and board of directors and see how far you get.
One can't vote out some secretary who answers the phone at the IRS, or the principal of Inner City High School. One votes on private corporations with their wallet.
i have familyand friends in both canada, lived there myself for a time, and Europe and they still think the American health system is far and away better and more efficient.
I think a lot of that is because everything thinks everyone else has it better. People in countries like Canada and Germany are intimately familiar with something that to many Americans is only a concept, so they are well-versed in all their system's drawbacks. It seems to be a question of quality vs. accessibility. I just don't feel it's acceptable that a country with our wealth and our resources has so many people with no access to health care except for emergency room visits (which, as everyone knows, ends up driving up costs for all the rest of us).
Personally, I think something has to be done, but I am really not sure if socialized medicine is the answer right now. I've seen that this government hasn't done anything right in years, and I am very skittish about having our government take on health care while we're swimming in the deepest pool of red ink in history. I think the government needs to clean up its own house financially and ethically before I would feel comfortable letting them run a health care system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
