Obama's Year

[MoogleViper]

Jay's point was so good he had to post it twice.

[Wesley]

When that particular shit hit the fan I immediately thought of all the Tory hatred for the NHS and felt a little ill...

 

But so many different things are annoying about that...

 

Also, that Fox reporter is such an asshole, you could tell he knew sweet fuck all about British politics, despite him pretending he does and saying he read British papers all the time.

 

The way he avoided using proper acronyms and saying such vague references to actual practices and institutions; and the way he clearly couldn't remember what party Daniel belonged to was funny.

[jayseven]

Moogle; that's been happening a lot recently. I really have no idea why.

[MoogleViper]

Moogle; that's been happening a lot recently. I really have no idea why.

 

What you making good points?

[jayseven]

No, me having posts repeating themselves. I've been considerably dumber recently.

[ipaul]

What you making good points?

 

Exactly what I thought when I read it. Great minds and all =P

[Nolan]

You really think healthcare is something that should be there primarily for the profit of companies and not the need of the patients?

 

No, but that's how it currently is.

[Shorty]

I am happy that he has allowed funding of Stem Cell Research.

 

Americans are probably scared of a National Health scheme because they might end up with teeth as bad as ours.

[Pit-Jr]

If Obama really wants to overhaul our ridiculous healthcare system, he should take insurance companies completely out of the equation.

 

Basically what id like to see is not free healthcare, but ''easily affordable'' healthcare by circumventing insurance companies altogether, and supplementing it with alcohol, tobacco, luxury, and the Medicare taxes we already pay here to drive costs back to down to a sane level

 

Theres the argument that it would destroy the insurance industry and i say good riddance. Get out from behind your desk and get a real job

[Nicktendo]

Theres the argument that it would destroy the insurance industry and i say good riddance. Get out from behind your desk and get a real job

 

Couldn't agree more. One of the social cancers of modern society.

[ipaul]

The Democrats just lost Massachusetts... looks like that healthcare bill won't be passed after all.

[Fierce_LiNk]

The Democrats just lost Massachusetts... looks like that healthcare bill won't be passed after all.

 

I can't believe there's so much negativity surrounding his plan for healthcare changes. If you asked 100 British people if they would swap the way things work here with how it works in America, I think you'd be hard pushed to find a single person who would swap willingly. It's all about greed and money nowadays, and not the care of the public. What is the actual figure of Americans without any kind of insurance or coverage? Something like 15%, isn't it? You can't justify that.

[weeyellowbloke]

Bit of a generalisation, but I think it's just the general attitude of the American public (or at least media) that anything less than full on, no holds capitalism is communism and therefore evil. Also there seems to be a tremendous sense of self-entitlement; that nothing should cross personal rights, even if that means treading all over someone elses rights. I might just be Fox news that gives this impression though.

Edited January 20, 2010 by weeyellowbloke

[gaggle64]

I think Obama's done the best he could over all - perhaps he put too much faith in the US political system because he and the Democrats seems to be split and fighting with two arms tied behind their backs. Remember though, he's still got another 3 years of his first term, and that's a long time.

 

I guess his whole first year has been about healthcare. I can understand the anger of the left at the compromises that have had to be made to get the bill this far - the loss stuff like abortion and funding for womens' health care at large seems ridiculous. But the whole opposition from the right against reform at large has been loud but seemingly based almost entirely on bullshit, NHS "Death Panels" and all. The bill as it stands can still help millions of people but now I guess this new Republican (in Ted Kenndy's seat no less, the guy who made this bill his legacy) will help destroy that ASAP.

[dwarf]

It is impossible to govern America. The country is too big for its own good, it needs to be divided into areas for simpler rule, but tradition will prevent that.

 

Obama must have been insane to take on the job, he was only ever going to receive poor responses. I know nothing about american politics really but I find it really annoying when people try to rubbish the guy when they don't know the full story and the difficulty in making big decisions, some things are just irreversible.

 

I might be chatting shit myself.

[ipaul]

It is impossible to govern America. The country is too big for its own good, it needs to be divided into areas for simpler rule, but tradition will prevent that.

 

Obama must have been insane to take on the job, he was only ever going to receive poor responses. I know nothing about american politics really but I find it really annoying when people try to rubbish the guy when they don't know the full story and the difficulty in making big decisions, some things are just irreversible.

 

I might be chatting shit myself.

 

Oh, divided up? They could have DIFFERENT STATES perhaps. But those are shitty pipe dreams you got there.

 

No seriously, you make a good point, it's usually incredibly difficult to get things done there. Obama is proving that. Bush seemed to get through all his crazy BS like the patriot act.... sneaky fucker.

 

I think Obama's done the best he could over all - perhaps he put too much faith in the US political system because he and the Democrats seems to be split and fighting with two arms tied behind their backs. Remember though, he's still got another 3 years of his first term, and that's a long time.

 

I guess his whole first year has been about healthcare. I can understand the anger of the left at the compromises that have had to be made to get the bill this far - the loss stuff like abortion and funding for womens' health care at large seems ridiculous. But the whole opposition from the right against reform at large has been loud but seemingly based almost entirely on bullshit, NHS "Death Panels" and all. The bill as it stands can still help millions of people but now I guess this new Republican (in Ted Kenndy's seat no less, the guy who made this bill his legacy) will help destroy that ASAP.

 

 

That's the most tragic thing about this election if the bill fails. Poor deceased Ted, I always did like him, even if he had trouble in his early political career with that car accident. Here's (what I consider) a pretty inspirational video of the man at work:

[Nolan]

It is impossible to govern America. The country is too big for its own good, it needs to be divided into areas for simpler rule, but tradition will prevent that.

 

Obama must have been insane to take on the job, he was only ever going to receive poor responses. I know nothing about american politics really but I find it really annoying when people try to rubbish the guy when they don't know the full story and the difficulty in making big decisions, some things are just irreversible.

 

I might be chatting shit myself.

 

A quick rundown.

 

The country is divided into 50 states each self governing to standards set by the federal government. Similar to Cities having their own particular laws, but nothing superseding laws set by the higher power.

 

Each state is given representation in the form of two elected senators, and numerous elected Representatives in proportion to population. Currently a law prohibits more than 435. These representatives "listen" to what their states population wants and "try" to pass bills accordingly. They make up the Legislative Branch.

 

Next is the Executive branch, which is mainly the president and his appointed cabinet. The president is elected by the electoral college...the electoral college is the worst part of elections. It's extremely flawed with no signs of change. Anyways... Citizens in each state vote for president, popular vote determines what candidate the States electoral college vote goes to. Here lies the problem, the highly populated states have more electoral votes. A candidate can be elected President by winning only 11 states. The other 39 could all vote for the other party to no effect.

 

Finally, Judicial, the Supreme Court. The court is nine appointed judges, nominated by the president and given majority vote by the senate. They serve for life or until they resign. Impeachment is also a possibility.

 

Bills are laws not yet pushed through, they go to the Legislative branch first and are bounced around in the Senate and House of Reps until both groups separately decide to push it through. Then it goes to the....Legislative branch I think. There the President can either send it to the Judicial branch or he can Veto the bill and just shoot it down dead in its tracks. He can veto as many bills as he wants in a term. Then a bill goes to the Judicial branch where the Nine Justices determine whether or not a bill is constitutional or not(makes you wonder how the fuck the patriot act got through). If it's unconstitutional it goes back to Legislative to try again, otherwise...it becomes a law.

 

At least that's how I remember Civics class....

 

Now you know more about the politics and the fact that the US is essentially divided.

[dwarf]

The country is divided into 50 states each self governing to standards set by the federal government. Similar to Cities having their own particular laws, but nothing superseding laws set by the higher power.

 

Each state is given representation in the form of two elected senators, and numerous elected Representatives in proportion to population

Citizens in each state vote for president, popular vote determines what candidate the States electoral college vote goes to.

 

I knew this stuff, I must have been misunderstood. I'm pretty sure everyone with a brain knows that there are 50 states in America (Probably a QI fact disproving that). Thanks for the rest of the information though leet

 

When I said

it needs to be divided into areas for simpler rule, but tradition will prevent that.

I meant actual different countries or a system in which a president couldn't have some control over every single state. You can't really generalise laws across a country so big can you? Every set of states wants something different, and if they're not getting what they want and never will, perhaps it is time to give them independent governments and be treated like a seperate nations, or at least group similar states (that are close to each other) into a unit. What I said though is that this won't happen because of tradition. You can't exactly just wipe the U.S name from existence.

[Nolan]

That's sort of how it is. A good example is Marijuana legalization, on the Federal level it is illegal period. On the state level though, multiple states have now legalized it for medicinal purposes despite what our Federal government says. There are 20 states where it is now either decriminalized and/or allowed for medicinal purposes.

 

Still not quite what you're suggesting, which won't happen for a variety of reasons. Mainly the Civil war determined no one can succeed from the union....it's kinda like trying to leave the mafia we'll kill you for it.

[The fish]

Funnily enough, Massachusetts (and Montana, which isn't exactly known for it's liberal bias) already requires all it's residents to carry health insurance, unless they earn 150% the state-designated poverty level, at which the state provides free healthcare.

 

This is what I view as the best possible solution to the current American healthcare problem - it's essentially the same as the NHS, but instead of you healthcare 'tax' going through the government, it goes straight to your insurance company.

 

The odd thing about the US healthcare system at the moment is that it, depending on your perspective, is either impressively huge, or distressingly huge. The are three things you can do with such a massive, out of control system - you can kill it, put it on a diet (so to speak), or keep growing it. I'd like to talk about the healthcare debate in a non-partisan way, but it's hard to be because the anti-reform camp wants to talk about things like death panels, because they're not only made up, but the stupid unsophisticated debate about them has distracted from a really large and significant issue.

 

There are two things almost everyone, conservative or liberal, agrees upon: (a) the United States spends way too much of it's gross domestic product (16% as opposed to 8.4% in the UK or 10% in Canada) on healthcare, and (b) the current healthcare system is radically unfair. Whether you have good healthcare in America is largely dependent on whether you work for a big company as they have to provide health benefits, and secondly whether you have a pre-existing condition (which to be honest a lot of times isn't your fault). Some people argue that the US needs a large-scale government-run insurance company - the public option - which everyone would be able to buy into, and poorer people would pay less than richer people, and this huge government-run insurer would negotiate lower costs for procedures or drugs, and also cut down on the number of these needed. Private insures, whilst not eliminated by the public option, hate it as they know the public option would be larger, and would be more able to negotiate lower prices, which in turn will make the public option less expensive, and therefore make people less inclined to use private insurance.

 

Next, you have the people who want to put the healthcare system on a diet, who say that instead of a public option some sort of non-profit insurance companies should be created, who'll then have to compete with private insurers. Because they're non-profit, they'll be incentivised not to work for the shareholders, but instead work for the patients they represent. The downside of the "put the system on a diet" plan is that you still have tens of millions of people who have no health insurance whatsoever.

 

Last, you have the people who don't want a healthcare insurance overhaul - they want to keep feeding to monster. A lot of these people are happy with the current state of their healthcare, and to be frank, I think the don't want to pay for people who make stupid decisions (forgetting the stupid people's kids...). Here's the underlying problem: even though a lot of people are screaming, "I don't want socialism! No socialism!", in America right now there is a lot of socialism - they share the cost of schools, and roads, and the military. They also currently have socialised medicine, but it's an outrageously bloated and inefficient system of socialised medicine - there are hospitals in America that anyone can go to and get treatment - that treatment may eventually bankrupt you and may be of poor quality, but you can get it. I would argue that it is the inefficiency of America's socialised medicine which makes healthcare so much more expensive than it is anywhere else in the world.

 

Look at it this way: is healthcare a privilege or a right? If it's a privilege (even if it's a really desirable privilege, like, say, indoor plumbing), the USA needs to stop giving healthcare of any kind to uninsured people who can't pay for it in advance. I think the reason the US keeps treating people who are uninsured is because they don't believe healthcare is a privilege - they believe that it is a right, and if it is a right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the responsibility of a government (especially the US one, due to the constitution) to protect that right.

 

Oh, and the conservative economic argument: as it stands, small businesses, the engine that drives job growth, and that embodies the entrepreneurial spirit that made the American economy what it is, is the one sector that has no help with health insurance from the government in most states (the young, old, and employed by a big company all get it guaranteed), which leads to people having to base their career choice not on revenue base but on healthcare costs. If owners of small businesses didn't have to worry about getting sick, and therefore not needing to save profits in case of healthcare needs in the future, they can instead employ more people, growing the American economy.

 

That's my 2 cents. Now back to maths revision!