The Ledge's Monthly Approval of President Obama-Do You Approve??? August 2009

[Musicman408]

I thought this would be an interesting thing for us to do every month. According to national polls, Obama's popularity has declined since taking office, down to about 54 percent according to Gallup. So, every month, we'll have an updated approval rating to see how our numbers stack up against the rest of America, and how our numbers change over time.

So, to start off, I'd like to say that at the moment I DO approve of Obama. I saw him at a town hall meeting in New England (on TV) and he dispelled every rumor and untrue thing said about the Healthcare bill. So yes, at the moment I do still approve of the job that he's doing!!

What do you think??

[FMlex]

I guess I'll be the first to say it: I disapprove.

I just don't believe he's going in the right direction on health care.

All in all, I think Obama is taking on way too much right now. (Health care reform, this green movement/cap and trade, the economy, Middle East politics, etc.) There's so much stuff coming at the American people each day that it's impossible to absorb it all. I don't think it's a good idea to rush any sort of bill right now.

Again, all in my opinion.

[BombaySapphire3]

I guess I'll be the first to say it: I disapprove.

I just don't believe he's going in the right direction on health care.

All in all, I think Obama is taking on way too much right now. (Health care reform, this green movement/cap and trade, the economy, Middle East politics, etc.) There's so much stuff coming at the American people each day that it's impossible to absorb it all. I don't think it's a good idea to rush any sort of bill right now.

Again, all in my opinion.

And what would your preferred direction for health care reform be?It has long been the shame of this nation that we are the only large industrialized country without any kind of universal health care.Obama had as much on his plate when he took the oath of office perhaps anyone since FDR took over from Hoover.I commend him for his hard work even as he learns as he progresses.The American people need try a bit harder to "absorb " sometimes IMO.If we had absorbed a bit better in 2003 then maybe so many would not have been bamboozled into going along with the Iraqi invasion.

[mylittledemon]

I think there should be some form of health-care available to everyone, but I believe it is not the government's business to run it. Perhaps they should run a basic care plan outline that all doctor's within America can adapt to, and accept, and the uninsured can get basic care for "X" amount of dollars up front and "X" amount per prescription.

Take England and the UK for example... They have a "****" system...a government run system called the NHS, where everybody and anybody gets free healthcare, from minor prescriptions to major surgery. Its disliked on the whole though, as you have to sometimes wait a couple of months to get your free £25,000 surgery, or have to wait 2 hours to see a doctor to get your free prescription.

The people that are pro-NHS (ignorant basically) because they don't seem to realise that their taxes seldom cover the costs of their lifetimes NHS treatment. Ironically those among the populace that DO fund it, usually have private health-care, so wont use the NHS as much as most people anyway.

In the UK, many people are calling for people to pay a small fee of £20 when seeing their doctors, and introducing a system whereby if you dont have medical insurance, you only get very basic care. All the humans rights "ilk" dont think thats fair though. :shrug:

I wish there were a compromise, but with 65 million people on a tiny island, and increasing numbers of people who dont pay their way, its the only way to go I think.

PS... To answer the poll, I have to vote "NO" thus far. Give the man another year and we'll see though.

[carrie721]

I think there should be some form of health-care available to everyone, but I believe it is not the government's business to run it. Perhaps they should run a basic care plan outline that all doctor's within America can adapt to, and accept, and the uninsured can get basic care for "X" amount of dollars up front and "X" amount per prescription.

i agree that gov't should not be concerning itself with providing health care, but i don't see how what you are proposing is all that different. the cost of the basic care you're talking about is going to be subsidized somehow, and that money is either going to come from the tax base or from price hikes enacted on those who don't qualify for the low-income plans. either way, it's bound to be messy.

Take England and the UK for example... They have a "****" system...a government run system called the NHS, where everybody and anybody gets free healthcare, from minor prescriptions to major surgery. Its disliked on the whole though, as you have to sometimes wait a couple of months to get your free £25,000 surgery, or have to wait 2 hours to see a doctor to get your free prescription.

The people that are pro-NHS (ignorant basically) because they don't seem to realise that their taxes seldom cover the costs of their lifetimes NHS treatment. Ironically those among the populace that DO fund it, usually have private health-care, so wont use the NHS as much as most people anyway.

FWIW, although i haven't done an extensive survey of UK citizens, almost all of the brits i've spoken to are very much for the NHS.

In the UK, many people are calling for people to pay a small fee of £20 when seeing their doctors, and introducing a system whereby if you dont have medical insurance, you only get very basic care. All the humans rights "ilk" dont think thats fair though. :shrug:

I wish there were a compromise, but with 65 million people on a tiny island, and increasing numbers of people who dont pay their way, its the only way to go I think.

i think it sounds great to say that everyone is entitled to health care. but is it feasible? i'm not sure. the bottom line is that medical care is a limited resource. rationing is going to have to take place, whether it's a matter of money or central planning. and i think history has taught us that central planning is, at best, inefficient.

PS... To answer the poll, I have to vote "NO" thus far. Give the man another year and we'll see though.

i was never big on obama, but now i'm totally over him. which is one big reason i'm now a registered libertarian.

[mylittledemon]

FWIW, although i haven't done an extensive survey of UK citizens, almost all of the brits i've spoken to are very much for the NHS.



:shocked:

These are the people with minimal health issues then.

[carrie721]

:shocked:

These are the people with minimal health issues then.

could be. i don't know. i really don't know much about the NHS aside from what i saw on michael moore's sicko, and for the record, that movie made me want to puke.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I think there should be some form of health-care available to everyone, but I believe it is not the government's business to run it. Perhaps they should run a basic care plan outline that all doctor's within America can adapt to, and accept, and the uninsured can get basic care for "X" amount of dollars up front and "X" amount per prescription.

Take England and the UK for example... They have a "****" system...a government run system called the NHS, where everybody and anybody gets free healthcare, from minor prescriptions to major surgery. Its disliked on the whole though, as you have to sometimes wait a couple of months to get your free £25,000 surgery, or have to wait 2 hours to see a doctor to get your free prescription.

The people that are pro-NHS (ignorant basically) because they don't seem to realise that their taxes seldom cover the costs of their lifetimes NHS treatment. Ironically those among the populace that DO fund it, usually have private health-care, so wont use the NHS as much as most people anyway.

In the UK, many people are calling for people to pay a small fee of £20 when seeing their doctors, and introducing a system whereby if you dont have medical insurance, you only get very basic care. All the humans rights "ilk" dont think thats fair though. :shrug:

I wish there were a compromise, but with 65 million people on a tiny island, and increasing numbers of people who dont pay their way, its the only way to go I think.

PS... To answer the poll, I have to vote "NO" thus far. Give the man another year and we'll see though.

Prescriptions are NOT free in the UK unless you are a child, a pensioner or on certain benefits and I've never had to wait 2 hours to see my doctor. You make quite a sweeping statement there.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I think there should be some form of health-care available to everyone, but I believe it is not the government's business to run it. Perhaps they should run a basic care plan outline that all doctor's within America can adapt to, and accept, and the uninsured can get basic care for "X" amount of dollars up front and "X" amount per prescription.

Take England and the UK for example... They have a "****" system...a government run system called the NHS, where everybody and anybody gets free healthcare, from minor prescriptions to major surgery. Its disliked on the whole though, as you have to sometimes wait a couple of months to get your free £25,000 surgery, or have to wait 2 hours to see a doctor to get your free prescription.

The people that are pro-NHS (ignorant basically) because they don't seem to realise that their taxes seldom cover the costs of their lifetimes NHS treatment. Ironically those among the populace that DO fund it, usually have private health-care, so wont use the NHS as much as most people anyway.

In the UK, many people are calling for people to pay a small fee of £20 when seeing their doctors, and introducing a system whereby if you dont have medical insurance, you only get very basic care. All the humans rights "ilk" dont think thats fair though. :shrug:

I wish there were a compromise, but with 65 million people on a tiny island, and increasing numbers of people who dont pay their way, its the only way to go I think.

PS... To answer the poll, I have to vote "NO" thus far. Give the man another year and we'll see though.

BTW... I wouldn't say I'm pro-NHS.. yes there are areas where it's failing. But I'm not against it..I've had good services from it when needed. And that doesn't make me ignorant

[markolas]

I'm not in love with all of his policies, but overall - I'm not stressed out and embarrassed by his every move, as I was with his predecessor. It's nice to have a president I can respect for probably the first time in my entire life, and that means a lot.

I hope he manages to push thru a working universal health care system - it's long been needed.

I'm skeptical about cash for clunkers and the stimulus package, I disagree with him about abortion, and think he's being an ass on LGBT issues. I'm not in love with Sonia Sotomayor, but I'll take any of his Supreme Court picks over any of McCain's.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

In the UK, many people are calling for people to pay a small fee of £20 when seeing their doctors, and introducing a system whereby if you dont have medical insurance, you only get very basic care. All the humans rights "ilk" dont think thats fair though. :shrug:



I missed this earlier... what??! I haven't heard anything about what you are suggesting here. Where do you get your info as living in the UK means i'm clearly missing something!

Also... not sure what you mean by human rights 'ilk' but I wouldn't agree to paying £20 to see a Dr. And £20 certainly isn't a small fee! As a single parent I couldn't afford private medical insurance ... so I should only be entitled to very basic care? Despite paying my taxes all my life?

[jenniferuk]

I missed this earlier... what??! I haven't heard anything about what you are suggesting here. Where do you get your info as living in the UK means i'm clearly missing something!

Also... not sure what you mean by human rights 'ilk' but I wouldn't agree to paying £20 to see a Dr. And £20 certainly isn't a small fee! As a single parent I couldn't afford private medical insurance ... so I should only be entitled to very basic care? Despite paying my taxes all my life?

The fee has been suggested to help with the cost/burdened system. I think that the Government and Doctors are both opposed. Here's a quick mention on bbc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8156279.stm

I remember this was mentioned a few years ago as a way to deter people from making too many visits to the GP. It was quickly dropped.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Well, all I remember about that is there wasn't "many people" there was a small group of doctors who wanted to charge a £20 fee to see each patient and there was outrage at the suggestion, so it never went any further. That was a couple of years back but I never heard anything other than that.

SO it wasn't a case of 'many people' calling for it then... didn't think so!

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

The fee has been suggested to help with the cost/burdened system. I think that the Government and Doctors are both opposed. Here's a quick mention on bbc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8156279.stm

I remember this was mentioned a few years ago as a way to deter people from making too many visits to the GP. It was quickly dropped.

Thanks! Not sure how I missed that.

[jannieC]

I think there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding NHS. One of my closest friends is a Canadian and she and I have had long discussions about this. She has never had to wait for an appointment, and she actually has had some significant health issues over the years. Prescriptions are not free; prescription coverage is offered as "benefits" by employers. My friend has always said that while their system may not be perfect, she would never want to be in our shoes in terms of health care. She views health/medical care as a right, not a privilege.

I'm not sure how I feel about NHS, but I will say that what we have now is atrocious. I have $500/MONTH in meds that I cannot afford to fill. I am at the mercy of my doctor to sample me out until the first of the year when I can switch to more traditional insurance (I have a high deductable plan right now).

Something has got to give in this country. As a non disabled adult, you can not qualify for Medicaid unless you a) have children AND b) are living way below the poverty level. So there are a whole bunch of us who are working full-time, paying taxes, and ruining our health by not taking care of things because we can't afford to.

I wish I were smart enough to figure it all out. :lol:

To answer the question of the poll, I have no idea whether I "approve" of Obama or not. I'm cautiously optimistic and waiting to see what happens.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I'm not even sure why the NHS is coming under fire like this anyway. Compare by all means but to make sweeping statements and call people who think it's ok 'ignorant' is quite frankly a bit insulting

[jenniferuk]

Thanks! Not sure how I missed that.

I have lived in the US for nearly 3 years now and I don't get all the UK news (I try to keep up) but this seems to be one of those things that comes up every few years and then goes away quietly! Easy to miss!

[estranged4life]

I have been dealing with medical issues, that have been getting somewhat worse in nature.

But at the same time I havent been waiting around for something to health lessen the amount of those medical costs, I pay them strictly out of pocket (ie I mailed off payment for a $405 medical bill this morning - and back on April 17th I payed off a bill of $9555.28 to the hospital where Debbie had some of her cancer treatments back in 2003-2004 along with some of my minor medical issues).

I have taken the money I received from Debbie's life insurance and signed up for a medical insurance plan this very day, so I will have coverage just in case something of a major issue rears its head in my direction ( I am covered through IHS via the Cherokee Nation, but IHS has to be one of the WORST medical service providers in all recorded history).

Debbie would want me to take care of myself, and that is what I have been doing as of late.

[carrie721]

Michael Moore did over-idealise it for sure, in fact my friend and I did giggle when we saw Sicko in the cinema. But that said, my experiences with the NHS have all been positive.

i just find his tone awful. i can't stand him!

As for the point about the richer taxpayers who put more into the NHS, well you could say that about most public services. If someone has enough money to send their child to a private school, should that exclude their taxes from being used for public schools? If someone is well-off enough to never have to look at a used book should their taxes never be used for public libraries?

was this for me or brandon?

[mylittledemon]

Have you ever lived here? I've never waited two hours to see a doctor and as Pip says prescriptions aren't free. You seem to be talking about stuff you know nothing about. But I guess I'm the ignorant one.



Well, just last year my mother had major surgery on the NHS and this year she needs another surgery and only has to wait a couple of weeks for it. I feel like I've been spending all my time in hospitals recently. But I guess her issues are "minimal".



I agree, but I guess we're "ignorant".



Well it works for others and not for some. You can't deny there are millions of people in the UK that are not happy with the healthcare system.

[mylittledemon]

As for the point about the richer taxpayers who put more into the NHS, well you could say that about most public services. If someone has enough money to send their child to a private school, should that exclude their taxes from being used for public schools? If someone is well-off enough to never have to look at a used book should their taxes never be used for public libraries?

Right, so let's have the hard workers pay for everything for everyone. Again, I am all for people having health-care...or the option to have it available to them. But it's ridiculous to say it should be free.

If you aren't working, or you havent "paid your dues" I think it's insane to say that 20 pounds, or $40 is too much for a co-pay. Who's going to pay for that, then? The taypayer, right? How is that any more fair than not having "free" healthcare available to bums? (Everyone falls on hard times now and then, has children, has emergencies...I"m not talking about those situations...I'm talking about advantage takers)

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Right, so let's have the hard workers pay for everything for everyone. Again, I am all for people having health-care...or the option to have it available to them. But it's ridiculous to say it should be free.

If you aren't working, or you havent "paid your dues" I think it's insane to say that 20 pounds, or $40 is too much for a co-pay. Who's going to pay for that, then? The taypayer, right? How is that any more fair than not having "free" healthcare available to bums? (Everyone falls on hard times now and then, has children, has emergencies...I"m not talking about those situations...I'm talking about advantage takers)

Of course there are people that take the piss. But how would you be able to police it. £20 isn't too much? Tell that to someone out of work, or a single parent trying to support children etc. I'm sorry but some of you're remarks on here have been totally ignorant... yet it's us you accused of being that

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Well it works for others and not for some. You can't deny there are millions of people in the UK that are not happy with the healthcare system.

I've never come across anyone who would want to see the NHS abolished. But then what do I know.. I just live here..

[Cornflake Girl]

I've never come across anyone who would want to see the NHS abolished. But then what do I know.. I just live here..

I agree with more or less all of your posts Pip! Of course the NHS isn't perfect, there is never going to be a system which pleases everybody but personally, I feel much better knowing that if I were to take seriously ill tomorrow, no matter what my financial status I would get the treatment I need.

Also, I guess Stephen Fry is ignorant too, he'll be pleased to know that :p
I just came across this on twitter and thought it was relevant:

"@stephenfryKnow this, Republicans.Even the most right wing British politician wouldn't think of dismantling our health service."

[Cornflake Girl]

Stephen Fry is absolutely right. Can you imagine the public outcry if they tried to dismantle the NHS? It just couldn't happen.

Dismantling the NHS is probably as unthinkable to Brits as having a government run health care system is to many Americans!

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I agree with more or less all of your posts Pip! Of course the NHS isn't perfect, there is never going to be a system which pleases everybody but personally, I feel much better knowing that if I were to take seriously ill tomorrow, no matter what my financial status I would get the treatment I need.

Also, I guess Stephen Fry is ignorant too, he'll be pleased to know that :p
I just came across this on twitter and thought it was relevant:

"@stephenfryKnow this, Republicans.Even the most right wing British politician wouldn't think of dismantling our health service."

Pah... Stephen Fry... what does he know! He's clearly as ignorant as the rest of us!

And I agree with you. We all know it isn't perfect but I'm very glad we have it!

And I certainly would never call it a '****' system

[carrie721]

(Everyone falls on hard times now and then, has children, has emergencies...I"m not talking about those situations...I'm talking about advantage takers)

you know that kids are a choice, right?

Brandon

cool. honestly, i don't know what the answer is for the US. as you know, my opinions are not coming from a place of extreme privilege. but i am leery of socialized medicine for the US. this country is just so huge and diverse i am not sure it would work here.

[mylittledemon]

Personally I see healthcare as a basic human right.

That's an opinion. I think it should be available to everyone contributing to society. If you don't want to work then you don't get the perks. :shrug:

[mylittledemon]

I'm sorry but some of you're remarks on here have been totally ignorant... yet it's us you accused of being that

I'm going off what I know of the UK healthcare system by word of mouth from UK-ers that live here in New Zealand, and are happy to be away from the UK.

I never called anyone here ignorant, do not start skewing my comments please.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I'm going off what I know of the UK healthcare system by word of mouth from UK-ers that live here in New Zealand, and are happy to be away from the UK.

I never called anyone here ignorant, do not start skewing my comments please.
I suggest you re-read your comments then. You have made sweeping statements as if you are an expert on the UK health system when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. And for the record, the opinion on your friends isn't necessarily the voice of the UK.

[mylittledemon]

Hey, it's just my opinion. I never said I was the patron saint of UK Healthcare here.

If you want to have a battle royale about it because my opinion (whether educated enough to your liking or not) doesn't line up with your own, then forget it.

:rolleyes:

[mylittledemon]

You'll note my thoughts on NHS were made long before anyone came to the defense of it. So therefore I never outright called anyone here "ignorant." ;) I won't be baited into a name calling session here. It's like watching a bunch of elementary school kids for Christsake, arguing over a point simply because one person feels the opposite. :shrug:

In terms of New Zealand healthcare, I like the fact that you can readily get more medicine over the counter. My wife takes Voltaren, which was prescribed to her in the U.S. for her lupus. Here she can get it over the counter. But, it's expensive. That being said we've had to pay out the arse for doc visits ($900 recently) but we are not "residents" yet. I suppose that will all change in the coming months and it won't be so costly..?

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Hey, it's just my opinion. I never said I was the patron saint of UK Healthcare here.

If you want to have a battle royale about it because my opinion (whether educated enough to your liking or not) doesn't line up with your own, then forget it.

:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you like if it makes you feel better. But again I suggest you re-read you original post on this matter. You didn't appear to be posting an opinion but facts (incorrect for the most part) and you labeled people in support of the NHS as 'ignorant basically'

[mylittledemon]

Roll your eyes all you like if it makes you feel better. '

It does make me feel better. Deal with it. ;)

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

You'll note my thoughts on NHS were made long before anyone came to the defense of it. So therefore I never outright called anyone here "ignorant." ;) I won't be baited into a name calling session here. It's like watching a bunch of elementary school kids for Christsake, arguing over a point simply because one person feels the opposite. :shrug:

In terms of New Zealand healthcare, I like the fact that you can readily get more medicine over the counter. My wife takes Voltaren, which was prescribed to her in the U.S. for her lupus. Here she can get it over the counter. But, it's expensive. That being said we've had to pay out the arse for doc visits ($900 recently) but we are not "residents" yet. I suppose that will all change in the coming months and it won't be so costly..?

It has nothing to do with thinking the opposite and everything to do with how you presented your post

[mylittledemon]

It has nothing to do with thinking the opposite and everything to do with how you presented your post

Well i'm sorry if I offended you, that is never my intention, but I can't unsay something. So... I don't really know what else you want. :sorry:

[mylittledemon]

Backtrack if you like Brandon, of course you knew there would be people here who wouldn't agree with your assessment, you posted in the last thread about the NHS afterall.
Also you won't be baited into "name calling sessions"? Didn't you just call us all "elementary school kids" as if we're idiots for disagreeing with you?

Oye. Ermm... no, I didnt call you that... I was making a comparison with the argument.

[mylittledemon]

Backtrack if you like Brandon, of course you knew there would be people here who wouldn't agree with your assessment, you posted in the last thread about the NHS afterall.

I dont recall that particular previous NHS discussion... But, boy your brain retains more information than a robot! Are... are you... .a robot? ;)

[jannieC]

I can't believe that anyone would think that basic healthcare is a "perk". I'm almost speechless.

[mylittledemon]

It is a perk... of the civilized world. What I'm saying is it's a very narrow field of folks who we're talking about here. Most people pay their taxes, they work, they contribute to society. We're talking about a very narrow window of folk who "ruin it" it for everyone else... thus the need for this recent overhaul of the American healthcare system. I've been relatively healthy my whole life, and haven't had the need for any real extensive medical treatment. Part of me actually doesn't mind that my tax dollars go to help the less fortunate. But I'm not happy about lazy bums who want to mooch off the system.

[jannieC]

It is a perk... of the civilized world. What I'm saying is it's a very narrow field of folks who we're talking about here. Most people pay their taxes, they work, they contribute to society. We're talking about a very narrow window of folk who "ruin it" it for everyone else... thus the need for this recent overhaul of the American healthcare system. I've been relatively healthy my whole life, and haven't had the need for any real extensive medical treatment. Part of me actually doesn't mind that my tax dollars go to help the less fortunate. But I'm not happy about lazy bums who want to mooch off the system.

How do you define the lazy bum? Approximately 23% of the homeless population is mentally ill. There *are* people who cannot work, Brandon. Paying taxes shouldn't automatically make one "worthy" of basic medical care. You're young and your ideas/statements reflect that.

[BombaySapphire3]

The near psychotic meanspiritedness of some of the protesters at the recent townhall meetings regarding healthcare boggles my mind.Funny how the vast majority of these rightwingnuts would proclaim themselves "Christian" but let them have to spend a cent to help those less fortunate than themselves and they become anything but what one would think that word would signify.

[mylittledemon]

How do you define the lazy bum? Approximately 23% of the homeless population is mentally ill. There *are* people who cannot work, Brandon. Paying taxes shouldn't automatically make one "worthy" of basic medical care. You're young and your ideas/statements reflect that.


Well maybe once I've had kids, I'll feel differently about it. Once I'm struggling (God forbid) to take care of my own family it'll make more sense that even more of my income goes to take care of bums. By bums I mean people who don't work. Those than CAN contribute to society and choose not to. There are moochers and maybe I'm pessimistic but I think this new system is going to be taken advantage of more than it's going to help.

So what is your solution in terms of the mentally ill and/or homeless people? Should everyone be provided with the daily medication they need? Free of charge? That would be GREAT in a perfect world, but for myself, I cannot in good conscience agree to let my tax dollars pay for that (whoops, I'm not cause I'm not in America anymore) ;) but you get the point.

[mylittledemon]

Hey, BombaySapphire... This is just one particular instance but it makes a point nevertheless...


-----------------------------------------

Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test
By JOHN STOSSEL and KRISTINA KENDALL
Nov. 28, 2006

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
--------------------------------------

[BombaySapphire3]

How do you define the lazy bum? Approximately 23% of the homeless population is mentally ill. There *are* people who cannot work, Brandon. Paying taxes shouldn't automatically make one "worthy" of basic medical care. You're young and your ideas/statements reflect that.

Sadly age may not have that much to do with it..Most of the protesters at the town hall meetings are clearly in the geriatric set.

[BombaySapphire3]

Hey, BombaySapphire... This is just one particular instance but it makes a point nevertheless...


-----------------------------------------

Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test
By JOHN STOSSEL and KRISTINA KENDALL
Nov. 28, 2006

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
--------------------------------------

Considering that the Salvation Army openly discrimated against AIDS victims in the 1980s through the early 1990s I can see why they did not get much here ..I would not give them a plug nickle myself for that very reason.

[mylittledemon]

Considering that the Salvation Army openly discrimated against AIDS victims in the 1980s through the early 1990s I can see why they did not get much here ..I would not give them a plug nickle myself for that very reason.

Well, I most certainly disagree with discrimination on that basis.

My parents always taught us to give. Every year we "cleaned out the closet" and gave away toys/clothes/books. My brother and I go to the toy stores every year during the holidays and buy $40-50 bucks worth to give some kid a decent Christmas. I don't do it to feel good about myself, I do it because I had a great childhood growing up ...and so should every other child. ;)

[jannieC]

So what is your solution in terms of the mentally ill and/or homeless people? Should everyone be provided with the daily medication they need? Free of charge? That would be GREAT in a perfect world, but for myself, I cannot in good conscience agree to let my tax dollars pay for that (whoops, I'm not cause I'm not in America anymore) ;) but you get the point.

I don't have the solution but I am open to exploring how other places are doing it. And actually, I do believe that all Americans should be able to get the medications they need, whether they have an ability to pay or not. I don't agree that health care should be seen as a reward to those who work and the absence of it as a punishment for those who don't (whether by choice or not). As I said earlier, in Canada, the doctor visits are free, the prescriptions are not. People who work get prescription "benefits" and people who don't, get assistance.

[mylittledemon]

Prescriptions aren't free here either Jannie.
Again, I still don't understand why healthcare is considered a "perk" and, say, education isn't. I don't think either is personally.
Anyway, I could argue this until I'm blue in the face but all I know is that many times in my life, up until recently, I've been grateful of the NHS.

Well that is great that it works for you. You few here at the first proponents of NHS I've heard. See? Perceptions can be modified. ;)

[mylittledemon]

I do believe that all Americans should be able to get the medications they need, whether they have an ability to pay or not.

Then, the only way to do that is with everyone else's tax dollars... And it's not the government's place to decide that.

I'd prefer a private healthcare system as I've been used to in America. Thus far, from my experience with my wife... the New Zealand system does not seem so fab.

[Sugar]

honestly, i don't know what the answer is for the US. as you know, my opinions are not coming from a place of extreme privilege. but i am leery of socialized medicine for the US. this country is just so huge and diverse i am not sure it would work here.

Saw an interesting thing on CNN the other day on the Dutch system,which was reformed in 2006. Apparently, for basic medial care, you pick your insurance company but all the options are highly regulated and standardized. I believe a state system kicks in for long-term illness and end of life care. It sounds like an interesting hybrid.

EDIT: Think Wikipedia does a good job at summarizing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Netherlands

[Musicman408]

Awesomely intelligent discussion you all. It's really a difficult issue that people have strong feelings for (or against) and I think it's cool that we've been able to discuss this!!!

At this point, according to the people who have an opinion of Obama (those who voted either yes or no)- The Ledge's approval of Obama is at 53%, which is pretty much EXACTLY the national average. Granted voting has only been open for a day or so, and I won't get the FINAL monthly total for another week or so, I think it's interesting how as of now, we're following status quo.

[carrie721]

best argument ever for the NHS:

http://twitter.com/niknoks1912/status/3279762874

[mylittledemon]

best argument ever for the NHS:

http://twitter.com/niknoks1912/status/3279762874

Nothing particularly against Sarah Palin, but that did make me LOL ;)

[rubytuesday]

Have you ever lived here? I've never waited two hours to see a doctor and as Pip says prescriptions aren't free. You seem to be talking about stuff you know nothing about. But I guess I'm the ignorant one.

I agree, but I guess we're "ignorant".lol I know. I'm wondering if this person has lived in the UK.

My family all has private insurance but people outside the system find it hard to understand how you could like NHS if you've got private. If you need emergency care you will be put straight onto the best system, the NHS. Emergencies don't wait to see what kind of insurance you've got, you got straight to emergency NHS care which is the best. If you're not in critical condition and want to recover in a room that's nicer than the public system, you can use your private health. My friends father is recovering from a heart attack. He had to get an ambulance to the hospital and bypass surgery and regular check ups on the public system. He doesn't pay anything and even if he had private insurance he would have been taken to the same hospital and needed the same surgery done by the same doctors. He could probably go to a different hospital for check ups but most of the time it gets in the way more than helping because you have to transfer over to doctors who aren't familiar with the condition as opposed to the docs who treated you in hospital.

I go to the same GP as everybody else and I've never waited 2 hours. That's ridiculous. And like others said, medication isn't free, it's only free if your situation is qualified as falling below the line that can afford it. So if you're unemployed or retired etc. Everybody else pays (but nothing like the price over in the US!).

I couldn't live in a country that doesn't help its people in there greatest time of need, when they're sick. What do all the taxes go to? What's so important that it means there is no money for health? I would put that right at the top of the list, followed by education and military. And as someone who chooses to get private insurance on top I have no problem thinking that my tax is helping the NHS. That's the first place I'd choose it to go if I had an option!

I don't get why someone is calling us ignorant!??

[mylittledemon]

lol I know. I'm wondering if this person has lived in the UK.


I don't get why someone is calling us ignorant!??

Well, i'm living in New Zealand. So... yes, I am. Technically it IS part of the UK. ;)

I never called anyone here ignorant, but continue to put that label on yourselves at my expense. :sorry:

[carrie721]

Well, i'm living in New Zealand. So... yes, I am. Technically it IS part of the UK. ;)

I never called anyone here ignorant, but continue to put that label on yourselves at my expense. :sorry:

you would be a lot less obnoxious if you'd just own up to your own behavior. you said that people who support the NHS are ignorant, but somehow that blanket statement doesn't include those who support it on the ledge? dude, get a life and drop the pity party act. nobody's bought it in any of the other threads you've tried it in, nobody's buying it now.

if you stand by what you said, then nut up and stand by it. if you spoke rashly and regret it, apologize, admit you were wrong, and move on. but this wishy-washy backpedaling game you play EVERY SINGLE TIME someone calls you on your BS is really, really adolescent.

also, i'm pretty sure it's not true that NZ is part of the UK.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Well maybe once I've had kids, I'll feel differently about it. Once I'm struggling (God forbid) to take care of my own family it'll make more sense that even more of my income goes to take care of bums. By bums I mean people who don't work. Those than CAN contribute to society and choose not to. There are moochers and maybe I'm pessimistic but I think this new system is going to be taken advantage of more than it's going to help.

So what is your solution in terms of the mentally ill and/or homeless people? Should everyone be provided with the daily medication they need? Free of charge? That would be GREAT in a perfect world, but for myself, I cannot in good conscience agree to let my tax dollars pay for that (whoops, I'm not cause I'm not in America anymore) ;) but you get the point.

But there are an awful lot of people who don't work but they're not bums. How would you police it so that it's only the 'bums' that don't get away with it?

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

It is a perk... of the civilized world. What I'm saying is it's a very narrow field of folks who we're talking about here. Most people pay their taxes, they work, they contribute to society. We're talking about a very narrow window of folk who "ruin it" it for everyone else... thus the need for this recent overhaul of the American healthcare system. I've been relatively healthy my whole life, and haven't had the need for any real extensive medical treatment. Part of me actually doesn't mind that my tax dollars go to help the less fortunate. But I'm not happy about lazy bums who want to mooch off the system.

I'm guessing from your comments on here that a big part of you does mind

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Well, i'm living in New Zealand. So... yes, I am. Technically it IS part of the UK. ;)

I never called anyone here ignorant, but continue to put that label on yourselves at my expense. :sorry:

Oh get real. You called people who support the NHS ignorant. Back peddle all you like.. it's there in black and white.

And the end of the day you really had no clue what you were talking about. You gave what you believed to be facts (incorrectly in most part) after talking to some UK friends living in the NZ. And lets face it... if they left the UK because they weren't happy here then they're hardly going to give a glowing report about it.

[mylittledemon]

Oh get real. You called people who support the NHS ignorant. Back peddle all you like.. it's there in black and white.

And the end of the day you really had no clue what you were talking about. You gave what you believed to be facts (incorrectly in most part) after talking to some UK friends living in the NZ. And lets face it... if they left the UK because they weren't happy here then they're hardly going to give a glowing report about it.

Most of the UK-ers I know here left because of "better opportunity" here... None of them, as far as I know left because of (or for) the healthcare system(s)

[mylittledemon]

you would be a lot less obnoxious if you'd just own up to your own behavior. you said that people who support the NHS are ignorant, but somehow that blanket statement doesn't include those who support it on the ledge? dude, get a life and drop the pity party act. nobody's bought it in any of the other threads you've tried it in, nobody's buying it now.

if you stand by what you said, then nut up and stand by it. if you spoke rashly and regret it, apologize, admit you were wrong, and move on. but this wishy-washy backpedaling game you play EVERY SINGLE TIME someone calls you on your BS is really, really adolescent.

also, i'm pretty sure it's not true that NZ is part of the UK.

I said earlier in post #16 in this thread:

Well i'm sorry if I offended you, that is never my intention, but I can't unsay something. So... I don't really know what else you want.

Carrie, from my point of view, you play this "back pedaling" gag thing on me every time. I'm not selling anything. So there's nothing to "buy."

My original post was not meant to cause a row. I didn't sit down and go "Oh let's see how many Ledgies I can inentionally piss off today"...Your presumption is just as obnoxious as my "behavior."

And yes, New Zealand is technically a part of the UK, if only in theory. Queen Elizabeth is the head of state. She's even on the money here. ;)

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I said earlier in post #16 in this thread:

Well i'm sorry if I offended you, that is never my intention, but I can't unsay something. So... I don't really know what else you want.

Carrie, from my point of view, you play this "back pedaling" gag thing on me every time. I'm not selling anything. So there's nothing to "buy."

My original post was not meant to cause a row. I didn't sit down and go "Oh let's see how many Ledgies I can inentionally piss off today"...Your presumption is just as obnoxious as my "behavior."

And yes, New Zealand is technically a part of the UK, if only in theory. Queen Elizabeth is the head of state. She's even on the money here. ;)

Hardly the same as living here and actually knowing what your talking about concerning the NHS.

[Musicman408]

best argument ever for the NHS:

http://twitter.com/niknoks1912/status/3279762874

Thank you for posting that- interesting read!

[Black_Moon]

I live in the UK. I've never had to wait two hours for an appointment. Actually, the great thing about my clinic is that I can turn up on a whim and consult a GP straight away, no matter how minor my illness or how serious - I once had whooping cough and turned up without phoning up earlier.

I can't imagine me - or my parents, as I am only sixteen - starting to pay for my epi-pen for my anaphylaxia, or surgery should I ever need it. People below the poverty line couldn't afford to pay £2,000 for a surgery that could potentially save their life. To me, like someone said earlier, healthcare is a basic right. It's like the free school meal system or benefits. Sure, some people take advantage, but have done since these systems were set up. More often than not, however, there are people who genuinely need these services.

I think it's wrong to call me ignorant because I approve of the NHS, or don't switch to private healthcare because the flaws of a government run healthcare service don't turn me away.

[rubytuesday]

Well, i'm living in New Zealand. So... yes, I am. Technically it IS part of the UK. ;)

I never called anyone here ignorant, but continue to put that label on yourselves at my expense. :sorry:

lol sorry but seriously!!!!??? I thought you were from New Zealand? Do they teach you that your part of the UK? New Zealand is part of the British Empire. The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. you're part of it's territories.

Sorry but who is the ignorant one here? New Zealand is part of the UK??? lol sorry.

[BTFLCHLD]

I found this interesting:

The NHS provides healthcare services for more than 95% of the UK's 60 million residents. Between 2007 and 2008, 6.5 million appointments were missed with hospitals losing around £100 per patient in revenue.

I am thankful I have health insurance. Would I want a neighbor, friend or foe, that can't afford health insurance to go without care? NO.

[Black_Moon]

I found this interesting:

The NHS provides healthcare services for more than 95% of the UK's 60 million residents. Between 2007 and 2008, 6.5 million appointments were missed with hospitals losing around £100 per patient in revenue.

I am thankful I have health insurance. Would I want a neighbor, friend or foe, that can't afford health insurance to go without care? NO.

And there are over sixty-one million people who live in the UK. That's like what, around 10%? Not a huge number, by any means.

[Gailh]

To me, like someone said earlier, healthcare is a basic right. It's like the free school meal system or benefits. Sure, some people take advantage, but have done since these systems were set up. More often than not, however, there are people who genuinely need these services.



I agree. We are not born equal but one of things that can help balance things up a little is decent healthcare (decent education is another)

I'm not sure if our NHS system would work in the states but it suits us. it's not perfect by any means but some of nonsense that has been said about it beggars belief. My father had a hernia operation when he was in his mid seventies and had altzheimers. My mother has just had a succesful cataract operation and she is 79. Neither of them could have afforded that without the NHS. I am usually able to see my GP within a day or so (they also have appointments every day held aside for urgent matters)

Gail

[David]

I'm not looking forward to the inevitable bureaucratic nightmare that healthcare & health insurance will become in the United States with the new policies. It's a nightmare now -- & millions of us have private insurance (like group insurance at work) -- so it will be double or triply so in the future.

Philosophically, I don't consider healthcare a right. I don't consider anything a right that someone has to involuntarily supply (which means I'm not talking about obvious cases like contracts, where agreements have been made & money has been paid).

If heart surgery (for example) is my right, then somewhere a heart surgeon is ipso facto under government compulsion to supply it to me. This doesn't fly in my book.

I'd like to see more opt-in systems instituted: opt in to a public library system, for example, by paying for it voluntarily & then being given use of it all year. Naturally, the particular social service would be only as big as the funds from, say, the prior year were able to accommodate.

(Remember that healthcare is free only if the doctor or nurse has agreed to fix me for free.)

We can use opt-in in so many ways! Virtually our entire income tax filing form should be a series of YES/NO boxes, like the box for DO YOU WANT TO GIVE $1 FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. I certainly feel that opt-in should play a big role in centrally controlled health insurance coverage. (Police, fire departments, freeways, district attorneys -- stuff that you could very well need & use whether you say you want it or not -- would continue to be funded via taxation.)

It might be hard to keep track of which of the 360 million people opted in to, say, the city park or the subway system -- but that's what implant chips are for!

I'd also like other markets -- like the market for health insurance & healthcare -- to move toward freer models, like the buying & selling of personal computers in this country (just about the freest market I can think of, & just about the most successful for all involved: sellers & buyers).

[carrie721]

It might be hard to keep track of which of the 360 million people opted in to, say, the city park or the subway system -- but that's what implant chips are for!

there's that indomitable libertarian spirit!

[Gailh]

Philosophically, I don't consider healthcare a right. I don't consider anything a right that someone has to involuntarily supply (which means I'm not talking about obvious cases like contracts, where agreements have been made & money has been paid).

If heart surgery (for example) is my right, then somewhere a heart surgeon is ipso facto under government compulsion to supply it to me. This doesn't fly in my book.

Remember that healthcare is free only if the doctor or nurse has agreed to fix me for free.)



What about education?

Gail

[mylittledemon]

lol sorry but seriously!!!!??? I thought you were from New Zealand? Do they teach you that your part of the UK? New Zealand is part of the British Empire. The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. you're part of it's territories.

Sorry but who is the ignorant one here? New Zealand is part of the UK??? lol sorry.

no I wasn't serious. That's why I said "technically" ;)

It's a joke among Kiwis that Mother England would come to the rescue if pirates tried to take over.

[mylittledemon]

Hardly the same as living here and actually knowing what your talking about concerning the NHS.

Just because I don't live there doesn't mean what I said wasn't in some way truthful. But, perhaps I should bow down to your superior healthcare, which seems to be the model which we should all strive for. :rolleyes:

[carrie721]

no I wasn't serious. That's why I said "technically" ;)

It's a joke among Kiwis that Mother England would come to the rescue if pirates tried to take over.

dude, come on. :lol:

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Just because I don't live there doesn't mean what I said wasn't in some way truthful. But, perhaps I should bow down to your superior healthcare, which seems to be the model which we should all strive for. :rolleyes:

Nowhere have I said we have superior healthcare. I just don't like seeing incorrect information being spouted as if it were facts.

[Stew_Matthews]

It is funny that British people moan like hell about the NHS but once a few foreigners 'diss' it, they will defend it to the death:). In the UK, BUPA (private system)is a far bettter service than the NHS - even the Brits on here wouldn't disagree with that.

The NHS is 60 years old and has changed little. I guess if you were starting out today and asking people to hand over 10% of their earning to pay for a state health service/pension (as Brits do in National Insurance) they would want something different and better. So those who argue in the US that the health care model needs to be better than the existing UK one are right, I think.

On the original question of Obama, my expectations were low and he is meeting them.

ps - I'm British!

[David]

What about education?Luckily, education has nothing to do with our schools.

That's one big WHEW.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

It is funny that British people moan like hell about the NHS but once a few foreigners 'diss' it, they will defend it to the death:). In the UK, BUPA (private system)is a far bettter service than the NHS - even the Brits on here wouldn't disagree with that.

The NHS is 60 years old and has changed little. I guess if you were starting out today and asking people to hand over 10% of their earning to pay for a state health service/pension (as Brits do in National Insurance) they would want something different and better. So those who argue in the US that the health care model needs to be better than the existing UK one are right, I think.

On the original question of Obama, my expectations were low and he is meeting them.

Your not wrong! I've never said its wonderful...far from it. I just don't like to see incorrect info posted. Touch wood I've only ever been in hospital three times, twice to have my kids and once for an ear op. I had no real complaints.

[David]

there's that indomitable libertarian spirit!I'll have you know that both my dog & I, owing to our implant chips, can walk down any street feeling completely confident that, should either of us be picked up & perhaps impounded, we would be returned to our homes within probably three weeks.

Spiritual pragmatist that I am, I look a success story straight in the face & call it a success. :]

[Stew_Matthews]

Your not wrong! I've never said its wonderful...far from it. I just don't like to see incorrect info posted. Touch wood I've only ever been in hospital three times, twice to have my kids and once for an ear op. I had no real complaints.

:laugh: I wasn't having a go at you! :xoxo:

Although Brandon was making his points in a rather provocative way, he was right that the UK system is broken. Having said that, it is the best 'universal' healthcare system in the world. It just needs modernising and a recognition in the UK that healthcare needs to be a partnership between public and private providers. There are some interesting articles in the Times and Guardian about IVF this last week. When the NHS was created there was no demand for fertility treatments for example - medicine then didn't even understand the causes never mind solutions. As medicine and science moves forward, should the NHS be expected to pick up every single mediacl problem and fund the research and drugs. Probably not but in a public system, where do you draw the line? How do you determine priorites at a state level - my view is that you can't and the UK Regional Health Authorities prove that.

[David]

Well, I've never used Bupa so I personally don't know. I have however had plenty of experiences through the NHS and I have no complaints. Weren't you telling me that they put the wrong kidney out of you or something?

Nice way to avoid the question David ;)I am against compulsory government schooling. It's nothing but a taxpayer-funded babysitting program -- for both children & certain adults.

To improve one's chances for education, you need only sit down in a quiet room with plenty of light & open a book -- by Bunyan or Walton or Plutarch or any of our brothers, long dead & rotting in the Earth -- & read the book, trying to understand it by considering every part of it in the light of your words & your deeds, & then consider your words & your deeds in the light of what the book says. Continue sifting & pondering it in the still watches of the night, until the cock crows.

You will have learned, finally, that you know practically nothing -- but like Socrates, like Doctor Faustus, you will have attained the wisdom of the ages in that one seemingly tiny revelation.

[mylittledemon]

dude, come on. :lol:

It's something the UK-ers that live here say to the Kiwis to get 'em riled up. You ladies seem to miss most of my humour, I'm not surprised you missed that one.

[BigAl84]

Roll your eyes all you like if it makes you feel better. But again I suggest you re-read you original post on this matter. You didn't appear to be posting an opinion but facts (incorrect for the most part) and you labeled people in support of the NHS as 'ignorant basically'

HOLY CRAP...let it go for crying out loud! Jezus....don't you have ANYTHING better spend your time on then driving this axe into the ground? Lighten up already...

[carrie721]

Dude, that was pages ago. Come on.

not only that but brandon has a frustrating pattern of saying stupid things and then pretending he didn't. it's not just this one discussion.

[mylittledemon]

not only that but brandon has a frustrating pattern of saying stupid things and then pretending he didn't. it's not just this one discussion.

Yeah well, YOU'RE... stoopid. (in my best Chris Farley impersonation)

And oh, For the third time now:

I said earlier in post #16 in this thread:

Well i'm sorry if I offended you, that is never my intention, but I can't unsay something. So... I don't really know what else you want.

[David]

I would be curious to know how many people in the US have health insurance and how many don't.The more interesting question to me is how many people who want health insurance have it & how many who want it don't. I used to know a bunch of guys at work who turned down the employer-paid coverage because they preferred spending the $25 a week in paycheck deductions on electronics & beer & other things.

Interesting theories David :laugh: Although you went off on a David-tangent I appreciate you answered it and you're at least consistent in your beliefs!I just ... feel ... sick today.

[Cornflake Girl]

Your not wrong! I've never said its wonderful...far from it. I just don't like to see incorrect info posted. Touch wood I've only ever been in hospital three times, twice to have my kids and once for an ear op. I had no real complaints.

Yep. I think most of the Brits posting have acknowledged that the NHS is not without flaws. Personally, I just feel grateful that, if I were ever to be struck by serious illness I would get a good standard of treatment. It's especially reassuring in these turbulent financial times, where very few people have a secure economic status.

Luckily, education has nothing to do with our schools.

That's one big WHEW.

That is so, so true. To quote Bruce Springsteen, ''I learned more from a three minute record, than I ever did in school.'' :p

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

:laugh: I wasn't having a go at you! :xoxo:



I know :xoxo:

My sister in law had a terrible time with the NHS when in hospital to have her first child. She is pregnant with her second now and is going private

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

HOLY CRAP...let it go for crying out loud! Jezus....don't you have ANYTHING better spend your time on then driving this axe into the ground? Lighten up already...

Thanks for your valued input! :xoxo:

[LikeAWillow]

Let's head to a galaxy far, far away together.. the original question posed in this thread.

I'm not sure how I feel about Obama right now.

On the Economy:

What I like: The stimulus plan was based on Keynesian economic theory, and I dig that, because good old Johnny was right, in the long run, we're all dead. What I don't like: Wasted opportunities in the ways those theories are put to work. We're at the dawn of the environmental age, the idea of green "shovel-ready" projects could have, with thought, time, and dear god, innovation, propelled America forward while creating not only new jobs but new fields. Cash for Clunkers doesn't quite measure up to the infinite potential that was available.

On healthcare:

What I like: I believe in the power of the free market, save for the case of a market failure, and I don't think anyone can argue that the American healthcare market hasn't failed. A public option that keeps private plans alive could bridge that failure. Away from the logic of it and more towards the feeling, I just can't help but think that if we Americans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then access to decent healthcare IS one of our rights. Hey, the transitive property has never done me wrong before. What I don't like: To sound like a broken record, I'm just not convinced the execution of the plan would match the sound theory on which it's based, and healthcare isn't much like love. I'd rather never have gotten into bed with it then had our go around and lost. Oh, 1993.

I was going to continue with on the wars and social issues, but I'm bored.

Have an article on Howard Dean's balls instead:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/dean-there-will-be-primar_n_258813.html

[mylittledemon]

Have an article on Howard Dean's balls instead:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/dean-there-will-be-primar_n_258813.html

That guy is so out of touch with the American public, it's not even funny. He even used that interview to plug his book. :rolleyes:

[carrie721]

Let's head to a galaxy far, far away together.. the original question posed in this thread.

wait, this thread had a point? :lol:

I'm not sure how I feel about Obama right now.

On the Economy:

What I like: The stimulus plan was based on Keynesian economic theory, and I dig that, because good old Johnny was right, in the long run, we're all dead.

yeah, it was based on keynesian economics, but from what i have heard/read, even keynesian economists are against the stimulus package because it was just too small to do any good. go big or go home, right? obama tried to straddle the fence. epic fail.

Away from the logic of it and more towards the feeling, I just can't help but think that if we Americans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then access to decent healthcare IS one of our rights.

i agree that americans are entitled to those things. i mean, i didn't come up with it on my own, but i agree. :lol:

the thing is - we're not entitled to happiness itself, or anything else that falls under the big ugly "american dream." we're entitled to the pursuit of it. just as no one is entitled to absolute equality, but we are entitled to equality of opportunity. fairly reasonable health care in the US, however flawed, is attainable. into young adulthood (20-21ish), i had great health care. my copay for my shrink was $7 and my copay at my GP was $0. but i made some choices (quit school, gave up my job, moved across the country) that led me to not have insurance. does it suck? yeah. it makes me really nervous. but in light of those choices i made, i can't say that i am entitled to insurance, since i gave it up.

i'm not lecturing you or anything, you just brought up some interesting points to riff on. :xoxo:

Hey, the transitive property has never done me wrong before.

wanna make out?

[carrie721]

Have an article on Howard Dean's balls instead:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/dean-there-will-be-primar_n_258813.html

ugh. what an ass. i don't get what the big rush is RIGHT NOW to pass this legislation. it is ill-timed, for one thing, and who even has time to read the damn bill, think about it, and make a decision in all this madness?

i'll see your howard dean and raise you a camille paglia.

goddammit, camille, you're bat **** crazy but i can't quit you.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html

[mylittledemon]

ugh. what an ass.

We frickin agree! ;)

[carrie721]

are we really having a political discussion without strand or gldstwmn? where are they?

[mylittledemon]

are we really having a political discussion without strand or gldstwmn? where are they?

Yes, I think Dean is a lunatic. :shrug:

[David]

are we really having a political discussion without strand or gldstwmn? where are they?Yeah, where is that strand?! :mad:

This healthcare debate gives me a headache. Everyone on TV is talking in vagueries, in generalities, in meandering non sequiturs. People should start talking about what they themselves want -- in straightforward, plain English.

I'd like to be able to buy my own insurance policy on the open market -- a policy that offers me roughly the same level of coverage that I get from my group employer plan. Let's say my employer takes $200 out of my salary each month to pay my premiums for the group plan. I'd like to be able to keep that $200 myself & use it to buy my own open-market plan, one that would travel with me as I move (voluntarily or involuntarily) from job to job, so that I wouldn't have to worry about turning down good jobs with minimal or no coverage & I wouldn't have to worry about signing up for COBRA in a layoff & I wouldn't have to worry about pre-existing condition exclusions that would lock me right out of coverage.

By its nature, of course, group plans are less expensive than individual plans. But I'd be willing to pay a third or even a half more if it meant I would never again have to worry about losing coverage if I lost my job, & I wouldn't have to worry about going without coverage for 30 or 60 or 90 days when I get a new job, before all my benefits kick in.

What do you want from healthcare? I want hospitals, clinics & physicians' offices to START USING the bloody Internet, including e-mail, in administering patient records & testing & procedural reports. It's a scandal -- it's pure idiocy -- that we get crappy, illegible photocopies of our procedural reports to hand-carry back to our GP or on to our next specialist. WHY CAN'T THOSE WRITEUPS BE SCANNED ON A FLATBED SCANNER & THEN ATTACHED TO AN E-MAIL TO ANOTHER PHYSICIAN?! It's absolutely ridiculous, the amount of photocopying & snail-mailing & hand-carrying that are required from all of us now. The physician is paying that front-office help to prepare all that, which takes ten times as long -- & is ten times as prone to error -- as it would take to SCAN & ATTACH! :mad:

I also want competition. I want two, three, or FOUR endoscopy centers to vie for my business when my specialist orders a procedure for me. I want to be able to call each of them & ask, "How much do you charge?" Let them compete for MY business. That's the only fair & reliable way to handle what is after all a business transaction.

[Ghost_Tracker]

I definitely approve of a poll on The Ledge about everyone's "approval of President Obama."

lol! No really, I answered "approve" but - - -

I'd really like to see some forward movement on this Health Care thing. And in my opinion, he needs to start "learning the ropes" a little faster. (In his defense, Clinton said it took him a year simply to learn the freaking job, and he has a 180 I.Q.! :shocked: ) But just for example, it seems to me that at first he was talking about how it's going to be done by the end of the summer - everyone's reaction was like "that ain't gonna happen" and he was like, "well, yes it IS!" Now we shockingly find out that it probably won't be done until the end of the year, or early next year. Meanwhile he's taking on all this other stuff simultaneously, and in my opinion working on things that are relatively less important - - the "cash for clunkers" program for example. While that may have benefitted some people, it seems to me that he needs to learn to focus, and to keep his attention on the essential. He's arguably a person who has a lot of abilities, and I'm sure he's used to doing many things at once with a lot of success. But he needs to learn that he can't do that here.
I like to watch the tv show "The West Wing" a lot. The President - played by Martin Sheen - always has a grandfather clock going in the Oval Office, to remind him that "the clock's ticking." They often use this to great dramatic effect in the show.
One of the things they've shown very well, I feel, is that a President is easily distracted, and all of a sudden it's four or eight years later and none of the significant goals have been accomplished. I feel that Obama's starting to fall into that trap. He needs to pick 2 or 3 major things and focus almost exclusively on those. Health Care could be a real "ace in the hole" for him; and i.m.o. he should focus most of his energy and time on accomplishing that one goal by early next year. THEN he can work on other things. Sure, the economy's in trouble, but I'm not sure there's much more he can do right now, and besides he's got a treasury secretary and other people for that. He's gotta focus.

[rubytuesday]

Just about NHS. Everyone thinks its so left wing but what they don't understand is that even the most right wing Tory wouldn't pull apart the NHS. It would be like if they put through a law making primary and secondary school only for those who pay thousands upfront. There would riots in the streets! It isn't a left wing socialist thing. Thatcher didn't tear down NHS not because it wouldn't be popular but because when you have such a system, as long as its a democratic government even a right wing one would see how ridiculous it would be going backwards into a worse system. And believe me Thatcher was right wing!!

[LikeAWillow]

wait, this thread had a point? :lol:



yeah, it was based on keynesian economics, but from what i have heard/read, even keynesian economists are against the stimulus package because it was just too small to do any good. go big or go home, right? obama tried to straddle the fence. epic fail.

Exactly. The numbers do show that what he did was enough to hold the economy from spiraling downward any farther, but to roughly quote Keynes himself, the government should be paying people to dig holes and fill them back up at times like this. Obviously it's an exaggeration to prove a point, but if you're going to attempt to fix things with a Keynesian strategy, it's exactly like you said: go big or go home. Maybe if a little more of the stimulus package had actually made it into action....





i agree that americans are entitled to those things. i mean, i didn't come up with it on my own, but i agree. :lol:

the thing is - we're not entitled to happiness itself, or anything else that falls under the big ugly "american dream." we're entitled to the pursuit of it. just as no one is entitled to absolute equality, but we are entitled to equality of opportunity. fairly reasonable health care in the US, however flawed, is attainable. into young adulthood (20-21ish), i had great health care. my copay for my shrink was $7 and my copay at my GP was $0. but i made some choices (quit school, gave up my job, moved across the country) that led me to not have insurance. does it suck? yeah. it makes me really nervous. but in light of those choices i made, i can't say that i am entitled to insurance, since i gave it up.

i'm not lecturing you or anything, you just brought up some interesting points to riff on. :xoxo:



Ah, I should have been more clear. A system that denies the ill the ability to recover based on their financial status is, in effect, a system that denies the right to life, not to the pursuit of happiness (which I would never confuse for happiness itself, or I would be severely lacking in the angsty Nicks songs I love.)




wanna make out?

MAYBE IF YOU DON'T MOVE TO MY DREAM TOWN WITHOUT ME :mad: :mad: :mad:

[carrie721]

Exactly. The numbers do show that what he did was enough to hold the economy from spiraling downward any farther, but to roughly quote Keynes himself, the government should be paying people to dig holes and fill them back up at times like this. Obviously it's an exaggeration to prove a point, but if you're going to attempt to fix things with a Keynesian strategy, it's exactly like you said: go big or go home. Maybe if a little more of the stimulus package had actually made it into action....

yeah, i think you're right that the package as we know it was not the ideal. who knows what could have happened.

Ah, I should have been more clear. A system that denies the ill the ability to recover based on their financial status is, in effect, a system that denies the right to life, not to the pursuit of happiness (which I would never confuse for happiness itself, or I would be severely lacking in the angsty Nicks songs I love.)

i get what you were saying, i was just riffing on the life/liberty quote.

these days, i'm not so sure that it is the government's responsibility to take care of the people in this sense. as far as the mentally ill and people who literally can't take care of themselves, of course there needs to be some system in place to help them. but the rest of the population? i don't know. i need to do some more thinking/reading on the matter.

MAYBE IF YOU DON'T MOVE TO MY DREAM TOWN WITHOUT ME :mad: :mad: :mad:

if my evil plan goes as i anticipate, i'll still be here when you grajeeate. :D

oh, and re: healthcare, here's an update.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

[LikeAWillow]

There's also an op-ed written by Obama in the nytimes today, but, like most of his speeches, it doesn't really SAY much :sorry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html

[Ghost_Tracker]

Honest Injun Opinion -

I want to see Obama stop with the bull**** not-actually-all-that-controversial controversial photo-ops
while giving "speeches" to school kids about how studying is important. The election's more than three
years away and he needs to stop campaigning and start focusing. And he needs to stop spending
tens of millions of dollars flying all over the country talking about saving money.
Most of all, I feel that he needs to focus. This health care situation i.m.o.
is dire. There's going to be tens of millions of baby boomers aging now,
and many of them are going to need tens of thousands, or even hundreds of
thousands or millions of dollars, worth of care. If we don't fix this then the
economy really is going to tank. BIG time. For a very long period of time.
China's just biding their time right now, WAITING for that to happen.
Obama, i.m.o., is spreading himself WAY to thin. I understand the thinking
behind it but I think his advisors are just plain wrong. If I were his "boss" -
and as a voter, I am his boss in a way - - - I would be saying to him right about now,
"I want to see some RESULTS here!" I don't want to hear, "Congress isn't cooperating."
I don't want to hear, "The lobbyists are just too strong." He campaigned on being able to
negotiate and persuade and "cross the aisle" and he campaigned on his relative inexperience
being a non-issue.
The honeymoon's over, the jellybeans are starting to pile up in the jar and it's time
for him to get health care reform through Congress. Even if he needs to beg, borrow and steal to do it.
That's the job. If he can't do it, America will find somebody who can, and he can go become a Full
Professor at Harvard and hit the $10,000 per hour lecture circuit and get the multi-million dollar book deal. :angel: