By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - OBAMA approval PLUMMETS to a dreadful 40%

HappySqurriel said:
=

Actually, education is entirely within provincial jurisdiction; and the only involvement in education from the federal government is indirect financing through tansfer payment ... and even with how much better the Canadian education system is, we're still "failing" far too many students being that (depending on the study) around 15% to 20% of high-school graduates are functionally illiterate and (while not well studied) a similar or larger portion of highschool graduates are functionally innumerate.

Now, the federal government having some involvement in the educational system does not doom the system, but it is foolish to think that you can create a uniform system that can address the challenges of a small rural school and an inner city school.

Over curriculum yes, it is entirely Provincial, but there do exist things like INAC where the Federal government launches programs or has departments that focus on specific interests and groups.

Over the issue of literacy, I agree, it seems that standards are dropping but I think that problem goes beyond in schools. (albeit a contributing factor) I think a big problem is how much reading kids are doing nowadays.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Complete opposite of what should happen, of course. Single payer, complete annihilation of this whole "human health = profit" abomination we have going now

It's a service like education that is part of our package of human rights, and one that should therefore be provided centrally


You do know that nonprofit health insurance isn't any cheaper then regular health insurance, right.

True, but the money could be allocated more efficiently. As it has been said before, the USA spends more per person on health care in the USA yet their system is broken. (unless you're rich, then you're sitting pretty)

But there isn't just one answer to healthcare in the USA. On a personal level, the best thing somebody can do is preventative care. Obviously you can't account for everything, but the average person can probably do a lot more to maintain good health.



Bong Lover said:
osamanobama said:
Bong Lover said:
osamanobama said:

also not to mention that letting people keep their own money doesnt add to the deficit, but pretending it does.

government never gets the amount in revenue that they predict from tax increases, and in this case getting rid of the obama tax cuts (we had i vote on these tax rates not to long ago, i seem to remember obama was in office, and he suported it along with his super majorities in both houses of congress) changes behavior people shift their money around, also businesses will be less productive, higher less people, etc, therefor will pay less taxes, than say they had a thriving business with lots of employees. so raising taxes would not only have a detremental impact on economic growth but tax revenue too (there will be a ever so slight increase in tax revenue, though it wont even put a scratch on a microscopic dent on our debt)

I am sure that is what you remember, but in the real world these cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. The republicans threatened with a government shutdown if the Bush tax cuts were not extended. Same tactics, same result as the current debacle in Congress, and yes, America is suffering as a result.

The way I see it there are two possible ways forward for the USA. Either you continue with very low levels of government spending, but then you have to stop trying to provide social services even remotely similar to the rest of the Western world. Alternatively, increase funding and strengthen the social safety net. Right now the US is stuck in a position where they think they can provide social security, basic health care, public education and a stable infrastructure without paying for it. Most Americans probably don't realize that the quality of health-care and education in the USA is absolute shit compared to most other developed western countries. The infrastructure is following the same trajectory. The only area where the former superpower is not being outperformed by the rest of comparable countries is in military power. Who knows how long that will last though?

Of course, with the two party system currently in place, the only real choice Americans have is is they want to abolish the safety net quickly or slightly slower.

 

yes, and they had supermajorities in both houses, if the wanted to get something done they could have, but the election was coming up, so they pandered. and they would have been even more destroyed in the election if they raised taxes.

wealth gap has only been increasing since we started all these social programs, they dont work, privatize them, and they will provide a better service for a lower cost.

and we keep doubling and doubling spending on our monopoly on eduction yet scores havent gone up for nearly 50 years, that should tell government something. we should eliminate the department of education, one of the least of reasons is because its unconstitutional.

and our healthcare system is the best in the world, thats why we have the highest survival rates of nearly every medical conditions. could it get better, you bet, you get government red tape out of the way and you will have it. get medical mal practice reform, allow people to buy insurance across state lines etc

I see, we can just make up facts to fit to our arguments? The Democrats did not have a super majority in either house when the tax cuts were extended. If they did, the tax cuts would not have been extended for households making more than $250,000 a year.

The wealth gap has been escalating since the introduction of supply side economics in the early 80's. There is absolutely no credible connection between the New Deal and the current huge increase in the wealth gap.

Finally, the health care system in the USA is the best in the world only in the minds of Americans. It is true that for extremely complicated surgery the top talent is in America, but this does very little to benefit most people. The truth is that healthcare in the USA is of very poor quality at a very high price in the general case. I've lived in both America and overseas and have seen the differences first hand many many times. But, my observations are just isolated examples. If you care to investigate your belief that survival rates are higher in the US than other Western countries the numbers are freely available. You'll see that except for a marginally better survival rate for breast cancer, the US scores low in almost all categories. At a much higher price per patient none the less.

Actually, when you take out confoudning variables, you find out the US does just as well if not better in most areas.

Often ignored is the fact that US patients come to the hositpals in worse shape due to higher rates of obesity and other factors and the US having much looser reporting methids.  (IE every death = a death).

Another confoundign variable is that we don't live in a vacuum.  IE Europe benefits from the many discoveries and perhaps more imortantly refinements of technology and medicine that happen in the US.  The US is set up by far to be the leader in biotechnology, and is specifically due to the profits that can be made here.



Ail said:
osamanobama said:

yes, and they had supermajorities in both houses, if the wanted to get something done they could have, but the election was coming up, so they pandered. and they would have been even more destroyed in the election if they raised taxes.

wealth gap has only been increasing since we started all these social programs, they dont work, privatize them, and they will provide a better service for a lower cost.

and we keep doubling and doubling spending on our monopoly on eduction yet scores havent gone up for nearly 50 years, that should tell government something. we should eliminate the department of education, one of the least of reasons is because its unconstitutional.

and our healthcare system is the best in the world, thats why we have the highest survival rates of nearly every medical conditions. could it get better, you bet, you get government red tape out of the way and you will have it. get medical mal practice reform, allow people to buy insurance across state lines etc

Err ?

Right now the social programs are not designed to make a profit, and as most know they are actually making a loss.

Now lets say you privatize them.

That means there will be companies in between that will be looking to make a profit.

Now go ahead and explain me what is going to be the benefit for citizens to have companies making a profit out of their retirement money ????

 

Right now : 100$ go in, 110$ go out.

your proposal :

100$ go in, some company makes a 20% or so profit.

80$ go out...

Now go ahead and tell people that live only on social security that you propose to cut their revenue by 30%............

 

As for global healthcare, last I remember the US were only ranked 20 or so worldwide on the quality of their healthcare system...

There are actually states where the life expectancy is going down while in most european countries it is still increasing by 3 months/year or so...

Privitzing it would have the funds placed in an interst drawing account or invested in solid yeild securities and stocks.   Therefore, you get a profit on the provider and lower costs.   And that's just to start.

The bigger area of concern isn't funding vs spending.  But rather inflated costs.   A hospital can charge $5 per Tylenol (the exact same over the counter Tylenol that costs you 11 cents at CVS) because it knows the inurance carrier (including the entitlement programs) will pay it.  The consumer rarely ever bargains these fees unless they are paying out of pocket.   With a truly free market and privatized service, those insurance companies would fight tooth and nail to reduce costs so they can attract more customers.

Note that I'm pointing out the problem being government involvement in the entire insurance system, not just SS.  To truly see results in the system on either end, you have to deal with the problem overall.  You can just do SS or just government involved insurance.  You ahve to fix both.  But in doing so, health care costs would drop by quite a lot.

And don't forget the investing part.   A good insurance company would pass on good investment savings on to the customer as part of their business plan.

richardhutnik said:
Viper1 said:

Did not a president initiate the 2 wars without congressional approval?  Are we not in Libya wholly against the requests of Congress?  Is the President not the Commander In Chief of the military?

Bush tax cutes - has he even tried to remove them?  Has he worked to educate the congress properly on why we need to remove them?

All Obama does is do what Obama wants and then spout rhetoric peppered with logical fallacies to give us a warm fuzzy feeling and all contrary to his campaign stances.

As for the private health insurance industry...haha, private.  It's not been truly private since the early 70's.Ever notice that the segments of the health industry that the government has no involvmeent in are actually getting cheaper every year and providing better services every year?   The correlation is not coincidental.  It's free market economic law.

There is NOTHING that is going to happen with "educating" anyone on the GOP side.  You talk about needing to let the Bushg tax cuts lapse and it gets spun as "Obama is raising taxes".  It goes nowhere ever:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-i-refuse-to-renew-bush-tax-cuts-for-rich/1

Republicans said they will battle to maintain tax rates for all Americans.

"The one area that we know we're not going to get very far on is the idea that we're going to raise taxes on the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and to help create jobs," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

 

I personally prefer a flat consumption tax.   Taxing income is an idiotic concept to begin with.  Impossible to make it fair for all. 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Viper1 said:
Ail said:
osamanobama said:

yes, and they had supermajorities in both houses, if the wanted to get something done they could have, but the election was coming up, so they pandered. and they would have been even more destroyed in the election if they raised taxes.

wealth gap has only been increasing since we started all these social programs, they dont work, privatize them, and they will provide a better service for a lower cost.

and we keep doubling and doubling spending on our monopoly on eduction yet scores havent gone up for nearly 50 years, that should tell government something. we should eliminate the department of education, one of the least of reasons is because its unconstitutional.

and our healthcare system is the best in the world, thats why we have the highest survival rates of nearly every medical conditions. could it get better, you bet, you get government red tape out of the way and you will have it. get medical mal practice reform, allow people to buy insurance across state lines etc

Err ?

Right now the social programs are not designed to make a profit, and as most know they are actually making a loss.

Now lets say you privatize them.

That means there will be companies in between that will be looking to make a profit.

Now go ahead and explain me what is going to be the benefit for citizens to have companies making a profit out of their retirement money ????

 

Right now : 100$ go in, 110$ go out.

your proposal :

100$ go in, some company makes a 20% or so profit.

80$ go out...

Now go ahead and tell people that live only on social security that you propose to cut their revenue by 30%............

 

As for global healthcare, last I remember the US were only ranked 20 or so worldwide on the quality of their healthcare system...

There are actually states where the life expectancy is going down while in most european countries it is still increasing by 3 months/year or so...

Privitzing it would have the funds placed in an interst drawing account or invested in solid yeild securities and stocks.   Therefore, you get a profit on the provider and lower costs.   And that's just to start.

The bigger area of concern isn't funding vs spending.  But rather inflated costs.   A hospital can charge $5 per Tylenol (the exact same over the counter Tylenol that costs you 11 cents at CVS) because it knows the inurance carrier (including the entitlement programs) will pay it.  The consumer rarely ever bargains these fees unless they are paying out of pocket.   With a truly free market and privatized service, those insurance companies would fight tooth and nail to reduce costs so they can attract more customers.

Note that I'm pointing out the problem being government involvement in the entire insurance system, not just SS.  To truly see results in the system on either end, you have to deal with the problem overall.  You can just do SS or just government involved insurance.  You ahve to fix both.  But in doing so, health care costs would drop by quite a lot.

And don't forget the investing part.   A good insurance company would pass on good investment savings on to the customer as part of their business plan.

 

Those entitlement programs are only available to seniors and I don't see those private insurance companies fighting tooth and nail for me right now, seeing how I am not a senior and for all purpose they are the only one on that market. So how you explain that ?

As for passing the savings to the customers , companies only do that when they have a peer that is driving the cost down or when they are afraid to loose customers.

Seeing how we're talking of healthcare customers are not going to do without it even if it gets very expensive, so the only thing that could drive price down is a price war between companies. Seeing how you would have a captive audience that can not do without the product, that is very very unlikely...........

Are oil companies passing their savings to their customers ?Nope, because they know whatever the price, people still need to fuel their car.

 

Besides are we talking of those same insurance companies that until very recently very often refused to take as customers people with existing medical conditions because those customers would not be profitable ???



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Ail said:
Viper1 said:

Privitzing it would have the funds placed in an interst drawing account or invested in solid yeild securities and stocks.   Therefore, you get a profit on the provider and lower costs.   And that's just to start.

The bigger area of concern isn't funding vs spending.  But rather inflated costs.   A hospital can charge $5 per Tylenol (the exact same over the counter Tylenol that costs you 11 cents at CVS) because it knows the inurance carrier (including the entitlement programs) will pay it.  The consumer rarely ever bargains these fees unless they are paying out of pocket.   With a truly free market and privatized service, those insurance companies would fight tooth and nail to reduce costs so they can attract more customers.

Note that I'm pointing out the problem being government involvement in the entire insurance system, not just SS.  To truly see results in the system on either end, you have to deal with the problem overall.  You can't just do SS or just government involved insurance.  You have to fix both.  But in doing so, health care costs would drop by quite a lot.

And don't forget the investing part.   A good insurance company would pass on good investment savings on to the customer as part of their business plan.

 

Those entitlement programs are only available to seniors and I don't see those private insurance companies fighting tooth and nail for me right now, seeing how I am not a senior and for all purpose they are the only one on that market. So how you explain that ?

As for passing the savings to the customers , companies only do that when they have a peer that is driving the cost down or when they are afraid to loose customers.

Seeing how we're talking of healthcare customers are not going to do without it even if it gets very expensive, so the only thing that could drive price down is a price war between companies. Seeing how you would have a captive audience that can not do without the product, that is very very unlikely...........

Are oil companies passing their savings to their customers ?Nope, because they know whatever the price, people still need to fuel their car.

 

Besides are we talking of those same insurance companies that until very recently very often refused to take as customers people with existing medical conditions because those customers would not be profitable ???

I just said you have to get the government out of the industry for it to work.  You can't buy health insurance across state lines and for the most part it's tied into your employment.   And the government is involved in many other areas.   Compeition is stifled.   Free market economic balances are gone.  Moral hazard is unchecked.

The oil companies aren't a free market either.  You know, I'l just say it this way, most major market sectors are not free market based anymore.   The US government has its nose way too deep in most fo them to allow free market principles to properly operate.   Look at the bails outs for proof.  Now ALL big businesses have no fear of failure.  Uncle Sam and the Fed will take care of them.   Sound familiar?  The American people no longer feel the need to take care of themselves because Uncle Sam will do it for them.   Hold the hand of a business or a people for too long and they forget how to manage on their own.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Americans, treat yourselves better. Vote Ron Paul 2012!

He's commited to fighting the banking elites and their enslaving policies, which I think is tackling the root of the problem.

I'm from Australia by the way, so I can't do anything but to spread an opinion.



My website: Precocious Ragamuffin

osamanobama said:


currently we dont have a free market for insuance. example you cant buy accross state lines, limiting competition, more competition will always lower prices, giving the employer an option to go with the lower cost

All that would do (as is the case with Credit Cards and Incorporation companies) is cause a race to the bottom. Insurance companies would all open small offices in the state with the least regulation as most lax rules and call those locations their new corporate headquarters.  You would have the same companies as we have today and same rules and regulations about purchasing insurance. Again most people would get through employers, most employers wouldnt offer many choices and it would be risky to by outside of the group plans offered through employment.  Add to that more risk over would your coverage even be honored. There is a reason US is #37 in the world in Health Care and #2 in the world in out of pocket costs. We dont get what we pay for.

Here is an interesting article (leads to other interesting ones as well) about how the US Healthcare System limits our lives (not talking life and death, but our life choices).

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-07-25-medium-chillers-killers-and-universal-healthcare

One paragraph that says it all.

In short, America's stupid health-care system prevents people from shifting their work-life balance to less-work-and-more-life, but it also prevents people from doing the inverse! It locks people into a rigid system that serves almost no one (except insurance companies) very well.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

thx1139 said:
osamanobama said:


currently we dont have a free market for insuance. example you cant buy accross state lines, limiting competition, more competition will always lower prices, giving the employer an option to go with the lower cost

All that would do (as is the case with Credit Cards and Incorporation companies) is cause a race to the bottom. Insurance companies would all open small offices in the state with the least regulation as most lax rules and call those locations their new corporate headquarters.  You would have the same companies as we have today and same rules and regulations about purchasing insurance. Again most people would get through employers, most employers wouldnt offer many choices and it would be risky to by outside of the group plans offered through employment.  Add to that more risk over would your coverage even be honored. There is a reason US is #37 in the world in Health Care and #2 in the world in out of pocket costs. We dont get what we pay for.

Here is an interesting article (leads to other interesting ones as well) about how the US Healthcare System limits our lives (not talking life and death, but our life choices).

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-07-25-medium-chillers-killers-and-universal-healthcare

One paragraph that says it all.

In short, America's stupid health-care system prevents people from shifting their work-life balance to less-work-and-more-life, but it also prevents people from doing the inverse! It locks people into a rigid system that serves almost no one (except insurance companies) very well.

yeah too bad that 37 number is complete bullocks... also cuba 39. hahahahah lolool.

how they calculate that is ridiculous. it comes from the ever so grand World Health Organization/United Nations, but if thats not bad enough for you.

they admit that their data has been "hampered by weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research" they made up numbers when convienient. they just accepted and believed any information that the goverments told them, so whatever fidel castro said, they went with.

we get punished for ridiculous things like not having a progressive enough tax system. becuase that has so much to due with quality of health care. and we get punished too for not being socialist. according to them we a 54th on what they deam "fairness: which is the smallest feasable differences among individuals and groups. so if you have this rich peron who can afford a state of the art procedure to save his life, but a poor person cant, the UN will rank you higher if you let them both die.



OK osamanobama,

If WHO is so bad name a study that says US healthcare system is the envy of the world.

OK since you wont find that name 1 other 1st world country that has the same system as the US? You know good things are usually copied.

Sure if you are rich you can get great healthcare. I for one am very well off, but the #1 fear I live in is that the nest egg I have built up can be wiped away by a family healthcare crisis. Particularly if I wanted to move on and be a "medium chiller" as the article I posted about. Our healthcare system holds back people from the way they want to live. Be that someone who just works for freedom or someone who wants to be an entrepreneur. The only entity our system does wonders for is the middleman health insurance company.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.