Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Compel wrote:
Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?

And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.

It has been claimed that they voted for like 93% the same bills and such. This puts each thing they voted for on the same level. This is a problem because two people who vote for nine suggestions to serve fresh fruit in workplaces (strong orchard lobby I suppose) and then differ on whether there should be a separation of church and state aren't 90% the same. And that's without considering that voting is the last step in a process of writing and supporting bills. Not everything makes it to the vote.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did.

And, has been pointed out over and over again when this has been mentioned in the past, those poll numbers are not reliable. Because Sanders was in a clear losing position early on the republican party focused most of its efforts on attacking Clinton and put very little into attacking Sanders. If Sanders had won the nomination he would have become the primary target, and it's very likely that his numbers would have dropped. After all, "SOCIALISM IS TREASON" has been a very successful attack in the past, and the republican party would have been broadcasting ad after ad of Sanders saying "I am a socialist".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It has been claimed that they voted for like 93% the same bills and such. This puts each thing they voted for on the same level. This is a problem because two people who vote for nine suggestions to serve fresh fruit in workplaces (strong orchard lobby I suppose) and then differ on whether there should be a separation of church and state aren't 90% the same. And that's without considering that voting is the last step in a process of writing and supporting bills. Not everything makes it to the vote.

Ok then, provide the evidence of major issues that Clinton and Sanders disagreed on. All you're likely to find is the war stuff, other than that the only real difference between the two is in the details. For example, Sanders might have argued for a higher minimum wage increase than Clinton, but they both acknowledged the existence of a problem and wanted an increase.

"Just" the war stuff is pretty major by itself but there's positions on universal healthcare and on Wall Street as well. Clinton saying there will never, ever be good healthcare and taking large sums to hold speeches to her donors where she tells them you got to have a private and a public position on things doesn't do good for her credibility.

 Peregrine wrote:


And, has been pointed out over and over again when this has been mentioned in the past, those poll numbers are not reliable. Because Sanders was in a clear losing position early on the republican party focused most of its efforts on attacking Clinton and put very little into attacking Sanders. If Sanders had won the nomination he would have become the primary target, and it's very likely that his numbers would have dropped. After all, "SOCIALISM IS TREASON" has been a very successful attack in the past, and the republican party would have been broadcasting ad after ad of Sanders saying "I am a socialist".

Sanders is just a democratic socialist and the view on socialism is changing with people's circumstances. If people like Sanders and what he says and everyone says he's a socialist they'll figure that perhaps socialism is pretty ok. Any scaremongering could be counteracted by mobilising demographics that don't vote, for example the poor. The political establishment wailing that Trump wasn't like them at all didn't hurt his chances.

Rosebuddy wrote:
"Just" the war stuff is pretty major by itself but there's positions on universal healthcare and on Wall Street as well. Clinton saying there will never, ever be good healthcare and taking large sums to hold speeches to her donors where she tells them you got to have a private and a public position on things doesn't do good for her credibility.

This is what I mean about Clinton being a somewhat more realistic version of Sanders. You say there's a difference on healthcare, but it's not like Clinton was part of the angry mob trying to repeal Obamacare. She favored health care reform that would help the same people Sanders is trying to help, just by working within the existing system and accomplishing what can be done now instead of trying to fix the system all at once. And, after Obama's failure to get universal healthcare done, we have to be skeptical that Sanders could have accomplished his more ambitious goals and not just ended up settling for something like Clinton's plan to get it through congress.

Sanders is just a democratic socialist and the view on socialism is changing with people's circumstances. If people like Sanders and what he says and everyone says he's a socialist they'll figure that perhaps socialism is pretty ok. Any scaremongering could be counteracted by mobilising demographics that don't vote, for example the poor. The political establishment wailing that Trump wasn't like them at all didn't hurt his chances.

None of that matters. The simple fact is that lots of people in the US hate everything associated with the word "socialism", and the republican party has videos of Sanders saying "I'm a socialist". You can't just assume that the democrats would magically be successful at countering the attack.

And the "socialist" thing is just one example of how they could have attacked Sanders. We know Sanders had vulnerabilities with things like his economic plan, where the numbers behind it were shaky at best and open to attack. In the real world these vulnerabilities weren't exploited because the republican party spent all of their effort on preparing for Clinton, but in a hypothetical world where Sanders wins he becomes a target. And he has to defend himself against the republican campaign ads and fact checkers and such saying "Sanders' numbers are fiction, how can you trust him to lead our economic recovery?". It's certainly possible that he could have successfully overcome the attacks and still won the election, but it's incredibly misleading to talk about his poll numbers in the absence of any serious attempt to attack him.

On a side note, I'll never understand the American distaste for social healthcare.

The main argument I've seen against is not wanting to pay for someone else's cover.

Except.....that's exactly how all insurance actually works. Ultimately an Insurance Contract is a gamble between both parties - with the underwriter gambling you'll never need to use your policy, allowing them to keep all the premiums paid.

Biggest difference? With social healthcare, there's not someone actively looking for ways to decline your claim.

But, to each their own. I've lived my life with the NHS, and it's saved my life on at least four occasions, so there's definite bias. Through work, I now have comprehensive private cover. And that's is something I feel all those who can afford should take out - you get a faster level of care, and the NHS can then see to those who aren't so lucky.

A healthy workforce is a more productive workforce after all.

I read that as: "An alive workforce is a more productive workforce, after all."

Same diff

 whembly wrote:
Speaking of flags...

How would a 51 stars flag look?

It would look like Puerto Rico getting the benefits of being a state without paying US taxes is about to end!

Fiscal conservatism in action!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On a side note, I'll never understand the American distaste for social healthcare.

The main argument I've seen against is not wanting to pay for someone else's cover.

Except.....that's exactly how all insurance actually works. Ultimately an Insurance Contract is a gamble between both parties - with the underwriter gambling you'll never need to use your policy, allowing them to keep all the premiums paid.

Biggest difference? With social healthcare, there's not someone actively looking for ways to decline your claim.

But, to each their own. I've lived my life with the NHS, and it's saved my life on at least four occasions, so there's definite bias. Through work, I now have comprehensive private cover. And that's is something I feel all those who can afford should take out - you get a faster level of care, and the NHS can then see to those who aren't so lucky.

A healthy workforce is a more productive workforce after all.

Agreed. For me, that's always been the tragedy about America - this great nation that suffers from a gak healthcare service.

It's not even me being biased about the NHS - there are so many other good models they could copy or adopt: Canada, most of Western Europe etc etc

They have the money, the skill, and the expertise to do this, but sadly, blind ideology, and people wanting the status quo maintained because it makes them richer at their fellow citizen's expense, would continue to rule the day.

That article I read a few months before the November election was a real eye opener.

In rural Virginia, volunteers set up tents and give out free healthcare for the weekend, the volunteers being doctors, dentists, etc

poor people come from miles around, and the contrast is so stark.

The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...

Tragic...

Yup.

It's as if they don't look at the long term, at all.

Consider this situation.

Person of working age, say mid-50's, does their hip in over their life. Walking is painful. They can't stand for long. Driving it right out.

But, because the condition developed over time, their health insurer declines the claim.

Person has to leave their chosen vocation, taking a tax payer out of the loop, and leaving them on Social Security.

But it gets worse! Because they're of limited mobility, family members have to help out - this impacts their ability to work, especially if one winds up doing it full time.

That's two people on state handouts for the foreseeable.

Or, the state coughs up for a hip replacement. Two tax payers return to the workforce.

Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

It is expensive, especially when first set up (it can take a while for the increased workforce benefits to be felt, economically speaking) but in the long term it is so utterly worth doing.

And it's not just physical injuries. Consider Epilepsy. My Mum has pretty severe Epilepsy. If she didn't take her pills one day, she will have a fit. And if she has a fit, bang goes the driving license. Which again, restricts her work options. But being a UK citizen, she gets her pills on the NHS, and for my entire life (36 years, fact fans) she's never had a fit. At all.

Now. Make Mumsie pay for those out of her own pocket, because clearly a debilitating neurological disorder is all her own fault, and not just horrifically bad luck? Well, she could probably still get them. BUT OH NO! Here comes someone like Martin 'waste of skin' Shrkelli. And he's just arbitrarily jacked up the pill price!

All that money on medicine just flows towards the one industry, which from my understanding tends to be quite centralised, and, uh.....highly tax efficient.

If the state picks up the tab centrally, there's actually less of that nonsense. Collective bargaining is ace.

And the money the sufferer saves by not having to meet the cost out their own pocket? (again, pre-existing medical condition, good luck getting private insurance) Well, that's money in their pocket. Which will most likely be spent in the local area. Supporting local businesses, local jobs, local economy.

Social healthcare just makes sense.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup.

It's as if they don't look at the long term, at all.

Consider this situation.

Person of working age, say mid-50's, does their hip in over their life. Walking is painful. They can't stand for long. Driving it right out.

But, because the condition developed over time, their health insurer declines the claim.

Person has to leave their chosen vocation, taking a tax payer out of the loop, and leaving them on Social Security.

But it gets worse! Because they're of limited mobility, family members have to help out - this impacts their ability to work, especially if one winds up doing it full time.

That's two people on state handouts for the foreseeable.

Or, the state coughs up for a hip replacement. Two tax payers return to the workforce.

Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

It is expensive, especially when first set up (it can take a while for the increased workforce benefits to be felt, economically speaking) but in the long term it is so utterly worth doing.

And it's not just physical injuries. Consider Epilepsy. My Mum has pretty severe Epilepsy. If she didn't take her pills one day, she will have a fit. And if she has a fit, bang goes the driving license. Which again, restricts her work options. But being a UK citizen, she gets her pills on the NHS, and for my entire life (36 years, fact fans) she's never had a fit. At all.

Now. Make Mumsie pay for those out of her own pocket, because clearly a debilitating neurological disorder is all her own fault, and not just horrifically bad luck? Well, she could probably still get them. BUT OH NO! Here comes someone like Martin 'waste of skin' Shrkelli. And he's just arbitrarily jacked up the pill price!

All that money on medicine just flows towards the one industry, which from my understanding tends to be quite centralised, and, uh.....highly tax efficient.

If the state picks up the tab centrally, there's actually less of that nonsense. Collective bargaining is ace.

And the money the sufferer saves by not having to meet the cost out their own pocket? (again, pre-existing medical condition, good luck getting private insurance) Well, that's money in their pocket. Which will most likely be spent in the local area. Supporting local businesses, local jobs, local economy.

Social healthcare just makes sense.

Exactly.

You would think that a nation like the USA, which is so good at making money, would understand this.

You can give people free heart medicine that costs pennies, or you can wait until something goes wrong and then have to pay a team of surgeons thousands in order to fix it...

No brainer for me...

That's what I like about the NHS when they do their vaccination programs and give out free medicine, because it is proven to save money and they can buy the stuff in bulk, which makes it even cheaper.

Yup.

But as I said, those who can afford private medical really should do so.

Take as much strain and pressure off the NHS as you personally can. It's there for everybody, but try not to get in the way of those who solely depend upon it.

And imagine a pharmaceutical company trying to cook the books when it's biggest customer is the state....you say you made no profit, and only took in £1billion......but our order books from the NHS kinda show we paid you £2billion....do you think we're daft?.

Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.

You silly Brits, this is Murica!

We don't look in our neighbors bowl to make sure he has enough, we make sure the damn chump doesn't have more than us!

Joking aside, my country sadly makes me sick with the way we run things like a gak show. Our infastructure is falling apart, our healthcare is a joke, and our education system is a farce that teaches mythology over history.

But hey, lets just keep screaming USA at the top of our lungs and pretend we're not a damn joke.

 Just Tony wrote:

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

Citation needed.

Also, consider it from this angle: How many people throughout the years may have been put off leaving their job to start their own business due to the impact which losing their employers healthcare coverage would have on their family? Universal healthcare coverage removes that risk, so your people are more free to pursue whatever goals in life they may have and to better themselves, rather than having to stick with a job because it has the healthcare coverage they need.

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

That's the beauty of state funded healthcare, it's paid for from central taxation. So as long as they're earning, they ARE buying it on their dime. It's not free.

We are truly a country in decline.

We will not fix ourselves until we hit bottom.

Take the brakes off and let that bitch plummet.

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

Not having a go at you, but your statement and statements like that, highlight the two great tragedies about the USA IMO

1. The rich, the elites, who have rigged the game and pulled up the drawbridge behind them, have convinced vast swathes of society that if you work hard, then you too can have what we have...

In Britain, we have millions of people in jobs, and they're barely above the poverty line, and I imagine the same is true in the USA.

Hard work does not always ensure success. My elderly father is the hardest working person I have ever know, and what does he have to show for 50+ years of hard work and working his finger to the bone, quite literally, as he's lost two fingers in industrial accidents? Riches? A Castle? His own Trump Towers?

Hell no. He has two false hips, two less fingers, and a set of dodgy knees for his old age...

2. The people who are effected most, the people who have the most to gain, listen to and believe frauds and fakes who have convinced them its in their own interest to have gak poor health services, roads, schools, etc etc

and they vote for these people every 4 years

I'm not calling for full blown socialism to flood the USA and there is nothing wrong with aiming high, but 99.9% of people don't make it that far and never will.

But it's not beyond the richest country on Earth, that is full of smart people, capable people, to give people decent jobs, decent healthcare, and ultimately, a good standard of living for them and their children...

And yes, I know Britain is just as bad...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.

Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.

Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?

Maybe it's similar to how you can know an election is rigged before anyone has even voted?

Woolsey was part of the transition team, from what the news was saying, not part of the actual administration.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

Not having a go at you, but your statement and statements like that, highlight the two great tragedies about the USA IMO

1. The rich, the elites, who have rigged the game and pulled up the drawbridge behind them, have convinced vast swathes of society that if you work hard, then you too can have what we have...

In Britain, we have millions of people in jobs, and they're barely above the poverty line, and I imagine the same is true in the USA.

Hard work does not always ensure success. My elderly father is the hardest working person I have ever know, and what does he have to show for 50+ years of hard work and working his finger to the bone, quite literally, as he's lost two fingers in industrial accidents? Riches? A Castle? His own Trump Towers?

Hell no. He has two false hips, two less fingers, and a set of dodgy knees for his old age...

2. The people who are effected most, the people who have the most to gain, listen to and believe frauds and fakes who have convinced them its in their own interest to have gak poor health services, roads, schools, etc etc

and they vote for these people every 4 years

I'm not calling for full blown socialism to flood the USA and there is nothing wrong with aiming high, but 99.9% of people don't make it that far and never will.

But it's not beyond the richest country on Earth, that is full of smart people, capable people, to give people decent jobs, decent healthcare, and ultimately, a good standard of living for them and their children...

And yes, I know Britain is just as bad...

Do you wanna know the irony about the state of US healthcare?

It's damn near the social model of the UK or even Canada.

This is one of, if not the most, heavily regulated industry in the US. The difference is where & when healthcare transactions are paid for...

'Tis why I'm an advocate of two things:
a) we don't need to gut everything to go to NHS/Canadian Medicare model... just nationalize the INSURANCE side of the industry, state Medicaid funding and change the requisite tax laws to fund it to be modeled as the Canadian single-payor system.

b) more importantly, especially before 'a)' above is done, mandate transparency at EVERY STAGE of each delivered healthcare transactions. Because, right now, it's nothing more than a massive shell game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.

Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?

He didn't have an official role... he was simply a member of the transition team. I suspects he had enough of the transition team. Even Gen. Mattis is getting frustrated, as he wanted some qualified people at the DoD, but who were #NeverTrumpers... and the transition team are being petulant asses about it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.

"Intelligence" has no place in a Trump administration.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did.

There is a thing stuck to my shoe that is more valuable than May polls comparing Trump to Sanders. You keep forgetting, every fething time we have this conversation, that Sanders was always losing that campaign, and never got one second of attention from the conservative rage machine.

I mean look at the ludicrous bs they got people to believe were Clinton scandals. You think they wouldn't have done twice the job with an actual socialist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?

And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.

That's exactly it. There's a lot of people saying Clinton needed a different, more progessive set of policies. They're missing that there was almost no policy debate through the entire campaign. Right now there are Trump voters giving interviews saying they didn't realise they might lose their ACA healthcare if Trump repeals ACA like he said it would. In that environment the idea that Sanders would triumph where Clinton didn't because he was promising the reach a $15 minimum wage sooner is laughable.

 Manchu wrote:
We need to be careful with this term creationism. In the broadest sense, we're talking about a belief that God is the Creator. That of course is a basic tenant of Catholic faith and of all Christianity (third clause of the Nicene Creed) - but there is a more particular meaning of that term denoting opposition to the theory of evolution, and that meaning is simply not current with Catholics generally, from the cardinals in Rome right through to lay people in every part of the world. The creationism that Catholics universally accept is not an alternative to evolutionary theory generally much less a buzzword signalling some agenda of opposition to evolutionary theory.

While that may be true for Catholics, they are a traditionally vilified group in the US, and thus not really ones to push this sort of policy to begin with... And I think literally everyone on this forum knows exactly what sort of creationism is being talked about. We know that it is the protestant majority pushing for their YE views to be taught as science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

That's exactly it. There's a lot of people saying Clinton needed a different, more progessive set of policies. They're missing that there was almost no policy debate through the entire campaign. Right now there are Trump voters giving interviews saying they didn't realise they might lose their ACA healthcare if Trump repeals ACA like he said it would. In that environment the idea that Sanders would triumph where Clinton didn't because he was promising the reach a $15 minimum wage sooner is laughable.

You make an excellent point here... but I don't think Sanders would've triumphed because of policy... I think he would have triumphed for focusing on the right people during the campaign. I've seen him holding events around the country even after the primaries/election, and he's continued focusing on the 99% of the population. I think Sanders would've campaigned in the Michigans, Wisconsins, and other heavily blue collar areas that Clinton neglected because she had already "won" them historically.

Rosebuddy wrote:
"Just" the war stuff is pretty major by itself but there's positions on universal healthcare and on Wall Street as well. Clinton saying there will never, ever be good healthcare and taking large sums to hold speeches to her donors where she tells them you got to have a private and a public position on things doesn't do good for her credibility.

See, and here you are buying in to a Republican smear on Clinton, continuing to be oblivious to what would have happened to Sanders.

Clinton was discussing the film Lincoln and how it showed how politics is done. You know the won that portrays Lincoln as a hero who achieved great things in the complex world of politics. Yeah, that's how cynical Clinton's view is here - she recognises that getting something worthwhile done in politics requires making deals, as well as keeping to a clear vision. But of course her comment got leaked, presented all cut up and full of editorializing to make it sound terrible, and the conservative noise machine made it out like it scandalous or meaningful in any way. The twist was that it wasn't just the normal Republican base chowing in to that nonsense, there was also a collection of still bitter Sanders' supporters now ready to believe every bit of nonsense about Clinton.



This is what changes depending on who's in the Whitehouse, by the way. In 2000 guys like Rosebuddy were everywhere. They were so keen to prove how enlightened they were by hammering Gore. A couple of terms of Bush and those guys learnt, they learnt hard - politics isn't about getting your perfect unicorn candidate, it's about getting a good enough candidate, especially when the other guy is a total disaster. I think some new people are going to learn that hard won lesson once again.

 sebster wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Sanders polled more favourably against Trump than Clinton did.

There is a thing stuck to my shoe that is more valuable than May polls comparing Trump to Sanders. You keep forgetting, every fething time we have this conversation, that Sanders was always losing that campaign, and never got one second of attention from the conservative rage machine.

I mean look at the ludicrous bs they got people to believe were Clinton scandals. You think they wouldn't have done twice the job with an actual socialist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
Plus weren't Clinton and Sanders policies effectively identical anyway? The only real difference being that Clinton wanted a more incremental approach?

And the voters didn't care about that. I mean, who cares about policies right? Slogans and buzzwords will always rule, even when the actions are the exact opposite.

That's exactly it. There's a lot of people saying Clinton needed a different, more progessive set of policies. They're missing that there was almost no policy debate through the entire campaign. Right now there are Trump voters giving interviews saying they didn't realise they might lose their ACA healthcare if Trump repeals ACA like he said it would. In that environment the idea that Sanders would triumph where Clinton didn't because he was promising the reach a $15 minimum wage sooner is laughable.

Trump voters worried about losing their ACA?

What can you do? It's why I love and hate the human race in equal measure.

Here in the UK, we have people like that as well.

Conservative government cuts flood defence funding, people's homes get flooded, those same people elect those that cut flood defence funding...

you couldn't make it up...

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

It's not free.

It's free at the point of use. Everyone pays in, and everyone can take out as and when it becomes necessary. Here's the four things that nearly killed me, all sorted by the NHS.... mum had pre-eclampsia. So I was induced. Shortly after birth, a birth defect was discovered. In short, my stomach had no plug hole. Fast forward 14 years, and my arm goes through a window. Blood everywhere. Stitched up, booked in for physio. I still lack some feeling in my left hand, but at least I'm not dead. Two years later! Appendix ruptures during an exam - mmmm. Peritonitis. All very much life threatening issues - none of them self or lifestyle inflicted. If it hadn't been for the NHS, I'd either be dead already, or Mum and Dad would have a ridiculous mountain of debt.

How can you expect one to better one's self when one has a debilitating, but easily treated condition, but one that prevents the obtaining of a job, or being able to afford the necessary medical care to rectify? Do you want a healthy, well cared for workforce with little excuse to slack off due to ill health?

II genuinely don't mean to sound rude, but people need a better understanding of how an underwriter comes to a premium. The biggest thing! It's not just your lifestyle. If you're a fitness fanatic, and seriously take care of yourself, that matters naught if you have relatives who have bum tickets from a lifetime of say, over-eating. That's taken into account. Your zip-code is taken into account. The ever rising cost of pills, treatments and that is taken into account - because its their profit and not your well being that comes first.

I work in insurance these days (well, kind of. Can't say what my job is because we're asked no to do so, but I do have an Inquisitorial Mandate. Which is cool!), and I see lots of issues where an Insurer has dodged a claim they had no right dodging. In most cases, I'll help ensure things are put right. But in very sad cases, the policyholder passes away before things are sorted out. Sometimes from the very condition they were claiming for.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Historically in the US, though, if there is a welfare program that allows the poor to have access to a free service, then a majority of people will use it instead of being bothered to get the same thing on their dime.

The issue I have with "free" entitlements as such is that it doesn't motivate someone to better themselves, it motivates them to stick their hand out further. Even more so if they don't have to contribute themselves.

Not having a go at you, but your statement and statements like that, highlight the two great tragedies about the USA IMO

1. The rich, the elites, who have rigged the game and pulled up the drawbridge behind them, have convinced vast swathes of society that if you work hard, then you too can have what we have...

In Britain, we have millions of people in jobs, and they're barely above the poverty line, and I imagine the same is true in the USA.

Hard work does not always ensure success. My elderly father is the hardest working person I have ever know, and what does he have to show for 50+ years of hard work and working his finger to the bone, quite literally, as he's lost two fingers in industrial accidents? Riches? A Castle? His own Trump Towers?

Hell no. He has two false hips, two less fingers, and a set of dodgy knees for his old age...

2. The people who are effected most, the people who have the most to gain, listen to and believe frauds and fakes who have convinced them its in their own interest to have gak poor health services, roads, schools, etc etc

and they vote for these people every 4 years

I'm not calling for full blown socialism to flood the USA and there is nothing wrong with aiming high, but 99.9% of people don't make it that far and never will.

But it's not beyond the richest country on Earth, that is full of smart people, capable people, to give people decent jobs, decent healthcare, and ultimately, a good standard of living for them and their children...

And yes, I know Britain is just as bad...

Do you wanna know the irony about the state of US healthcare?

It's damn near the social model of the UK or even Canada.

This is one of, if not the most, heavily regulated industry in the US. The difference is where & when healthcare transactions are paid for...

'Tis why I'm an advocate of two things:
a) we don't need to gut everything to go to NHS/Canadian Medicare model... just nationalize the INSURANCE side of the industry, state Medicaid funding and change the requisite tax laws to fund it to be modeled as the Canadian single-payor system.

b) more importantly, especially before 'a)' above is done, mandate transparency at EVERY STAGE of each delivered healthcare transactions. Because, right now, it's nothing more than a massive shell game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Former Director of CIA Woolsey has resigned from the Trump team.

Eh? How can you resign before you've even been sworn in?

He didn't have an official role... he was simply a member of the transition team. I suspects he had enough of the transition team. Even Gen. Mattis is getting frustrated, as he wanted some qualified people at the DoD, but who were #NeverTrumpers... and the transition team are being petulant asses about it.

Your healthcare points I agree with, but unlikely to see the light of day, because they'll never see the light of day under Trump.

As for your point on General Mattis, he'll probably walk at some time as well.

The presidential election masked a lot of infighting because the GOP had an enemy to focus on, but now, flush with victory, and dominance, the infighting will return.

I think Trump is going to have a tough 4 years...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The richest nation on the world seeing some of its citizens with the begging bowl, and a few miles away, the Pentagon, CIA HQ and all the billions of dollars wasted on people and organisations who couldn't find their rears without a 3 man search party...

You're right that US healthcare is absurd, but it isn't for a lack of money. And not just rich people money, there's more government money in US healthcare than in most public systems around the world (more thany public system in the world if you account for the cost of exempting employee healthcare schemes). The issue is about as far as possible as you can get from money. The issue is with the extraordinary waste within the system, with overpayments and general accounting chaos, and with denied or delayed access.


Your CIA thing is getting weird, by the way.