OnceWasLost
July 20th, 2007, 02:39 AM
France is auctually rated as the best health care system in the world, really.
Cory,
Sylvio Burlusconi came here for his heart surgery, he did not go to France, and they are right next door, why? Simple the best care is here, why? Because it is a free market and the government doesn't run it. Please post the article that shows the French system is the best in the world.
If we believe michael moore France is best, ya, but did you see the co pays in France? 10-40% of the cost and the elites still come here. Take a closer look at what people pay to support the system in taxes, please look. Look at how long you wait for care, especially serious care as in the UK.
Here is an article of the mess France faces because of Chirac and socialism. It is truly scary stuff if you live in it, those are huge problems.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8gf9OrcRw1cJ:www.hacusa.org/NoticedInThePress/2007/France_WT_051307%2520%2520World%2520Briefings.doc+ reforms+under+sarkozy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
excerpt.
Chirac's legacy
The legacy left by the combined mandates of 12 years of departing President Jacques Chirac includes a sluggish economy, rocketing public debt and chronic unemployment of 8.8 percent, surpassed in the European Union only by Poland, Slovakia and Romania. Two million residents in France live under the poverty level, and three million are unemployed.
One of every four French citizens is a civil servant who cannot be dismissed.
The system eventually can't sustain itself, wait till Europe sees the baby boom generation hit its golden years. It will be bad enough here just with Social Security when the boomers hit, let alone a state run total welfare system.
It (socialism) sounds great and compassionate, but the government does nothing well. Do you trust them to run health care if as you said they are corrupt? I wouldn't trust them to buy my shoes, let alone tie them, so, i certainly don't want them in charge of my health and well being.
Education is something you also pointed out. 56 Billion was spent on the department of education alone in 2006, and what do we have to show for it?
Mind you that is federal dollars only. I have a daughter who will be a HS senior next year, I don't expect someone else to pay the bill to send her to college, how would that be fair?
If you want to read it, there is plenty of facts and figures out there. All the countries who have a total socialized government are really struggling to make ends meet, and the citizens are being taxed increasingly, and still have to pay a portion of the cost. Look deeper and the EU is not the utopia that is
reported.
Cory
July 20th, 2007, 10:09 AM
Cory,
Sylvio Burlusconi came here for his heart surgery, he did not go to France, and they are right next door, why? Simple the best care is here, why? Because it is a free market and the government doesn't run it. Please post the article that shows the French system is the best in the world.
If we believe michael moore France is best, ya, but did you see the co pays in France? 10-40% of the cost and the elites still come here. Take a closer look at what people pay to support the system in taxes, please look. Look at how long you wait for care, especially serious care as in the UK.
Here is an article of the mess France faces because of Chirac and socialism. It is truly scary stuff if you live in it, those are huge problems.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8gf9OrcRw1cJ:www.hacusa.org/NoticedInThePress/2007/France_WT_051307%2520%2520World%2520Briefings.doc+ reforms+under+sarkozy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The system eventually can't sustain itself, wait till Europe sees the baby boom generation hit its golden years. It will be bad enough here just with Social Security when the boomers hit, let alone a state run total welfare system.
It (socialism) sounds great and compassionate, but the government does nothing well. Do you trust them to run health care if as you said they are corrupt? I wouldn't trust them to buy my shoes, let alone tie them, so, i certainly don't want them in charge of my health and well being.
Education is something you also pointed out. 56 Billion was spent on the department of education alone in 2006, and what do we have to show for it?
Mind you that is federal dollars only. I have a daughter who will be a HS senior next year, I don't expect someone else to pay the bill to send her to college, how would that be fair?
If you want to read it, there is plenty of facts and figures out there. All the countries who have a total socialized government are really struggling to make ends meet, and the citizens are being taxed increasingly, and still have to pay a portion of the cost. Look deeper and the EU is not the utopia that is
reported.
The world health orgonization rated France as the worlds best health care system.
And government-paid higher education benifits the nation as a whole by giving more of it's people better education rather than letting many smart people go down the drain just because of money. As for your somment about fairness in the government paying for your daughter to go to college not being fair to some: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Here's what we have to show for the money spent on education: A universial education for every child in America gaurenteed. Abolishing public education will lead to a return to the middle ages where only the rich had acces to education to keep the masses stupid, in short, private education is merely a tool of the wealthy to control the masses.
OnceWasLost
July 20th, 2007, 11:16 AM
The world health orgonization rated France as the worlds best health care system.
Pardon me if I am a little dubious of a U.N. arm organization, I still don't see the article, could you link it and maybe from an unbiased source?
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
First off higher education is no guaranty of better income or lifestyle. Also only a HS education does not guaranty a lower standard of living. But as your above statement reads, when a government can say to the "individual" your needs matter less than the needs of the "whole" is so antithetical to the view of America, that I am at a loss for words, kinda:rolleyes
Here's what we have to show for the money spent on education: A universial education for every child in America gaurenteed. Abolishing public education will lead to a return to the middle ages where only the rich had acces to education to keep the masses stupid, in short, private education is merely a tool of the wealthy to control the masses.
What it does not guaranty is the quality of that education. It should be optional to send them to a government run school, but people should be able, if they choose, to opt out for private education with their tax money. If the government fails to meet the "needs of the many", they should not be rewarded by a compulsory, government system.
Your concern that we would be sent back to the dark ages without a government system is not what I believe should happen, and I am surprised you concluded that. In the worst case scenario people can and do teach their own if needs be. Home schoolers prove this is possible, without the government help. But for a government to say there will be Pre-K to College guaranteed education and you will all pay for it is disturbing.
You pointed out France before, did you read the article I posted? Do you see the serious problems in that country now? How will France remedy the problems?
WhitemoonG
July 20th, 2007, 01:43 PM
Stinker: What exactly is a "Free market that puts the American people first?" How do you define that?
I'm really curious about your statements that any economic woes here are "up to the greedy (or greeedy as you put it) to make the change."
Why and in what sense is it up to the wealthy/greedy to solve it all, who I assume you think are the cause of it all?
Are the wealthy all by definition greedy, are they all wealthy at the expense of average people? Are they all wealthy by stealing from or exploiting the majority?
Take Bill Gates, world's richest man (?at least until last week, I guess!) What brought him, as well as Paul Allen, from being somewhat reclusive nerds to multibillionaires? Did they decide to grab and gouge a giant piece of the pie, leaving a couple of slivers for everyone else?
What they basically did, via their large time investment, innate creative genius and intelligence, and hard work, is found a company which was worth next to nothing at the beginning.
They, the "little guys," were able to impress just enough people with the potential for their obscure little company's new product, which they claimed would make computers operate better and more easily, maybe even change computers from giant things occupying entire rooms in corporate headquarters and banks, and the like, to something any "average" person might be able to get involved with, and (can you believe it?) possibly even have in his home, on his top DESK!
They, through hard work and savvy, were able to persuade the "evil" supergiant IBM corporation to utilize their new computer software product, without the "evil" supergiant IBM gobbling up the sales profit from their product. And, the rest, as they say, is history.
Accordingly, with demand for, and sales of, this unique new computer software skyrocketing, the value of Gates and Allen's new, founded in their one room apartment, company, also skyrocketed. This value, of course, is primarily measured as the aggregate value of the publicly traded shares of stock, which constitute ownership of the company. Gates and Allen's initial half shares in the company later became worth billions.
How? By extorting and draining, or stealing billions from state and local treasuries, charities, banks, or people's private nest eggs? Obviously not!
From millions and millions of of Americans, as well as citizens of other countries forced en masse to march into the country (a la Cambodia under Pol Pot) to re-education camps, then all FORCED at GUNPOINT to buy
MS-DOS, or Windows 95?
Heck no obviously. They became incredibly wealthy because they owned this company that started as nothing in their one room apartment, and created something that millions WANTED TO BUY.
This is obviously just one example involving one of the most widely known figures, and there as many different stories as their are wealthy people, but a lot of the basic themes are similar. There are numerous examples of people arriving in America 90 years ago thru Ellis Island, with 6$ in their pocket, assimilating, and going to work, and in some cases becoming very successful financially, later worth millions, etc. Did all of these people get there by robbing banks, stepping on everyone else? Not necessarily. Most of the time through hard work, application and making good use of opportunities that arise from their hard work. It is not, or I would daresay rarely from "exploiting the masses" & that whole skewed perspective.
Well, now that he's a multibillionaire, is it Gates's responsibility to solve and fix everything, as you say? How should he do it? Give the money to the government to use? If so, used wisely or not by the Feds, it will be gone in 2-3 days! Perfect utopia in 2-3 days? Or should he give it privately to people? Which people? Every single american? If so, that would be roughly 40$ to 50$ (after a GIGANTIC capital gains tax, to you know who!) to every man , woman, child in America. Would it be nice? You bet! I might be able to get another pair of fairly nice shoes with it. Problem solved, perfect utopia now? Are you kidding?
Gates did, along with wife Melinda, make a charitable foundation that has DONATED some 10,20, or is it 30 Billion by now, for worldwide charitable purposes, public health programs in Africa, etc. etc. Greeedy pig!
You seem to say that there is something BY DEFINITION greeeeeeeedy or evil in outsourcing, shipping jobs overseas, etc. If they weren't so greeeeeedy, they could easily bring back all those jobs, and this would be "putting Americans first" right? Sorry, wrong!
As one earlier poster correctly noted, MOST of the time, this is in response to increasingly ruinous business costs, taxes and stifling regulation, that literally force the company to either do this, or seriously downsize (massive layoffs), or be forced out of business- NO JOBS.
It isn't a choice between jobs going overseas, and the "greeedy" pocket the difference, or easily keep those jobs here, with the "greeeedy" being forced to eat at McDonald's once in awhile.
It often boils down to send SOME jobs overseas, or be in a position to offer NO JOBS. Or, if they can still offer jobs short term, the company will struggle so severely to keep up, that it will later go under, and the "Jobs" are like sidewalk ice cubes for sale on a hot summer day.
Who are the Greeeeedy, anyway? Who owns all these evil corporations? The wealthy=greedy? No, it's the stockholders. In any corporation, those holding sizeable stakes of stock often are wealthy, or were wealthy when they obtained the stock sometimes, and sometimes they are CEO types who I think often have an undeservedly large chunk, but the largest chunk is often, if not usually, owned by millions of average people in many smaller chunks. These "average people" are often you and I and many we talk to every day, all the long haul truckers, secretaries, grocery store shift managers, hairdressers, florists, etc. who may own shares either from direct investing, or increasingly frequently via hard earned dollars placed in 401K's and the like. And, the breakdown demographics clearly indicate that in the last 20-30 years, and increasingly larger percentage of company ownership via stockholdings is in the hands of average, middle income America.
So, If you insist that all said corporations ignore the idea of "profit", and do nothing to try to stay competitve or even solvent in the face of increasingly stifling regulation, taxation, and labor costs, and try to maintain jobs where and how they always have been, often said corporation will struggle, and eventually go under. Or, if not yet out of business, it will struggle on, but barely able to create or produce new means to turn it's situation around. Or, if it does, don't worry, lots of politicians and I suspect people such as yourself will confiscate, or lobby for the confiscation of whatever new profit or breathing room, operating margins that might allow better wages, and the like. And, any "profit," you know, that evil thing, that ordinarily would lead others to want to buy into the company, that drive upward the value of existing shares of stock, owned largely by thousands and thousands of average "little people," and create larger, well deserve nest eggs for those hard working average people to use AS THEY SEE FIT (with what was after all, their money in the first place).
So, I'm more than a little curious to hear how you explain it's up to the wealthy to "solve everything."
In case it's brought up, well what about Enron, all the corporate crooks? What about some of those obscenely large CEO compensation packages?
Those crooks, were exactly that. They enriched themselves at the expense of other employees and stockholders in their corporations by FRAUD and BREAKING THE LAW. Thankfully, many have been prosecuted, or are going to be prosecuted, many with well deserved jail time, and their illegally realized assets seized. And, I suspect thanks to the big publicity of such chicanery, I would think many in their positions the future are likely to be far less inclined to chance such criminal activity.
I think it worth noting that most of the worst of this corporate fraud and theft by the powerful occurred during the Clinton administration (not that they were aware at the time, or necessarily should have been), but it is with the Bush justice department that if nothing else, these crooks are going to jail, "getting theirs," etc. Which is interesting to me, considering the endlessly repeated oversimplified canard about "Republicans and big business did this, etc."
As for the at times scandalously (in my opinion) large CEO compensation packages, that is strictly up to each company's board of directors, and ultimately to the stockholders, who can resist and revolt over this stuff at times, or indirectly protest by not supporting that company's products, or deciding not to buy shares of its stock. Enough people with similar attitudes tends to drive the value of stock shares down, which reduces to wealth of the CEO's awarded stock packages as bonus compensation, as well as indirectly chastising boards of directors or the stockholders themselves who couldn't or wouldn't muster the oats to veto such obscenely large comp packages.
Note, these things were bad, and our current free market "system" is not problem free. However, preaching socialism, wanting the government to much more heavily manage and control everything, is basically asking for the biggest problem contributor to solve the entire problem with even more of what led to bigger problems in the first place. Good luck!
The world health organization, parent company UN, lists France as the best health care system in the world? What a laugh! I'd love to see their criteria. The same parent "company" that appointed Libya and Sudan to its "human rights commission?" Darfur anyone?
Cory: I hope your idealism about socialism being such a wonderful concept, and clearly the best system of governance, etc. isn't something you hold TOO dear, as your bubble is going to be badly burst someday.
On paper, I agree that it's a great idea IN THEORY, ON PAPER. But it goes downhill from there. It would be great if people in fact contributed, big, average, and small AS THEY CAN, so that everyone would have available what they need, when they need it. Unfortunately, due to unavoidable
HUMAN NATURE
it never works, or works very well. There are always too many who work little, or not at all, if they don't have some immediate incentive to do so. All kinds of cheerleading, pep talks, and bleary eyed sessions about "5 year plans" rarely changes that much. Speaking of "exploitation," often it boils down to the lazy excuse makers exploiting those willing to work. Other consequences ensue, also. There is no incentive to put lots of extra time and what little money the generous grandpa government lets you keep, to develop new ideas, and inventions, new products and services. And, even if somehow a person puts together enough resources to develop something new and cool, or new and lifesaving, there's no future bonus for the person. The "entitled" government confiscates it all to support society, a chunk of which is lazy and undeserving. Result? Fewer and fewer new products, fewer new life saving or life enhancing medical treatments, fewer new more comfortable bed mattresses, etc. etc. Society may "win," short term, especially the self inclined lazy, the spongers, but society overall loses bigger.
How many new cures for cancer, or better tents, or vacuum cleaners have seen from the socialist Island paradise of Cuba lately? Or the people's socialist paradise republic of North Korea?
Everything I've read recently indicates that Great Britain's socialized health care system is in deep trouble, and getting worse.
Canadians I've talked to often think their system is great, at least those who haven't yet really needed it. I know some who strangely wound up in Seattle or Spokane when they needed important health care. Why, if their system is superior?
I've talked to several doctors who left Canada, fed up with endless delays trying to get something done, or tests done on behalf of their patient who waited 4 months to see them. They are also fed up with spending years studying to get where they are, with the proper education and knowledge to do what doctors do, often to have the blessed government tell them their work is due not much more compensation than some beer truck driver, not to suggest that beer truck drivers don't have any value or importance. I've talked to some who left Canada to start a medical practice in the USA, fed up with their system. And believe me, these guys had families just like you and I, and weren't here because they didn't have a porche there, or such stereotypical nonsense. Nice that everyone has "free" health care, but who's going to provide the care, with "providers" slowly disappearing?
I think a lot of people view possible Universal Health "care" as a lot like everyone getting a free season pass to the theme park. Great, and everybody gets a free one! Only problem being the park often seems to be closed, or if open, the lines to get in, despite the free pass, are so long it's defacto pretty prohibitive.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.