What Do You Expect from Your Government?
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
What services would you like to see your National Government provide, or eliminate? What do you feel is their responsibility?
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
neffy;678894 wrote: alot more than we are getting now 
:(
Could you be specific Neff--------benefits? what kind? roads? bridges? medical care?
:(Could you be specific Neff--------benefits? what kind? roads? bridges? medical care?
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Lon;678904 wrote: Could you be specific Neff--------benefits? what kind? roads? bridges? medical care?
well the roads could be more up kept,the hospital are are in awful state and i think more should be put into eduction.
well the roads could be more up kept,the hospital are are in awful state and i think more should be put into eduction.
The rottie queen
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
I'd like to see a national health care system, giving NASA a blank check (hyperbole), and a government paid college/trade school system.
Paying for it should be easy. Just cut what's needed out of the DoD's $500 billion plus budget.
Paying for it should be easy. Just cut what's needed out of the DoD's $500 billion plus budget.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Lon;678876 wrote: What services would you like to see your National Government provide, or eliminate? What do you feel is their responsibility?
Whatever we decide should be provided. In the UK and it is fairly true to say (IMO) that it is a given that the function of government is to better the welfare of the people who elect them. parties that don't or who don't take that sentiment seriously tend to get unelected. We may complain about our NHS but it is a given that everyone is entitled to free medical care at the point of care as and when they need it. It's not free-we pay for it through our taxes and gov provides it because they are told to do so not abecause they are mollycoddling us. As a non american I wonder` why you put up with the crappy system you seem to have. Every US drama seems to have a bit where somebody might not get treatment because they can't afford it. Why do you accept it?
Whatever we decide should be provided. In the UK and it is fairly true to say (IMO) that it is a given that the function of government is to better the welfare of the people who elect them. parties that don't or who don't take that sentiment seriously tend to get unelected. We may complain about our NHS but it is a given that everyone is entitled to free medical care at the point of care as and when they need it. It's not free-we pay for it through our taxes and gov provides it because they are told to do so not abecause they are mollycoddling us. As a non american I wonder` why you put up with the crappy system you seem to have. Every US drama seems to have a bit where somebody might not get treatment because they can't afford it. Why do you accept it?
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
What I expect from my governemnt more than anything is to run the country to some measureable degree of competence, defend the law and the citizens they represent, and leave government when they get voted out. If they can do that, then we are ahead of the game.
As an Irish citizen I would like to know why it takes years and billions of Euro's to build basic infrastructure projects, why our capital city is such a planning nightmare, and what the hell is going on with our non-existent health service. Also if the Brits are going to start chasing skangers (chavs, scumbags etc) on horses, rounding them up, and using them for target practice. Should be adopt this idea, or am I being too wishy washy?
If I was a US citizen what I would want a clear answer on is what has the near one trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war been spent on, and who is the money owed to? Also it would be nice to claim some back! Oh and how come the French are our NBFs all of a sudden, and how did the president get the French president to Eat Hamburgers for dinner? Thats a bit of a diplomatic coup! :wah:
If I was a British citizen I would be asking, hey? what ever happened to that Tony Blair guy? He kinda disapeared quick didn't he? Wise man perhaps! Also, some students in Scotland made a "chav-hunting" video on you tube, was that a class slur, or a new and far sighted law and order policy idea? Interesting! :wah:
As an Irish citizen I would like to know why it takes years and billions of Euro's to build basic infrastructure projects, why our capital city is such a planning nightmare, and what the hell is going on with our non-existent health service. Also if the Brits are going to start chasing skangers (chavs, scumbags etc) on horses, rounding them up, and using them for target practice. Should be adopt this idea, or am I being too wishy washy?
If I was a US citizen what I would want a clear answer on is what has the near one trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war been spent on, and who is the money owed to? Also it would be nice to claim some back! Oh and how come the French are our NBFs all of a sudden, and how did the president get the French president to Eat Hamburgers for dinner? Thats a bit of a diplomatic coup! :wah:
If I was a British citizen I would be asking, hey? what ever happened to that Tony Blair guy? He kinda disapeared quick didn't he? Wise man perhaps! Also, some students in Scotland made a "chav-hunting" video on you tube, was that a class slur, or a new and far sighted law and order policy idea? Interesting! :wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Present - Greater devolution of power from westminister.
Future - A referendum on the break up of the union.
Future - A referendum on the break up of the union.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
gmc;679917 wrote: Whatever we decide should be provided. In the UK and it is fairly true to say (IMO) that it is a given that the function of government is to better the welfare of the people who elect them. parties that don't or who don't take that sentiment seriously tend to get unelected. We may complain about our NHS but it is a given that everyone is entitled to free medical care at the point of care as and when they need it. It's not free-we pay for it through our taxes and gov provides it because they are told to do so not abecause they are mollycoddling us. As a non american I wonder` why you put up with the crappy system you seem to have. Every US drama seems to have a bit where somebody might not get treatment because they can't afford it. Why do you accept it?
Thanks for your response to this post GMC.
I think we put up with our system because many of us, and I am one of them, are not unhappy with their own personal health plan, benefits, cost etc. Both my wife and I in just the last ten years have incurred well over $250,000 USD in medical services. Our out of pocket cost during that time was about $15,000 USD, which would have been Government Health Care premiums, private insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. For very selfish reasons, I would be concerned that if we had National Health Insurance, I would not have as good or as comprehensive coverage as I now have, and, that I would be able to choose my own physician and hospital. There is a definite problem in the U.S. for many of it's citizens. It's not realistic to expect younger people (who think they are immortal) to voluntarily give up part of their income to pay for private health insurance that they claim they cannot afford anyway. They can afford however the $600 monthly payments on their BMW. It's a matter of priorities. I agree then, that some kind of mandatory system should be in place which would benefit the masses, and hopefully still provide quality.
Thanks for your response to this post GMC.
I think we put up with our system because many of us, and I am one of them, are not unhappy with their own personal health plan, benefits, cost etc. Both my wife and I in just the last ten years have incurred well over $250,000 USD in medical services. Our out of pocket cost during that time was about $15,000 USD, which would have been Government Health Care premiums, private insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. For very selfish reasons, I would be concerned that if we had National Health Insurance, I would not have as good or as comprehensive coverage as I now have, and, that I would be able to choose my own physician and hospital. There is a definite problem in the U.S. for many of it's citizens. It's not realistic to expect younger people (who think they are immortal) to voluntarily give up part of their income to pay for private health insurance that they claim they cannot afford anyway. They can afford however the $600 monthly payments on their BMW. It's a matter of priorities. I agree then, that some kind of mandatory system should be in place which would benefit the masses, and hopefully still provide quality.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
gmc;679917 wrote: Whatever we decide should be provided. In the UK and it is fairly true to say (IMO) that it is a given that the function of government is to better the welfare of the people who elect them. parties that don't or who don't take that sentiment seriously tend to get unelected. We may complain about our NHS but it is a given that everyone is entitled to free medical care at the point of care as and when they need it. It's not free-we pay for it through our taxes and gov provides it because they are told to do so not abecause they are mollycoddling us. As a non american I wonder` why you put up with the crappy system you seem to have. Every US drama seems to have a bit where somebody might not get treatment because they can't afford it. Why do you accept it?
[rant] We (Americans) put up with because we've been lied to for the last 100 years, and we've believed the lie. We've believed that any measure of socialism is evil. We've believed that if we open the door just a crack a red commie thug will stick his jack boot in there and that will be the end. Never mind the fact that we have socialized education from kindergarten to grade 12, the fact that FDR saved America from capitalism without conscious, and the fact that economic inequality has been disguised has racial inequality since 1865 and that solving one would solve the other.
Once a person stops worrying how he'll dig his way out of debt, provide for his family, and how he’ll ensure the success of his children and grand children, he'll then have time to worry about other things like how his country is always involved in one cold or hot war or another, how a single or a collection of power companies can black mail an entire State with the threat of turning off the power, and how the same three or four guys with different faces keep getting elected President.
When I was a kid I was told there was a God, and that people who didn’t believe in him we’re going to hell. I was also told that the communists we’re worse than atheists. As a child I formed an image in my mind that the Russians were sharp toothed baby eating monsters.
I don’t believe in a god anymore that damns people for questioning just as I don’t believe that capital has my best interest at heart. There are those who can call me a pinko, a commie, or a red, but in the end it’s all about fear and how to control a population without letting them know they’re being controlled.
I no longer fear my Government or the Corporations that control it. I think for myself and I don’t play nice. I’m not going to kill myself chasing a buck just so I can chase another. If I don’t get a house too bad, and the same thing goes for every new shiny toy the television says I need. I’m free and I wouldn’t trade that for all of the assets held by Halliburton. [end rant/]
[rant] We (Americans) put up with because we've been lied to for the last 100 years, and we've believed the lie. We've believed that any measure of socialism is evil. We've believed that if we open the door just a crack a red commie thug will stick his jack boot in there and that will be the end. Never mind the fact that we have socialized education from kindergarten to grade 12, the fact that FDR saved America from capitalism without conscious, and the fact that economic inequality has been disguised has racial inequality since 1865 and that solving one would solve the other.
Once a person stops worrying how he'll dig his way out of debt, provide for his family, and how he’ll ensure the success of his children and grand children, he'll then have time to worry about other things like how his country is always involved in one cold or hot war or another, how a single or a collection of power companies can black mail an entire State with the threat of turning off the power, and how the same three or four guys with different faces keep getting elected President.
When I was a kid I was told there was a God, and that people who didn’t believe in him we’re going to hell. I was also told that the communists we’re worse than atheists. As a child I formed an image in my mind that the Russians were sharp toothed baby eating monsters.
I don’t believe in a god anymore that damns people for questioning just as I don’t believe that capital has my best interest at heart. There are those who can call me a pinko, a commie, or a red, but in the end it’s all about fear and how to control a population without letting them know they’re being controlled.
I no longer fear my Government or the Corporations that control it. I think for myself and I don’t play nice. I’m not going to kill myself chasing a buck just so I can chase another. If I don’t get a house too bad, and the same thing goes for every new shiny toy the television says I need. I’m free and I wouldn’t trade that for all of the assets held by Halliburton. [end rant/]
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Ummmmm. . . . the truth for starters. The truth about everything. :-5
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
posted by gablally
If I was a British citizen I would be asking, hey? what ever happened to that Tony Blair guy? He kinda disapeared quick didn't he? Wise man perhaps! Also, some students in Scotland made a "chav-hunting" video on you tube, was that a class slur, or a new and far sighted law and order policy idea? Interesting!
I reckon if he hadn't said he was going to resign he would have faced a full blown revolt from his backbenchers. Even the thickest of them can't have failed to notice how unpopular he was. Like thatcher did to the tories he has destroyed labour as a viable political party. Membership is half what it was in 1997, no matter how much money they get from big donors grass roots support is gone and you can't replace that.
Haven't seen the chav hunting video but it was a class thing as the makers were at one of the more up market public schools. They might start a new sport of toff hunting. In scotland we take pride in our thugs being tougher than the mere chav.
posted by LON
I think we put up with our system because many of us, and I am one of them, are not unhappy with their own personal health plan, benefits, cost etc. Both my wife and I in just the last ten years have incurred well over $250,000 USD in medical services. Our out of pocket cost during that time was about $15,000 USD, which would have been Government Health Care premiums, private insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. For very selfish reasons, I would be concerned that if we had National Health Insurance, I would not have as good or as comprehensive coverage as I now have, and, that I would be able to choose my own physician and hospital. There is a definite problem in the U.S. for many of it's citizens. It's not realistic to expect younger people (who think they are immortal) to voluntarily give up part of their income to pay for private health insurance that they claim they cannot afford anyway. They can afford however the $600 monthly payments on their BMW. It's a matter of priorities. I agree then, that some kind of mandatory system should be in place which would benefit the masses, and hopefully still provide quality.
The welfare state was brought in immediately post ww2. People were just not going to go back to the way things were. If we were going to fight in wars then it would for our benefit not that of an elite. It was considered-and in the main still is-iniquitous that someone should be denied medical care merely because they were`poor. Nor was continuing with the poor houses and means tested welfare seen as a proper way to treat the less fortunate. It was not to take away from the rich but to make sure all had the same chances in life that were previously the province of the rich. Charity was seen as degrading and it should not be the lot of anyone to depend on others if they fall on hard times through no fault of their own. Paying for it is not voluntary it's through the tax system charity it most definitely is not.
If you were ill you can't work so you couldn't pay for medical treatment etc etc. Also don't forget the UK had been devastated with millions rendered homeless, rebuilding the cities was something that could only be done by government.
Why do you think the cover would not be as comprehensive? that rather depends on how you structure things does it not? This is not something government gives you it is something you should tell it to provide. What happens of you can't pay your medical insurance-lose your job and can't get another at the same level? Or just have a job that doesn't pay that well?
Getting the employer to provide it as part of a wage package gives then something to hold over their employees. Here employers all contribute though NI stamps-they can provide other private medical care if they want for their employees but that is a perk of dubious value.
Different perspective for you-I would not go privately because I would have now way of being sure of the doctor at least an NHS doctor is properly trained. Seeing some of the horrific results of private plastic surgery I can't understand anyone taking the chance.
Many US commentators seem to write of government as if it is separate from the people voting for it like it's something that is there`that no one can control. and no one has the right to demand it does anything for the people who should just all shift for themselves and if you are unemployed and trapped because` of that it is your fault cos you're feckless. I was unemployed for over two years in the seventies and believe me it was not from choice. going to another area was not an option as without a permanent address a surprising number of employers won't interview you.
posted by patrick
[rant] We (Americans) put up with because we've been lied to for the last 100 years, and we've believed the lie. We've believed that any measure of socialism is evil. We've believed that if we open the door just a crack a red commie thug will stick his jack boot in there and that will be the end. Never mind the fact that we have socialized education from kindergarten to grade 12, the fact that FDR saved America from capitalism without conscious, and the fact that economic inequality has been disguised has racial inequality since 1865 and that solving one would solve the other.
Interestingly enough the founding fathers of capitalism are also arguably the founding fathers of socialism. Adam Smith would be birling in his grave if he knew how some of his ideas had been perverted. If you want to get one up on a rabid anti socialist capitalist read the wealth of nations, much quoted but little read. Come to that read karl marx, most socialist haven't read him either. Read both years ago and can't remember either of them.
selective quote from the wealth of nations
Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.
Perhaps Americans have convinced themselves that all is for the best in the best of all possible countries and no longer question their lot in life enough.
posted by buttercup
Present - Greater devolution of power from westminister.
Future - A referendum on the break up of the union.
Not particularly inclined to vote for independence but compared to labour they are getting more and more attractive-the labour mafia are terrified and still can't believe what happened.
If I was a British citizen I would be asking, hey? what ever happened to that Tony Blair guy? He kinda disapeared quick didn't he? Wise man perhaps! Also, some students in Scotland made a "chav-hunting" video on you tube, was that a class slur, or a new and far sighted law and order policy idea? Interesting!
I reckon if he hadn't said he was going to resign he would have faced a full blown revolt from his backbenchers. Even the thickest of them can't have failed to notice how unpopular he was. Like thatcher did to the tories he has destroyed labour as a viable political party. Membership is half what it was in 1997, no matter how much money they get from big donors grass roots support is gone and you can't replace that.
Haven't seen the chav hunting video but it was a class thing as the makers were at one of the more up market public schools. They might start a new sport of toff hunting. In scotland we take pride in our thugs being tougher than the mere chav.
posted by LON
I think we put up with our system because many of us, and I am one of them, are not unhappy with their own personal health plan, benefits, cost etc. Both my wife and I in just the last ten years have incurred well over $250,000 USD in medical services. Our out of pocket cost during that time was about $15,000 USD, which would have been Government Health Care premiums, private insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. For very selfish reasons, I would be concerned that if we had National Health Insurance, I would not have as good or as comprehensive coverage as I now have, and, that I would be able to choose my own physician and hospital. There is a definite problem in the U.S. for many of it's citizens. It's not realistic to expect younger people (who think they are immortal) to voluntarily give up part of their income to pay for private health insurance that they claim they cannot afford anyway. They can afford however the $600 monthly payments on their BMW. It's a matter of priorities. I agree then, that some kind of mandatory system should be in place which would benefit the masses, and hopefully still provide quality.
The welfare state was brought in immediately post ww2. People were just not going to go back to the way things were. If we were going to fight in wars then it would for our benefit not that of an elite. It was considered-and in the main still is-iniquitous that someone should be denied medical care merely because they were`poor. Nor was continuing with the poor houses and means tested welfare seen as a proper way to treat the less fortunate. It was not to take away from the rich but to make sure all had the same chances in life that were previously the province of the rich. Charity was seen as degrading and it should not be the lot of anyone to depend on others if they fall on hard times through no fault of their own. Paying for it is not voluntary it's through the tax system charity it most definitely is not.
If you were ill you can't work so you couldn't pay for medical treatment etc etc. Also don't forget the UK had been devastated with millions rendered homeless, rebuilding the cities was something that could only be done by government.
Why do you think the cover would not be as comprehensive? that rather depends on how you structure things does it not? This is not something government gives you it is something you should tell it to provide. What happens of you can't pay your medical insurance-lose your job and can't get another at the same level? Or just have a job that doesn't pay that well?
Getting the employer to provide it as part of a wage package gives then something to hold over their employees. Here employers all contribute though NI stamps-they can provide other private medical care if they want for their employees but that is a perk of dubious value.
Different perspective for you-I would not go privately because I would have now way of being sure of the doctor at least an NHS doctor is properly trained. Seeing some of the horrific results of private plastic surgery I can't understand anyone taking the chance.
Many US commentators seem to write of government as if it is separate from the people voting for it like it's something that is there`that no one can control. and no one has the right to demand it does anything for the people who should just all shift for themselves and if you are unemployed and trapped because` of that it is your fault cos you're feckless. I was unemployed for over two years in the seventies and believe me it was not from choice. going to another area was not an option as without a permanent address a surprising number of employers won't interview you.
posted by patrick
[rant] We (Americans) put up with because we've been lied to for the last 100 years, and we've believed the lie. We've believed that any measure of socialism is evil. We've believed that if we open the door just a crack a red commie thug will stick his jack boot in there and that will be the end. Never mind the fact that we have socialized education from kindergarten to grade 12, the fact that FDR saved America from capitalism without conscious, and the fact that economic inequality has been disguised has racial inequality since 1865 and that solving one would solve the other.
Interestingly enough the founding fathers of capitalism are also arguably the founding fathers of socialism. Adam Smith would be birling in his grave if he knew how some of his ideas had been perverted. If you want to get one up on a rabid anti socialist capitalist read the wealth of nations, much quoted but little read. Come to that read karl marx, most socialist haven't read him either. Read both years ago and can't remember either of them.
selective quote from the wealth of nations
Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.
Perhaps Americans have convinced themselves that all is for the best in the best of all possible countries and no longer question their lot in life enough.
posted by buttercup
Present - Greater devolution of power from westminister.
Future - A referendum on the break up of the union.
Not particularly inclined to vote for independence but compared to labour they are getting more and more attractive-the labour mafia are terrified and still can't believe what happened.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
not much cause in the time it takes to make changes within the government a new party is voted in. It remains rather stale.
I would like to see GST abolished our past liberal government used that as a stinking campaign promise bah that never happened our current Conservative government dropped it from 7% to 6% bit deal yes but... at least they have started. GST = Goods and service tax. It is national, then on top of that many provinces have sales taxes, we here do not.
I would like to see our national government cut is Albertans some slack and realize that we faught dam hard for what we got and our premier did us well. I would like to see the rest of this country make a stab at standing on their own 2 feet instead of moaning how well off us Albertains are. Pizz on them we sacrificed big time, sure we are debt free but, we lost out on our medical, hospitals, education and seniors programs. We paid and so should they... I say leave us the heck alone because for years you all thought we were just the poor country cousins, never helped us out voted in Trudea and raped us with the Phecking National Energy Program that darn near killed us back in the 80's. We proved we were stong and we came back bigger and bolder. It's time the rest of them stepped up to the plate.
I will say one thing about our past liberal government I was happy about... Cretian (I can't spell his name) kept us out of allying with the USA in war. YAY!
Ok me done.
I would like to see GST abolished our past liberal government used that as a stinking campaign promise bah that never happened our current Conservative government dropped it from 7% to 6% bit deal yes but... at least they have started. GST = Goods and service tax. It is national, then on top of that many provinces have sales taxes, we here do not.
I would like to see our national government cut is Albertans some slack and realize that we faught dam hard for what we got and our premier did us well. I would like to see the rest of this country make a stab at standing on their own 2 feet instead of moaning how well off us Albertains are. Pizz on them we sacrificed big time, sure we are debt free but, we lost out on our medical, hospitals, education and seniors programs. We paid and so should they... I say leave us the heck alone because for years you all thought we were just the poor country cousins, never helped us out voted in Trudea and raped us with the Phecking National Energy Program that darn near killed us back in the 80's. We proved we were stong and we came back bigger and bolder. It's time the rest of them stepped up to the plate.
I will say one thing about our past liberal government I was happy about... Cretian (I can't spell his name) kept us out of allying with the USA in war. YAY!
Ok me done.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
• Mae West
• Mae West
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
First and foremost, some degree of honourable behaviour
After that, a little democracy would be nice.
After that, a little democracy would be nice.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Lon;678876 wrote: What services would you like to see your National Government provide, or eliminate? What do you feel is their responsibility?
More than what were getting. Lets start with honesty and work our way up from there.
More than what were getting. Lets start with honesty and work our way up from there.
I AM AWESOME MAN
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Nomad;680121 wrote: More than what were getting. Lets start with honesty and work our way up from there.
Finding honesty in the lexicon of a politician would be akin to finding igloo in a Bedouin’s.
Finding honesty in the lexicon of a politician would be akin to finding igloo in a Bedouin’s.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Patrick;680143 wrote: Finding honesty in the lexicon of a politician would be akin to finding igloo in a Bedouin’s.
I know. Maybe another Bush. 3's the charm right ?
I know. Maybe another Bush. 3's the charm right ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Lon;678876 wrote: What services would you like to see your National Government provide, or eliminate? What do you feel is their responsibility?
From the national gov't? LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS!!
Drop NASA and let private enterprise take over. They can do a better job.
Get out of the education business & let the states do it as originally planned.
Stop pretending to be any kind of authority or savior when it comes to health care. I'd rather my state figure out a way to wean us off the financial narcotic called insurance.
Weed and prune that monster bureaucracy FDR started (with good reasons at the time that have long since stopped being good) and let the states decide what services they need.
The US national gov't should protect us from attack through the military and border protection, and facilitate interstate and international trade. The limits of what they can do in the interest of interstate trade and travel should be sharply curtailed as well, but it'd take me alot of research time I don't have to enumerate.
From the national gov't? LESS LESS LESS LESS LESS!!
Drop NASA and let private enterprise take over. They can do a better job.
Get out of the education business & let the states do it as originally planned.
Stop pretending to be any kind of authority or savior when it comes to health care. I'd rather my state figure out a way to wean us off the financial narcotic called insurance.
Weed and prune that monster bureaucracy FDR started (with good reasons at the time that have long since stopped being good) and let the states decide what services they need.
The US national gov't should protect us from attack through the military and border protection, and facilitate interstate and international trade. The limits of what they can do in the interest of interstate trade and travel should be sharply curtailed as well, but it'd take me alot of research time I don't have to enumerate.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
... and let's phase out Social Security. People fool themselvs into thinking it's a retirement pension and fail to adequately save because of it.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Accountable;680780 wrote: ... and let's phase out Social Security. People fool themselvs into thinking it's a retirement pension and fail to adequately save because of it.
So you don't see one of the functions of a govt as being to improve things for the people voting them in to office? What about things like urban regeneration? By which I mean in areas where traditional industries have died out-coal mining steel etc. Would you expect govt-local or otherwise to take an active part, provide incentives infrastrucrture or whatever. or would you solely leave it to the private sector? It's one of the reasons east european countries want to join the EU. there are regional development funds available-the rationale being if you help the economy in poorer countries you create bigger markets and prosperity for yourself. Spain Portugal, Ireland and Scotland have all done well from it.
The US national gov't should protect us from attack through the military and border protection, and facilitate interstate and international trade. The limits of what they can do in the interest of interstate trade and travel should be sharply curtailed as well, but it'd take me alot of research time I don't have to enumerate.
The function of govt -or one of them imo- is also to protect it's citizens from expolitation by those who would do so given half a chance. i.e. have laws ion place to control the behaviour of companies. capitalism, for instance, does not mean a free for all with no controls in place to prevent monopolies developing.
So you don't see one of the functions of a govt as being to improve things for the people voting them in to office? What about things like urban regeneration? By which I mean in areas where traditional industries have died out-coal mining steel etc. Would you expect govt-local or otherwise to take an active part, provide incentives infrastrucrture or whatever. or would you solely leave it to the private sector? It's one of the reasons east european countries want to join the EU. there are regional development funds available-the rationale being if you help the economy in poorer countries you create bigger markets and prosperity for yourself. Spain Portugal, Ireland and Scotland have all done well from it.
The US national gov't should protect us from attack through the military and border protection, and facilitate interstate and international trade. The limits of what they can do in the interest of interstate trade and travel should be sharply curtailed as well, but it'd take me alot of research time I don't have to enumerate.
The function of govt -or one of them imo- is also to protect it's citizens from expolitation by those who would do so given half a chance. i.e. have laws ion place to control the behaviour of companies. capitalism, for instance, does not mean a free for all with no controls in place to prevent monopolies developing.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
gmc;682587 wrote: So you don't see one of the functions of a govt as being to improve things for the people voting them in to office?
As stated, no.
Take, for example, Ireland in the nineteenth century. The electorate was primarily Protestant and the government saw their best interest in improving the lot of the people voting them into office. The rest, as they say, is history.
I feel that it is important for the government to work to improve conditions throughout the country for all of the population.
To tailor the message - the government in London should not just concentrate on London but should ensure funding is available for Cape Wrath when required
As stated, no.
Take, for example, Ireland in the nineteenth century. The electorate was primarily Protestant and the government saw their best interest in improving the lot of the people voting them into office. The rest, as they say, is history.
I feel that it is important for the government to work to improve conditions throughout the country for all of the population.
To tailor the message - the government in London should not just concentrate on London but should ensure funding is available for Cape Wrath when required
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
A decent National Health Service.Stop hospitals being run as a business by imcompetent overpaid managers.
Zero tolerence on crime.
more apprenticeships for the young to train as skilled workers.
Affordable housing.
A decent pension for the elderly.
Zero tolerence on crime.
more apprenticeships for the young to train as skilled workers.
Affordable housing.
A decent pension for the elderly.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
gmc;682587 wrote: So you don't see one of the functions of a govt as being to improve things for the people voting them in to office? What about things like urban regeneration? By which I mean in areas where traditional industries have died out-coal mining steel etc. Would you expect govt-local or otherwise to take an active part, provide incentives infrastrucrture or whatever. or would you solely leave it to the private sector? It's one of the reasons east european countries want to join the EU. there are regional development funds available-the rationale being if you help the economy in poorer countries you create bigger markets and prosperity for yourself. Spain Portugal, Ireland and Scotland have all done well from it. Several of our states are the size of Scotland, so the comparison is moot. The US national gov't can't possibly do a decent job throwing blanket laws out and expecting them to be effective in all areas. Just two days ago I heard a presidential candidate call for a national minimum wage for teachers of $40K per year. The idea is stupid for several reasons, not the least of which it would give states an excuse not to increase wages, since minimum wage tends to freeze for a decade or more before moving. Also, while 40K is really good for many parts of Texas, it's a drop in the bucket for Californians. State governments are closer to home and are better able to make more sensible decisions.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Mia;682663 wrote: Zero tolerence on crime.
What does this mean to you?
What does this mean to you?
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Accountable;682771 wrote: Several of our states are the size of Scotland, so the comparison is moot. The US national gov't can't possibly do a decent job throwing blanket laws out and expecting them to be effective in all areas. Just two days ago I heard a presidential candidate call for a national minimum wage for teachers of $40K per year. The idea is stupid for several reasons, not the least of which it would give states an excuse not to increase wages, since minimum wage tends to freeze for a decade or more before moving. Also, while 40K is really good for many parts of Texas, it's a drop in the bucket for Californians. State governments are closer to home and are better able to make more sensible decisions.
You draw a straight line between Federal Government and State Government here but in the past you appear to be against service provision by any level of government. Am I misreading your meaning or do you see a function for State Government providing infrastructure?
You draw a straight line between Federal Government and State Government here but in the past you appear to be against service provision by any level of government. Am I misreading your meaning or do you see a function for State Government providing infrastructure?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Bryn Mawr;682774 wrote: You draw a straight line between Federal Government and State Government here but in the past you appear to be against service provision by any level of government. Am I misreading your meaning or do you see a function for State Government providing infrastructure?
Yes. The pyramid's upside down is all.
Yes. The pyramid's upside down is all.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Bryn Mawr;682632 wrote: As stated, no.
Take, for example, Ireland in the nineteenth century. The electorate was primarily Protestant and the government saw their best interest in improving the lot of the people voting them into office. The rest, as they say, is history.
I feel that it is important for the government to work to improve conditions throughout the country for all of the population.
To tailor the message - the government in London should not just concentrate on London but should ensure funding is available for Cape Wrath when required
It was intended as a very general statement. There are obviously comparative situations even nowadays and we have a serious problem with our own electoral system where 2/3rds of the electorate are effectively disenfranchised which is one of the reasons we got stuck first with maggie and then with Tony Blair. I was trying to work out if accountable meant govt should do nothing at all for ordinary people beyond defence and border control but i see you were wondering the same thing.
posted by accountable
Several of our states are the size of Scotland, so the comparison is moot. The US national gov't can't possibly do a decent job throwing blanket laws out and expecting them to be effective in all areas. Just two days ago I heard a presidential candidate call for a national minimum wage for teachers of $40K per year. The idea is stupid for several reasons, not the least of which it would give states an excuse not to increase wages, since minimum wage tends to freeze for a decade or more before moving. Also, while 40K is really good for many parts of Texas, it's a drop in the bucket for Californians. State governments are closer to home and are better able to make more sensible decisions.
Several of our states are the size of Scotland, actually several are bigger than the UK never mind scotland. still quality will out:sneaky:
What do you think of michael moore and the moves of others like him for some kind of socialised medical care? State by state if they choose or just not at all.
Take, for example, Ireland in the nineteenth century. The electorate was primarily Protestant and the government saw their best interest in improving the lot of the people voting them into office. The rest, as they say, is history.
I feel that it is important for the government to work to improve conditions throughout the country for all of the population.
To tailor the message - the government in London should not just concentrate on London but should ensure funding is available for Cape Wrath when required
It was intended as a very general statement. There are obviously comparative situations even nowadays and we have a serious problem with our own electoral system where 2/3rds of the electorate are effectively disenfranchised which is one of the reasons we got stuck first with maggie and then with Tony Blair. I was trying to work out if accountable meant govt should do nothing at all for ordinary people beyond defence and border control but i see you were wondering the same thing.
posted by accountable
Several of our states are the size of Scotland, so the comparison is moot. The US national gov't can't possibly do a decent job throwing blanket laws out and expecting them to be effective in all areas. Just two days ago I heard a presidential candidate call for a national minimum wage for teachers of $40K per year. The idea is stupid for several reasons, not the least of which it would give states an excuse not to increase wages, since minimum wage tends to freeze for a decade or more before moving. Also, while 40K is really good for many parts of Texas, it's a drop in the bucket for Californians. State governments are closer to home and are better able to make more sensible decisions.
Several of our states are the size of Scotland, actually several are bigger than the UK never mind scotland. still quality will out:sneaky:
What do you think of michael moore and the moves of others like him for some kind of socialised medical care? State by state if they choose or just not at all.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Accountable;682773 wrote: What does this mean to you?
It means to punish criminals properly.A lot of our young people are running riot and ruling the streets.All they get is a caution,that basically means a telling off.
Shop lifters are fined around sixty pounds if what they steal is under the value of two hundred and fifty I think.This means that they can make a good living out of it.
The police seem to be losing control,we need more man power out there as a deterent.
This is no longer the Britain that I grew up in.I cannot see anything improving.
How sad is it to see that parents are now ordering stab proof uniforms for their children to wear at school.In my day when we had a scrap,that is all it was just using our hands and no one was badly hurt.We were also scared of the police.The kids just laugh at them now.
It means to punish criminals properly.A lot of our young people are running riot and ruling the streets.All they get is a caution,that basically means a telling off.
Shop lifters are fined around sixty pounds if what they steal is under the value of two hundred and fifty I think.This means that they can make a good living out of it.
The police seem to be losing control,we need more man power out there as a deterent.
This is no longer the Britain that I grew up in.I cannot see anything improving.
How sad is it to see that parents are now ordering stab proof uniforms for their children to wear at school.In my day when we had a scrap,that is all it was just using our hands and no one was badly hurt.We were also scared of the police.The kids just laugh at them now.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
gmc;682857 wrote: actually several are bigger than the UK never mind scotland. still quality will out:sneaky:Some of the best of America came from Scottish tradition.
gmc wrote: What do you think of michael moore and the moves of others like him for some kind of socialised medical care? State by state if they choose or just not at all.
Socialised medical care goes against my fundmental belief that freedom comes with responsibilities. People want to be free to abuse their bodies as they wish without repercussion. There are many ways to help people who get into trouble through no fault of their own without giving the gov't complete responsibility for our health.
Our problem is not lack of medical care, it is that we've disabled market forces and abdicated our humanitarian responsibilities to politicians. Getting rid of insurance will go miles beyond socialisation in terms of improving health care.
gmc wrote: What do you think of michael moore and the moves of others like him for some kind of socialised medical care? State by state if they choose or just not at all.
Socialised medical care goes against my fundmental belief that freedom comes with responsibilities. People want to be free to abuse their bodies as they wish without repercussion. There are many ways to help people who get into trouble through no fault of their own without giving the gov't complete responsibility for our health.
Our problem is not lack of medical care, it is that we've disabled market forces and abdicated our humanitarian responsibilities to politicians. Getting rid of insurance will go miles beyond socialisation in terms of improving health care.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Mia;682870 wrote: It means to punish criminals properly.A lot of our young people are running riot and ruling the streets.All they get is a caution,that basically means a telling off.
Shop lifters are fined around sixty pounds if what they steal is under the value of two hundred and fifty I think.This means that they can make a good living out of it.
The police seem to be losing control,we need more man power out there as a deterent.
This is no longer the Britain that I grew up in.I cannot see anything improving.
How sad is it to see that parents are now ordering stab proof uniforms for their children to wear at school.In my day when we had a scrap,that is all it was just using our hands and no one was badly hurt.We were also scared of the police.The kids just laugh at them now.
I ask because zero-tolerance has erased all common sense from the rules we apply it to over here. For instance, zero-tolerance for drugs in our schools means children can't have access to perscription drugs in most cases.
Shop lifters are fined around sixty pounds if what they steal is under the value of two hundred and fifty I think.This means that they can make a good living out of it.
The police seem to be losing control,we need more man power out there as a deterent.
This is no longer the Britain that I grew up in.I cannot see anything improving.
How sad is it to see that parents are now ordering stab proof uniforms for their children to wear at school.In my day when we had a scrap,that is all it was just using our hands and no one was badly hurt.We were also scared of the police.The kids just laugh at them now.
I ask because zero-tolerance has erased all common sense from the rules we apply it to over here. For instance, zero-tolerance for drugs in our schools means children can't have access to perscription drugs in most cases.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
I ask because zero-tolerance has erased all common sense from the rules we apply it to over here. For instance, zero-tolerance for drugs in our schools means children can't have access to perscription drugs in most cases.
__________________
That is terrible,what about asthmatics who need their inhalers,and diabetics etc.
That is the trouble with some laws,they are taken out of context.The human rights act is another example,it protects the people who should have no rights at all.
__________________
That is terrible,what about asthmatics who need their inhalers,and diabetics etc.
That is the trouble with some laws,they are taken out of context.The human rights act is another example,it protects the people who should have no rights at all.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Mia;682907 wrote: I ask because zero-tolerance has erased all common sense from the rules we apply it to over here. For instance, zero-tolerance for drugs in our schools means children can't have access to perscription drugs in most cases.
__________________
That is terrible,what about asthmatics who need their inhalers,and diabetics etc.
That is the trouble with some laws,they are taken out of context.The human rights act is another example,it protects the people who should have no rights at all.
Exactly my point. Rather than taking courts' discretion away with laws such as zero-tolerance, I would rather see some kind of action toward finding judges with the stones to hold criminals accountable.
__________________
That is terrible,what about asthmatics who need their inhalers,and diabetics etc.
That is the trouble with some laws,they are taken out of context.The human rights act is another example,it protects the people who should have no rights at all.
Exactly my point. Rather than taking courts' discretion away with laws such as zero-tolerance, I would rather see some kind of action toward finding judges with the stones to hold criminals accountable.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Accountable;682897 wrote: Some of the best of America came from Scottish tradition.
Socialised medical care goes against my fundmental belief that freedom comes with responsibilities. People want to be free to abuse their bodies as they wish without repercussion. There are many ways to help people who get into trouble through no fault of their own without giving the gov't complete responsibility for our health.
Our problem is not lack of medical care, it is that we've disabled market forces and abdicated our humanitarian responsibilities to politicians. Getting rid of insurance will go miles beyond socialisation in terms of improving health care.
My favourite scots anti hero!
You kind of lost me there. I thought the states only had private medical care meaning whether you get care or not depends on your ability to pay. Most American TV programmes seem to have a bit where one of the characters is struggling to pay medical bills.
Odd way of looking things-you don't abrogate humanitarian responsibilities to politicians, you tell them what you want them to do. It's obscene that anyone needing medical care should have to depend on charity if they are unable to afford it themselves. The one thing where profit should NOT be an issue is medical care. the only concern should be if you need the care or not.
Socialised medical care goes against my fundmental belief that freedom comes with responsibilities. People want to be free to abuse their bodies as they wish without repercussion. There are many ways to help people who get into trouble through no fault of their own without giving the gov't complete responsibility for our health.
Our problem is not lack of medical care, it is that we've disabled market forces and abdicated our humanitarian responsibilities to politicians. Getting rid of insurance will go miles beyond socialisation in terms of improving health care.
My favourite scots anti hero!
You kind of lost me there. I thought the states only had private medical care meaning whether you get care or not depends on your ability to pay. Most American TV programmes seem to have a bit where one of the characters is struggling to pay medical bills.
Odd way of looking things-you don't abrogate humanitarian responsibilities to politicians, you tell them what you want them to do. It's obscene that anyone needing medical care should have to depend on charity if they are unable to afford it themselves. The one thing where profit should NOT be an issue is medical care. the only concern should be if you need the care or not.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
gmc;682914 wrote:
My favourite scots anti hero!
You kind of lost me there. I thought the states only had private medical care meaning whether you get care or not depends on your ability to pay. Most American TV programmes seem to have a bit where one of the characters is struggling to pay medical bills.I guess it's a common misperception that we let the poor lie dying in the streets. It's a shame that people would believe emergency doctors capable of that.
gmc wrote: Odd way of looking things-you don't abrogate humanitarian responsibilities to politicians, you tell them what you want them to do.Politicians are lapdogs who wag their tails for whoever holds the biggest treat. gmc wrote: It's obscene that anyone needing medical care should have to depend on charity if they are unable to afford it themselves.Regardless of their medical problem or how they came to have it? Regardless of why they are unable to afford it? I'm sorry, but for someone to spend their money on junk food and short-term pleasures then expect me to pay for the consequences .... that's what's obsene.
gmc wrote: The one thing where profit should NOT be an issue is medical care. the only concern should be if you need the care or not.Competition breeds innovation. I'm of the opinion that the only reason we don't have a cure for cancer is that the government throws money - my money - at anyone that wants it. There's no need for competition; indeed, actually finding a cure would mean an end to the gov't research grants.
My favourite scots anti hero!
You kind of lost me there. I thought the states only had private medical care meaning whether you get care or not depends on your ability to pay. Most American TV programmes seem to have a bit where one of the characters is struggling to pay medical bills.I guess it's a common misperception that we let the poor lie dying in the streets. It's a shame that people would believe emergency doctors capable of that.
gmc wrote: Odd way of looking things-you don't abrogate humanitarian responsibilities to politicians, you tell them what you want them to do.Politicians are lapdogs who wag their tails for whoever holds the biggest treat. gmc wrote: It's obscene that anyone needing medical care should have to depend on charity if they are unable to afford it themselves.Regardless of their medical problem or how they came to have it? Regardless of why they are unable to afford it? I'm sorry, but for someone to spend their money on junk food and short-term pleasures then expect me to pay for the consequences .... that's what's obsene.
gmc wrote: The one thing where profit should NOT be an issue is medical care. the only concern should be if you need the care or not.Competition breeds innovation. I'm of the opinion that the only reason we don't have a cure for cancer is that the government throws money - my money - at anyone that wants it. There's no need for competition; indeed, actually finding a cure would mean an end to the gov't research grants.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Accountable;683436 wrote:
Competition breeds innovation. I'm of the opinion that the only reason we don't have a cure for cancer is that the government throws money - my money - at anyone that wants it. There's no need for competition; indeed, actually finding a cure would mean an end to the gov't research grants.
It's a shame that people would believe cancer researchers capable of that.
Competition breeds innovation. I'm of the opinion that the only reason we don't have a cure for cancer is that the government throws money - my money - at anyone that wants it. There's no need for competition; indeed, actually finding a cure would mean an end to the gov't research grants.
It's a shame that people would believe cancer researchers capable of that.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
posted by accountable
Competition breeds innovation. I'm of the opinion that the only reason we don't have a cure for cancer is that the government throws money - my money - at anyone that wants it. There's no need for competition; indeed, actually finding a cure would mean an end to the gov't research grants.
You also seem to assume that only american researchers are involved in the search for a cure. There's a whole big world out there. In the Uk much of the research is funded by charitable donation.
Politicians are lapdogs who wag their tails for whoever holds the biggest treat.
They are lapdogs who occasionally need to be reminded that while they think the one holding the treat is all that matters the real power is in the electorate holding them by the balls. A good squeeze now and then is what is needed.
posted by accountable
Regardless of their medical problem or how they came to have it? Regardless of why they are unable to afford it? I'm sorry, but for someone to spend their money on junk food and short-term pleasures then expect me to pay for the consequences .... that's what's obsene.
People become ill or can't afford things sometimes through no fault of their own. The idea that only the worthy poor deserve charity and the feckless poor should be punished is a very victorian one that thankfully went out of fashion over here a long time ago. How about idiots that get injured in car accidents or get sports injuries should they also be judged? Stupidity takes many forms. (just look at politicians :yh_rotfl)
Don't know about the states but in the UK most people are within three months of not being able to pay their mortgage if they lose their jobs. Unemployment is not the worry it used to be but If they lose it through ill health (and very few employers will pay someone who can't work for them). unless they have some kind of income protection in place, they usually end up losing the house and everything else. Medical care is free but no one pays the bills for you, although there is state aid for a period it's at a subsistence level and won't pay a mortgage for you.
The point about socialised medicine is that it is available to all free at the point of need. You may be able to pay now but lose your job, can't work for any reason what happens then? At least where we are paying medical bills is not a worry.
posted by accountable.
I guess it's a common misperception that we let the poor lie dying in the streets. It's a shame that people would believe emergency doctors capable of that.
You do kind of get that impression. Emergency treatment yes but anything beyond that no.
Competition breeds innovation. I'm of the opinion that the only reason we don't have a cure for cancer is that the government throws money - my money - at anyone that wants it. There's no need for competition; indeed, actually finding a cure would mean an end to the gov't research grants.
You also seem to assume that only american researchers are involved in the search for a cure. There's a whole big world out there. In the Uk much of the research is funded by charitable donation.
Politicians are lapdogs who wag their tails for whoever holds the biggest treat.
They are lapdogs who occasionally need to be reminded that while they think the one holding the treat is all that matters the real power is in the electorate holding them by the balls. A good squeeze now and then is what is needed.
posted by accountable
Regardless of their medical problem or how they came to have it? Regardless of why they are unable to afford it? I'm sorry, but for someone to spend their money on junk food and short-term pleasures then expect me to pay for the consequences .... that's what's obsene.
People become ill or can't afford things sometimes through no fault of their own. The idea that only the worthy poor deserve charity and the feckless poor should be punished is a very victorian one that thankfully went out of fashion over here a long time ago. How about idiots that get injured in car accidents or get sports injuries should they also be judged? Stupidity takes many forms. (just look at politicians :yh_rotfl)
Don't know about the states but in the UK most people are within three months of not being able to pay their mortgage if they lose their jobs. Unemployment is not the worry it used to be but If they lose it through ill health (and very few employers will pay someone who can't work for them). unless they have some kind of income protection in place, they usually end up losing the house and everything else. Medical care is free but no one pays the bills for you, although there is state aid for a period it's at a subsistence level and won't pay a mortgage for you.
The point about socialised medicine is that it is available to all free at the point of need. You may be able to pay now but lose your job, can't work for any reason what happens then? At least where we are paying medical bills is not a worry.
posted by accountable.
I guess it's a common misperception that we let the poor lie dying in the streets. It's a shame that people would believe emergency doctors capable of that.
You do kind of get that impression. Emergency treatment yes but anything beyond that no.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Bryn Mawr;683493 wrote: It's a shame that people would believe cancer researchers capable of that.
Well played, sir.
I don't think it's the researchers themselves, but the bureaucrats in charge. Thay are several layers removed from the suffering & dying. I'm sure that some hospital bean counters would love to order ER's to be emergency by appointment only. [smilie=1,33,23]
Well played, sir.
I don't think it's the researchers themselves, but the bureaucrats in charge. Thay are several layers removed from the suffering & dying. I'm sure that some hospital bean counters would love to order ER's to be emergency by appointment only. [smilie=1,33,23]
-
henrychalder
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:27 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Lon;678876 wrote: What services would you like to see your National Government provide, or eliminate? What do you feel is their responsibility?
I would expect every member of our government to resign as they are not fit for purpose, we are basically ruled by Brussels, we have given away our sovereignty by traitors in Westminster, sons of foreigners, homosexuals who frequent Clapham Common and friends of rich gambling dons living in ranches in America and friends connected to Mafia members in Italy.
We should hoist our rulers up caged in gibbets to rot.
Never to be ruled again by anyone connected to the legal profession!
I would expect every member of our government to resign as they are not fit for purpose, we are basically ruled by Brussels, we have given away our sovereignty by traitors in Westminster, sons of foreigners, homosexuals who frequent Clapham Common and friends of rich gambling dons living in ranches in America and friends connected to Mafia members in Italy.
We should hoist our rulers up caged in gibbets to rot.
Never to be ruled again by anyone connected to the legal profession!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
gmc;683521 wrote: You also seem to assume that only american researchers are involved in the search for a cure. There's a whole big world out there. In the Uk much of the research is funded by charitable donation.Good! That's all I'm recommending: research funded by voluntary charitable donation, not taxes.
gmc wrote: They are lapdogs who occasionally need to be reminded that while they think the one holding the treat is all that matters the real power is in the electorate holding them by the balls. A good squeeze now and then is what is needed.Yeh, psychology of the voter mind is beyond me. :-5
gmc wrote: [...] Stupidity takes many forms. (just look at politicians :yh_rotfl):wah:
gmc wrote: Don't know about the states but in the UK most people are within three months of not being able to pay their mortgage if they lose their jobs.Yes, we have the same problem in the US of irresponsible people not planning for emergencies and living beyond their means. I don't know about the UK, but here most of those same woeful people have several TVs with cable service, computers and internet access, multiple cars purchased with bank loans, ...
gmc wrote: Unemployment is not the worry it used to be but If they lose it through ill health (and very few employers will pay someone who can't work for them). unless they have some kind of income protection in place, they usually end up losing the house and everything else. Medical care is free but no one pays the bills for you, although there is state aid for a period it's at a subsistence level and won't pay a mortgage for you.So where's your thread calling for socialised utilities? Free food electricity & heat for all? Isn't that critical for preventing expensive health problems in the first place?
gmc wrote: The point about socialised medicine is that it is available to all free at the point of need. You may be able to pay now but lose your job, can't work for any reason what happens then? At least where we are paying medical bills is not a worry.
You do kind of get that impression. Emergency treatment yes but anything beyond that no.
I got this column in the email this morning. Click here for the full article.
A few excerpts:
... in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May.
In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."
...
First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.
...
U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
...
Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
...
... the 45 million figure [of people in the US not covered by insurance] is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
gmc wrote: They are lapdogs who occasionally need to be reminded that while they think the one holding the treat is all that matters the real power is in the electorate holding them by the balls. A good squeeze now and then is what is needed.Yeh, psychology of the voter mind is beyond me. :-5
gmc wrote: [...] Stupidity takes many forms. (just look at politicians :yh_rotfl):wah:
gmc wrote: Don't know about the states but in the UK most people are within three months of not being able to pay their mortgage if they lose their jobs.Yes, we have the same problem in the US of irresponsible people not planning for emergencies and living beyond their means. I don't know about the UK, but here most of those same woeful people have several TVs with cable service, computers and internet access, multiple cars purchased with bank loans, ...
gmc wrote: Unemployment is not the worry it used to be but If they lose it through ill health (and very few employers will pay someone who can't work for them). unless they have some kind of income protection in place, they usually end up losing the house and everything else. Medical care is free but no one pays the bills for you, although there is state aid for a period it's at a subsistence level and won't pay a mortgage for you.So where's your thread calling for socialised utilities? Free food electricity & heat for all? Isn't that critical for preventing expensive health problems in the first place?
gmc wrote: The point about socialised medicine is that it is available to all free at the point of need. You may be able to pay now but lose your job, can't work for any reason what happens then? At least where we are paying medical bills is not a worry.
You do kind of get that impression. Emergency treatment yes but anything beyond that no.
I got this column in the email this morning. Click here for the full article.
A few excerpts:
... in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May.
In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."
...
First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.
...
U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
...
Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
...
... the 45 million figure [of people in the US not covered by insurance] is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Accountable;684152 wrote: U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Actually, in 2000 the World Health Organisation put ranked the USA as 37th in life expectancy. However, by 2004, compared to other countries, the U.S. population ranked 48th in life expectancy (according to the CIA World Fact Book, 2005)
Actually, in 2000 the World Health Organisation put ranked the USA as 37th in life expectancy. However, by 2004, compared to other countries, the U.S. population ranked 48th in life expectancy (according to the CIA World Fact Book, 2005)
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Chookie;684426 wrote: Actually, in 2000 the World Health Organisation put ranked the USA as 37th in life expectancy. However, by 2004, compared to other countries, the U.S. population ranked 48th in life expectancy (according to the CIA World Fact Book, 2005)
The article I linked to debunked WHO's claim.
The article I linked to debunked WHO's claim.
-
Indian Princess
- Posts: 1953
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:55 pm
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
Yes, we could wish and hope and certainly expect, but what we do know, for fact, is that yes, we will get screwed somehow , somewhere!!!:-5
What Do You Expect from Your Government?
:-6
Not Much Actually,
And we don't even get that!
They should remember where they or their forefathers came from and in what circumstances they lived.
They should at least try and remember some of the trillions of promises they made to get elected in the first place.
I always thought that learning by rote was one of the best ways of making you remember anything - politicians prove otherwise.
You vote them in. For five years they do what they want and then retire on a massive pension.
Acountable to nobody.
Don't go West young man.
Head for your capital city as a politician.
God Bless
Love to all
randall
:)
Not Much Actually,
And we don't even get that!
They should remember where they or their forefathers came from and in what circumstances they lived.
They should at least try and remember some of the trillions of promises they made to get elected in the first place.
I always thought that learning by rote was one of the best ways of making you remember anything - politicians prove otherwise.
You vote them in. For five years they do what they want and then retire on a massive pension.
Acountable to nobody.
Don't go West young man.
Head for your capital city as a politician.
God Bless
Love to all
randall
:)