American Healthcare

[Ianto.W.]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

There have been many elected officials whose policies I disagreed with - however, at no time did it ever occur to me to wish them ill will or bodily harm, (even in jest.) Too bad that some people aren't able to have a rational debate without resorting to slander or threats.

Yes aggreed paper talk is no substitute for experienceic's cheap enough to go and form your own opinions later with a little knoeledge and hindsight. Try travelling the 'Eastern Seaboard' railroad from New York to St Petersbourg, this was my eye opener.
Usa is a country of two classes only, it has not the luxury of a long history or the millstone off the sponging classes no not the poor the middle and aristocrats that we have to carry.Have you noticed whilst Princess Diana's inquest has been in progress, they are advertising on tv for Gt.Ormond St Hospital, not Royal Blackburn 50 Million for a new cross -London railway, not Manchester Airport link to the Metrolink surely sorely needed , you'r right 'Barb,' it''s time we put our own house in order.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by garinda

That suprises me. Some of the people we saw in New Orleans, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, looked as impoverished as the residents of shanty towns in any third world country.

bit of a cheap shot ........Katrina caused havoc and death not only in New Orleans (where the TV cameras happened to be) but all along the Gulf coast , Mississippi and the western parts of Alabama taking a bigger hit , but due to political correctness and TV ops much of the world only saw the effects of Katrina on New Orleans , the place (apart from the touristy French Quarter) was a vipers cess pit before Katrina, the murder capitol of the US , and even with a reduced population is rapidly achieving that dubious reputation again, thru lack of effective local leadership and corruption from the local political elite (Mayor Nagin etc.)
Whole communities along the coast for 200 miles were wiped out , such as Pass Christian in Mississippi but they are rebuilding the town and their lives , despite being ripped off by the insurance companies and being ignored by the Federal Govt. ......probably these are the folks who you would describe as 'white Bible thumping rednecks', but believe me when I say these are good people who believe 'god helps them who help themself ' not those who wait for or demand a Govt. check which can be spent in liquor stores and strip clubs like many of the evacuees from New Orleans did .

[garinda]

Originally Posted by steeljack

bit of a cheap shot ........Katrina caused havoc and death not only in New Orleans (where the TV cameras happened to be) but all along the Gulf coast , Mississippi and the western parts of Alabama taking a bigger hit , but due to political correctness and TV ops much of the world only saw the effects of Katrina on New Orleans , the place (apart from the touristy French Quarter) was a vipers cess pit before Katrina, the murder capitol of the US , and even with a reduced population is rapidly achieving that dubious reputation again, thru lack of effective local leadership and corruption from the local political elite (Mayor Nagin etc.)
Whole communities along the coast for 200 miles were wiped out , such as Pass Christian in Mississippi but they are rebuilding the town and their lives , despite being ripped off by the insurance companies and being ignored by the Federal Govt. ......probably these are the folks who you would describe as 'white Bible thumping rednecks', but believe me when I say these are good people who believe 'god helps them who help themself ' not those who wait for or demand a Govt. check which can be spent in liquor stores and strip clubs like many of the evacuees from New Orleans did .

Wasn't meant as a cheap shot. It's a fact that this was the first time a lot of the world realised that the U.S.A. isn't just the land of milk and honey, and that it has it's own impoverished underclass, and from your own government's figures 12.1 million children live below the poverty threshold, many of whom were seen on the news for the first time following Katrina.

[Stanaccy]

I just find it inredulous that dubbya would veto a bill that would provide free healthcare to kids in the poverty trap. There is a seriously impoverished underclass in all American cities. Those who searched for the American dream and had it kick them in the teeth.

If it is to be paid for by a tax on tobacco then the very fact that their parents spend the money in the liquor stores (if what the Amercans on here say is true) and tobacconists means they will be paying for it anyway, so where's the problem.

On a more serious note how can one of, if not THE, most developed nation in the world fails to provide healthcare for the most vulnerable members of it's society. Land of Milk and Honey more like land of greed and money.

[Eric]

I think that it is time to make the point that millions of Americans are just as appalled at Bush's decision as people in other parts of the world. Perhaps GW has given a kick in the nuts to his own party ... after all, he is the dimmest man ever to hold the top job in America.

Also, it is time to look at the right wing American argument that prosperity depends on avoiding any form of government aid to the less fortunate. Let's think about the present strength of the US dollar, as compared say to the loonie, the currency of that great bastion of liberalism and socialism that lies to the north of the US ...

[bullseyebarb]

The President is perfectly willing to add more poor children to the already existing program. His objection is to expanding it to cover people who are neither children or poor. Tobacco taxes alone will not pay for this proposed expansion. More and more people are giving up the weed anyway. So then where does the money come from? This whole endeavor is about control and getting as many people as possible under the thumb of government. Our system definitely needs reform - but more government is not the answer.....as has been proven over and over again.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Eric

It's not surprising ... remember he is a Texan first and an American second ... Texas was the proud execution capital of America for years .... and that is the nicer part of the Texas mentality ... For what it costs to build one Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier, the US could help alleviate many of their social problems. But don't hold your breath ....

Don't mess with Texas! By the way, national defense is one of the few things the federal government is authorized to undertake under our constitution......not social engineering. The states are free to experiment at will. At least they used to be.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

I bow to thee, oh great holy one.

Perhaps you should take into consideration that negative thoughts are like bad karma. What you throw out into the world will come flying back at you just like a boomerang.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Don't mess with Texas! By the way, national defense is one of the few things the federal government is authorized to undertake under our constitution......not social engineering. The states are free to experiment at will. At least they used to be.

I understand the division of powers. The British North America Act of 1867 gives the Canadian Federal govt. control of Canadian Foreign policy and national defense. In this we are alike, but Members of Parliament in Canada also represent the Provinces from which they are elected. This is why the majority of MPs from La Belle Province belong to the Bloc Quebecois, which is dedicated to the interests of Quebec as well as to the general interest of all Canadians. Weird, but it works. Members from Western Canada promote the interests of agriculture and Provincial control of the vast natural resources of the area. However, when matters of national security and overseas deployment of Canadian troops are concerned, the whole country has a voice. For example, the combat troops forming the bulk of the Canadian battle group in Afghanistan ... and these troops are serving in the hottest part of the country in Kandahar province ... are French Canadians of the Royal 22nd regiment, the Van Doos (elementary French will explain the nickname). Quebec Francophones are almost unanimous in their opposition to Canadian military involvement, and with its large population this has a major effect on Federal govt policy. Our Provinces, which seem to have more power to act than do American States, do have control over Social programs, but the Feds can and do also act in this area, thro' national policies on Health Canre, day care, etc. Large amounts of Federal tax revenues are returned to the Provinces thro' transfer payments. The poorer Provinces get more than the rich ones. These are called equalization payments. In other words, and this ramble will soon come to an end (it's fianlly raining, and I'm stuck inside today) it seems fine to say that States have the right to "experiment" with "social engineering." But do they have the resources? Can they question the spending, particularly the military spending, of the Feds? Do things like medicare come under the jurisdiction of the states, or of the Federal Govt.? Are things such as same sex marriages Federal or State questions? In Canada, the Provinces exert a hell of a lot on influnece on the Federal govt. Is the same true of American states? And I am interested more in the practice than the theory.

[bullseyebarb]

[quote=Eric;479711) Large amounts of Federal tax revenues are returned to the Provinces thro' transfer payments. The poorer Provinces get more than the rich ones. These are called equalization payments. In other words, and this ramble will soon come to an end (it's fianlly raining, and I'm stuck inside today) it seems fine to say that States have the right to "experiment" with "social engineering." But do they have the resources? Can they question the spending, particularly the military spending, of the Feds? Do things like medicare come under the jurisdiction of the states, or of the Federal Govt.? Are things such as same sex marriages Federal or State questions? In Canada, the Provinces exert a hell of a lot on influnece on the Federal govt. Is the same true of American states? And I am interested more in the practice than the theory.[/quote]

Redistribution of wealth.......aka socialism. The states would indeed have the resources if we were not required to send so much of our cash to Washington - where it gets sucked into the maw of bureaucracy. I prefer one on one solutions at a local level. This is not a one size fits all country. The states should be free to decide for themselves what their priorities are. Medicare is a federal invention and has done much to skew our free market system of medicine. I lived here before Medicare/Medicaid and having had ample opportunity to compare the two systems, I vastly prefer the free market version. It worked well and was low cost. As to same sex marriage.....the government should butt out. Marriage always was a religious institution. In my opinion, the government has no business trying to redefine it. Yes, individual states can influence national politics.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by Eric

." But do they have the resources? Can they question the spending, particularly the military spending, of the Feds? Do things like medicare come under the jurisdiction of the states, or of the Federal Govt.? Are things such as same sex marriages Federal or State questions? In Canada, the Provinces exert a hell of a lot on influnece on the Federal govt. Is the same true of American states? And I am interested more in the practice than the theory.

i think this link gives a fair description of the on-going debate between the Federal Govt. and States rights
States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

my thought on the topic is that the federal Govt. should butt out and stop interfearing in State and local matters , the idea that one size fits all is wrong, two examples of Federal intervention/interfearing was when States were threatened with the withholding of Federal Highway funds unless they abided with a national speed limit and a national drinking age of 21 .

re. the gay marriage thing , In my opinion this should be a State thing not Federal , the Feds have never got involved with 'straight 'marriage laws in different States (thinking back to when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 12 year old cousin) this was recognised as legal in all 48 states at that time . this is where the 'fear factor' comes in , if one state allows gay marriage do all the others have to recognize it ? as they did with J L Lewis's


Eric , a bit of a wander , but is your Canadian RCMP the equivelent of the US FBI , (a federal police force which operates in all the provinces)?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by steeljack

i think this link gives a fair description of the on-going debate between the Federal Govt. and States rights
States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

my thought on the topic is that the federal Govt. should butt out and stop interfearing in State and local matters , the idea that one size fits all is wrong, two examples of Federal intervention/interfearing was when States were threatened with the withholding of Federal Highway funds unless they abided with a national speed limit and a national drinking age of 21 .

re. the gay marriage thing , In my opinion this should be a State thing not Federal , the Feds have never got involved with 'straight 'marriage laws in different States (thinking back to when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 12 year old cousin) this was recognised as legal in all 48 states at that time . this is where the 'fear factor' comes in , if one state allows gay marriage do all the others have to recognize it ? as they did with J L Lewis's


Eric , a bit of a wander , but is your Canadian RCMP the equivelent of the US FBI , (a federal police force which operates in all the provinces)?

On the wandering question: The RCMP is a federal police force controlled by the federal govt, which appoints a commisioner usually, but not always, a member of the force. The present commisioner is a civilian. This is mainly because of ongoing questions of corruption in the force. However, in areas where there is no municipal or provincial police force, the RCMP takes care of policing. In Saskatchewan, for example, outside the major urban centres, the RCMP is the police force.

I found the Wikipedia article interesting ... particularly the comments on "residual powers." We have the same thing in the BNA of 1867.

I know this is a major wander, and it will surprise Barb, but I do think that the wrong side won the Civil War. The idea of Union is differnent from the idea of Confederacy. "Union" places too much power in the hands of the central government. Canada is more confederacy than union. On October 10, Ontario goes to the polls to elect a new provincial govt. This is a major political event. And the results will have a huge effect on federal politics, maybe to the extent of precipitating a federal general election. The feds are always under pressure from the provinces, and they do listen. To ignore the provinces, particularly the powerhouses in Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta, is not something the federal govt. does lightly.

The President and his appointed cabinet seem to me to be too powerful. Evidence the latest veto (yeah, almost back on topic). And even the Supreme Court, unlike the Canadian version, is too closely linked to the federal party in power, at least in terms of appointments.

My apologies to all those in Accrington and district who may be bored by all this

[Eric]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Redistribution of wealth.......aka socialism. The states would indeed have the resources if we were not required to send so much of our cash to Washington - where it gets sucked into the maw of bureaucracy. I prefer one on one solutions at a local level. This is not a one size fits all country. The states should be free to decide for themselves what their priorities are. Medicare is a federal invention and has done much to skew our free market system of medicine. I lived here before Medicare/Medicaid and having had ample opportunity to compare the two systems, I vastly prefer the free market version. It worked well and was low cost. As to same sex marriage.....the government should butt out. Marriage always was a religious institution. In my opinion, the government has no business trying to redefine it. Yes, individual states can influence national politics.

I don't think that redistribution of tax revenue is the same as the redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is taking from the rich people and giving it to the poor. What I was talking about was redistribution of provincial tax revenue, or more precisely redistribution of federal taxes which of course bring in more money from the wealthy provinces than they do from the smaller, poorer ones.