From Obama's Own Lips: He is against a spending freeze

Hoover didn't really "increase" federal spending. He just kept it flat, and the GDP contracted substantially, which made the spending per GDP figure go way up.

Hoover did exactly as Obama is proposing, that is why Conservatives are screaming to the top of their lungs about it. The policies Obama is advocating, are going to push us deeper into recession, and then into another Great Depression, but apparently, no one cares as long as 'The Chosen One' becomes president.
 
Hoover did exactly as Obama is proposing, that is why Conservatives are screaming to the top of their lungs about it. The policies Obama is advocating, are going to push us deeper into recession, and then into another Great Depression, but apparently, no one cares as long as 'The Chosen One' becomes president.

Thankyou, oh magna cum laude economist Dixie.
 
New Zealand isn't socialist. Their means of production is not nationalized. They haven't even nationalized basic industries. Not even socialists are socialist anymore; those free market policies were introduced by the Labor party.

Also, have you ever heard of proportion Dixie? An economic policy that proves good for a small area will prove just as good for a large area. And New Zealands truly free market + a generous safety net is proof of that, while American Republican corporate socialism is just a complete and total failure.

What you described before, was Socialism. I have no doubt that their official form of Government is not considered Socialist, they are next door to Australia.
 
What you described before, was Socialism. I have no doubt that their official form of Government is not considered Socialist, they are next door to Australia.

Socialism is not a proper noun, it need not be capitalized.

And no, universal healthcare is not a socialist idea. Nationalized healthcare maybe, but not universal. Universal healthcare is simply common sense. Every nation in the developed world besides the US guarantees their sick care without breaking their back or forcing them to wait until their condition becomes so critical that they qualify for the emergency room. That is not socialism, that is humanism. And it is, quit frankly, disgusting and morally repugnant that anyone thinks otherwise.
 
Socialism is not a proper noun, it need not be capitalized.

And no, universal healthcare is not a socialist idea. Nationalized healthcare maybe, but not universal. Universal healthcare is simply common sense. Every nation in the developed world besides the US guarantees their sick care without breaking their back or forcing them to wait until their condition becomes so critical that they qualify for the emergency room. That is not socialism, that is humanism. And it is, quit frankly, disgusting and morally repugnant that anyone thinks otherwise.


It's Socialist. That's common sense.

Look, it sounds nice and sweet to say you are going to provide health care for everyone, no matter what, but we can't afford to do that. It costs money to take care of sick people, someone has to pay for it. When you mandate insurance companies cover pre-existing illnesses, do you have any idea what that does to the cost of premiums? It makes my insurance cost 5x...10x... 20x...100x more than it would have, if the insurance company could operate withing the guidelines of prudence and good judgment, without the government interfering.

In some small isolated 'community' like New Zealand, everyone knows everyone, and works together to take care of each other, it's ingrained in their culture as farmers and fishermen, and not many New Zealander's are going to 'take advantage' of their fellow citizens, it's just not in their cultural nature to do so. Here in America, you'll have every yahoo and his brother, lining up at the doctor's office daily, demanding their OxyContin prescription!
 
It's Socialist. That's common sense.

If you were talking about the Socialist party, yes, you would capitalize it. But talking about the philosophy itself, it is not supposed to be capitalized anymore than conservative or liberal.

Look, it sounds nice and sweet to say you are going to provide health care for everyone, no matter what, but we can't afford to do that.

Yes we can. We, along with every other developed nation in the world, have had ample capability to provide universal coverage since the 1800's. It is just because of a stubborn defeatist do nothing attitude that we have stalled this long. It will not only help out the poor, it will lower our total costs, since we no longer have to worry about insurance companies spending half their money denying people benefits and profiting at insane rates.

It costs money to take care of sick people, someone has to pay for it. When you mandate insurance companies cover pre-existing illnesses, do you have any idea what that does to the cost of premiums? It makes my insurance cost 5x...10x... 20x...100x more than it would have, if the insurance company could operate withing the guidelines of prudence and good judgment, without the government interfering.

Dixie, if they do not cover pre-existing illness, who is supposed to? If we have a system in which only the healthy can get reasonable health insurance premiums, that is nothing but a massive boon to insurance companies, and it effectively renders the entire system useless. Anyway, under universal coverage, everyone is covered from birth. There will be no such think as a pre-existing condition.

In some small isolated 'community' like New Zealand, everyone knows everyone, and works together to take care of each other, it's ingrained in their culture as farmers and fishermen, and not many New Zealander's are going to 'take advantage' of their fellow citizens, it's just not in their cultural nature to do so. Here in America, you'll have every yahoo and his brother, lining up at the doctor's office daily, demanding their OxyContin prescription!

This is, at best, wild conjecture Dixie. It also stereotypes New Zealand, which has a very modern, urban, and industrial economy. It's very difficult to actually get to know 4.2 million people. But the universal coverage system in France and Germany works just as well anyway, and they each have nearly 100 million people.
 
If you were talking about the Socialist party, yes, you would capitalize it. But talking about the philosophy itself, it is not supposed to be capitalized anymore than conservative or liberal.

Don't get into a pissing contest with me about proper English grammar, the last fool who did, is still looking for his ass. Yes, when referring to the ideology or philosophy, it CAN be capitalized, and often is.

Yes we can. We, along with every other developed nation in the world, have had ample capability to provide universal coverage since the 1800's. It is just because of a stubborn defeatist do nothing attitude that we have stalled this long. It will not only help out the poor, it will lower our total costs, since we no longer have to worry about insurance companies spending half their money denying people benefits and profiting at insane rates.

No, it's because we aren't a Socialist country. We allow "free enterprise" and the market place to determine value and worth, and set the price for things in America, it is called Capitalism. "Helping out the poor" in the way you want to, requires us to spend money doing something for them, which they can't afford themselves. Again, this is a Socialist philosophy. It will not "lower total costs" because it can't, it is inherently impossible, it costs money... lots of money... to insure and care for every American. Insurance companies do not make "insane profits" they are like every other Capitalist business in America, they make profits based on what the market allows. If you tell them they have to cover people who are a high risk for claims, it will drive their premium rates up, and if you try to restrict those rates, they will close down and go out of business. No insurance company in America is in business to provide free shit to you and people who want free shit. Sorry, it's not a 'candy store' where you can just help yourself.

Dixie, if they do not cover pre-existing illness, who is supposed to? If we have a system in which only the healthy can get reasonable health insurance premiums, that is nothing but a massive boon to insurance companies, and it effectively renders the entire system useless. Anyway, under universal coverage, everyone is covered from birth. There will be no such think as a pre-existing condition.

Do you understand what "insurance" is? What "insurance companies" do? You pay them a 'premium' per month, week, quarter... and they agree to cover any claims you have. The premium they charge, is based on a set of criteria. If you are a high risk to file a claim, your 'premium' will cost more than average, and if you are a low risk to file a claim, your 'premium' is less. Someone with...say, Cancer or AIDS, has a very very high risk to file a health insurance claim, therefore, their 'premium' would likewise be very very high. You want the government to mandate that the insurer HAS to accept pre-existing conditions, but charge as if there wasn't this risk. That means, the offset goes to those who are now paying less because they are lower risk. It's the only way the insurance company could stay in business. Now, maybe you think all is okay, because the federal government is going to pick up the bill for this extra cost, but seriously dude... we don't have that kind of money! There are not enough rich people in America to pay for this, even if you took every penny they have!

This is, at best, wild conjecture Dixie. It also stereotypes New Zealand, which has a very modern, urban, and industrial economy. It's very difficult to actually get to know 4.2 million people. But the universal coverage system in France and Germany works just as well anyway, and they each have nearly 100 million people.

Well Waterhead, you can proclaim something conjecture all day long... I just got finished addressing a bunch of your wild conjectures about insurance, socialism, and the English language. As for health care systems in other countries, why the heck do you suppose they ALL come here to have surgeries done and be treated? It's because, in France and Germany, you may have to wait 10 years to have a triple bypass, and in the meantime, hope you don't die waiting. That's what is coming to America, because left-wing radicals like you, won't be satisfied until you turn America into Eurotrash Socialism.
 
Well Waterhead, you can proclaim something conjecture all day long... I just got finished addressing a bunch of your wild conjectures about insurance, socialism, and the English language. As for health care systems in other countries, why the heck do you suppose they ALL come here to have surgeries done and be treated? It's because, in France and Germany, you may have to wait 10 years to have a triple bypass, and in the meantime, hope you don't die waiting. That's what is coming to America, because left-wing radicals like you, won't be satisfied until you turn America into Eurotrash Socialism.

It really is amazing the things one finds out from such surprising sources, isn't it? I've always wondered why waiting lists are virtually unheard of in places like France and Germany but now i need wonder no more.

It hadn't occurred to me that nobody in France or Germany actually used their hospitals as they were too busy traversing the Atlantic in order to speak to a proper American doctor.

No wonder many Americans aren't covered by health insurance. If they were covered where would they be treated, with the hospitals in Dallas, Dover and Detroit already jam packed with ailing krauts and sickly frenchmen?
 
It really is amazing the things one finds out from such surprising sources, isn't it? I've always wondered why waiting lists are virtually unheard of in places like France and Germany but now i need wonder no more.

It hadn't occurred to me that nobody in France or Germany actually used their hospitals as they were too busy traversing the Atlantic in order to speak to a proper American doctor.

No wonder many Americans aren't covered by health insurance. If they were covered where would they be treated, with the hospitals in Dallas, Dover and Detroit already jam packed with ailing krauts and sickly frenchmen?

I have a friend who lives in Germany, who is currently on a waiting list to have heart bypass surgery. I also have a Russian friend who came to America because her daughter had a rare heart disorder, and this was where they said she could receive the best medical care. I have read accounts of people from Canada, scheduling surgeries around their annual winter trips to the States, because of the bureaucracy involved in their country, which is modeled after France.

So with all due respect, you can take exception to what I said and become all 'nationalist' proud, but you are just a stupid Brit. America has the best health care system in the world, and it didn't get that way through Socialism.
 
I have a friend who lives in Germany, who is currently on a waiting list to have heart bypass surgery. I also have a Russian friend who came to America because her daughter had a rare heart disorder, and this was where they said she could receive the best medical care. I have read accounts of people from Canada, scheduling surgeries around their annual winter trips to the States, because of the bureaucracy involved in their country, which is modeled after France.

So with all due respect, you can take exception to what I said and become all 'nationalist' proud, but you are just a stupid Brit. America has the best health care system in the world, and it didn't get that way through Socialism.

How on earth do you work out i'm being "nationalistic"? Are you under the strange impression that i am either a Frenchman or a German? It appears your geographical skills almost surpasses your mastery of mathematics.

If you want to play "my hospital is better than yours" then go ahead. I'm sure you have a list of friends a mile long (probably all residing in your local hospital intensive care unit) which you'll quote back to me.
 
Dixie, should people be allowed to die in the street from lack of medical care?

It is a Federally mandated law that ANY hospital has to provide emergency medical care to any individual regardless of insurance or ability to pay. No one is 'dying in the street' due to lack of medical care, just as no one is 'starving to death' due to lack of food in America. AssClown, you suddenly started sounding like a full-blown Liberal Socialist, was that a momentary lapse?
 
How on earth do you work out i'm being "nationalistic"? Are you under the strange impression that i am either a Frenchman or a German? It appears your geographical skills almost surpasses your mastery of mathematics.

If you want to play "my hospital is better than yours" then go ahead. I'm sure you have a list of friends a mile long (probably all residing in your local hospital intensive care unit) which you'll quote back to me.


No, I think I clearly said you were a stupid Brit. You are 'nationalistic' about your idiotic European socialism, which has failed resoundingly around the world. I don't have to "play" that my hospital is better, American medical care is world renown, and nothing else comes close. There are problems with our system, this is true, but nothing that can't be fixed with capitalist free market solutions and not European socialism.
 
No, I think I clearly said you were a stupid Brit. You are 'nationalistic' about your idiotic European socialism, which has failed resoundingly around the world. I don't have to "play" that my hospital is better, American medical care is world renown, and nothing else comes close. There are problems with our system, this is true, but nothing that can't be fixed with capitalist free market solutions and not European socialism.

OK, pointing out that people in France and Germany don't actually have 10 year waiting lists is being nationalistic? I thought i was just taking the piss out of you, but i'm apparently a little more complex than i've given myself credit for.

You get even weirder with age, mate, kind of like a corked wine.

I'm not really an ideological man at all, Dixie. I find ideology tends to turn one into a raving loon (you can re-read your back catalogue of posts if you'd like that point illustrated). However, i hope dearly that your capitalist free market hospitals don't go the same way as your investment banks and you manage to keep yourself free of filthy communist nurses or socialist medics and that you never live long enough to see an American hospital named after Fidel Castro.
 
I have a friend who lives in Germany, who is currently on a waiting list to have heart bypass surgery. I also have a Russian friend who came to America because her daughter had a rare heart disorder, and this was where they said she could receive the best medical care. I have read accounts of people from Canada, scheduling surgeries around their annual winter trips to the States, because of the bureaucracy involved in their country, which is modeled after France.

So with all due respect, you can take exception to what I said and become all 'nationalist' proud, but you are just a stupid Brit. America has the best health care system in the world, and it didn't get that way through Socialism.

I had a 19-year old American friend who died of a completely preventable heart problem because he didn't have health insurance, and so didn't go to the doctor when the warning signs became obvious.
 
It is a Federally mandated law that ANY hospital has to provide emergency medical care to any individual regardless of insurance or ability to pay.


So you just believe hospitals should foot the bill completely? Or do you just like living in fantasyand?


Isnt' forced charity somekind of socialism?
 
Back
Top