We're not talking about government-run health care, idiot. The question was, name a country the size of the US with a successful Socialist government, and you can't because there isn't one, and hasn't ever been one. Yes, we have been through the debate about health care in other socialist countries, and I pwned your ass in that debate, because you failed to realize they don't get a say in the matter, since it is a socialist government. They have to accept whatever health care the government provides, there is no other option or choice. That is ultimately what you wish for the situation to be here as well, and a rather large contingent of the general public is determined to see to it you don't get your way.
We aren’t talking about a Socialist government. We’re talking about social programs. Are you deliberately interchanging the two or do you have difficulty understanding the difference. No one, absolutely no one, is advocating a Socialist government so your question has no bearing on this topic.
Not true at all. Most socialist governments started the exact same way it is starting here. Through well-planned propaganda, the public is convinced that socialism is the way to go, once they have turned control of power over to the socialists, they lose their freedom of democracy, and the authoritarian state of socialism eventually devolves into corruption and violence.
Hello??? We’re not talking about a Socialist government. Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Finland, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, France…..they have had social programs (medical care, welfare, etc) for decades. Which ones have lost democratic voting rights?
To a letter, every country you listed has recently passed austerity measures to cut spending and reduce debt, they certainly aren't economically prosperous as a result of socialist policy. Oh... and NONE of these countries even comes close to rivaling the US in population. As I have pointed out numerous times, to which you never can respond, there is a HUGE difference in a socialist policy designed to accommodate a relatively small isolated group of close-knit people in Scandinavia. This is about the ONLY condition in which a 'socialist' policy works or even makes sense to try. It is certainly not a model for how such as system would work in a country as populous and diverse as ours. To try and make this argument, requires a complete lack of understanding or comprehension of political science, or how societies operate and function. In fact, it is a rather naive and infantile view of the world.
Many countries are facing financial difficulties and considering austerity measures, even the US which is definitely not considered socialist. As for the large population everyone gets sick. Italians, Greeks, French, English, Australians, Canadians, Scandinavians, Poles (as in Polish folk, not telephone poles) Bulgarians, Austrians….put it this way, what group of diverse people who make up the US population do not suffer illness/injury? Is there a particular group of folks who never lose a job? Are there members of a particular group who are not represented in home foreclosures? The fact is every group is represented in the poor and ill and unemployed.
One major problem is people are skeptical if programs will be available for them should tragedy strike. One government (the Dems) set up safety nets while another (the Repubs) do their best to destroy them. Why would someone contribute to a program knowing a future government will dismantle it and all their contributions would disappear? That’s the problem. Why would a healthy, employed person contribute to a national medical plan if they are worried a future government will eliminate it and all their contributions would be worthless? The simple answer is don’t vote for those governments who espouse dismantling the programs. People in other countries have figured that out.
For example, there is not one major political party or even a prominent politician, anywhere, who campaigns on dismantling their government medical. Even the most conservative, capitalistic politician would never open their mouth to suggest such a thing. It would be career suicide. Why? Because the vast majority of citizens in every country want to keep their medical plan. No exceptions. And let’s not forget every country started out with a “pay or suffer” medical plan so everyone knows the difference. Once a government medical plan is put in place there’s no turning back because the citizens don’t want to go back to the barbaric ways. As Mulder and Scully say ,"The Truth Is Out There."
There was no money when Rummy said what he said.
Not when he finally admitted it. The money had been spent. There was, however, a surplus the Repubs burned through.
Except that... Mom didn't bother to check and see if the roofer was licensed and bonded, and he made off with her money (cough*Solyndra*cough) so now Dad has to sell the car and buy a cheaper one, and ween himself off the scotch, so he can pay to have the shoddy work repaired on the roof, but before he can do that, he needs to do something with the wife, who has absconded with his credit cards and is on a whirlwind shopping spree at the liberal Mall of America! If he doesn't act quickly, their children, for the rest of their lives, will be shackled and chained like slaves to the debt she is currently running up. That's how the Tea Party is operating.
The tea Party is hanging out at 6 Flags?
I'm sorry, but wars are not at the top of anyone's list. I know you feel better about yourself in saying that, but really... honestly... no one wants wars.
Say what?
And then there’s Romney’s Iran ditty. He’s probably trying to get it set to music.
Social programs can be at the top of your list, you can want all the social programs your little liberal mind can dream up, but in order to have programs, you need funding, and in order to have funding, you need prosperity. IF there is no prosperity, there is no money to pay for your social programs. It's really very simple, apple. We don't generate the kind of GDP we need to do the kind of things you want to do. In your mind, you envision the government with a great big pile of endless cash, and whenever you dream up something the people need, they can go to it and get a wheelbarrow full and fund it... but that isn't reality, apple. You can raise tax rates, but there is that old pesky problem of generating prosperity again... raise taxes, kill prosperity! So what are you going to do in order to fund your liberal Utopia?
Government medical has been shown to cost less. About 1/3 less. That’s a lot of less.
Then there’s food. Why are people here going hungry when food is being exported? Would you sell your food or turn it into fuel if your family was hungry? So-called Liberal utopia is basic common sense. If there is a shortage of doctors, train more people. Let’s flood the market with doctors. Many doctors would work for lower wages for a period of time in order to repay the opportunity to receive training.
Not utopia, Dix. Just good, old common sense.
Apple, unless we get a handle on spending and the deficits and debt, the funding of ALL social programs is in jeopardy. There is nothing else we can cut, to continue an ever-increasing social agenda from the liberals. Just as the crazy wife on the shopping spree, the reality is, someone will have to pay for it eventually. Now, maybe we can save the home and the children's future if we get the wife under control, but we are quickly approaching a point at which irreparable damage will be done, and we may actually lose the home and children. Wouldn't it be better to shoot the wife in the head if we need to? I mean, we could try reasoning with her... convince her that we don't intend to let the rain come through the roof, if she'll just put down the credit card and back away from the cash register real slowly.... Maybe it won't have to come to war?
Check out the video I posted. Repubs like war the same way teens like the latest video/computer/cell phone gadgets; war toys. Bush. McCain. Romney. It’s the same story. Cheney. Gingrich. The list goes on.
I recall Obama mentioning ONCE about Iran and war. ONCE! In any case he doesn’t go on and on about it. It’s not his stump speech. On the other hand the Repubs can’t stop trying to outdo each other. I mean, imagine making a song out of it. McCain went from being an admired, honorable man to selling his soul for a shot at the White House. It was nothing short of pathetic. Decades of building a reputation flushed down the toilet. That’s the typical Repub. It’s reasonable to contemplate if Repubs are really war mongers and just put on a smilie face until they get their chance. It certainly appeared that way with Bush going by the photo shoots and the “bring ‘em on” cowboy talk.
Wars eventually destroy countries. Sort of like the law of diminishing returns. Ten years of war, over double the time of US involvement in WWII, and we ask what has been accomplished. And now the leading Repub contender for President is talking about another war!
Think, man. Think.
Now that's funny!Large countries and small countries, geographically speaking. Large and small countries, population-wise. The countries with government medical are as diverse as they come. Check this list of countries http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004379.html (population and area) against this list of countries with some form of “socialized medicine”. Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. While all plans are different regarding coverage it will give you an idea what’s possible.
