Conservative or progressive??

[Top12Gun]

Are you conservative or progressive, and why???

[Max Logan]

The poll is wrong. Progressivism in not a leftist movement and what has liberalisms to do with it? There`s Conservative Liberalism and Liberal Conservatism.

Besides, most common people are too indecisive in their actions to be able to adequately place themselves in any of those idealogies. While they would welcome change in politics and social welfare, most everyone would place stability as their key factor, as such, most people are in between those and there are no real 'hardcore' stances in this question.

[Disorder]

I like beer!

[Xavior]

We all know that it doesn't matter what party is in power in America, they're bound to ****up the country anyway.

:D

[Zeonic]

And you're not asking what scale we're looking at. Social or economic? You could be economically conservative but socially liberal, making the person a Libertarian.

[Top12Gun]

And you're not asking what scale we're looking at. Social or economic? You could be economically conservative but socially liberal, making the person a Libertarian.

Let's start socially...

[BladeEWG]

And you're not asking what scale we're looking at. Social or economic? You could be economically conservative but socially liberal, making the person a Libertarian.

Pretty much calls it for me.

[ranger2112]

i am fiscally conservative, however, I do not fall in line with hard core conservatives. I am not "bible-thumper". I think abortion for the sake of abortion is wrong, however, do not want a blanket law saying either way as there are special cases. I want small govt and for everyone who can to pull their weight and help those who cannot.

[Top12Gun]

I'm both socially and fiscally conservative. I think government should be limited, and that we should have the biggest, baddest, most lethal military the world has ever known. :) I believe abortion is murder, but it's not my right to force that belief upon others. I firmly believe that spending should be limited, as should taxes... I think that redistribution of wealth is wrong, and that those who work, should keep what they earn... Well, that's about it... ;)

[totte]

well by american standards i'm probably way left :P

[Will]

Far left on economics, somewhat to the right on social issues. If I were american I'd call for the defence budget to be cut by 80% or so to pay for universal healthcare and other socialist ideas.

[Top12Gun]

Far left on economics, somewhat to the right on social issues. If I were american I'd call for the defence budget to be cut by 80% or so to pay for universal healthcare and other socialist ideas.

So you are a socialist??

[Disorder]

Awwww crap!!! I voted incorrectly.. I am center Right, not center left.... :scared:

[Top12Gun]

Awwww crap!!! I voted incorrectly.. I am center Right, not center left.... :scared:

*Points Liberalism denouncing finger at Disorder* TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

:RM: :RM: :RM: :RM:

[Xavior]

So you are a socialist??

Is there a problem here? :p

[Disorder]

I know..... :sorry:

[Top12Gun]

Is there a problem here? :p
Heck yeah!!!!!!!!!!


I know..... :sorry:

OK. TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

:RM: :RM: :RM: :RM:

[Xavior]

Heck yeah!!!!!!!!!!


Heres my question. Whats wrong with living in a country with universal healthcare?

[Top12Gun]

Heres my question. Whats wrong with living in a country with universal healthcare?

1. Quality.
The quality of anything goes down when the government becomes the provider. Healthcare is no different. I personally know an English family that came to America because the Brits couldn't cure his cancer - he was told he had 1 month to live. So they came to the US. In 18 months, he was cancer free, and has been ever since. I rest my case on this point.

2. Doctors' income.
On both the UK's, and Canada's plan, doctors are paid a fixed salary, not by procedure, nearly halfing their income, for the same amount of work. Not right.

3. Economy.
This cripples the insurance industry, and puts hundreds of thousands out of work. It completely eliminates what in the US alone, is a third of the economy. The already cruddy economy doesn't need this.

4. Debt.
This plunges every nation involved into astronomical debt. Paying for the citizens healthcare is not the governments responsibility, and pretending it is simply blows away money by the billions - literally.

5. Cuts.
The things which must be cut in order to attempt to fund universal healthcare are things which should be non-negotiable, such as education, MediCare, and Defense. And yet, even with these cuts, it still causes an enormous deficit for any nation stupid enough to try it.

These reasons should speak for themselves.

[Will]

So you are a socialist??

Basically, but most socialists are liberal on all kinds of other issues like gay rights, abortion and that sort of thing, which I'm somewhat conservative on.

[Max Logan]

well by american standards i'm probably way left :P

American social politics standards are biased at best

[Will]

1. Quality.
The quality of anything goes down when the government becomes the provider. Healthcare is no different. I personally know an English family that came to America because the Brits couldn't cure his cancer - he was told he had 1 month to live. So they came to the US. In 18 months, he was cancer free, and has been ever since. I rest my case on this point.

2. Doctors' income.
On both the UK's, and Canada's plan, doctors are paid a fixed salary, not by procedure, nearly halfing their income, for the same amount of work. Not right.

3. Economy.
This cripples the insurance industry, and puts hundreds of thousands out of work. It completely eliminates what in the US alone, is a third of the economy. The already cruddy economy doesn't need this.

4. Debt.
This plunges every nation involved into astronomical debt. Paying for the citizens healthcare is not the governments responsibility, and pretending it is simply blows away money by the billions - literally.

5. Cuts.
The things which must be cut in order to attempt to fund universal healthcare are things which should be non-negotiable, such as education, MediCare, and Defense. And yet, even with these cuts, it still causes an enormous deficit for any nation stupid enough to try it.

These reasons should speak for themselves.

1. The Englishman you speak of presumably had the money to pay for this treatment. Most don't. Also it seems that americans have the idea that there is only the NHS in the UK, when we also have private health care. Were it not for the NHS, some in my family would be dead from cancer by now.

2. Doctors get a very good salary in the UK. When the NHS was founded, it ran into opposition by the doctors themselves, fearing a cut in their income. The solution was to guarantee them a high salary, as one politician said at the time "to fill their mouths with gold"

3. As a point of principle, the health of the population should come before economics. The insurance industry in the US is truly obscene in it's practices, since it puts profit before everything else, including the health of it's customers. To an insurance company, claims on insurance are to be avoided at almost any cost.

4. The US national debt should be tackled by removing the absurd tax breaks for the rich, funding for Israel which has no benefit for the ordinary American, and revitalising your manufacturing industry, instead of buying everything from China. On top of this you can cut the absurd defence budget, which has become little more than welfare for a half-dozen big companies (Boeing, Lockheed etc)

5. The US defence budget is more than China, Russia, India and the whole EU put together. This could easily be cut by at least 50% with no danger to the security of the Continental United States. No one is going to invade you, nuclear weapons alone prevent that. Cut the defense budget and raise taxes (especially on the top 10% of earners) and you will probably have enough to fund a FHS (Federal Health Service) and Education. Medicare would become obsolete with a FHS.

[Zeonic]

Oh hi there Will.


I don't believe I ever said what I was. I consider myself a democratic socialist/social democrat, which places me about middle-left on both scales.


So you are a socialist??
Socialism is an economic standpoint. And quite a large one at that. Consider "National Socialist" and "Democratic Socialist". Both are probably somewhat close economically, but socially? Probably on completely opposite sides of each other. It'd be like calling someone a capitalist. That's great and all, but that only tells me so much.

Consider this image (courtesy of PoliticalCompass.org):
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif
Most people fall in a general line from the bottom left to the upper right. There are those who fall out of that line, though. National Socialists and authoritarian socialists fall in the top left. Libertarians fall in the bottom right. However, this is all generalized, so it can't catch everyone.


1. Quality.
The quality of anything goes down when the government becomes the provider. Healthcare is no different. I personally know an English family that came to America because the Brits couldn't cure his cancer - he was told he had 1 month to live. So they came to the US. In 18 months, he was cancer free, and has been ever since. I rest my case on this point.

2. Doctors' income.
On both the UK's, and Canada's plan, doctors are paid a fixed salary, not by procedure, nearly halfing their income, for the same amount of work. Not right.

3. Economy.
This cripples the insurance industry, and puts hundreds of thousands out of work. It completely eliminates what in the US alone, is a third of the economy. The already cruddy economy doesn't need this.

4. Debt.
This plunges every nation involved into astronomical debt. Paying for the citizens healthcare is not the governments responsibility, and pretending it is simply blows away money by the billions - literally.

5. Cuts.
The things which must be cut in order to attempt to fund universal healthcare are things which should be non-negotiable, such as education, MediCare, and Defense. And yet, even with these cuts, it still causes an enormous deficit for any nation stupid enough to try it.

These reasons should speak for themselves.

1. And there have been some who have gone to countries other than the U.S. to get care.

2. Income should be the incentive to caring for others? I believe a lot of the costs come from things doctors have to pay just to have their job. Malpractice insurance, school, etc. All very expensive. And some hospitals can/will jack up the price of a procedure if insurance is given. Always ask for a breakdown of costs with the bill.

Also, don't attack the symptom. Attack the source. The U.S. is a litigious society, fix it somehow. Education needs to be more affordable, and not something that leaves the person with $100k+ in debt.

3. Leave the private sector in there. Just have something that the government can provide. Will already covered that.

Also, insurance companies are already making a ton of money, and will be making even more with the U.S. healthcare bill forcing people to buy into private insurance companies else face a fee.

4+5. Debt is a problem, yes. Then again, so is the military budget that everyone refuses to touch, even though, when you add in everything about it, it comes out to about $1 trillion a year.

[Top12Gun]

1. The Englishman you speak of presumably had the money to pay for this treatment. Most don't. Also it seems that americans have the idea that there is only the NHS in the UK, when we also have private health care. Were it not for the NHS, some in my family would be dead from cancer by now.

2. Doctors get a very good salary in the UK. When the NHS was founded, it ran into opposition by the doctors themselves, fearing a cut in their income. The solution was to guarantee them a high salary, as one politician said at the time "to fill their mouths with gold"

3. As a point of principle, the health of the population should come before economics. The insurance industry in the US is truly obscene in it's practices, since it puts profit before everything else, including the health of it's customers. To an insurance company, claims on insurance are to be avoided at almost any cost.

4. The US national debt should be tackled by removing the absurd tax breaks for the rich, funding for Israel which has no benefit for the ordinary American, and revitalising your manufacturing industry, instead of buying everything from China. On top of this you can cut the absurd defence budget, which has become little more than welfare for a half-dozen big companies (Boeing, Lockheed etc)

5. The US defence budget is more than China, Russia, India and the whole EU put together. This could easily be cut by at least 50% with no danger to the security of the Continental United States. No one is going to invade you, nuclear weapons alone prevent that. Cut the defense budget and raise taxes (especially on the top 10% of earners) and you will probably have enough to fund a FHS (Federal Health Service) and Education. Medicare would become obsolete with a FHS.

1. As I said, I have British friends, who have had experience with both systems, and they've said that BY FAR, the US system is better.

2. Ok, I wasn't familiar with that. :huh: My apologies.

3. The issue of profit being put before all else can be solved greatly by TORT REFORM. If insurance companies weren't being charged through the nose by healthcare providers, they could afford to be a lot more reasonable. CLARIFICATION: I'm not saying this mentality is correct, I'm simply saying that it's going to exist, like it or not, and this is a way to work around it.

4. I'm not discussing th US debt (sizeable though it may be), I'm speaking of the debt that would be incurred by ANY country's government attempting to pay for its citizens healthcare. It's unbelieveable that this idea still holds any credence, based on this principle alone. Even if I supported the idea in theory, in practice it would be impossible.

5. Again, this is not US specific. This refers to the basic problems of implementing this in ANY country. And even if we did cut those as you said, it would still be insufficient. One year would cost the US government approximately $4,000,000,000,000. This is, however, from a country that has 308,000,000 people, so to be fair, if we did the math - assuming that costs are equal in all countries - then the average cost per person is $12,987. Since the average number of people per country is 35,140,886 then we can logically assume that the average cost per country would be 35,140,886 * 12,987, which is $456,374,686,482. I VERY much doubt that there is any country able to keep that up without going into serious debt :rolleyes:

[Zeonic]

The U.S. also spends far more than other countries towards healthcare, while giving less to most people.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_ PPP.png

[Xavior]

1. As I said, I have British friends, who have had experience with both systems, and they've said that BY FAR, the US system is better.

2. Ok, I wasn't familiar with that. :huh: My apologies.

3. The issue of profit being put before all else can be solved greatly by TORT REFORM. If insurance companies weren't being charged through the nose by healthcare providers, they could afford to be a lot more reasonable. CLARIFICATION: I'm not saying this mentality is correct, I'm simply saying that it's going to exist, like it or not, and this is a way to work around it.

4. I'm not discussing th US debt (sizeable though it may be), I'm speaking of the debt that would be incurred by ANY country's government attempting to pay for its citizens healthcare. It's unbelieveable that this idea still holds any credence, based on this principle alone. Even if I supported the idea in theory, in practice it would be impossible.

5. Again, this is not US specific. This refers to the basic problems of implementing this in ANY country. And even if we did cut those as you said, it would still be insufficient. One year would cost the US government approximately $4,000,000,000,000. This is, however, from a country that has 308,000,000 people, so to be fair, if we did the math - assuming that costs are equal in all countries - then the average cost per person is $12,987. Since the average number of people per country is 35,140,886 then we can logically assume that the average cost per country would be 35,140,886 * 12,987, which is $456,374,686,482. I VERY much doubt that there is any country able to keep that up without going into serious debt :rolleyes:


Others here have a lot more knowledge about these things than I do so I'll stay away from certain areas, but 2 things I'd like to point out.

1. One of your arguments it that you know someone from England who hates the system so therefore the system sucks? What about the other 50million people who prefer it?


OTTAWA — Canadians think their American neighbours would be wise to look north as they grapple with a massive health-care overhaul.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests 82 per cent of Canadians believe our system is better than U.S. health care.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/MSNHome/20090710/health_care_090710/


85.2% of Canadians reported that they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the way health care services are provided in their country and an even higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being "satisfied" or "very satisfied").[65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

UK:

There is popular support for the NHS.[123] The Healthcare Commission also undertakes regular surveys of patients' opinions of the NHS. In its most recent survey (2007), the experience of hospitals in England was rated by inpatients as follows: excellent (42%), very good (35%), good(14%), fair (6%) and poor (2%).[124]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine


US:

A 2008 survey of doctors, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, shows that physicians support universal health care and national health insurance by almost 2 to 1.[128]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine


2. Why do people who live in these so called "socialized" countries with extremely high income taxes and next to no military protection (by your standards) have the highest standards of living in the world? If we have socialized health care, why aren't we swimming in debt like you guys are?

http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2010

Take a look at those cities and tell me how many are in "socialized" countries?

[ranger2112]

Far left on economics, somewhat to the right on social issues. If I were american I'd call for the defence budget to be cut by 80% or so to pay for universal healthcare and other socialist ideas.

thank goodness u r not. if we are all healthy but overrun by our enemies who gives a shiit

[Zeonic]

thank goodness u r not. if we are all healthy but overrun by our enemies who gives a shiit

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

U.S. is ranked first, for pure amount of money, at $663,255,000,000. The next closest country is China, at $98,800,000,000. The U.S. budget is 6x bigger than the next biggest.

Ranked 10th as percentage of GDP.

Or, if you prefer images,
Expenditures in USD:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Military_expenditure_by_country_map2.png/800px-Military_expenditure_by_country_map2.png
Expenditures as a percentage of GDP:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png/800px-Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png

[BeeNo]

1. The Englishman you speak of presumably had the money to pay for this treatment. Most don't. Also it seems that americans have the idea that there is only the NHS in the UK, when we also have private health care. Were it not for the NHS, some in my family would be dead from cancer by now.

2. Doctors get a very good salary in the UK. When the NHS was founded, it ran into opposition by the doctors themselves, fearing a cut in their income. The solution was to guarantee them a high salary, as one politician said at the time "to fill their mouths with gold"

3. As a point of principle, the health of the population should come before economics. The insurance industry in the US is truly obscene in it's practices, since it puts profit before everything else, including the health of it's customers. To an insurance company, claims on insurance are to be avoided at almost any cost.

4. The US national debt should be tackled by removing the absurd tax breaks for the rich, funding for Israel which has no benefit for the ordinary American, and revitalising your manufacturing industry, instead of buying everything from China. On top of this you can cut the absurd defence budget, which has become little more than welfare for a half-dozen big companies (Boeing, Lockheed etc)

5. The US defence budget is more than China, Russia, India and the whole EU put together. This could easily be cut by at least 50% with no danger to the security of the Continental United States. No one is going to invade you, nuclear weapons alone prevent that. Cut the defense budget and raise taxes (especially on the top 10% of earners) and you will probably have enough to fund a FHS (Federal Health Service) and Education. Medicare would become obsolete with a FHS.

oh god, i agree with will, but i live live in america? wtf?

@topgun12- let me be clear, those with insurance right now already pay for those not using it. emergency rooms cannot refuse a call, so what happens for people who do not have or cannot afford health insurance is the put off their health problems until it is a very serious emergency visit, when these people cannot afford to pay for their procedures that hospital still needs to pay for that bill, and has to raise its price on other paying customers aka insurance companies, who in turn have to raise your rates.

it seems to be a very flawed system we in place where instead of treating or dealing with a health problem early when its less expensive the correct procedure is to just wait for it to be a huge problem.

as americans we like to think of ourselves all as individuals, but we really are all one people facing the same problems. we may feel like we only deserve what we each accomplish on our own, but i would look at such socialist documents like the american constitution, where every person is entitled to things like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and other socialist idea's of that nature. when looking at these rights i would say the right to to affordable medical care for all americans should be included in that.

and as will pointed it, it is a flawed system we have now and how insurance companies treat their "clients" is often downright criminal. their is a direct conflict of interest in the service they provide.

[BeeNo]

let me give you an example from my family. my mother recently had a dispute with her insurance company. now i want to point out she is fully covered threw her work and fully covered from my dads job as well.

about 5 years ago she switched her primary provider and last year they decided they weren't going to pay for a medical visit to her primary care provider. when she called and to discuss the situation they said she had tried to change her primary care providers at a specific time (i forget the name of it sorry) but during this time they don't accept changes for her primary care provider. she had been under the impression that you could only change your primary care provider during that time. anyways, they were refusing to pay for her bill because this doctor she had been going to for the last 5 years was not her primary care provider since she had filed the change at the wrong time 5 years ago. furthermore they wanted to charge for every medical visit she had in the last 5 years.

now you tell me that isn't downright criminal?

now a very large percentage of us are born with things that had we lived in 200 or 300 years ago we would have been disabled or have a serious health related issue. thanks to modern medicine we able to help more people have a quality life. i myself was born with legg perthes dissease and had i not been born in this century would of been in a wheel chair for the rest of my life by age 20-30 depending on its speed.

others of us get injured in serious accidents or other related but unforeseen incidents.

i am of the belief that if we have the ability to provide an improved quality of life for our fellow citizens that it is a worthy goal to make sure that is available to every child or adult regardless of the circumstances, and am more than willing to pay a little more in taxes to provide such a service.

[Will]

thank goodness u r not. if we are all healthy but overrun by our enemies who gives a shiit

By that logic, the UK (spending 30bil on defense) should be a Russian/Chinese colony by now. Last time I checked Anton wasn't Prime Minister so I think we can rule that out.

All the US needs for it's defense is nukes and a decent air force. That doesn't cost 500 billion. Neither Russia or China has the ability or the will to invade the US.

[ranger2112]

By that logic, the UK (spending 30bil on defense) should be a Russian/Chinese colony by now. Last time I checked Anton wasn't Prime Minister so I think we can rule that out.

All the US needs for it's defense is nukes and a decent air force. That doesn't cost 500 billion. Neither Russia or China has the ability or the will to invade the US.

doesnt hurt that they are our Ally, kinda like Canada.

[totte]

thank goodness u r not. if we are all healthy but overrun by our enemies who gives a shiit

who is this big bad ennemy of yours that will overrun you? canada or mexico?

[Xavior]

who is this big bad ennemy of yours that will overrun you? canada or mexico?

Illegal immigrants? :laugh:

Maybe just a higher fence will do.

[Soviet Russia]

Illegal immigrants? :laugh:

Maybe just a higher fence will do.

Or move the States away:thumbdown: