tbjumpergirl
New member
[No message]
Obama or Oh Bummer?
- Thread starter TattooGuy
- Start date
decepticons_rulez
Member
I think the outcome of this election has been painfully obvious for a year-and-a-half. When I first saw the lineup of Republican candidates, I said that (a) Romney would be the nominee because he was the only candidate unoffensive enough to represent the party on the national stage, and (b) Romney would lose the general election because he didn't have the appeal or the consistent message necessary to unseat an incumbent.
I was obviously right about the first, and I believe I'll be right about the second. There are plenty of people in this country who are excited about removing the current president from office, but unless you can get people excited about your alternative, you won't win the election. I don't think there are very many people genuinely excited about Mitt Romney except as a vehicle for the unseating of Obama. And that's just not enough. The Bush-Kerry election proved that.
I was obviously right about the first, and I believe I'll be right about the second. There are plenty of people in this country who are excited about removing the current president from office, but unless you can get people excited about your alternative, you won't win the election. I don't think there are very many people genuinely excited about Mitt Romney except as a vehicle for the unseating of Obama. And that's just not enough. The Bush-Kerry election proved that.
The only way I can see Obamacare being better is for those who can't afford being on private healthcare; as long as there is an equal, if not greater, amount of private sector Doctors for those who wish to go private then i'd see it as good.
Privatisation generally means the product/service is better so I don't see how that's nonsense-especially when you said Swiss healthcare is better lol
Through experience you are kind of left hanging on NHS with its waiting lists- again through personal experience, they do NOT like people over 50 let alone 60- this was never more apparent when two relatives of mine couldn't get liver and kidney transplants done in time (the first two times the NHS said it was 'too early' for my Aunt to get a liver transplant and then said it was too late-Sjogren's syndrome. For my Uncle they refused to transplant his scarred lung [fibrosis from mould] as he was 66- many of the Doctors were NOT on private healthcare either).
The public sector jobs seem to be worse off under Obama, even with the injection of a stimulus package. It doesn't seem the stimulus packages have worked to their full effect. Private sector jobs aren't 'created' as they're private, only public sector ones (which seem worse off). I'd say economics aren't Obama's forté but Bush and Romney aren't good either- the strength of Obama seems to be his foreign policy imo:
Obama used drones which meant fewer of our troops put their lives at risk. Through the drones we nailed Osama, Al Awlaki, Saaed al Sheri, Atiyah abd al-Rahman,Abu Yahya la-Libi (these latter three were ALL Al Qaeda #2 at one time after Zawahri took over from Osama) however, the argument from Richard Miniter is that Obama chickened out of Neptune Spear (our the equivalent) 3 times before Hilary Clinton stepped in (though this guy blames Bill for Al Qaeda as well). You could also argue an official Al Qaeda group never existed and all of the 'number 2s' killed were just rogue rebels?
Libya gets a thumbs up from me but I think other presidents would have done the same (though I don't think it was right they killed Gaddafi though it wasn't in our control). Syria could be better but Iran's stated they'll attack anyone who intervenes without UN intervention.
I'm particularly interested in your opinions on Miniter and the 'Power of Nightmares' documentary saying Al Qaeda never existed, i'm surprised a movie that (before watching) sounds like a 9/11 Truth movie was aired by the BBC.
As for China, I don't understand the full system-is this the right order?:
1. Politburo as a whole-includes Premier and President/Chairman
2. Premier and President/Chairman equally (President is #1 in Politburo and Premier is #3 but Premier runs the country- President can't only be a 'figurehead' as he 'writes policy' and goes to meet the leaders of other countries).
^Interested in this area particularly as I don't understand the role of the President of PRC-especially since Deng 'outmaneuvered' his superiors
3. Standing Committee of NPC (regulates NPC/sets law)
4.NPC (potential democracy/power to people but an overwhelming majority of PRC members compared to normal people)
In USA it's President>Senate (majority must agree both the President's actions and anything put forward by the house-intermediary bet) >House of Representatives (majority must agree before Senate considers)>Committee/Governors for state-by-state right?
India's President doesn't seem to have much power except okaying laws- he seems to have as much power as China's if not less!
Privatisation generally means the product/service is better so I don't see how that's nonsense-especially when you said Swiss healthcare is better lol
Through experience you are kind of left hanging on NHS with its waiting lists- again through personal experience, they do NOT like people over 50 let alone 60- this was never more apparent when two relatives of mine couldn't get liver and kidney transplants done in time (the first two times the NHS said it was 'too early' for my Aunt to get a liver transplant and then said it was too late-Sjogren's syndrome. For my Uncle they refused to transplant his scarred lung [fibrosis from mould] as he was 66- many of the Doctors were NOT on private healthcare either).
The public sector jobs seem to be worse off under Obama, even with the injection of a stimulus package. It doesn't seem the stimulus packages have worked to their full effect. Private sector jobs aren't 'created' as they're private, only public sector ones (which seem worse off). I'd say economics aren't Obama's forté but Bush and Romney aren't good either- the strength of Obama seems to be his foreign policy imo:
Obama used drones which meant fewer of our troops put their lives at risk. Through the drones we nailed Osama, Al Awlaki, Saaed al Sheri, Atiyah abd al-Rahman,Abu Yahya la-Libi (these latter three were ALL Al Qaeda #2 at one time after Zawahri took over from Osama) however, the argument from Richard Miniter is that Obama chickened out of Neptune Spear (our the equivalent) 3 times before Hilary Clinton stepped in (though this guy blames Bill for Al Qaeda as well). You could also argue an official Al Qaeda group never existed and all of the 'number 2s' killed were just rogue rebels?
Libya gets a thumbs up from me but I think other presidents would have done the same (though I don't think it was right they killed Gaddafi though it wasn't in our control). Syria could be better but Iran's stated they'll attack anyone who intervenes without UN intervention.
I'm particularly interested in your opinions on Miniter and the 'Power of Nightmares' documentary saying Al Qaeda never existed, i'm surprised a movie that (before watching) sounds like a 9/11 Truth movie was aired by the BBC.
As for China, I don't understand the full system-is this the right order?:
1. Politburo as a whole-includes Premier and President/Chairman
2. Premier and President/Chairman equally (President is #1 in Politburo and Premier is #3 but Premier runs the country- President can't only be a 'figurehead' as he 'writes policy' and goes to meet the leaders of other countries).
^Interested in this area particularly as I don't understand the role of the President of PRC-especially since Deng 'outmaneuvered' his superiors
3. Standing Committee of NPC (regulates NPC/sets law)
4.NPC (potential democracy/power to people but an overwhelming majority of PRC members compared to normal people)
In USA it's President>Senate (majority must agree both the President's actions and anything put forward by the house-intermediary bet) >House of Representatives (majority must agree before Senate considers)>Committee/Governors for state-by-state right?
India's President doesn't seem to have much power except okaying laws- he seems to have as much power as China's if not less!
girlabouttown
Member
I'm a Conservative and have had bad experiences with NHS-particularly my Aunt and Uncle who died because of being unable to get transplants for liver and lung respectively (Doctors said it was 'too early' for the former and then when she was too weak said it was 'too late'). My Dad's friend also died and they couldn't diagnose what was wrong with him even though he lost over 30 lbs in 3 months and needed a wheelchair.
Plus through my much less severe needs, NHS keeps me waiting FAR too long
Plus through my much less severe needs, NHS keeps me waiting FAR too long
Doesnt sound like a bad experience with the NHS, Sounds like you came accross the realities of medicine.
Those with less severe needs, have to wait longer then those with more severe needs.
There not enough livers to go round, so rationing occurs.
And not all conditions are able to be diagnosed, thats why people fall through the cracks.
Sorry for you losses, but none of those facts would of changed with private healthcare.
Those with less severe needs, have to wait longer then those with more severe needs.
There not enough livers to go round, so rationing occurs.
And not all conditions are able to be diagnosed, thats why people fall through the cracks.
Sorry for you losses, but none of those facts would of changed with private healthcare.
thadlogan13
New member
.
I forgot to say, my Great-Uncle died at 80 from a heart attack- throwing up and a resting BPM at 180 and they couldn't diagnose it; on his first trip to the hospital they gave him medication that would take effect after 2 days.
4 or 5 examples of NHS incompetence- have had experience with NHS and privatisation and would always choose the latter. The only way i'd see Obamacare as a positive is if those on a low-income get it instead of the more expensive private healthcare but most of the Americans don't like it so you can't say Obamacare's a plus point
4 or 5 examples of NHS incompetence- have had experience with NHS and privatisation and would always choose the latter. The only way i'd see Obamacare as a positive is if those on a low-income get it instead of the more expensive private healthcare but most of the Americans don't like it so you can't say Obamacare's a plus point
You are aware that you can opt to go private in the UK, right? Because it seems that you believe our only possible option is NHS. It isn't, there are plenty of private healthcare suppliers over here (they tend to be cheaper than in the US though - usually by an order of magnitude, as does insurance).
As has been clearly demonstrated by the privatisation of our public transport, gas, electric and phone services.
Okay, so the phone service has improved. The others, not so much.
It is better because Switzerland, including its citizens, is wealthy as a country. It doesn't mean that their healthcare is cheap, it means it's high quality and expensive. As I said though, you can get private healthcare of the same standard here if you're willing to pay.
It's called triage I'm afraid. And yes, it is a tragedy when it affects someone - but it's also a necessity. There are limited resources, and they need to be aimed at those with the highest possible changes of survival. To avoid this you can always go private - it just takes money.
Triage again I'm afraid. Would you prefer that he gets a transplanted lung, or a 24 year old? These are the type of decisions that they have to make.
I'm confused, are you American or British, because earlier you were talking about your bad experiences with the NHS.
The BBC have screened David Icke before - never be surprised by them showing nutters who they think will give them good viewing figures.
Trying to understand what you're attempting to say is like unravelling the results of a horde of cats in a wool shop at times.
What was the medication? The fact he had more than one trip does rather suggest that they at least had some idea of what they were doing - if they hadn't had any idea that first trip would have been the last.
As has been clearly demonstrated by the privatisation of our public transport, gas, electric and phone services.
Okay, so the phone service has improved. The others, not so much.
It is better because Switzerland, including its citizens, is wealthy as a country. It doesn't mean that their healthcare is cheap, it means it's high quality and expensive. As I said though, you can get private healthcare of the same standard here if you're willing to pay.
It's called triage I'm afraid. And yes, it is a tragedy when it affects someone - but it's also a necessity. There are limited resources, and they need to be aimed at those with the highest possible changes of survival. To avoid this you can always go private - it just takes money.
Triage again I'm afraid. Would you prefer that he gets a transplanted lung, or a 24 year old? These are the type of decisions that they have to make.
I'm confused, are you American or British, because earlier you were talking about your bad experiences with the NHS.
The BBC have screened David Icke before - never be surprised by them showing nutters who they think will give them good viewing figures.
Trying to understand what you're attempting to say is like unravelling the results of a horde of cats in a wool shop at times.
What was the medication? The fact he had more than one trip does rather suggest that they at least had some idea of what they were doing - if they hadn't had any idea that first trip would have been the last.
To counter , the NHS saved my baby when she went int shock shortly after being born , found my mums breast cancer early through their screening programme , and cured it , diagnosed and cured my Dads prostate cancer (both were over 60) , they also provide my dad with free prescriptions due to his diabetes and my wife with free prescriptions due to her under active thyroid.
I'd say the NHS are pretty good .......................
I'd say the NHS are pretty good .......................
thorntonvd
New member
Not sure about student funding under Obama but from what I see that's a good thing, especially since he wants more people in education (I must admit the availability of education to the public is a good thing although state schools and colleges in UK are rubbish compared to private [my friend went to private 6th form after the first year at school with me-he said public schools are awful- him and my other friend now go to Edinburgh and Oxford respectively]). I like Obama and want him to win but there are a lot of counter arguments to his achievements- especially his spearhead attacks on Al Qaeda (or the lack of attacks or lack of Al Qaeda according to others).
I'm more of a mixed-economy person myself. My favourite President has to be Bill Clinton (though the saxophone and the affair did earn him some brownie points in my book)
I'm more of a mixed-economy person myself. My favourite President has to be Bill Clinton (though the saxophone and the affair did earn him some brownie points in my book)
Bayumnnthatshot
New member
The NHS is a very large institution, and I think it's inevitable that standards will vary to some degree. I've had (and know of) both good and bad experiences, but as a whole I think the NHS is still something that this country should be proud of.
Anyone who doesn't think it's a good thing would do well to learn what things were like before we had the NHS.
Anyone who doesn't think it's a good thing would do well to learn what things were like before we had the NHS.