Obama in trouble

[Strix]

I know that virtually no one here will agree with me, but I just want to say YIPPEE!!!!!
And in Massachusettes no less. Who'd have guessed?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8470187.stm

Strix

One poster on here has said that her Insurance costs 800 dollars a month..... 800 dollars a month, that is incredible.

You can keep saying stuff about Governments shouldn't run health care, they will be inefficent but easy for you to say when you have access to it all. Surely it is better to have adequate or good health care for all and excellence for those who can still afford to pay for it rather than some having it all and lots of people having nothing at all and suffering.

Humming star spangled banner and clutching your chest about the american way is a crock of shit, what republicans need to say is, I have no intention of compromising what I have in any way to help others less fortunate than myself. You agree that this needs reform but not if you have to contribute or compromise at al, as long as the 'haves' get what they want then the 'have nots' can got to hell.

I agree Obama has mishandled this issue but this is a dreadful shame that blights america and addressing this issue properly would have raised your standing in the eyes of the world.

Yes, just imagine the shock, because obviously, dear old US have never ever partake of interventionist policies. Never! why would they do something like that?

Juls,

If that is the case that infant mortality is linked to higher technology and standards of care, why is the infant mortality rate in African-Americans 13.6 per 1000 while in white Americans it is 5.7?

Do African-Americans really have greater access to technology on the whole?

Not from what I've seen

$800 per month is incredible. I certainly never paid anything like that. And I am puzzled by this student story as well. When I was at Uni I ticked a box on my registration that said Health insurance and I don't think it cost very much, and I was insured. And my university was not notably posh so I guess I thought everyone got this.

Oh well, I never expected anyone on this site to agree with me. But, still I have had a good day knowing Obama's health plan is one step further away from reality. I know many people who will be breathing a sigh of relief today.

Good to see that you addressed the issues Strix.

I'm sure the wealthier among your friends will agree with you, that goes without saying.

I hate to use the phrase 'I'm alright Jack' but can't think of an alternative at this time of the morning.

It's shameful.

...think about this: what is one day, one year perhaps, you lost everything.

Out of your control, you suddenly had nothing and had to take a place in social housing and ould not find work.

It's possible, unlikely perhaps but possible.

Would you still want Obama in power?

What a shame Flightattendant, this could have been a really interesting thread if the OP had engaged with the issues raised. Shame to waste what could have been an insightful thread but really her stance was, I don't give a shit about anyone else and was indefensible all the way through no matter how she dressed it up as the 'american way'..... but it has to said, my favourite bit was about how america doesn't interfere with other nations.... a classic as far as I am concerned and actually confirmed the ignorance and insular attitude which prompted the OP in the first place.

And tragically just confirms all the dreadful stereotypes about some Americans that the British have.

Shameful is the word.

Who said my friends were wealthy? That was very presumptuous. There seems to be a view over here that Republicans are all wealthy Christian finatics, which is not the case.

Tarty, what a rude post. I have skimmed over things in this threasd. True. Actually, Tigga's post that generalises about American and UK attitudes is quite good. Why don't you go re-read it.

You ohave made several brash (and untrue) accusations about me throughout this thread. Perhaps you should stick to the political facts if you want answers.

Where did I say I didn't give a shit about anyone else? I said Healthcare should be acessible and that is a problem that should be dealt with but the solution was not Socialism (i.e. government ownership and control).

I would support BArack Obama if I lost everything I own, which incidentally is not very much. I believe fundamentally in small government and power to the people. And let's not forget fiscal responsibility -- something Gordon Brown evidentally knows nothing about.

How can the people have power if they are poor, in bad health and everything they try to do has massive barriers of entry, from finding a job to finding a doctor?

The people are anything but empowered. The streets are awash in California with homeless. I've recently visited North CA and it's the same up there in relatively affluent towns. People scrabbling on the streets for scraps of food. I've never seen anything like it in the UK.

People would have a bit more power if America had more of a social conscience.

I never said poor people shouldn't have acces to health care. I said the government shouldn't own and control it. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

And, whilst my knowledge is limited pretty much to Chicago, poor people do have access to health care. (Some of my friends/relatives are in fact poor )

'the wealthier among your friends' is what I actually said if you look...I didn't presume all your friends were wealthy, not at all.

Wealth is totally relative as I am sue you are aware.

The fact you would support Obama if you were penniless says a great deal about your stance and I'm afraid makes me rather angry.

Carmen - yes absolutely

Strix - my points remain: people here have presented you with some facts like the spend per capita vs. infant and maternal mortality rates and you just carry on as if these things have not been mentioned. Your meely mouthed OP is, I am really pleased this policy has been derailed - not very productive is it? This is not about Obama it is about care for the current and future generations of America. It might be a political issue which you disagree with from a political point if view but this does have massive implications for Americas global standing in how it treats its most needy citizens. And you are not customers you are citizens, all of you despite ethnicity or social position.

So, what about the issues people have raised here then? How can you spend so much per capita and have such bad value for money (in the real sense, the sense that people are dying for lack of basic care)

Tiggas point about the difference between American and British social responsibilty are completely correct - that doesn't make it ok and doesn't mean it should go unchallenged.

And please from a point of at least being informed about the basics, look into fairly recent events and tell me again how America does not have an interventionist policy.

And power to the poeple, yes all very well with you as long as they are the right kind of people eh? I think you are astonishingly narrow minded.

I never said poor people shouldn't have acces to health care. I said the government shouldn't own and control it. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Yes it does actually... and if not this way then how???

I'm sorry. I can't really keep up with this thread. So I have just skimmed right past the things I feel are not really relevant: like the US alleged interventionis policy. I could say quite a lot in response. But it has nothing to do with helathcare or why I am delighted that Kenedy's seat went to a Republican.

I only have so much time for this debate. I apologise, but I have to get back to work. I simply don't have time to address every single point one by one.

Furthermore, Tarty, when you say things like "you are astonishingly narrow minded" I sort of lose the desire to take the rest of your words seriously. If you need to stoop to personal insult then your argument appears to be grasping at straws.

Fightattendant - "The fact you would support Obama if you were penniless says a great deal about your stance and I'm afraid makes me rather angry."

I'm sorry, there is a typo in my post because I certainly would not support Obama if I was poor.

The US alleged interventionist policies were mentioned by me and other posters because you said: "My point is that if Americans were going round telling other countries how they should be more like Americans there would be uproar"...

That is why i put the narrow minded bit at then end of my post - good to know you got there and still amazing that you have completely failed yet again to respond to any of the points raised in opposition to your stance.

Interesting how you feel that mortality rate when talking about health policy are not really relevant.

Not asking you to address all the points but one would be good no? Just to show you have actually thought this through.

The attitude in the UK to health care wasn't so different to that in the US not that long ago.

It took WW2 to really shake this country up enough to make people believe that we wanted social health care from a "cradle to grave" NHS.

So in a way it was a present to ourselves after all the pain and suffering.

Another point I do find interesting is that some American's, including the OP, seem to believe that for a Government to provide health care is "socialism", wrong and inefficient.

Yet at the same time the Government providing Education is fine and dandy.

If it's OK for a Government to provide schools and teachers what's wrong with it providing hospitals and doctors?

Rejecting Government run and provided education would surely be consistent with rejecting Government run health care?

Here's your one: the mortality rates were explained by someone else saying they were a result of advanced technology. You have not proven otherwise. In fact, you have stated your point as if it is a proved cause and effect whereby all you really have is a positive correlation, which in fact does not establish cause and effect.

The point about the mortality rates was that the mortality rate is higher in black and uninsured populations than in white. And if it is all about advanced technology (which I acknowledge is indeed a factor but not the cause), how does this explain the high maternal mortality rate then?

$$

Funny, I though that post was directed at the person whe mentioned the technology as an explanation. Why were you expecting a response from me?

"If it's OK for a Government to provide schools and teachers what's wrong with it providing hospitals and doctors?"

That's an interesting question, Badger (and Edam who posed the same question earlier). I believe education show be offered to all by the government because it is the only way for us to have equal opportunity. If poor gets get crapp education and rich kids get good education then all those kids obviously don't have equal opportunity. I think it is not realistic for the people (i.e. parents) to provide such equal education without the state.

Now, why not the same for health care? Well, I think it is possible to retain a private industry, with competition, which could provide healthcare to the people at reasonable prices. Today's system obviously needs changing. No one is arguing that it should stay as it is. But, I am arguing that Obama's plan was rushed through without consideration for some other options that don't involve government ownership and control.