Site Search:
 
Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Obama for re-election
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BadBeagleBad



Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 1186
Location: 24.18105,-103.25185

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiral78 wrote:
'Socialised' medicine, thanks to the Obama admin, Sasha Shocked


Big disappointment, that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spiral78



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 11531
Location: On a Short Leash

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a fan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear spiral,

Sure you are - you're not rich and you're cursed with empathy. In addition, you probably harbor some absurd notions: that people with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be denied insurance, that insurance companies shouldn't be able to refuse payment arbitrarily, and that one major heath problem shouldn't be able to wipe out people's life savings and drive them into bankruptcy.

Of course, I have always HAD socialized medicine. I'm a veteran.

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spiral78



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 11531
Location: On a Short Leash

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear John:

Lucky you! Well, you've earned it, obviously, but there are so few ways to get decent coverage at reasonable rates in the US.

The last six years I lived in the States, I was self-employed. I paid around 350/monthly for very basic coverage. It was not for routine things - I still had to pay out of pocket for regular check-ups, dental, eye care. I'd also have had to pay for non-catastrophic illness or injury, such as broken leg or pneumonia. It only covered catastrophies: as life-threatening illness or injury.
Though I was healthy and had no pre-existing conditions nor am I a smoker or heavy drinker (well, usually not) and have never been overweight, to get comprehensive coverage would have been absolutely outside my budget.

While corporations are allowed to write off the costs of health care for their employees, at that time (I don't know if it's changed) self-employed workers were not allowed - I was taxed fully on all the money I spent on health insurance.

And the US calls itself the 'land of opportunity' and claims to support people who want to go the entrepreneurial route. Confused

I spent over 25,000 USD in my last six years in the country - for utterly nothing (never had a claim, obviously), while big businesses are given credits for the same payments.

Never going to live in the US again, for this among many other reasons.

And I'm a definite fan of 'socialised' medicine. I've since lived in three different countries where health care is subsidised, and I've never felt safer or healthier. I get what I need, when I need it, and have no worries about going bankrupt to get it. And, before those among us who have no experience of other countries and what kind of medical care is available there jump in to say 'well, it's better/faster/more advanced care here in the good 'ol US of A', let me just say that I've always received (as have my friends and family) nothing but prompt, state-of-the-art care abroad.

Excellent care can, of course, be had in the US, too, but not for everyone, and that's the pity of it.

Sorry about the rant, John. It's clearly a sore point with me Very Happy
I appreciate your patience.

cau
spiral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BadBeagleBad



Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 1186
Location: 24.18105,-103.25185

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiral78 wrote:
I'm a fan.


No, don´t get me wrong. I don´t think it is a bad idea, I don´t think it goes far enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spiral78



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 11531
Location: On a Short Leash

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, likely we'd agree, then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear spiral,

You do realize, I hope, that I was being ironic Very Happy . In my experience, it's usually the rich (who can afford the very best health care,) those devoid of empathy (or even sympathy) or those who have never had any catastrophic health experience (and blithely assume they never will - lots of luck on that one) who are against "Obamacare."

For years, the US has been the ONLY industrialized western nation without
universal health coverage:

"Among the OECD's 30 members -- which include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- there are only three lacking universal health coverage. The other two happen to be Mexico and Turkey, which have the excuse of being poorer than the rest (and until the onset of the world economic crisis, Mexico was on the way to providing healthcare to all of its citizens). The third, of course, is the US.

"The story gets worse as the details emerge. Although the public share of health expenditure in the United States is much lower than any other OECD country except Mexico, the public expenditure on healthcare is much higher per capita than in most OECD countries. So we pay a lot more in taxes devoted to medical care -- not including insurance premiums, co-payments, fees, and other health costs -- than taxpayers in those 27 countries that have universal coverage. Our public expenditure provides coverage only for the elderly and some of the poor (through Medicaid and the SCHIP program for children) while other countries provide universal coverage while spending less."

"How much less? Nations with comparable standards of living like France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, and Japan spend roughly between half and two-thirds per capita what we spend annually. They cover everyone and their results are measurably better. And the supposed downsides of universal coverage, such as lack of access to sophisticated medical technologies, are belied in many of these countries. For instance Japan has lower per capita health expenditures than the United States (and universal coverage,) but its citizens have greater access to MRI machines, CT scanners and kidney dialysis equipment than Americans do."

"As the study suggests, our grossly inflated and poorly managed health budget results from a variety of pathologies, including a greater prevalence of obesity and other chronic illness, a powerful pharmaceutical lobby that keeps prices high, and the profit-making imperative of the private insurance companies that still dominate American health policy, more than four decades after we established universal coverage for the elderly and the poor. Looking forward, the OECD advocates many of the same incremental reforms contemplated by the Obama administration."

(Obama's stated goal is to improve healthcare efficiency and improve affordability- by 2019)

"But it is difficult to imagine how the United States can afford to provide quality healthcare for all of its citizens in an era of diminished resources -- unless we look to the example of other democratic states around the world. Long ago, they realized that if healthcare is a public good and a human right, the domination of private interests must be curtailed."

(Obama plans to spend around 63 billion dollars a year to reach his goal. But we could afford an 800 BILLION dollar handout to banks in order to cover their gambling debts and keep housing prices out of the reach of many Americans. Meanwhile, 14,000 Americans are losing job-provided health benefits - many can't afford to pay elsewhere - a day!)

What is wrong with this picture"

http://mydd.com/users/architek/posts/us-is-one-of-only-three-developed-nations-without-universal-healthcare-for-all-oecd-report-shows

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spiral78



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 11531
Location: On a Short Leash

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You do realize, I hope, that I was being ironic .


Dear John:

Oh, I realised. Just took the opportunity to vent:-)
Feeling a bit better now: just what the doctor ordered!


Best,
spiral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BadBeagleBad



Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 1186
Location: 24.18105,-103.25185

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is not entirely true that there isn´t universal health care in Mexico. In some places, for example, Mexico City and the State of Mexico, there are a number of options, all government sponsored. First, there is the big ISSTE, which all workers who work more than 19 hours a week have access to, by law. There are numerous programs for pregnant women, regardless of working status, and the disabled are covered by government health care. There is also a government program called Seguro Popular, for people who have no insurance else where. In addition, if you don´t qualify for government health care through your employer, you can buy in - even if you are a foreigner - for something like 300 dollars a year. Your benefits phrase in over a period of a couple of years. And, there are loads of government programs for free glasses, free vacinations (during the Swine Flu scare they were giving vaccines to all comers, free of charge all over the city), free mamograms, free pap smears, free prostate exams. And, private health care is far, far less expensive than in most other countries. In addition, for our furry friends, the government offers free vaccinations and free sterilizations. So while it isn´t universal the situation is far less bleak for the uninsured in Mexico than in many other countries. I had a surgery that routinely costs $20,000 (dollars) in the US, here it cost me $2000 (dollars), which I was able to pay off in payments over a 6 month period. Other states have similar programs, and there are a couple of huge foundations that provide free health care in underserved areas. There are hospitals staffed with nuns that provide excellent care on a sliding scale and no one is turned away. I realize that there are free clinins in the US, but there are more of them here, and easier to access.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
El Chupacabra



Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Location: Kwangchow

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:47 am    Post subject: Re: Obama for re-election Reply with quote

BadBeagleBad wrote:
Me neither, in fact, I think Democrats look more and more like Republicans all the time.


That's because both parties are based on liberalism.

BadBeagleBad wrote:
And why aren´t other parties taken more seriously?


Actually, the Tea Party is being taken very seriously, as a threat to both the progressively liberal Democrats and the classically liberal Republicans. And we may see a resurgence of the Reform Party, now that Donald Trump has entered politics.

BadBeagleBad wrote:
Especially parties that have a well thought out, extensive platform, for example the Green Party, or the Liberatarian Party?


As a former registered Libertarian, I find that party anything but well-conceived. Libertarianism itself comes in two contradictory flavors, one rights-based and one entitlements-based, and the leadership tend to be fence-sitters between the two extremes. ie. they have no cojones.

The Greens and their Euro-style Marxism will never take hold in the U.S.A., Allah be praised.

BadBeagleBad wrote:
When I talk to people they just dismiss them with a shrug.


Shrug.

BadBeagleBad wrote:
Are people too busy, too complacent, to stupid, or what?


Judging from the results of the last Presidential election, mass stupidity is apparent.

BadBeagleBad wrote:
Given that only roughly a third of the population even bothers to vote, how representative is the government, really?


100 percent in a republican democracy. Every citizen has a representative in Congress, whether they vote or not. The quality of representation depends upon the ethics of the congress member.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
marhamat



Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting discussion given that a full year has passed and many many things have changed in the political climate.

Four months to go before the election and Obama is spending campaign money like a wild man even before the convention. It's hard to defend 8% unemployment, food prices starting to soar, and regulations that are strangling small businesses. Plus when former speaker Pelosi tells some of her people to stay home and campaign instead of going to the convention, it's got to sting.

The Blame Bush meme got old about two years ago. Now the left is taken to playing the Race Card again. They really don't have much in their playbook.

Not thrilled about Romney. He does have a track record in the business world, which should directly contrast the WH occupier's track record. Flawed? Sure. Wishy-washy? Sure. Honest? Probably not (he is a politician after all).

Solyndra. Fast and Furious. Those two scandals alone should have been enough for any fair minded reporter to dig into to uncover the truth. Instead a 23 year old Katie Pavlich shows them how it's done.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Previous administration. TEA Party bigots. *yawn*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steinmann



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 255
Location: In the frozen north

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Obama for re-election Reply with quote

El Chupacabra wrote:
Partisan politics aside, we need a business person in the office. Elections should never be about the lesser of two evils, but about the one most likely to keep the money flowing for the rest of us. Collapsing industries and redistributing our stolen earnings to non-productive slackers is a quick path to suicide.

Nicely stated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Food for thought, perhaps:

"Sorry Mitt Romney, Good Businessmen Rarely Make Good Presidents
Businessmen like Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, and the Bushes went on to be some of the worst presidents

Successful business experience is the central rationale for former Gov. Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. To support Romney one must, at a basic level, believe that being good at business either generates experience or hones qualities that are likely to produce successful presidential leadership at a reasonably high rate. One assumes that the validity of this proposition is testable against the historical record. If Romney is correct, presidents with significant business experience should outperform those without—and this fact should be reflected in the presidential rankings that have been compiled by a bipartisan group of historians since 1948. If Romney is wrong, if business leaders perform as well or less well than the average, then business success is at best immaterial and may actually be detrimental to presidential leadership. In that case a core tenet of Romney's presidential candidacy evaporates.

We have had 20 presidents in the modern era (i.e., since 1900). Five of those had significant business careers before entering politics. Unfortunately for Romney, the results are not good for the businessmen.

None of the great or near-great presidents—Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Woodrow Wilson—was a businessman. Truman was a failed businessman (a haberdasher) before entering politics, but that hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Romney's claim for private sector ascendency.

For that matter, none of the better-than-average presidents was a businessman either. In this category think of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton.

Probably the most successful president with real business experience (and success) was George H.W. Bush. Before going into politics he founded Zapata Petroleum, which ultimately became Pennzoil. Bush 41 ended up a one-term president unable to kick-start an economy in a recession and seemingly out of touch with the problems of the common man. Sound familiar?

It gets worse from here. Jimmy Carter, another one-term president beset with economic woes, was a success in agribusiness (peanut farming) before getting into politics. He generally falls into the lower half of the historians' rankings.

And then we get the big three—the men widely considered by historians to be the worst presidents of the modern era: Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. One left the country on the verge of a depression, one left the country in a depression, and one presided over such corruption and ineptitude that despite the failings of the other two he still manages to get the lowest ranking of them all. And yet all three made millions of dollars in the private sector before entering politics. All three were successful businessmen (a newspaper publisher, a mining tycoon, and the owner of a professional baseball team). Bush 43 even went to Harvard business school, like Romney, and like Romney promised to bring business principles to the Oval Office.

With this kind of track record, maybe voters should apply some market principles to the core Romney Rationale and choose a different brand of dog food.




http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/sorry-mitt-romney-good-businessmen-rarely-make-good-presidents
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cool Teacher



Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 930
Location: Here, There and Everywhere! :D

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Obama for re-election Reply with quote

Steinmann wrote:
El Chupacabra wrote:
Partisan politics aside, we need a business person in the office. Elections should never be about the lesser of two evils, but about the one most likely to keep the money flowing for the rest of us. Collapsing industries and redistributing our stolen earnings to non-productive slackers is a quick path to suicide.

Nicely stated.


Hmmm... I tihink I disagree with this because it has been said by a man more intellignent than me that some people talk as if elections should be scrapped and the entire country turned over to the American Chamber of Commerce to run. If business was all that was of interest it would be a sensibel thing to do because democracy is messy and inefficient and gets in the way of all that "flowing money" look at China!

But America is not a business it cant be run like a business and if you tried how would you do it? Well, Romeny's business was engaged in "vulture capitalism" which means he would have to take over the country and decide what is the best way of asset-stripping a massive debt-laden country and pleasing his shareholders. The vast majority of the population are not his concern except for the extent to which they are non-productive nad drag the country/company down. In other words they should all be fired. Unfortunately you cna't fire a population so either compulsory euthanasia for the idle or pu tthem in labour camps to make them work. Also declare bankruptcy and raid the pension funds, which is the Medicare adn Medcais and Social Security. Then sell off all the state-owned products before jumping to the next country. Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cool Teacher



Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 930
Location: Here, There and Everywhere! :D

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey John Slat I just read your post! Great minds think alike and so do ours! Very Happy Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Teaching Jobs in China
Teaching Jobs in China