View Full Version : But...I thought Europe was better than this...
"Tens of thousands of immigrant workers will be forced to learn English before they are allowed into Britain under a plan Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to announce tomorrow in a speech to the Trades Union Congress in Brighton, informed sources revealed yesterday."
LINK (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070909/FOREIGN/109090036/1001)
Return of Too Many Daves
09-09-2007, 09:08 AM
What's wrong with that?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's wrong with that? </div></div>
A few words would have changed everything:
"Tens of thousands of immigrant workers will be forced to learn English before they are allowed into the United States under a plan President George W. Bush is expected to announce tomorrow in a speech to the AFL-CIO in Chicago, informed sources revealed yesterday."
If it read like that, this place would be howling with indignation and cries of immigrant abuse.
The Soonet double-standard in full effect here.
Dang! When you're right, you're right!
adigirl
09-09-2007, 11:32 AM
Immigrant workers should be able to speak the language of the country they are living and working in.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-09-2007, 12:45 PM
Yep, seems to me that it's just good sense. It's all the nationalism that follows like expecting new citizens to know the anthem etc. I find a load of balls (I think Britain might be going down that route).
Also you really should get out of the mindset of "Europe this" and "Europe that", this is a British law. It is much like me picking something I don't like about Mexico and saying "bloody Nafta" or "bloody North America". Except Europe as a continent has a much bigger population than North America (something like 750 million vs 500 million), so the generalisation is even worse.
Anyone care to address the accusation that had this been reverse we wouldn't be hearing of "good sense" and all, but how terrible the U.S. is for robbing these immigrants of their heritage....yada, yada, yada.
You know I'm right on this one, guys.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also you really should get out of the mindset of "Europe this" and "Europe that" </div></div>
You guys cling to your common European-ness when being smug and acting holier-than-thou towards other cultures.
If you're all European then, you're all European now.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-09-2007, 04:03 PM
Yep and you Canada and your Mexican friends are all North American.
Still not addressing the hypocrisy issue...
Return of Too Many Daves
09-09-2007, 07:04 PM
Non-issue in this case. Anyway America can't force immigrants to speak their language as they don't have one. It's not called English for nothing LOL.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone care to address the accusation that had this been reverse we wouldn't be hearing of "good sense" and all, but how terrible the U.S. is for robbing these immigrants of their heritage....yada, yada, yada.
You know I'm right on this one, guys.
</div></div>
What accusation? It's not the reverse, so what are you talking about? Right, you are talking about nothing.
And yes, they should be able to speak the language of the country they are planning to work in. Otherwise you have virtually no chance of getting a job.
But hans, concede that Speedy has a point. If this had happened in the U.S., you'd be jumping up and down, condemning the U.S. for being cruel and heartless and imperialistic or some such jargon. C'mon, admit it.
I am the one who stated before the US should send all illegal immigrants back to where they came from, regardless of how long they have been there illegal. This was way back when this whole political issue about illegal immigrants in the US and the demonstrations went on.
Why would I now be against enforcing language capabilities?
You are both trying to make a point on a none existing issue.
Soundbear
09-10-2007, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But hans, concede that Speedy has a point. If this had happened in the U.S., you'd be jumping up and down, condemning the U.S. for being cruel and heartless and imperialistic or some such jargon. C'mon, admit it.
</div></div>
So what?? What's his point?? What's his purpose??
To argue and to puff his own ego.
Isn't that yours, sometimes? I admit that it is sometimes my motive.
And isn't your questioning his motives sidestepping his question? Just trying to keep you honest.
Soundbear
09-10-2007, 02:48 PM
That wasn't a question, it was a whine.
Some of us are here to learn.
I don't care who believes it.
Now you are avoiding my question. Oh well.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 05:17 PM
Of course the most powerful countries in the world are lightening rods for criticism and are held to a higher standard than everyone else. That is just the way of the world. Bad luck. It must be tough being an American, with all that flak they get! Poor old America, but then again why do they care? They shouldn't let it get to them.
In this case I don't think there is any hipocracy. So there I've awnsered his question again. Just because people don't give the awnser you want or expect, that does not mean they are avoiding the question.
I think the point has been made, and regardless of the half-hearted denials, those who we can be pretty sure would have roundly criticized the U.S. for this particular move had the roles been reversed may be able to gain a little perspective on how ineffectual their constant harping and criticism of all things U.S. has become.
Discussing real issues is one thing; obsessing over all things U.S. is quite another.
Like I said, the point has been made.
stupefied
09-10-2007, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Discussing real issues is one thing; obsessing over all things U.S. is quite another.</div></div>True, but you can't help yourself.
<span style="color: #666666">expected to speak, write and understand English to a standard equivalent to passing secondary school in Britain with grades A to C</span>
You are absolutely right though about the reaction you'd see here if it was the U.S. I'm sure there'd be some comments about holding prospective immigrants to a higher standard than the average American. I'd be more curious about the reaction if it was Canada doing this though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd be more curious about the reaction if it was Canada doing this though </div></div>
With the current makeup of Soonet Politics, it goes something like this:
If it's...
The U.S.: loud condemnation and talk of how the ideals and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are being swept aside.
Europe: ignore it's happening at all.
Canada: Loud applause for addressing the immigration issue with a firm, yet realistic, decision.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-10-2007, 07:18 PM
It must be difficult being a republican discussing this issue. On the one hand your party must be against those nasty immigrants coming and taken job from middle America, on the other your buisnessmen friend like the cheap labour. Tricky.
Ps this is in no way a comment on American politics, it applies to right of centre politicians all over the world. I am just entering conversation with Speedy a republican. Please Americans take no offence.
Anti-Thesis
09-10-2007, 08:38 PM
I for one applaud any country that provides work to immigrants on the basis that they are fit to perform the job, this means speaking the applicable language/s of the country and carrying out all expected duties of the task. I.e. if I moved to spain for work, I would learn spanish.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the point has been made, and regardless of the half-hearted denials, those who we can be pretty sure would have roundly criticized the U.S. for this particular move had the roles been reversed may be able to gain a little perspective on how ineffectual their constant harping and criticism of all things U.S. has become.
Discussing real issues is one thing; obsessing over all things U.S. is quite another.
Like I said, the point has been made.
</div></div>
See, this is where you have your blindfolds on my friend. The US is so entangled in world events, that it becomes impossible to find something where the US is not involved in somehow, somewhere.
So yes, it becomes natural to criticize the US. Now it's up to you to rebuttal this, which I do not see you do often.
You fall back on cliches, and prefer to shift attention to Europe, Canada, claiming your superiority over "their" backwards mentality and actions.
So be prepared to take some heat if you keep referring to other countries as "backwards" etc...
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 06:53 AM
Since I've moved to Canada I've made considerable efforts to learn the language Eh?
Hans, I've "rebuttaled" it a million times: You guys drown out the REAL criticism with the your endless stream of knee-jerk, anti-American criticism. Somewhere in all the howling and mindless banter are some real issues and real concerns. But, alas, you become your own worse enemy by your endless need to create mountains out of molehills.
That's a rebuttal, my friend. That you have no answer for it does not make it less so.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 05:58 PM
Yeah well, umm, well.... errr America sucks, Go Team Europe! EU EU EU!!!
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 06:00 PM
Get your own language, MF.
I do.
We've taken "English", rescued it from those goofy chaps across the pond, and turned it into "American".
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 06:08 PM
You mean by taking all the big words out?
Yeah...words like "appeasement", "Surrender","coddle", "dictators"; words you've been way too fond of over the last few decades.
Oh, and here I was thinking the US saw Noriega, Saddam as dictators.
I guess we were tricked!
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 06:26 PM
Surrender? Don't remember us using that too often, of course if you'd been familiar with it in Vietnam maybe fewer people would have been hurt.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surrender? Don't remember us using that too often, of course if you'd been familiar with it in Vietnam maybe fewer people would have been hurt. </div></div>
Remember getting your rear ends kicked by a group of rebels around 1782? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Would they have originated from Europe, those rebels?
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 06:46 PM
No personally, but don't think we surrendered, thought we ran away!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Would they have originated from Europe, those rebels?
</div></div>
Would they have only grown a 'set' when leaving Europe?
Methinks so!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No personally, but don't think we surrendered, thought we ran away!
</div></div>
How very French of you.
No women rebels back then?
Most of the feminine people sided with Great Britain.
It simply fit.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 07:09 PM
By the way I don't think that quote from Winston is real, there are lots of false ones around. How old was he when he joined the Liberals.
Hey, don't forget we joined in the festivities of WW2 before we were attacked. You guys cowered whilst Hitler did his best to take over the world, until the [censored] attacked you. Of course it was all quite profitable for you. Your assistance was well appreciated, but don't hink the you didn't need the help of the other allies either.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 07:10 PM
Why is J A P S censored?
Google the Churchill quote, and then tell me what you think.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is J A P S censored? </div></div>
Ummm...because it's racist.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-11-2007, 07:55 PM
Why? What negative conotations are there? Is "Brits" not allowed either?
Soundbear
09-12-2007, 02:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the way I don't think that quote from Winston is real, there are lots of false ones around.
</div></div>
It's not a misquote, just incomplete.
The beginning of it: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart,.."
The problems seems to be thinking it's either/or.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-12-2007, 02:51 PM
Yeah I('ve read that that one is innacurate too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah I('ve read that that one is innacurate too. </div></div>
I couldn't fit the entire quote because the site doesn't allow it, so I had to pick one part of it.
Dave, the quote is true. You can wish it were a lie, but that doesn't make it one.
adigirl
09-12-2007, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is J A P S censored? </div></div>
Ummm...because it's racist. </div></div>
Dave with all due respect, I can't believe you asked that!
Soundbear
09-12-2007, 04:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adigirl</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is J A P S censored? </div></div>
Ummm...because it's racist. </div></div>
Dave with all due respect, I can't believe you asked that! </div></div>
Our culture has decided that the term is racist. I wonder what the Japanese think of it.
Finns, Danes, Swedes, what other short forms are perfectly acceptable - for now???
It goes back to how they were treated when they were known as "J@ps".
"J@ps" was used as a negative connotation to describe an arch enemy in WW2. Finns, Danes, and Swedes were not enemies, and their nic names do not have their origin in war.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-12-2007, 05:14 PM
I don't think that is racist in the UK.
Also I don't really care whether the old git said it or not, but I am sure I've been told that one is innacurate, I will look for a source after work.
They are good candy where I come from.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-12-2007, 07:17 PM
Speedy read below,the source is: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112
"Conservative by the time you're 35"
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"
Churchill was a liberal.
I've heard it all now!
Return of Too Many Daves
09-14-2007, 05:06 PM
Sorry Speedy, but he was a member of the Liberal party for part of his career, look it up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry Speedy, but he was a member of the Liberal party for part of his career, look it up. </div></div>
He switched allegiance for a short while. He started conservative, went to the liberals for a while in protest, than when back to conservative.
"After the Labour victory, Churchill began rebuilding the shattered fabric of his party as leader of the opposition. He delivered a series of speeches that encouraged Anglo-American solidarity and the unity of Western Europe against the growing Communist threat. In 1946, in a speech at Fulton, Missouri, he defined the barrier thrown up by the USSR around the nations of eastern Europe as the 'iron curtain.' He began to write his six-volume work, The Second World War (1948-1954), a comprehensive first-person account of his wartime statesmanship.
In 1951 Churchill's efforts to revitalize the Conservative Party were rewarded, and he again became prime minister."
LINK (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556455_3/Winston_Churchill.html)
Return of Too Many Daves
09-15-2007, 11:37 AM
Yep so he was a liberal for a while.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's wrong with that? </div></div>
A few words would have changed everything:
"Tens of thousands of immigrant workers will be forced to learn English before they are allowed into the United States under a plan President George W. Bush is expected to announce tomorrow in a speech to the AFL-CIO in Chicago, informed sources revealed yesterday."
If it read like that, this place would be howling with indignation and cries of immigrant abuse.
The Soonet double-standard in full effect here.</div></div>
I'm not reading all of these pages, so excuse me if this has been said.
But Speedy your off your rocker. I don't think ANYONE would jump down the US's throat if that was the case.
Going to bomb countries for no reason, yes we will. Forcing immigrants to speak the language the rest of the country speaks, I agree!
I like how you dig stuff up and assume that we will attack your country for it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep so he was a liberal for a while. </div></div>
Moving the goal posts, personified /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif
Two countries in the world deny their citizens the right to purchase personalized health insurance should they want it: Canada and North Korea.
Congratulations, Canada, on issuing the same laws as Kim Jong Il when it comes to 'healthcare' /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two countries in the world deny their citizens the right to purchase personalized health insurance should they want it: Canada and North Korea.
Congratulations, Canada, on issuing the same laws as Kim Jong Il when it comes to 'healthcare' /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>
Where's this from? I can buy all kinds of health insurance in addition to Ohip.
That's funny Speedy, I am covered under 2 other private insurance plans. I suppose I am not supposed to have those?
Next!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two countries in the world deny their citizens the right to purchase personalized health insurance should they want it: Canada and North Korea.
Congratulations, Canada, on issuing the same laws as Kim Jong Il when it comes to 'healthcare' /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>
That is speedy making up his own theories again.
Speedy, read the post again.
We can't buy insurance policies for specialized surgeries. Such as tummy tucks and boob jobs.
You should really do some research before speaking. You are really starting to live up to the American name. There are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and No Health Care in Canada!
Return of Too Many Daves
09-16-2007, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep so he was a liberal for a while. </div></div>
Moving the goal posts, personified /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif </div></div>
No moving the goal posts you idiotic little man (?), read the thread I put a quote up from the Churchill institute, that claimed Churchill became a liberal (which he did), you misread it as my words, and said you didn't believe he was a liberal. Well that was stupid, you really believe you know more about Churchill than the Churchill institute. Then when you realise that the Churchill institute was correct, you say I am "moving the goal posts". Which is laughable.
Another argument lost by Speedy. Sad he can never acknowledge it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two countries in the world deny their citizens the right to purchase personalized health insurance should they want it: Canada and North Korea.
Congratulations, Canada, on issuing the same laws as Kim Jong Il when it comes to 'healthcare' /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>
Where's this from? I can buy all kinds of health insurance in addition to Ohip.
</div></div>
"Canadians can buy insurance for dental and eye care, physical and chiropractic therapy, long-term nursing and prescriptions, among other services. But according to experts on both sides of the debate, Canada and North Korea are the only countries with laws banning the purchase of insurance for hospitalization or surgery."
LINK (http://dsl.sbc.yahoo.com/)
That, gents, is neanderthal.
Russia lives!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep so he was a liberal for a while. </div></div>
Moving the goal posts, personified /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif </div></div>
No moving the goal posts you idiotic little man (?), read the thread I put a quote up from the Churchill institute, that claimed Churchill became a liberal (which he did), you misread it as my words, and said you didn't believe he was a liberal. Well that was stupid, you really believe you know more about Churchill than the Churchill institute. Then when you realise that the Churchill institute was correct, you say I am "moving the goal posts". Which is laughable.
Another argument lost by Speedy. Sad he can never acknowledge it. </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Dave, you're one of the funnier ones to read when you get mad.
Name-calling, and all the other attributes of a small mind come to the forefront when your anger overtakes your thinking.
The days when you pretended to be an intellectual who never throws mud seem so, so long ago, don't they? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Young Churchill: conservative
Mid-Age Churchill: liberal
Old Churchill: conservative.
End of story.
And anyways, the word "liberal" in 1930 meant something very different to the world "liberal" today. The liberals of the '30's were against socialism and communism. Today's liberals have sided with socialists, and to some extent communists, many times.
If Churchill were alive today he'd be a card-carrying conservative.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-16-2007, 11:20 AM
Moving the goal posts.
Not at all, just showing you what a dead-end street you're on. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
DoubleXL
09-16-2007, 12:37 PM
Thats because OHIP covers hospitalization and surgery. So the government has purchased EVERYONE basic coverage on their behalf.
Thank you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two countries in the world deny their citizens the right to purchase personalized health insurance should they want it: Canada and North Korea.
Congratulations, Canada, on issuing the same laws as Kim Jong Il when it comes to 'healthcare' /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>
Where's this from? I can buy all kinds of health insurance in addition to Ohip.
</div></div>
"Canadians can buy insurance for dental and eye care, physical and chiropractic therapy, long-term nursing and prescriptions, among other services. But according to experts on both sides of the debate, Canada and North Korea are the only countries with laws banning the purchase of insurance for hospitalization or surgery."
LINK (http://dsl.sbc.yahoo.com/)
That, gents, is neanderthal.
Russia lives! </div></div>
The Canadian government has outlawed private medical care for services covered by the public health plan. Those with non-emergency illnesses such as cancer cannot pay out of pocket for time-sensitive surgeries and must wait their turn waiting lists.
This was done to enforce equality for everyone and prevent people with money to jump the waiting line and cause longer wait times and even death for those with lower incomes.
See, Canada is not afraid to enforce equality amongst it's people. Even if it sounds odd.
In Canada, increasing demands for health care, due to the aging population, must be met by either increasing taxes or reducing other government programs. In the United States, if the government does not act, more of the burden for health care will be taken up by the private sector and individuals.
Canada's multi-billion dollar budget surpluses, however, have allowed a significant injection of new funding to the healthcare system, with the stated goal of reducing waiting times for treatment.
One historical problem with the U.S. system was known as job lock, in which people become tied to their jobs for fear of losing their health insurance. This reduces the flexibility of the labor market.Federal legislation passed since the mid-1980s, particularly COBRA and HIPAA, has been aimed at reducing job lock.
Here you go speedy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
The mixed system in the United States has become more similar to the Canadian system. In recent decades, managed care has become prevalent in the United States, with some 90% of privately insured Americans belonging to plans with some form of managed care. Managed care is when the insurance company controls patients' health care to reduce costs, for instance by demanding a second opinion prior to any expensive treatment or by denying coverage for expensive treatments not considered worth their cost.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the United States, if the government does not act </div></div>
Typical Canadian/European mindset, the government must do everything, it is our secular savior. And its exactly why you guys are stuck in mediocrity.
Who else is going to come up with the amount of money required to sustain your current system? The boy scouts?
Our mediocrity is your jealousy.
You just wish you didn't have to pay for health speedy.
Crusty
09-17-2007, 11:12 PM
I'm sure he has insurance ...therefore doesn't pay for health care.
We, on the other hand, probably pay 5 times his premium in taxes directly related to health care every year.
Lower my taxes and I'll take my chances with Blue Cross ... and mabye I would have a doctor.
Insurance costs money, so therefore he is paying for health care.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our mediocrity is your jealousy.
You just wish you didn't have to pay for health speedy. </div></div>
I will gladly pay $17.35 a week for the service I get here than be stuck in that failed system over there.
And that $17.35 I pay is the ultimate package; I can go lower if I so chose (geez, what a concept: letting people choose for themselves). But I chose the plan that covers EVERYTHING under the sun. In fact, it's so comprehensive, I'm not sure what it does NOT cover.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Insurance costs money, so therefore he is paying for health care. </div></div>
Your taxes are astronomical, and send many people scurrying over here to escape such confiscatory taxation.
You, also, are paying for healthcare. The only difference is my government would never assume its people would be so gullible as to accept a false theory called "free healthcare" under a tax system that is just short of brutal, as your system surely is.
Go ahead, give half your yearly wages to government. I'll gladly keep mine, and make my own decisions.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-18-2007, 06:09 PM
Just a question Speedy, if you found yourself with a long term health problem, or say had a spinal injury, what would happen to your premiums and how good would welfare support be?
Similarly if you were born with a disorder, how would your insurance be paid for. For example you are an 18 year old with down syndrome?
Honest question, I really don't know. I have preconceived notions, but it would be nice to be wrong.
It all depends on the health carrier. Most people go through Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, which is a non-profit cooperative. The benefits are very good. Also, there is a contractual stipulation with your employer on benefits for such a scenario (though this will depend on your type of job). Lastly, there is Social Security, with kicks in whenever you become unable to work, be the age 25 or 65.
As for people born with a disability, they are taken care of primarily by the State, but also by the Feds through Social Security. Parents of such children also are paid by the State for being the 'caregiver' of the child.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-19-2007, 06:20 PM
Well that sounds like social welfare to me. The system is not so different from anywhere else.
The way I see it some countries raise money through insurance, some through taxation, some through a grey area in between. I genuinely believe taxation is the way to go, those who earn more pay more.
But surely this is a separate question to who is making better use of that money, however they get it?
It's social welfare for those who have no choice. What else would one do?
The difference is we get choices as healthy Americans, choices Europeans and Canadians do not get.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our mediocrity is your jealousy.
You just wish you didn't have to pay for health speedy. </div></div>
I will gladly pay $17.35 a week for the service I get here than be stuck in that failed system over there.
And that $17.35 I pay is the ultimate package; I can go lower if I so chose (geez, what a concept: letting people choose for themselves). But I chose the plan that covers EVERYTHING under the sun. In fact, it's so comprehensive, I'm not sure what it does NOT cover. </div></div>
You pay $73 a month for your health care for the Ultimate package?
I pay nothing for the ultimate package.
I get a private room, travel and hotel expenses, international coverage, prescriptions, eye care, dental almost at %100.
That is because of the basic coverage from Canada, and my health benefits at work, which I might add is %100 covered by my employer.
Point is, without my work, I can pay $17.35 a week and get the same coverage as you, BUT, if we both pay nothing, I still make out ahead!
You can quote the whiners in here and say they have huge wait times and our health care sucks, but those are the same people that go to the emergancy room for a rash, or a small bump on their head, or a bloody nose. Of course there is going to be long wait times for people who abuse the system. Whenever I had a huge emergancy, or anyone in my family they were seen RIGHT AWAY.
Soundbear
09-20-2007, 08:35 AM
Americans have a history of refusing taxes wherever possible, even if there may be benefit to themselves, their children and there fellow Americans.
And the choices we have "lost" are not actually lost, merely put into the hands of our democratically elected leaders. Americans do the same in many areas.
Soundbear
09-20-2007, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a question Speedy, if you found yourself with a long term health problem, or say had a spinal injury, what would happen to your premiums and how good would welfare support be?... </div></div>
Simple.
Cut off.
"Sorry, we can't pay for that anymore, you're on your own, it would cost us too much money."
Read the fine print of your agreement VERY carefully.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whenever I had a huge emergancy, or anyone in my family they were seen RIGHT AWAY </div></div>
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
Yup, just ask liberal MP Brenda!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a question Speedy, if you found yourself with a long term health problem, or say had a spinal injury, what would happen to your premiums and how good would welfare support be?... </div></div>
Simple.
Cut off.
"Sorry, we can't pay for that anymore, you're on your own, it would cost us too much money."
Read the fine print of your agreement VERY carefully. </div></div>
Barry Morris answering questions concerning the American system, when it is pretty obvious he knows little of his own system.
Now THAT is rich!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Americans have a history of refusing taxes wherever possible, even if there may be benefit to themselves, their children and there fellow Americans.
And the choices we have "lost" are not actually lost, merely put into the hands of our democratically elected leaders. Americans do the same in many areas. </div></div>
Yup, that's how we became arguably the most successful country in the history of mankind, by simply ignoring future generations and refusing to pay taxes.
What an intellectual you are, Morris.
Haha, according to what sources Speedy?
Even a rudimentary knowledge of history will tell you America can be argued to be the most successful country in history.
Don't hate me because I was unfathomably-blessed to be born American, while God chose to test you by making you Belgian.
I think England was far more successful in history.
I will be back later to see how you are doing on your rudimentary history skills.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think England was far more successful in history. </div></div>
England was very successful.
But what it took England 1,000 years to do, America did in 140 years, and did it arguably better.
What took England 1000 years to do that America did in 140 years?
Become an economic and military powerhouse.
So military powerful they are unable to capture Osama.
Soundbear
09-20-2007, 11:07 PM
I fear that the USA will collapse in about the same amount of time a ballistic missile takes to do it's job.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So military powerful they are unable to capture Osama. </div></div>
How does the inability to catch a loner in the hills of ****stan and Afghanistan reflect on a military's power?
It reflect very much so. That person is responsible for the biggest attack on American soil ever, and #1 on the most wanted lists of almost every Western country.
With all your super duper military power, you are unable to capture 1 single guy, for years now.
It says something about how powerful you really are, and who really says what's going to happen and what's not going to happen.
Adolf Hitler was responsible for the largest mass murder in the 20th Century, yet he was never 'caught', in the sense you want bin Laden 'caught'.
Your point is...
Stalin murdered more people then Hitler did. And the reason why he was never caught was because he committed suicide.
Still wasn't caught though, was he???
Crusty
09-23-2007, 09:31 AM
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.