i think i did a fine job of programing those voting machines, what do you think

Pages: 123
@devonrevenge: When I said "left", I was referring to the U.S. definition, which has absolutely nothing to do with what you have said. Our use of the terms "left" and "right" originally came from where the more conservative members of congress sat and where the more liberal members sat (you guessed it, conservatives on the right, liberals on the left). The term now is more loosely associated with democrats and republicans, and not direct conservatism and libertarianism. Grey Wold already corrected you on the whole economic system = government system thing.

Obama care, among other things, is pretty flawed. Actually, I think the entire health insurance industry is flawed. Universal health care can be a good thing, but it must be done correctly. I'm no expert on insurance, but I think health insurance should be entirely government run. Based your income, you pay an appropriate amount for it in taxes (an amount MUCH smaller than privatized insurance). When using the insurance for super expensive things, you should be expected to repay X percent (based on income) in Y time (based on income and what you had done; more time if you got some massive back surgery for example). That way people wouldn't be dying left and right because lack of coverage, but at the same time the government won't lose billions of tax payer dollars on health care costs. I'm not saying my plan is perfect, but I think its better than Obama care (maybe my opinion is biased). Of course nothing so drastic would ever actually happen (if anything ever happens at all with this damn polarized Congress, virtually the same as the last one the passed the least amount of bills than any other Congress in history).

I love this forum, I manage to start an entire shitstorm civil debate with one comment in a small post.

I completely agree the privatized system we have now isn't good (well, it is if you have enough money) and universal care is the way to go. I feel, while Obama-care isn't perfect it is a step in the right direction. I'm 35 years old and haven't seen a doctor outside of an emergency room since I was 15 or 16. My girlfriend and I have been trying to get private insurance for years but couldn't afford the premiums which where roughly 25% of our income. Not to mention, we likely would have been declined insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Obama care does not lower the cost of healthcare though, people need to understand that. Since obama-care has been passed the prices have steadily raised and currently average out to about 30% higher then before obama-care. So really you are just voting to raise your healthcare rates and pay a fine if you don't have healthcare.

Last edited on
I'm very much in favour of public healthcare but the Medicare bill doesn't seem to do anything useful. AFAIK all it does is require people to buy health insurance. It seems like more of a way to stimulate the insurance industry than solve the lack of public healthcare in the US. If the US government was really interested in solving the lack of public healthcare, then they would introduce public healthcare.

I've worked out roughly what it should cost per year. It costs the UK $169,388,000,000 per year, which is a per capita cost of about $2,704 given a population of 62,641,000. America's population is 311,591,917, so assuming the same per-capita cost, it should come to $842,578,050,108 for the full population (you can get the same result by multiplying the NHS budget by the ratio of US citizens to UK citizens (4.27)). In 2012 the federal medicare budget was about $872,000,000,000, which means that the US system is more expensive on a per-capita basis than the UK one.

But of course, most Americans don't want public healthcare because they would rather have their government spend money ending lives, not saving them.

[edit]: I forgot to convert a value from GBP into USD and it changed the answer, making the UK system more expensive per capita per year than the US one. In actual fact, the US system is $30,000,000 more expensive per capita.
Last edited on
there is a very good economic reason as to why america needs healthcare, when most people who get cancer have to pay for treatment they lose their house and buisness paying for it, this is actually bad for the economy and is sometimes why you get so many healthy hardworking hobos and oaps (though they aint pensioning if they used their pensions to get healthcare) on your streets, thats another thing, in new york theres a harmless crazy on every corner, america cant protect its crazies cos they cant earn any money, thats really really sad.


should tell you guys about the NHS we love it, our concervative politicians hate it, it costs a lot in tax that the working class pay, the rich can afford to pay accountants to dodge it, but the english are proud of it, its logo was displayed at the olympic games and some politicians hated that, over here we feel it is one thing that makes our country great, that healthcare is a right.

our conservatives are becoming very unpopular trying to undermine it and our nurses are tired and overworked and there are waiting lists but you should get seen in time if you have cancer and get to AandE int time if your crushed and its very simple, get ill get help and also theres no motive for the doctor to give you medicine you dont need, its also cheaper to cure something than to keep selling you medicine, so theres no chance of 'death by capitalism' i heard a great story about stephen hawkin on the radio, a US senator had said if he was british he wouldnt have lasted so long, what is it with republicans saying stupid things?

as for the left right thing i thought there was americans saying obama care is socialism and hes trying to turn everyone into a communist, i know you know theres people out there like that my favorite is that hes obviously a terrorist/muslim (NOT THE SAME THING) cos hes first name sounds like osama and his middle name is husain, thats the gold right there the gop , oh yeah and are they still teaching inteligent design in schools?

closed account (3qX21hU5)
Ill agree to disagree because basically what public healthcare would do is have the people that pay taxes pay for everyone that doesnt. So more burden on the middle class and upper class and no increase on the lower class. The government is not suppose to take care of everyone.

The government is suppose to protect the constitution, protect the american peoples freedom, and provide the same opportunity for everyone. Not support everyone with handouts. But like I said this is just my opinion and many will disagree.
The "I'm alright Jack" mentality is one thing that I don't get and find it a horrible trait.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I don't get what you mean by "I'm alright Jack".
well the upper and middle classes owe their livings to the working classes, im fine with the bottom being supported by eveyone, as everyone who isnt working class will live off the hard work of the working class.

this is why the wealthy should pay more tax because they owe the most to society.

if someone needs something and society cant provide it due to its own shortcomings in the first place, what is one to do? after all the point of govebrment is to manage life so everyone has an equal chance, PUT YOUR HANDS UP FOR DETROIT.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Ok devon that just pisses me off. I put in as much work as anybody else even though I could be considered the middle class. PLEASE PLEASE DONT TELL ME I OWE EVERYTHING I DID TO SOMEONE ELSE.

if someone needs something and society cant provide it due to its own shortcomings in the first place, what is one to do?

Work for it, everything cant be handed to you. It takes hard work to get things you want and need.

But I think im going to stop commenting on this post because I have a feeling im going to alienate myself by saying things out of anger.
Zereo wrote:
I don't get what you mean by "I'm alright Jack".
basically it is the attitude of "why should I care about others, I'm alright".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm%20all%20right%20Jack!
Zereo wrote:
and provide the same opportunity for everyone
That's the point, for everyone to have the same opportunities the government must step in. The US needs healthcare and education reform at the very least attempt to bridge the gap between the opportunities the rich and the poor are afforded. I dare you to go to any inner city public school and tell me they have the same opportunities.
Zereo wrote:
basically what public healthcare would do is have the people that pay taxes pay for everyone that doesnt

And they aren't already doing that? The US already spends over $870 billion on healthcare annually. Using the maths I did above, to replace the current system with one like the NHS would save $30 billion per year, assuming the per-capita cost is the same. If it works out more expensive, just take it out of the $716 billion you spent killing Arabs this year (<-- hyperbole, but still a valid point).

more burden on the middle class and upper class and no increase on the lower class

Seems fair to me. You could very easily have a society without an upper class or a middle class. You couldn't have a society without a working class, unless you replaced the working class with semi-autonomous machines.

The government is suppose to protect the constitution, protect the american peoples freedom, and provide the same opportunity for everyone

If that's true, it fails at all three. It regularly enacts laws that reduces Americans' constitutional freedoms (two hit combo!) and it has private schooling that not everyone can afford. The US is not an egalitarian state, even if it was supposed to be.
People seem to have a misconception of the lower class. They/we are not the parasites the GOP likes to portray, most work multiple low paying jobs to support their families. Yes, many of us rely on social services to make it, I receive full financial aid for school and my son is on medicaid. Without these "handouts" some of us couldn't even hope to better our lives.
Yeah, Obama care is just plain terrible by any standards. I think my idea is ok, it would provide healthcare for everyone but still reduce strain as much as possible on tax payers. Obama is not a terrorist, I never said that, I said he's socialist. I don't necessarily mean some hardcore revolutionary that would overhaul private sector everything, but he definitely has many socialist ideas and plans. Did you know he distributed the most food stamps than any other president is U.S. history? I think social programs like that are great and all, but it is way to easy too abuse them. There are "poor" people here who pay hundreds or more a month on TV, smart phones and every contraption released by Apple, but rely on food stamps to get their food. Then they get mad if you tell them that they are taking advantage of the system. Stuff like that frustrates me.
There are "poor" people here who pay hundreds or more a month on TV, smart phones and every contraption released by Apple, but rely on food stamps to get their food. Then they get mad if you tell them that they are taking advantage of the system. Stuff like that frustrates me.
So anyone who receives food stamps shouldn't own anything that isn't a necessity? I'd wager I know more people on food stamps then you, and while some people do abuse the system (this will always be the case) it is hardly the majority. I will agree that people should spend their money wisely and many in neighborhoods like mine don't, but again this is another side effect of a poor educational system in our neighborhoods.
naraku933 wrote:
So anyone who receives food stamps shouldn't own anything that isn't a necessity? I'd wager I know more people on food stamps then you, and while some people do abuse the system (this will always be the case) it is hardly the majority. I will agree that people should spend their money wisely and many in neighborhoods like mine don't, but again this is another side effect of a poor educational system in our neighborhoods.


They can own extras, AFTER they get what they need to survive. The point of social welfare programs is to help those who cannot afford necessities get them, not help them get extras. And it's complete BS to blame the education system for someone not having the common sense to realize that they don't have enough money to get food because they bought a god damn 60" television. Everyone I know that does this is knowingly abusing the system, well aware of what they are doing. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, decisions and lives, not point fingers and victimize themselves. I never said the majority of people in the system abuse it either, but it sure is a damn lot.
@devonrevenge:
Even showing that section of code would be a breach of National Security as it would put a target on your head. Though, I think admitting to programming a vote machine is grounds to be charged with treason due to the national security. With that sad code, you'd be fired in a heart beat though :P.
As a UK citizen, I really haven't looked at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA]. I have only heard the Obama-care FUD and media sound bites. So I thought I'd have a quick look to see what it is about, first stop, Wikipedia.

Wikipedia wrote:
PPACA is aimed primarily at decreasing the number of uninsured Americans and reducing the overall costs of health care. It provides a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and tax credits—to employers and individuals in order to increase the coverage rate. Additional reforms are aimed at improving healthcare outcomes and streamlining the delivery of health care. PPACA requires insurance companies to cover all applicants and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or gender. The Congressional Budget Office projected that PPACA will lower both future deficits[9] and Medicare spending.


Not entirely what I thought it was based on what I had previously heard. I started reading more, got the Act (all 900 odd pages) and got boarded but got a better idea about what the shakeup in the healthcare system is all about.

I'm sure that there would be parts in the Act that I would have strong opinions of if I spent more time reading it all. I seam to remember a lot of news about it going back an forth for amendments prior to its enactment by the Senate and House of Representatives which brings to mind the saying "A Camel is a Horse designed by committee". So the bit you don't like might not be how it was intended.

But anyway this rambling mainly leads to a rhetorical question (or two). Just how many people have had their opinion of the PPACA set by FUDmongers and media sound bites? Or by the 'party line'? As I said I got board reading about it and still don't know all the details of it so I can only imagine that most peoples opinions are based on few facts.

PS I'm am trying to keep my opinion of PPACA out of this and being neutral on what side of the fence you come down on.
thats the point zeroe, you havnt worked as hard to deserve more, you havent labored the commons or mined the fuel, least im presuming you havnt, your country has done loads that you should be expected to pay for, and when i said society cant provide something, i meant that he government is screing over a town and there is no work because of hem, the govenment must step in, and you have to make a contribution, just like you do to the police firebrigade and star wars missile sheild.
Pages: 123