Archive

China to move forward on Universal Healthcare covering 90% by 2011!!!!!

  • ptown_trojans_1
    I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy. There is a line of course, but the government should help our fellow man and aid the most needy. The private sector is just simply not able to fill the gaps that the government can fill in helping those in needs. Now, again, there are limits that need to be reestablished.
  • dwccrew
    believer wrote:
    dwccrew wrote: China probably could afford to do that, their economy is booming at the moment.
    If we stay at 10% unemployment in the U.S. those Chinese boom times won't last much longer.

    Meanwhile BHO insists that we all need nationalized health care we can't pay for while the far more pressing need of jobs creation continues to be ignored.

    No wait....I forgot. Harry Reid says we only lost 36,000 jobs last month so that's good.

    Guess we're free now to force government mandated health care on the American people. After all Social Security and Medicare have served us well right?
    Are you asking me directly or is this just a rhetorical question?
    Belly35 wrote: I will be heading to China (maybe) this summer to visit three factories that produce my product.
    I will ask the workers that get paid less than $7.00 a day / 12 hour shift if they like the idea of Healthcare provide by the Government ...as soon as the government translator / agent leave the room.

    I should start learning Chinese …… I don’t think boom boom, tee-tee, du, du mi ami, mihn oi, di di mau, mama-san, dinky dau will translate to good in China.
    They'd probably welcome it considering they are dirt poor.
    Belly35 wrote:
    Could you please provide the information that state part of the definition of "Global" is that “because we're taking advantage of conditions in another part of the world”
    Where do you get the “we’re” if anything China is taking advantage of America.
    We take advantage of how cheaply things are made in China. You stated that it is cheaper for your product to be made in China than in the US, therefore you are taking advantage of lower overhead costs, correct or no?
    Belly35 wrote: I programmed inside the software and the PC Board so I could provide down the road a method to remove part of the manufacturing from China to America and create special instrument Made In America. If I could dump China I would in a heart beat but until our government understands what Capitalism is and what Entrepreneur need and what it going to take to retool America ……. Manufacturing will be slow process for the future of American.
    I guess I am a little confused, why is it not capitalism? It is absolutely capitalism. Find the least expensive way to produce something and make the largest profits; capitalism in a nutshell.
    Belly35 wrote: If I had the ear of some of our political leaders both parties I could have tell them how to create millions of jobs with the money they have pissed away over the years.
    It's really not the government's job to create jobs.
  • Ghmothwdwhso
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy. There is a line of course, but the government should help our fellow man and aid the most needy. The private sector is just simply not able to fill the gaps that the government can fill in helping those in needs. Now, again, there are limits that need to be reestablished.
    "I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy."

    "the government can fill in helping those in needs"

    Those are two quotes from you, ptown.

    The government is and always will be the tax payer. The government does not make money, it only spends it.

    I believe that meeting this need should be on a "local" (state/county/village) basis. Those that are more in tune with the needs, are better equipped to spend in the most efficient manner. A "mother government" approach will always be less efficient, and less caring.
  • dwccrew
    Ghmothwdwhso wrote:
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy. There is a line of course, but the government should help our fellow man and aid the most needy. The private sector is just simply not able to fill the gaps that the government can fill in helping those in needs. Now, again, there are limits that need to be reestablished.
    "I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy."

    "the government can fill in helping those in needs"

    Those are two quotes from you, ptown.

    The government is and always will be the tax payer. The government does not make money, it only spends it.

    I believe that meeting this need should be on a "local" (state/county/village) basis. Those that are more in tune with the needs, are better equipped to spend in the most efficient manner. A "mother government" approach will always be less efficient, and less caring.
    I agree with this to a degree. Ultimately, I feel non-profit organizations and charities can do this as well. It is my belief that if people were taxed less, they would donate more to charity. As we've seen recently with the earthquake in Haiti, Americans are very giving (and this occured in one of the worst economies in US history).

    I do agree that local government's should have some sort of effect on it though.
  • Ghmothwdwhso
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy. There is a line of course, but the government should help our fellow man and aid the most needy. The private sector is just simply not able to fill the gaps that the government can fill in helping those in needs. Now, again, there are limits that need to be reestablished.
    You spew this bullshit, but close down another thread because of the following? (Ptown quote below)

    "I'm confused. (You seem to do that to me)
    Where in the article does it mention stimulus money went to keep his job? It mentions it in the comments section, but that is far from any truth and there is no evidence. There is simply more evidence that it is for the turnaround, best since 1991 and not the stimulus money.
    I'd ask you provide evidence of the link to the stimulus or I'll close the thread."

    I ask you to provide evidence of your bullshit, or this thread should be closed.

    Fucking Hypocrite.
  • believer
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy. There is a line of course, but the government should help our fellow man and aid the most needy. The private sector is just simply not able to fill the gaps that the government can fill in helping those in needs. Now, again, there are limits that need to be reestablished.
    The Feds and state governments have ZERO business interfering with, meddling in, or providing health care, retirement, or any other such services for any of us. And it's a stretch to say that local government should be involved in these areas, but IF government should play a role it should be at that level.

    Church leaders would be the first to tell you that if EVERYONE who attended church committed to the Biblical principle of tithing (10%), for example, the church could take care of its own elderly, etc.

    The Feds, state, and local governments combine to confiscate at least 30% of our income not to mention sales tax, property tax, licensing fees, utility taxes, and host of other means to fund a largely inefficient and sometimes corrupt wealth redistribution system.

    I'm convinced Americans would be far more charitable if their tax burdens weren't so high. I'm equally convinced that private charities would do a far more efficient job of taking care of our elderly, etc. than a massive redundant government bureaucratic machine that exists in large part to keep itself in existence.
  • assumption
    So life in our country isn't what it once was. Same for the whole globe. But with all our problems the USA still has the best system ever known to man kind. Possibly all our bitching helps keep it that way.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Ghmothwdwhso wrote:
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think the government should help provide for the elderly, desperately poor, mentally ill, and needy. There is a line of course, but the government should help our fellow man and aid the most needy. The private sector is just simply not able to fill the gaps that the government can fill in helping those in needs. Now, again, there are limits that need to be reestablished.
    You spew this bullshit, but close down another thread because of the following? (Ptown quote below)

    "I'm confused. (You seem to do that to me)
    Where in the article does it mention stimulus money went to keep his job? It mentions it in the comments section, but that is far from any truth and there is no evidence. There is simply more evidence that it is for the turnaround, best since 1991 and not the stimulus money.
    I'd ask you provide evidence of the link to the stimulus or I'll close the thread."

    I ask you to provide evidence of your bullshit, or this thread should be closed.

    Fucking Hypocrite.
    Huh? One was my view, the other was a thread that stated to be factual but was far from it. Different contexts, and I didn't use bullshit.


    As to my view that the government should provide for the elderly, most desperately poor and mentally ill, it is the federal government that have the capabilities to do it. The local, country and state governments simply do not have the infrastructure, money or will to do it. Some do, but other do not. Also, even with the private/ nonprofits playing a larger role, there is still a gap that the feds should close.

    Again, it should be dramatically reduced than the current system, but I think it is the duty of government to provide for those in most need. It is a balance, the government, nonprofits and private sector all work together to help the ones in need.
  • goosebumps
    I agree that the government should help the Elderly and menally ill, but how would they determine the "most desperately poor"?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    goosebumps wrote: I agree that the government should help the Elderly and menally ill, but how would they determine the "most desperately poor"?
    That I have no idea and is above my paygrade lol.

    Maybe establish a baseline in conjunction with nonprofs and private companies that adjusts for inflation each year. Say the government pays x amount up to y dollars for people making under z amount, so that as a person is poorer they receive more government assistance, and as they move up the private/ nonprof step in more. I don't know, just one idea.
  • tk421
    I have no doubt when the bill passes, the mandate for everyone to buy insurance will be challenged in the court, and probably overturned. The federal government has no constitutional authority to require someone to buy anything as a requirement of living in the U.S.
  • dwccrew
    goosebumps wrote: I agree that the government should help the Elderly and menally ill, but how would they determine the "most desperately poor"?
    Exactly my thoughts, that is why I feel that the local governments should be involved (elderly and mentally ill and disabled) but it should be private charities that take care of the "desperately poor".
  • Con_Alma
    Lets be honest about what's going on in this country.

    The current bill primarily relates to insurance coverage. That's not healthcare reform. Covering everyone with medical insurance with money we don't have doesn't reform our healthcare.
  • tk421
    Con_Alma wrote: Lets be honest about what's going on in this country.

    The current bill primarily relates to insurance coverage. That's not healthcare reform. Covering everyone with medical insurance with money we don't have doesn't reform our healthcare.
    Exactly. They are going to take money we don't have to give subsidies to families to buy insurance and somehow this bill is supposed to be "deficit neutral". Bull. Obama and the Dems will spin this bill passage as a "huge" break though for America like somehow they just cured cancer. It's pathetic. Now they've added student loan aid to the bill to make it more "appealing" to the Dems that are hesitant, nothing like tacking on something totally different to buy votes.
  • believer
    tk421 wrote:...nothing like tacking on something totally different to buy votes.
    Change we can believe in.
  • tk421
    believer wrote:
    tk421 wrote:...nothing like tacking on something totally different to buy votes.
    Change we can believe in.
    I do believe Obama "promised" to end that practice during his campaign. We've seen how that has worked out.
  • believer
    ^^^The lefties will point out that tacking billions of dollars more onto this BOGUS bill so the Dems can at least claim they care about higher education was done by Congress not by BHO.

    But you and I both know that BHO will gladly look away at the continuance of more outrageous pork spending by this Congress as long as his Signature Bill lands on his desk to sign with glee and much pomp and bullshit.

    Yeah...things have changed alright.
  • tk421
    Got to love that Democratic infighting. I actually agree with Obama for once and hope he sticks to his guns on this issue. I have a feeling though that these "special" projects will be in the final bill, and Obama will crumble under the pressure to pass a bill. The Democrats will get killed on this issue come November. The public overwhelmingly opposes these backroom deals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_special_deals
  • jhay78
    tk421 wrote: Got to love that Democratic infighting. I actually agree with Obama for once and hope he sticks to his guns on this issue. I have a feeling though that these "special" projects will be in the final bill, and Obama will crumble under the pressure to pass a bill. The Democrats will get killed on this issue come November. The public overwhelmingly opposes these backroom deals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_special_deals
    Umm, the pressure to pass a bill is coming from BHO himself, make no mistake about it. Didn't he even say his presidency would be a failure if he didn't get health care passed?
  • Ghmothwdwhso
    jhay78 wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Got to love that Democratic infighting. I actually agree with Obama for once and hope he sticks to his guns on this issue. I have a feeling though that these "special" projects will be in the final bill, and Obama will crumble under the pressure to pass a bill. The Democrats will get killed on this issue come November. The public overwhelmingly opposes these backroom deals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_special_deals
    Umm, the pressure to pass a bill is coming from BHO himself, make no mistake about it. Didn't he even say his presidency would be a failure if he didn't get health care passed?
    I agree with you, but can you really trust anything he says?
  • dwccrew
    Ghmothwdwhso wrote:
    jhay78 wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Got to love that Democratic infighting. I actually agree with Obama for once and hope he sticks to his guns on this issue. I have a feeling though that these "special" projects will be in the final bill, and Obama will crumble under the pressure to pass a bill. The Democrats will get killed on this issue come November. The public overwhelmingly opposes these backroom deals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_special_deals
    Umm, the pressure to pass a bill is coming from BHO himself, make no mistake about it. Didn't he even say his presidency would be a failure if he didn't get health care passed?
    I agree with you, but can you really trust anything he says?
    Can you trust anything anyone in Washington says??
  • Ghmothwdwhso
    dwccrew wrote:
    Ghmothwdwhso wrote:
    jhay78 wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Got to love that Democratic infighting. I actually agree with Obama for once and hope he sticks to his guns on this issue. I have a feeling though that these "special" projects will be in the final bill, and Obama will crumble under the pressure to pass a bill. The Democrats will get killed on this issue come November. The public overwhelmingly opposes these backroom deals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_special_deals
    Umm, the pressure to pass a bill is coming from BHO himself, make no mistake about it. Didn't he even say his presidency would be a failure if he didn't get health care passed?
    I agree with you, but can you really trust anything he says?
    Can you trust anything anyone in Washington says??
    NO! :blush:
  • dwccrew
    Ghmothwdwhso wrote:
    dwccrew wrote:
    Ghmothwdwhso wrote:
    jhay78 wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Got to love that Democratic infighting. I actually agree with Obama for once and hope he sticks to his guns on this issue. I have a feeling though that these "special" projects will be in the final bill, and Obama will crumble under the pressure to pass a bill. The Democrats will get killed on this issue come November. The public overwhelmingly opposes these backroom deals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_special_deals
    Umm, the pressure to pass a bill is coming from BHO himself, make no mistake about it. Didn't he even say his presidency would be a failure if he didn't get health care passed?
    I agree with you, but can you really trust anything he says?
    Can you trust anything anyone in Washington says??
    NO! :blush:
    A very unfortunate situation we are in.
  • Cleveland Buck
    China is no model of economic success. In 50-100 years they will be bankrupt like we are. In the mean time, they have us over a barrel, so rather than try to fix our own economy we will continue to borrow so we can prop up their economy.
  • dwccrew
    ^^^True, with very little regulation and ethical guidelines, China's economy will eventually crumble in the not so distant future.