Obama's Healthcare Swastika by piratenews

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Does this qualify as "meta-necroposting"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:46 AM

Good question.
I did it once.
I guess that's a good desscription. My intent was to necropost someone else's thread, and it wasn't coming up as a result of my reply. I thought at first it was age, then I thought maybe it was a crossover issue, from another section of the forum.

I don't get out much. I should flee rwed in search of greener pastures, someoen mighta told me about dragoncon if I were in a different area. can't say that I find politics interesting, to be honest, but i might as well respond to the post.

Yeah, that swastika represents the intention of universal healthcare to infect the population with biowarfare. Actually, sad to say it, I've come to the conclusion that while there are two sides to this story, that, which I just stated, being the pirate news side, and the other, universal healthcare will save the poor from pointless death, being the mainstream view... I have to say that the more educated and informed side of me is forced to agree with pirate news.

I think there's an additional angle, which is profit, universal healthcare is corporate welfare to the extreme, since we're not talking about giving people alternative treatments (ie, stuff that works) or even dental, but really, this is mainly about giving people drugs.

But all of these angles have a double edge:

Make money, kill people.

Or control them. The whole biowarfare angle is also about making money. Spread disease, and then sell treatments. The whole money for drugs and industry angle is also about, keep em stoned and happy, and dumb, and they won't be so uppity.

I have to say, i used to have a photographic memory, and I was a serious threat to the establishment. A problem "cured" by antidepressants.

So, undecided, but thinking, mebe, not sure. i'd like to displace "healthcare" with "selfcare" where we all learn how to treat cancer, cardiac arrest, hiv, brain tumors, and oh, all the lesser stuff, in our garage with a dictionary and my friend flicka. But seriously, I think we could get pretty close to that goal, if we tried.

It might just be proxy necropost. Meta mean in transition, iirc, but in web term generally implies a synthesis of multiple sources, such as "metacrawlers"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:08 AM

Quote:
But all of these angles have a double edge:

Make money, kill people.

If that were the case, Republicans wouldn't be opposed to it, since to "conservatives", that's the American dream!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good question.

Yeah, that swastika represents the intention of universal healthcare to infect the population with biowarfare. Actually, sad to say it, I've come to the conclusion that while there are two sides to this story, that, which I just stated, being the pirate news side, and the other, universal healthcare will save the poor from pointless death, being the mainstream view... I have to say that the more educated and informed side of me is forced to agree with pirate news.

That's pretty scary given pirate news insane conspiracy theories.

Quote:
I think there's an additional angle, which is profit, universal healthcare is corporate welfare to the extreme, since we're not talking about giving people alternative treatments (ie, stuff that works) or even dental, but really, this is mainly about giving people drugs.

Why is America so completely and utterly hysterical about public health? For us on the outside looking at the debate, it's puzzling, and indicates how little many Americans care to look to other places in the world at what works (rather than considering that everywhere else is rather second rate compared to god's own country).

You know, all first world countries apart from yourselves have some form of public health, have had it for some time actually. Some systems have worked better than others, they have their flaws, but what it hasn't led to -

Government control over life and death - unlike - hey the United States which already grants that to it's state governments who carry out state sanctioned murder.

An increase in profits for the government - who benefit most from no public health options are drug companies and insurance companies who already practice corporate medicine

People being refused treatment - wait that happens in the US when you can't pay, right? Here, you would never be turned away from a public hospital with a condition that required treatment. Are there limits to what services you can get for public treatments? Sure, you can't get cosmetic surgery or breast implants (unless you have had a mastectomy) and you might have to wait for elective surgery. But guess what - you can get whatever service you want when you want, if you pay. You can get alternative medicines to your hearts content - you can use voodoo if that is what you want to do. But tax payers money won't be subsidising you to do so.

Does it lead to tyranny and government interference in our lives? Not so i've noticed, but then I'm probably experiencing insidious mind control from the free vaccinations that I've received.

So either -

Americans don't really believe that the rest of the world exists except in the Foreign Movies section of the DVD store, and a collection of places with accents so that you can have bad guys in movies

or

That the rest of world is a bucket of poo and everybody wants to live in the US only you won't let us in

or

America is worse, corrupt and more incompetent than other countries, so that even though they successfully administer public health systems without the catastrophies predicted by all those in the US who oppose public health, it couldn't be done efficiently or well in the US. And because government is so bad in the US, it will immediately result in a tyranny which will implement crazed eugenics programs and ethnic cleanising.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:50 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Why is America so completely and utterly hysterical about public health? For us on the outside looking at the debate, it's puzzling, and indicates how little many Americans care to look to other places in the world at what works (rather than considering that everywhere else is rather second rate compared to god's own country)."

Um, because we are our OWN country.

We've given ourselves the RIGHT to decide what works best for US. Just cause it works for you, in your country, doesn't mean it will work here.

Us silly Americans prefer to think for ourselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Why is America so completely and utterly hysterical about public health? For us on the outside looking at the debate, it's puzzling, and indicates how little many Americans care to look to other places in the world at what works (rather than considering that everywhere else is rather second rate compared to god's own country)."

Um, because we are our OWN country.

We've given ourselves the RIGHT to decide what works best for US. Just cause it works for you, in your country, doesn't mean it will work here.

Us silly Americans prefer to think for ourselves.

Or so you've been led to believe...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:09 PM

Quote:

or

America is worse, corrupt and more incompetent than other countries, so that even though they successfully administer public health systems without the catastrophies predicted by all those in the US who oppose public health, it couldn't be done efficiently or well in the US. And because government is so bad in the US, it will immediately result in a tyranny which will implement crazed eugenics programs and ethnic cleanising.

Yup, that about sums it up, if you listen to the crazies around here talk.

They'll also have you believe that our Constitution makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world, but that same great Constitution CAN NOT HELP PROTECT US FROM TERRORISTS, and that if you rely on our Constitution when prosecuting terror suspects, then the terrorists will win, hands down, and there's no way you can ever stop them if you prosecute them like common criminals, instead of elevating them to the status of war heroes and martyrs. So while our Constitution is great, it's not really, y'know, GREAT. And the only way to protect our constitutional rights is to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way of what we really want to do.

Sadly, most Americans are really just fine living with these kinds of hypocrisies screaming around in their heads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:12 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Why is America so completely and utterly hysterical about public health? For us on the outside looking at the debate, it's puzzling, and indicates how little many Americans care to look to other places in the world at what works (rather than considering that everywhere else is rather second rate compared to god's own country)."

Um, because we are our OWN country.

We've given ourselves the RIGHT to decide what works best for US. Just cause it works for you, in your country, doesn't mean it will work here.

Us silly Americans prefer to think for ourselves.

Well, over half the country has thought for themselves and decided that we would like a different health care system. So why don't we have it?

It's never as simple as you make it out to be there sport.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:55 PM

Quote:

If that were the case, Republicans wouldn't be opposed to it, since to "conservatives", that's the American dream!

Mike, Mike, Mike

You still haven't got it: Republicans and Democrats are part of an organization called the Democratic Republican Party, created by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792. If failed to defeat the federalists, and so Jefferson joined the federalists, for the purpose of taking them over, disbanding them, and installing his party in power in the United States, which was probably a good idea.

Then

Jefferson was an ally of Clinton, George, and the "republicans" or anti-federalists, conspired into power.

In the official story of US history, in 1824, the party "split" into two parties, over the issues of the "indian question" first, followed shortly by slavery. Jackson was in favor of "removal" read 'extermination' but the issue did not have enough support by itself. The rebellious Dem-Rep added Pro-slavery to his platform, and created a splinter group called "Democrats."

Four years later, Adams would found "National Repulicans" splinter on a pro-sovereignty, anti-slavery and pro-business, limited govt and the usual things that Republicans *say* mbut seldom *do*.

Sorry for the history lesson, which you may already know, Frem knows this a lot better than I do I suspect, and John probably also does, but I learned this the hard way, by actually working in politics or five years.

That said...

Mike,

Here's my real point: The official story is not complete. Here's probably a more accurate picture of American politics:

The Democratic Republican Party did not dissolve in 1824, but remains in power to this day, in a one party system. It has been increasingly dominated by Federalists at varying times, though this oscillates throughout US history. Everyone once in a while, a group of anti-federalists will get really ticked at Federalism run amok, and form a splinter group, and try to unseat the DRP.

The evolution of the DRP to what I call the "Proctor and Gamble" model of organization, took about a century. The first move was for the Federalists to file into the Democrats, then post civil war, into the Republicans, but eventually, into a full scale P&G model one party system:

The DRP realized what P&G realized ages ago: To dominate, be your own competition. If there are three major soap makers, then anyone might choose from one of the three, and each will have an equal shot. Clone yourself seven times, and now there are ten types of soap, but eight of them are yours, and so chances could be 80% of them selecting your soap.

The DRP is and has been its own competition, and I have to confess that I was well aware of this some time before joining this forum. I argued the "republican" position for a long time because I'm a conservative, and there were a lot of people here who would look upon the DRP as a PN conspiracy theory, and so any conservative position would need to speak to a Republican framework.

The current "Republicans" are ridiculous, but that's the way the DRP wants it. They love a slam-dunk victory. This is just manipulative populism.

The nature of this is to play on divisiveness of the American people, and whenever possible, politicians. But "republicans" are just opposing policies proposed by "democrats" to keep up the illusion, and for the petty power brokers of lesser powers, because each side wants to own whatever goodies get created.

Collectively, the Federalists of the DRP support all big govt. policies. The eventual result of all partisan bickering is that big govt. policies like national healthcare plans or homeland security offices will be instituted, but each denizens who actually believe in "their side" will get some share of the power, and more importantly, that all of america will be caught in a divisive battle and not realize that they are being distracted into a hopeless ebb and flow of tides where the current "majority" will end up supporting the new big govt. policy, and be preoccupied with being for or against, the govt. will grow, and no one will remember to be independent, fight to retain their rights or form some new anti-federalist attack on the controlling DRP.

Federalists are just one of many international groups that are essentially imperialists. Empires, in general, are supported by globalists, whose current model for one world govt is to have that govt divided into empires, or "supranational entities" made up of states, comprised of various subdivisions, so as to create a compound majority where, through false dichotomy politics, the pro-globalist local imperialists can always rule, and be ruled by international globalists.

There's no real difference between democrats and republicans because neither party exists, even as a legal entity on the books. There is still only one party in the united state, the Democratic Republican Party, and the rest of us are just being played with.

Kill people, make money, is a general global imperialist agenda. Environmental destruction is jut a form of taking life on Earth and converting it into capital for the increased wealth of the competitors within the globalist community to gain power over others, and over the masses of the rest of us. Even Socialism vs. Capitalism is an illusion. Both were created by like-minded globalists, with similar ideas, and intent on the same sort of "cooperative imperialism" which was much more visible in the days when imperial powers would be related to one another, and would carve up the map of the world after sacrificing the population to a pointless war, as a means of destabilization and population control, in particular, killing off competing ethnic groups viewed as 'inferior' or 'dangerous' which just means 'as smart as us, so potentially trouble.' This was and still is the way the global imperialists of different stripes view the world populations.

Modern Capitalism was created in the late 18th century as a means for "capital" to own industry, as an answer to the industrial revolution.

Socialism was starting in the early 19th century as a form of state capitalism, to gain direct control over industry.

Industry rapidly became a threat to the imperial power structure, because it introduced a new concept into the world: the creation of massive amounts of wealth by the cooperative effort of the people, without the support of their rulers.

Now we are at a similar breaking point, and we have to plan our attack more carefully. The "information revolution" potentially obviates all extant power structures. This is a very major threat to global imperial social capital, and the power that be are very, very, aware of this problem.

And this is the reason I bothered with the whole long explanation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:10 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Americans don't really believe that the rest of the world exists except in the Foreign Movies section of the DVD store, and a collection of places with accents so that you can have bad guys in movies."

Hello,

I don't think this is way off base, but I think it is more a product of circumstance than Apathy.

In Europe, it is difficult to sneeze without landing germs on another country. Some countries have railways and tunnels connecting them. Interacting with foreigners and visiting foreign countries is common. International politics is more personal in Europe, where you can leave your house in the morning and be in another country by evening. The 'distant lands' you read about in the International section of the newspaper are literally 'right over there.' When warfare has touched the lives of Europeans, it hasn't been across the wide ocean, but rather across their front yards. Everything is connected in Europe, and has been for more generations than I can guess.

But in the US, you are unlikely to visit more than a handful of states in your lifetime, and might see less than 10% of your own nation. Most people haven't visited a foreign country with the possible exception of a caribbean island, Mexico, or Canada. Ever since 1812, our wars have been distant affairs. European countries might as well be on Mars to us. Many Americans will never meet a European native. To a New Yorker, Alabama is foreign territory. To an Alabaman, Europe is just a story in the newspaper. The rest of the world only becomes vaguely important in times of war or when some foreign nation is accused of absorbing our job supply.

It's a completely different attitude in America because it's a completely different situation.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:29 PM

Quote:
Why is America so completely and utterly hysterical about public health? For us on the outside looking at the debate, it's puzzling, and indicates how little many Americans care to look to other places in the world at what works (rather than considering that everywhere else is rather second rate compared to god's own country).

You know, all first world countries apart from yourselves have some form of public health, have had it for some time actually. Some systems have worked better than others, they have their flaws, but what it hasn't led to -

Actually, we're well aware of the other healthcare systems. I'd like ANY of them. I think the horror stories about the British system are exaggerated, I've talked to about twenty citizens and former citizens, and only one of them had anything bad to say about it. The Canadian system seems pretty good too, neither one appears to have bankrupted their country.

Somehow, those countries have also streamlined healthcare costs, most likely by removing some of the ridiculous profit margins for the medical supply, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries.

The problem is, here in America, even healthcare is all about profit. So where you see Americans not giving a damn about the suffering of the poor and uninsured, the problem is not so much the citizens don't care, but that the citizens are gullible, on both the for healthcare and against healthcare sides. Industry has been able to rile up a lot of people to think that the government is going to try to be killing them off, whereas the stuff that IS bad, the riders being inserted into the bills that could make life harder for the average citizen are completely IGNORED by the pro-health care people, who think this is all for our own good.

Unfortunately, DT is right, and it's not. I hoped that we would be able to have a good healthcare bill, one with a working public option to introduce some competition into the pool, without the malicious elements getting involved... Well, they did, and that's why you're seeing the vitriol from both sides that you are, who are probably going to kill any bill that results from this. It looks like right now there's way too much industry gimmee add-ons and bull crap for the bill to do any good, so that's probably for the best.

Quote:
People being refused treatment - wait that happens in the US when you can't pay, right?

No, they get treatment. The hospital just eats the bill, which is also partially why our healthcare coasts are so high. The problems people are having are denial of treatment from the HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES.

So, say you have cancer. It's treatable, but the insurance companies refuse you because they see the treatment as "experimental," or maybe they don't even give you a reason at all and just drop your insurance coverage. You've paid MONEY into the insurance company, but it's not like that money is compartmentalized, instead it goes into a pool for the company for that year, out of which they will only pay a certain amount of money back out to stay in the black.

Well, it's not an "emergency" for you yet, so you can't go to the emergency room for life saving treatment, but it's still cancer. It progresses, and by the time you might be in a bad enough way to be admitted into an emergency room it's probably too late.

Quote:
America is worse, corrupt and more incompetent than other countries, so that even though they successfully administer public health systems without the catastrophies predicted by all those in the US who oppose public health, it couldn't be done efficiently or well in the US. And because government is so bad in the US, it will immediately result in a tyranny which will implement crazed eugenics programs and ethnic cleanising.

This one. Sort of... The crazed eugenics program and ethnic cleansing is.... iffy... Actual targets are not apparent... And tyranny is seen not so much immediate as it is subtle and gradual.

Even so, I've read enough dystopian novels to be pretty paranoid when it comes to this kind of thing. Frankly, it alarms me how the rest of the world seems to be okay with state sponsored population control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Bah, call it what you like, they're still fucking Federalists, which hearkens back to the divine right of kings, the theory of "born better"/"born bad", aristocracy and a class/caste system...

You know, the shit we more or less founded Civilization to get RID of ?

So long as we agree to let others control us "for our own good" because of the idiotic belief that humans are feral beasts who need a leash to behave themselves, this will not change.

Me, I don't hold with that.

And remember, Morlocks EAT Loti.

-Frem
"This is vengeance...
So I am to ferry you to hell."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:05 PM

Quote:
FREM:
Bah, call it what you like, they're still fucking Federalists, which hearkens back to the divine right of kings, the theory of "born better"/"born bad", aristocracy and a class/caste system...

Isn't that what I just said?

Oh, and it's Eloi.

Quote:

Magonsdaughter:

Why is America so completely and utterly hysterical about public health?

Because we don't have the Canadian govt or the Australian govt. or the Swedish govt, we have the US govt, which is more like the Soviet Union.

Specifically, we *do* have these govts. Like here, I have a New York govt, which is much like the govt of any "nation state."

The US govt. is a huge imperial bureaucracy that spends 95% of its discretionary funds on military in some form.

Also, its totally fucks up anything it touches.

The US govt., remember, is not born from the people, but from a small ruling elite, formerly the British East India Trading Company, which is why their flag is now our flag.

This country was founded on the principles I just mentioned, like the total extermination of the native population, the importation and enslavement of another race, also deemed "inferior", indians were deemed "dangerous", and the total destruction of all native life forms of North America, by the powers that then were, and from 1913 forward the perpetuation of a military industrial complex and global financial domination.

In short, the US govt. is probably the most evil institution to have surfaced in modern history. Our population is painfully aware of this, and expects that whatever they do with our healthcare, it will be evil.

This is why you hear arguments between those who say "oh, it's only greed, an evil we can live with" to ones who say "they intend to kill us all." Not sure who is right here, but one of them is, maybe a mix of the two. The few who say "They've come to save us" have clearly *not* studied our history. Every evil committed by the US Govt. over its 233 year history has been prefaced with "We're here to save you, and here's how we'll do it, we'll enact this!" followed by whatever the next great evil is.

Anyone who *has* studied the history and continues to fall for this line time and time again needs to seriously put down the bong and try to rub two brain cells together and see if they can get a second opinion.

Quote:

People being refused treatment - wait that happens in the US when you can't pay, right?

No, that is not true. A couple of points I have to clear up about the US Healthcare system as it stands:

1. Currently, it is not possible for medical facilities to legally turn patients away on the basis of inability to pay. After the reforms are enacted it is *potentially* possible, which is one source of great contention. Probably there will NOT be a legal change of this nature, but it is *possible* that there *will* be a change "in practice" of this nature.

2. Currently, there is a state health plan. It depends on your state govt. Our states are much more like your nations, except that we pay an absurd federal tax to an imperial entity in DC that fights large scale foreign wars.

The STATE of New York, for example, has a public healthcare plan which is very effective. It is different from the public health plan of Massachusetts or any other state.

The next big fear is that a "national" healthcare plan will displace the state health, and *replace* it with something govt/corporate and corrupt.

I am currently enrolled in the state health on because I earn less than $23,000. It's a pretty generous system. If I were employed, my employer would cover me. If I were independently wealthy, I would be expected but not require to purchase my own coverage plan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:44 PM

Quote:
The US govt., remember, is not born from the people, but from a small ruling elite, formerly the British East India Trading Company, which is why their flag is now our flag.

Holy shit! I just looked it up...

CRAP on TOAST with a what the hell GARNISH!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA

What, you thought Corporate America thought up those tricks themselves, Miss Byte ?

Like hell, only it didn't work out in the end all that well for Britain, nor France...

And here we are, having learned NOTHING from History, endlessly repeating the same bloody obvious mistakes.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:07 PM

Quote:
It's a completely different attitude in America because it's a completely different situation.

I take it you've never lived near the Mexican or Canadian border?

We have rails and highways. Sometimes even a tunnel (but we're not supposed to know about those!).

Just sayin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:08 PM

Dream:

Yes, I was taking a partisan swipe. I *should* have just said,

"Make money, kill people - It's the American Way!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:13 PM

I knew about the East India Company, but for some reason I never really connected them with the modern day corporation. It's obvious now.

I hadn't even really thought of the industrial revolution companies as particularly corporate in nature, but the parallels are there, as are some parallels with the cotton/tobacco and slave labour industries in the south. And the early oil tycoons like Rockefeller.

For some reason my brain glitched and was thinking corporations sprung up from almost nowhere in 1920. Wow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:13 PM

Quote:

The problem is, here in America, even healthcare is all about profit.

Yup, Byte, what we mere peons might call "healthcare", the insurance industry, the medical-industrial complex, and big pharma call "wealthcare". Their concern for your health, or mine, begins and ends with how much cashy money it puts into THEIR pockets.

I'm not saying it's WRONG to make a profit. I'm saying it's wrong to say that profit is the beginning, middle, and end, and the sole interest, especially when it comes to healthcare.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

What, you thought Corporate America thought up those tricks themselves, Miss Byte ?

Like hell, only it didn't work out in the end all that well for Britain, nor France...

And here we are, having learned NOTHING from History, endlessly repeating the same bloody obvious mistakes.

-F

Yeah, but... but, we're AMERICANS, and we get to think for ourselves, and make our OWN decisions, and we don't follow anyone else's lead, and... and...

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!

Sorry, even I couldn't say all that with a straight face!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:18 PM

Quote:

No, they get treatment. The hospital just eats the bill, which is also partially why our healthcare coasts are so high. The problems people are having are denial of treatment from the HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Actually, more and more often, no they don't get treatment. They get loaded into a van and DUMPED on the sidewalk, far away from that hospital and into someone else's "jurisdiction", where they MIGHT get treatment, if they can stumble into another hospital. Sad but true.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:09 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Silly Mike. I live right next to the Mexican border. I specifically mentioned Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean islands as likely 'away spots' for Americans.

However, I have trouble getting tickets to the inexpensive railroad that takes me to Europe. That's where the European socialized medicine is that we're talking about.

People in Georgia and Idaho probably have trouble taking day drives to Mexico, too.

Sometimes Mike, I think you just say something snarky because you enjoy it, and not because it helps to actually make a point.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Americans don't really believe that the rest of the world exists except in the Foreign Movies section of the DVD store, and a collection of places with accents so that you can have bad guys in movies."

Hello,

I don't think this is way off base, but I think it is more a product of circumstance than Apathy.

In Europe, it is difficult to sneeze without landing germs on another country. Some countries have railways and tunnels connecting them. Interacting with foreigners and visiting foreign countries is common. International politics is more personal in Europe, where you can leave your house in the morning and be in another country by evening. The 'distant lands' you read about in the International section of the newspaper are literally 'right over there.' When warfare has touched the lives of Europeans, it hasn't been across the wide ocean, but rather across their front yards. Everything is connected in Europe, and has been for more generations than I can guess.

But in the US, you are unlikely to visit more than a handful of states in your lifetime, and might see less than 10% of your own nation. Most people haven't visited a foreign country with the possible exception of a caribbean island, Mexico, or Canada. Ever since 1812, our wars have been distant affairs. European countries might as well be on Mars to us. Many Americans will never meet a European native. To a New Yorker, Alabama is foreign territory. To an Alabaman, Europe is just a story in the newspaper. The rest of the world only becomes vaguely important in times of war or when some foreign nation is accused of absorbing our job supply.

It's a completely different attitude in America because it's a completely different situation.

--Anthony

So I come from Australia which is an island continent on the other side of the world. It takes 20 - 24 hours to fly to Europe or America. Both are equally far away, and yet I don't think we suffer the same sense of insulation as *apparently* many Americans do.

yes, the US is a different country, like Australia is different to Italy and England is different to Spain, Canada is different to the Netherlands. yet all these nations have developed their own form of public health without imploding or becoming bankrupt, or a tyranny.

Yet many Americans keep up the chant about the impossibility of public health *ever* working. Well look to elsewhere and see that it can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Silly Mike. I live right next to the Mexican border. I specifically mentioned Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean islands as likely 'away spots' for Americans.

However, I have trouble getting tickets to the inexpensive railroad that takes me to Europe. That's where the European socialized medicine is that we're talking about.

People in Georgia and Idaho probably have trouble taking day drives to Mexico, too.

Sometimes Mike, I think you just say something snarky because you enjoy it, and not because it helps to actually make a point.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Actually, I *WAS* making the point that we, too, have other nations "right next door", and a great number of people pour across those borders in both directions on a daily basis.

I rather doubt Londoners are taking day trips to Macedonia, too.

Besides, you DON'T have to jump on EuroRail to find "socialized medicine", ya know - they have it right on the other side of both our borders, in Mexico and Canada.

I know that you think I'm just trying to be a contrarian to get a rise out of you, but I was trying to point out that the U.S. doesn't live in a vacuum any more than any other place.

But you're right - sometimes I *DO* say something snarky just for snark's sake. This just wasn't one of those times.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:44 AM

"ring of stars" has no colonial american symbolism, it represents global imperialism, as do the arched sheaths of wheat, just as fasces represents power.

EU

Company Naval Flag later adopted as US Flag

Quote:
Byte:

Byte

The removal of the union jack and replacement of the ring of stars was a result of the war. American colonists fought and died for this war under the illusion that it was their own.

Actually, it was a corporate war. No "rights" were won, the constitution grants *us* nothing that we didn't already have: The bill of rights was passed in 1689

Less known fact is that the constitution was actually created to *remove* the bill of rights, and it was only through the actions of the anti-federalists that the rights *stayed* in the constitution. The Federalists ultimately dealt a big blow to rights by adding to the document a mandate to give all interpretation rights to an unelected "Supreme Court" rather than to the people, and the states through the elected leaders of same (or unelected. It was not decided yet, states were still independent.)

The Supreme Court then selects one of its own members as "Chief Justice" a position which is legally almost identical to that of "Ayatollah," except that the justices who elect him are not in turn elected, but appointed by Govt. committee.

But I digress

Corporations have been with us since Ancient Rome, and the original banking corporations were opposed to the industrial revolution, which has its origins in the 12th c. The bankers and the Church shared this opposition, and while great progress was made during a the Renaissance, which was a lapse of power in between the fall of the church and the rise of the corporate bankers as the central powers, the in mid 17th c., the industrial revolution would be supressed for another century after.

Now, of course, they want to own the information revolution, which is why they prey on the open source community, but allow it to exist (as free labor) but block transitions of mainstream computers like netbooks to linux and shareware, as well as any peer to peer networking.

Frem,

Britain lost, but not the corporations. The influence of The Crown Corporation is still powerful, and one of the elements behind the federal reserve. The "Banking Consortium" model of fiat currency had been outlawed in Britain, and so international bankers needed to move, and take the empire with them, all of which took a great deal of time. They'd bring with them all sort of unpleasant things.

Mike

"Make money, kill people - It's the American Way!"

Yah, that pretty much sums it up

John

I'm curious as to your thoughts on symbolism and its origins.

The bundle of flaming faggots, opposite king for life FDR (leaders on coins was banned in the US) is just one of these not to subtle statements of American empire.

The original "ring of stars" was of six pointed stars. The number 13 could represent 13 tribes, America as the lost tribe, if jews actually had that much power in 1776, but it's also possible that this is just globalism in general.

Remember, the US also usurped the symbol of the eagle holding five arrows, the symbol of the iroquois confederacy, without representing iroquois rule. Note that originally, this symbol was copied literally, with the arrows loosely held. Now it sometimes appears with arrows tightly bound, a militant variation of the fasces.

The comment has certainly been made by a fair number of people that the 12 stars of the EU *do* represent the 12 tribes of Israel, and that the J in EU is silent, just like it would be in Hebrew.

Even given all of that, I'm not convinced that this is a jewish conspiracy, but that zionism is just one of a number of influences in the globalist community. They're far more powerful now, but don't really gain serious power that I can tell until the latter half of the 19th c. By 1890, sure, zionism is a dominant globalist force, but globalism is a natural extension of imperialism, and Empire certainly predates any Jewish influence: Hebrew leaders infiltrating Rome in a serious manner to push their agenda much the way they do now in the US and Britain, I would place around the 2nd century, long after "insane empire" was already underway.

I view the Zionists as "one of the groups at the table" who got their seat fairly recently, but certain early enough to influence the UN, or the EU.

Bearing in mind that any group powerful enough to displace Britain as the Imperial force in North America has far more power than needed to alter the number of colonies. States have been arbitrarily partitioned several times in US history. We know this was primarily an issue of the confederacy of the 6 states of new England, but their inclusion as 6 states rather than one was probably done to gain undue political influence, much like the inclusion of each member state of the British Empire into the League of Nations. But add to that the 4 tiny colonies of NJ and DelMarVa, then NY, PA, VA, you've hit 13. The partition of North/South Carolina was in 1712, so add those and GA, and you have 16 before adding the spanish state of FL.

Order State Entered Union Colony Founded
1. Delaware Dec. 7, 1787 1638
2. Pennsylvania Dec. 12, 1787 1682
3. New Jersey Dec. 18, 1787 1660
4. Georgia Jan. 2, 1788 1733
5. Connecticut Jan. 9, 1788 1634
6. Massachusetts Feb. 6, 1788 1620
7. Maryland Apr. 28, 1788 1634
8. South Carolina May 23, 1788 1670
9. New Hampshire June 21, 1788 1623
10. Virginia June 25, 1788 1607
11. New York July 26, 1788 1614
12. North Carolina Nov. 21, 1789 1660
13. Rhode Island May 29, 1790 1636
14. Vermont Mar. 4, 1791 1724
15. Kentucky June 1, 1792 1774
16. Tennessee June 1, 1796 1769
17. Ohio Mar. 1, 1803 1788
18. Louisiana Apr. 30, 1812 1699
19. Indiana Dec. 11, 1816 1733
20. Mississippi Dec. 10, 1817 1699
21. Illinois Dec. 3, 1818 1720
22. Alabama Dec. 14, 1819 1702
23. Maine Mar. 15, 1820 1624
24. Missouri Aug. 10, 1821 1735
25. Arkansas June 15, 1836 1686
26. Michigan Jan. 26, 1837 1668
27. Florida Mar. 3, 1845 1565
28. Texas Dec. 29, 1845 1682
29. Iowa Dec. 28, 1846 1788
30. Wisconsin May 29, 1848 1766
31. California Sept. 9, 1850 1769
32. Minnesota May 11, 1858 1805
33. Oregon Feb. 14, 1859 1811
34. Kansas Jan. 29, 1861 1727
35. West Virginia June 20, 1863 1727
36. Nevada Oct. 31, 1864 1849
37. Nebraska Mar. 1, 1867 1823
38. Colorado Aug. 1, 1876 1858
39. North Dakota Nov. 2, 1889 1812
40. South Dakota Nov. 2, 1889 1859
41. Montana Nov. 8, 1889 1809
42. Washington Nov. 11, 1889 1811
43. Idaho July 3, 1890 1842
44. Wyoming July 10, 1890 1834
45. Utah Jan. 4, 1896 1847
46. Oklahoma Nov. 16, 1907 1889
47. New Mexico Jan. 6, 1912 1610
48. Arizona Feb. 14, 1912 1776
49. Alaska Jan. 3, 1959 1784
50. Hawaii Aug. 21, 1959 1820

Since the "13 stars" was instituted as a national symbol in 1777, it, like the stripes, had no correlation whatsoever to the number of colonies. The constitution was ratified by 9 colonies IIRC in order to make it law, corresponding with the number of states in the union at the time.

Worse of the 34 colonies of the time, 27 were english, 2 of those were not recognized by the US, leaving us with 25, plus one more: The state of Franklin, which was deleted in 1790 after coming under native american control. The concept "13 original colonies" doesn't seem to historically exist any more that Cherry Trees and Betsy Ross.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mike,

Maybe a visual will help you.

An average Italian is within 1 day's driving distance of 3 other countries.

An average Frenchman can reach 6 other countries in a day's drive.

An average British man might reach 5 other countries in a day's excursion.

And when a war event has occured in the past, these people found the enemy in their proverbial front yard.

So, Europe is far less insular than the U.S. on both a historical and physical geography basis.

Meanwhile, people in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oaklahoma, and the Carolinas are not within easy excursion of anywhere other than the United States. Chances are that many people in these places haven't even visited the other states on the list, much less a foreign country.

I myself lived in a bustling 'international' city throughout my youth and only spoke to my first European when I was 12.

The US is very big, and Europe is far away.

I maintain that the physical and historical circumstances of the US situation have caused the average American to take less notice of Europe than the Average European takes of the US.

Even so, I suspect that European views of the US are likely skewed by the same 'foreign films' they receive from our end of the pond. The average European contact with the United States comes in the form of clueless tourists, Hollywood films, and military soldiers on assignment overseas.

Meanwhile, we here in the states do not even get exposure to a few thousand French, German, or British troops who maintain a large military base in Georgia or Kentucky.

I really feel it's just very different to be an American trying to understand or deeply care about Europe. For many of us, they really might as well be from another planet.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:25 AM

Magonsdaughter

Actually, you come from Britain, or Europe should I say [/snark]

Still, recognize there's no difference between the US and Europe in this matter, nor India, China, Latin America, or any other self-contained economy.

300 million people on their own continent, essentially, whose neighboring political powers are states of america are no more or less aware of remote regions than the states of Europe are.

I go to Europe fairly often, and am often surprised by how unfamiliar they are with Japan, inspite of the fair amount of media consumption and imports they take from that island nation. Conversely, they are always surprised by how *familiar* Americans are with Japan.

Interesting historical note: the US fought its largest and bloodiest war ever with Japan, which had a far greater impact on our nation and theirs than the wars of Europe, but in US dealings with Japan, it actually doesn't even enter our minds, it's almost completely forgotten. I only posted this because I remembered it right before hitting post. Interesting that, given the holocaust obsession and all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:46 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Magonsdaughter,

How does the average American know that the health care programs in Europe (or even Australia) are 'working?' He knows that the people in these countries are not all dead. We can tell because we get a lot of Australian actors making American films. We can also watch films like Australia and Crocodile Dundee and see that Australia is an adventurous land far away where rugged people live.

If we really dig into the foreign films, we might even learn that Australia had a big dish that served the US space program during a pivotal moment in its television history. But otherwise the place seems like untamed pastures.

This is reinforced by our direct cultural exposure to Australia, which comes in the form of Outback restaurants, located in almost every major metropolis, where the backwoods nature of Australia is emphasized and exploited to delight the spirit of adventure that dwells in the heart of every American, provided he can enjoy that spirit in a comfortable booth with air conditioning and a beer.

So, what do we know about Australian Health care? Australians aren't dead. And neither are we.

What do we know about foreigners in general? They all want to come to the U.S. to learn and live. We must truly be the bright and shiny star of the world, else they'd all presumably stay home.

What is it, in our average cultural exposure to Europe, Australia, or even Canada that should mightily convince us that your Health Care (of all things) is superior to ours? Why on Earth would anyone choose to move to the US from Europe (or any other place- met my first Aussie when I was 19) if their Health and opportunity was so vibrant and ours was so tarnished?

This is the reason that both political parties can point to Canada or England and say, "Look at their Health Care and see how it Works!" trying to make opposite points. We have no exposure or idea about other nations. We only know what we're told, and we are told vastly different things.

I never lived in Australia. Most people here haven't, and so have no frame of reference about being sick there. Meanwhile, Australians who have had public health care since 1975 can shake their heads at the mystifying reluctance of people on the opposite side of the globe. "Why don't they know?"

Why would they?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:59 AM

The twelve tribes plus the one lost tribe sounds right to me. There also could be an element of asserting divine right, knowledge, or message here: there were actually thirteen apostles, not the usually thought twelve, because Judas was a traitor and Paul and Matthias were elevated after Christ's ascension. The thirteen apostles are traditionally thought to represent the thirteen tribes of Isreal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:03 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Magonsdaughter,

How does the average American know that the health care programs in Europe (or even Australia) are 'working?' He knows that the people in these countries are not all dead. We can tell because we get a lot of Australian actors making American films. We can also watch films like Australia and Crocodile Dundee and see that Australia is an adventurous land far away where rugged people live.

If we really dig into the foreign films, we might even learn that Australia had a big dish that served the US space program during a pivotal moment in its television history. But otherwise the place seems like untamed pastures.

This is reinforced by our direct cultural exposure to Australia, which comes in the form of Outback restaurants, located in almost every major metropolis, where the backwoods nature of Australia is emphasized and exploited to delight the spirit of adventure that dwells in the heart of every American, provided he can enjoy that spirit in a comfortable booth with air conditioning and a beer.

So, what do we know about Australian Health care? Australians aren't dead. And neither are we.

What do we know about foreigners in general? They all want to come to the U.S. to learn and live. We must truly be the bright and shiny star of the world, else they'd all presumably stay home.

What is it, in our average cultural exposure to Europe, Australia, or even Canada that should mightily convince us that your Health Care (of all things) is superior to ours? Why on Earth would anyone choose to move to the US from Europe (or any other place- met my first Aussie when I was 19) if their Health and opportunity was so vibrant and ours was so tarnished?

This is the reason that both political parties can point to Canada or England and say, "Look at their Health Care and see how it Works!" trying to make opposite points. We have no exposure or idea about other nations. We only know what we're told, and we are told vastly different things.

I never lived in Australia. Most people here haven't, and so have no frame of reference about being sick there. Meanwhile, Australians who have had public health care since 1975 can shake their heads at the mystifying reluctance of people on the opposite side of the globe. "Why don't they know?"

Why would they?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

That makes a lot of sense to me Anthony. I can tell you that I was born in America and have lived here my whole life. I can tell you that I have never cared about Europe, never looked to them as a model for anything, never been envious of Europe, and never had any desire to go there either. And I feel that way about the rest of the globe as well. I guess that categorizes me as anti-globalist, un-enlightened, and perhaps even dangerously jingoistic. I do not have the Liberal East & West coast's sophistication and intellectualism on the subject of foreign cultures and politics, and I never desired to. Now pass me a Bud and the bag of pork rinds!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:14 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I really feel it's just very different to be an American trying to understand or deeply care about Europe. For many of us, they really might as well be from another planet.

--Anthony

Totally agree with you Anthony - It's about the same travel time from London to Paris as it is from Columbus to Cleveland, OH. Europeans know more about America because - sadly - they import more of what we produce (our so called culture is even a product) than we import of European culture. (France is McDonald's 2nd largest market).

While it's not as different as London is from Paris, there's a hell of lot of variety right here in this country to keep people busy and happy, all drivable, pretty cheap, and no language barrier except certain parts of South Carolina and Alabama.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:20 AM

Whereas I live in Utah, but my family has saved up enough money to go to Europe four times now. The history is interesting, and best seen, understood, and imagined in person. My relatives have gone more often than I have, but usually a day or so on business.

However... I don't disagree that most Americans won't go, and increasingly, as European nations are seen as antagonistic towards the United States, many people stubbornly don't want to go. That Freedom Fry nonsense a few years back probably doesn't make 'em particularly keen on visiting Paris, even though French Fries have got nothing to do with France.

I also see a lot of "my country is the best in the world!" among Americans. Our propaganda in history text books and social studies introduced from grade four onwards have seen well to that. At one point we were a superpower, but we've lost a lot of our economic clout and respectability in the last ten, twenty years or so. Perhaps some people are reluctant to see the writing on the wall, and hold on tighter to a level of patriotism that seems increasingly delusional.

It's okay to love your country, but to profess it's the greatest, right NOW...? Can't substantiate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:39 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Byte,

It has been my lifelong ambition to visit Spain someday. My family has roots there, and if I don't see the namesake of my surname before I die, I will be a sad Panda.

But I might not make it. It's no sure thing. Any time I get a few thousand dollars together, there always seems to be something else to do. Home remodeling, car repair, vet bills. I can't seem to get far enough ahead that all of my local needs are met sufficiently that I can take off to a distant country.

I'm a bit envious sometimes of my Uncle Bill, who was in the Air Force. He's seen practically every European country you can name. He's also done rather well for himself financially- well enough that he's one of the few family members who has toured the majority of the United States' famous places. I haven't yet seen the famous Museums and Natural Wonders of my own country, much less any place in Europe or even Mexico.

Someday. I say Someday a lot.

But maybe never, if I'm honest with myself. And I am someone who actually has a desire to go.

For many people, getting together several thousand dollars to go visit a European nation just has no allure. If they had the money, they'd find something local to spend it on.

Maybe they'd visit the faraway lands of New York or California, if anywhere. Soak in some of that exotic Hollywood culture for a week. Or maybe visit the Grand Canyon, Mount Rushmore, or Disney World. If I wanted, I could spend a decade touring the US, stopping only briefly in each new town, and not see it all. It might take me a whole year just to visit all the places considered 'notable.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:02 AM

Makes sense, and good luck on Spain. I hear the culture is laid back, and there's a good night life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I knew about the East India Company, but for some reason I never really connected them with the modern day corporation. It's obvious now.

I hadn't even really thought of the industrial revolution companies as particularly corporate in nature, but the parallels are there, as are some parallels with the cotton/tobacco and slave labour industries in the south. And the early oil tycoons like Rockefeller.

For some reason my brain glitched and was thinking corporations sprung up from almost nowhere in 1920. Wow.

That is because Anarchists and the four pole alliance started REALLY standing up to them about that time, having realized that peaceful protest accomplishes nothing without THREAT behind it.

Which resulted in the powers that be manufacturing the first "Red Scare" cause Socialists and Communists were originally part of that alliance, till they slammed a knife in our backs in Catalonia - Labor Unions were the third member, but they sold us out for a pat on the head from corporate-created unions under Sam Gompers like the AFL-CIO, which used to break IWW strikes against WWI under the thin veil of "patriotism".

This is what it's always been about.
Always.

"Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
Philip Pullman - The Subtle Knife

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:02 AM

Tony

Could you please limit image sizes that are not of sexy girls. These cause serious horizontal scrollbars for me making the text of this thread unreadable (notice how I dug around for smaller flags for my previous post)

If you would kindly edit your post, and replace with this image, I can tell people that they can get the large image by clicking on view image, and replace the word "Small" with the work "Medium" or the world "Large" in the URL bar.

Thanks

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Why is America so completely and utterly hysterical about public health? For us on the outside looking at the debate, it's puzzling, and indicates how little many Americans care to look to other places in the world at what works (rather than considering that everywhere else is rather second rate compared to god's own country).

You know, all first world countries apart from yourselves have some form of public health, have had it for some time actually. Some systems have worked better than others, they have their flaws, but what it hasn't led to -

Government control over life and death - unlike - hey the United States which already grants that to it's state governments who carry out state sanctioned murder.

An increase in profits for the government - who benefit most from no public health options are drug companies and insurance companies who already practice corporate medicine

People being refused treatment - wait that happens in the US when you can't pay, right? Here, you would never be turned away from a public hospital with a condition that required treatment. Are there limits to what services you can get for public treatments? Sure, you can't get cosmetic surgery or breast implants (unless you have had a mastectomy) and you might have to wait for elective surgery. But guess what - you can get whatever service you want when you want, if you pay. You can get alternative medicines to your hearts content - you can use voodoo if that is what you want to do. But tax payers money won't be subsidising you to do so.

Does it lead to tyranny and government interference in our lives? Not so i've noticed, but then I'm probably experiencing insidious mind control from the free vaccinations that I've received.

So either -

Americans don't really believe that the rest of the world exists except in the Foreign Movies section of the DVD store, and a collection of places with accents so that you can have bad guys in movies

or

That the rest of world is a bucket of poo and everybody wants to live in the US only you won't let us in

or

America is worse, corrupt and more incompetent than other countries, so that even though they successfully administer public health systems without the catastrophies predicted by all those in the US who oppose public health, it couldn't be done efficiently or well in the US. And because government is so bad in the US, it will immediately result in a tyranny which will implement crazed eugenics programs and ethnic cleansing.

I agree with a lot of that, but make the same statement Mike did; people aren’t turned away from hospitals.

On the other hand, they can’t get health insurance unless they can pay the premiums, have no “pre-existing conditions”, don’t cost too much so the insurance companies dump them, and have treatment refused by insurance companies. So those people do without unless something dramatic happens; ergo, cancer isn’t diagnosed in time, nor diabetes, high blood pressure, and dozens of other things that result In the person’s death because it wasn’t caught in time.

As to America’s attitudes, Anthony got most of it:-

Quote:
I don't think this is way off base, but I think it is more a product of circumstance than Apathy.

In Europe, it is difficult to sneeze without landing germs on another country. Some countries have railways and tunnels connecting them. Interacting with foreigners and visiting foreign countries is common. International politics is more personal in Europe, where you can leave your house in the morning and be in another country by evening. The 'distant lands' you read about in the International section of the newspaper are literally 'right over there.' When warfare has touched the lives of Europeans, it hasn't been across the wide ocean, but rather across their front yards. Everything is connected in Europe, and has been for more generations than I can guess.

But in the US, you are unlikely to visit more than a handful of states in your lifetime, and might see less than 10% of your own nation. Most people haven't visited a foreign country with the possible exception of a caribbean island, Mexico, or Canada. Ever since 1812, our wars have been distant affairs. European countries might as well be on Mars to us. Many Americans will never meet a European native. To a New Yorker, Alabama is foreign territory. To an Alabaman, Europe is just a story in the newspaper. The rest of the world only becomes vaguely important in times of war or when some foreign nation is accused of absorbing our job supply.

It's a completely different attitude in America because it's a completely different situation.

I’ve lived in Asia and traveled Europe and Asia, and I admit the attitude of Americans, both tourists and those living overseas, reflects entirely too much condescension and superiority for my liking. (The Brits were guilty of the same when they were an empire, and others as well). I see the same attitude, along with a lot of misconceptions, by Americans here…especially those in rural areas who are never exposed to anything beyond their narrow elements. It’s something I’ve always said; if only ALL Americans had to travel across the “Pond” at least once in their lives, you’d see a vast difference in attitudes. We’re the poorer for it.

Wulf,

Quote:
Um, because we are our OWN country.

We've given ourselves the RIGHT to decide what works best for US. Just cause it works for you, in your country, doesn't mean it will work here.

Us silly Americans prefer to think for ourselves.

That’s pretty naïve sounding, to me; if you think we actually are our “own” country, I’m not sure what you think other countries are; if you think we think for ourselves and that means we’re better, I’d advise you to look at how little our government and representatives reflect what we “think” (those of us who bother to). I agree with Mike, that’s what you’ve been LED to believe, not actual fact.

Quote:
Well, over half the country has thought for themselves and decided that we would like a different health care system. So why don't we have it?

Yes, Cuda, and it’s more than half actually…the numbers have been consistent all along, yet we all know politics and lobbyists stand in the way of getting it and are quite content to ignore the public’s needs.

I’m with DT about state health care. We’ve got good care here in CA, too, state provided. It’s definitely good; Jo lived here for almost five years on it, and in a couple of cases got better care than I did on an insurance plan. I wouldn’t want to see that go by any means, but at the same time, only those states who have it benefit from it, while the rest of the people who need it in states that DON’T provide it…are screwed.

I, too, don’t expect anything good to come of the health care reform; to me, it’s a simple matter of “individual mandate with no public option is purely a gimme for the insurance companies”, and I’m afraid that’s what we’ll end up with, sadly.

Quote:
They'll also have you believe that our Constitution makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world, but that same great Constitution CAN NOT HELP PROTECT US FROM TERRORISTS, and that if you rely on our Constitution when prosecuting terror suspects, then the terrorists will win, hands down, and there's no way you can ever stop them if you prosecute them like common criminals, instead of elevating them to the status of war heroes and martyrs. So while our Constitution is great, it's not really, y'know, GREAT. And the only way to protect our constitutional rights is to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way of what we really want to do.

Sadly, most Americans are really just fine living with these kinds of hypocrisies screaming around in their heads.

Yeah, I heard that one, and it should be a thread unto itself. The Republicans are the ones sending the message to the terrorists that we’re afraid of them with all their fear tactics; prosecuting them as mere criminals rather than martyrs sends the message that we refuse to be terrorized by them. But you won’t hear that from anyone on the right; once again, they only want to disapprove of and rail against ANYTHING this administration tries to do. I sure wish that would stop; if they’d work TOGETHER, maybe something could be done.

p.s. I agree about big images, too; the scrolling on my screen is jerky and makes me dizzy! I can at least ignore PN's huge images because I don't read his threads/posts, which is a blessing in more ways than one!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Magonsdaughter,

How does the average American know that the health care programs in Europe (or even Australia) are 'working?' He knows that the people in these countries are not all dead. We can tell because we get a lot of Australian actors making American films. We can also watch films like Australia and Crocodile Dundee and see that Australia is an adventurous land far away where rugged people live.

If we really dig into the foreign films, we might even learn that Australia had a big dish that served the US space program during a pivotal moment in its television history. But otherwise the place seems like untamed pastures.

This is reinforced by our direct cultural exposure to Australia, which comes in the form of Outback restaurants, located in almost every major metropolis, where the backwoods nature of Australia is emphasized and exploited to delight the spirit of adventure that dwells in the heart of every American, provided he can enjoy that spirit in a comfortable booth with air conditioning and a beer.

So, what do we know about Australian Health care? Australians aren't dead. And neither are we.

What do we know about foreigners in general? They all want to come to the U.S. to learn and live. We must truly be the bright and shiny star of the world, else they'd all presumably stay home.

What is it, in our average cultural exposure to Europe, Australia, or even Canada that should mightily convince us that your Health Care (of all things) is superior to ours? Why on Earth would anyone choose to move to the US from Europe (or any other place- met my first Aussie when I was 19) if their Health and opportunity was so vibrant and ours was so tarnished?

This is the reason that both political parties can point to Canada or England and say, "Look at their Health Care and see how it Works!" trying to make opposite points. We have no exposure or idea about other nations. We only know what we're told, and we are told vastly different things.

I never lived in Australia. Most people here haven't, and so have no frame of reference about being sick there. Meanwhile, Australians who have had public health care since 1975 can shake their heads at the mystifying reluctance of people on the opposite side of the globe. "Why don't they know?"

Why would they?

--Anthony

B]

Wow!

Not that I'd expect you to care about Australia in particular, but there are WHO ratings and information freely available on line about different health care systems and how they work.

A lot of counties (ours included) would look to other models in other countries when making decisions about implementing new programs - any new programs. It's called research! You may not choose any one, but you would see how things worked (or didn't) elsewhere, rather than reinventing the wheel. Doesn't that kind of make sense to you?

I know that we have looked to Europe and the US (and anywhere else) for solutions for a variety of issues. It seems that the US is too proud to do the same - or considers that they alone can come up with solutions. Sounds like hubris to me.

The poster who said 'don't know, don't care, never been there, never will' is astonishingly ignorant, and frankly missing out on a big wide fabulous and diverse world to explore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 20, 2009 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magonsdaughter

Actually, you come from Britain, or Europe should I say [/snark]

Unless I happen to be Aboriginal, right?

But I guess we all come from Africa if you go far enough back.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Magonsdaughter,

What do we know about foreigners in general? They all want to come to the U.S. to learn and live. We must truly be the bright and shiny star of the world, else they'd all presumably stay home.

You don't think that people move around the world in general? That foreigners only go to the US to work and study and live? I've been to a number of places in the world (only lived in two countries though) and I can tell you, the world's population is very fluid. Yes, even Americans choose to live in other countries occasionally.

People are attracted to opportunity, generally. I doubt anyone would go and live somewhere because of the healthcare, although I know people travel to get healthcare. Believe it or not, I have met Americans who have travelled to Australia for particular treatments.

And although you might not know much about others health care, people generally know about the one in the US. We know that we have to pay the highest travel insurance premiums possible to visit in case we get sick (unlike travelling in Europe).

We know that whenever we talk about health care reforms, we look to France or Canada, but no one ever says - hey let's do what the Americans do, there's a great system.

People I've known who wanted to move to the US did so for the opportunities (or did - I'm not sure since the GFC) because you could make bigger bucks there in a number of industries than you can here - because of the innovation in a number of industries and education. But for the healthcare - no, I don't think so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:58 AM

Magonsdaughter

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you earlier posted that you were from Britain, and came to Australia later in life. You ranted about Britain under Thatcher, praised Tony Blair, unless I have you confused with another Aussie.

I wouldn't say you were from Britain because some of your genes game from Britain, it's my understanding that there's more Irish blood in Australia than English, as is true of the US, anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:21 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
[B
We've given ourselves the RIGHT to decide what works best for US. Just cause it works for you, in your country, doesn't mean it will work here.

And yet, even with a majority supporting Heath Care reform, and a public option - why are you so against what we as a country want?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magonsdaughter

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you earlier posted that you were from Britain, and came to Australia later in life. You ranted about Britain under Thatcher, praised Tony Blair, unless I have you confused with another Aussie.

I wouldn't say you were from Britain because some of your genes game from Britain, it's my understanding that there's more Irish blood in Australia than English, as is true of the US, anyway.

Oh no, I'm an Aussie - you are correct that I am of predominantly irish descent like many Australians. I lived in the Uk during the late 80's and early 90's. I wouldn't rave about Tony Blair, but I certainly can't stand Thatcher.

Like the US, Australia has had waves of Immigrants - Irish, English early on, Chinese during the goldrush, Italians and other Europeans early 19th century - huge waves of Europeans (mostly Southern - Italian, Greek) post WW2, then Vietnamees and from other partts of Asia 70's onwards, Turky and Middle Easterners and the Balkans finally we seem to have a lot from parts of Africa.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Us silly Americans prefer to think for ourselves.

BWAHAhAhAhA!!!!

I guess that's why we listen to preachers, lobbyists, and advertisers more than any other developed nation in the world??? Because we think for ourselves????

Sheesh!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:55 PM

Yeah, and really, no one said anything about not thinking for yourselves. Of course you make up your own minds.

But it's a bit like deciding to invent the electric car and sweating over the designs, without looking at the designs that other people have come up with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:21 AM