Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:32 am
by TimD
Hey Wouter, I don't think ironman ws referring to the quality of medicine in the social system, but rather the availability. There is no doubt in my mind the quality of Dr's that can perform certain proceedures is about equal on both sides of the pond. They have recently run some documentaries over here, comparing the 2 systems, and what appeared to be the main gripe (this was Canada and the UK's system vs the US system), was the waiting time, especially for certain very critical proceedures that may mean life and death. They showe a couple that came down from Vancouver for a critical proceeure, because they were on about a 7 month long waiting list, so opted to come here and pay for it. Granted, this was an extreme example. I think a mixture of the two , like what Romney did, Clinton is proposing, and similar to what Ironman stated is probably the way to go. Massachusetts made it mandatory for ALL persons to be medically covered, with the stste and in some cases the HMO's (this is the good part-forcing HMO's to start keeping costs down), to pay the difference. I don't know all the particulars, but it seems to be Govt intervention along with the private sector seems to be working. I don't know, the health care issue is a big one, and the answers aren't black and white. Funny how a lot of major issues are like that.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:52 am
by Wouter
Hmm, I see, missed his point then sorry for that.
But really I can only speak about my country, but I do not know if there is waiting list, if it is it will be a very small list. If you have serious problem you will get treated as soon as possible, but I haven't heard of anyone dying here because he/she had to wait.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:07 am
by stuward
People have died in Canada waiting for treatment. There is a shortage of MRIs especially. My brother in law's father died while waiting for a kidney transplant. I still think the Candian model works but it could be improved. They are playing around with the idea of using private contractors for some procedures. I'm sure there ia a happy medium somewhere.

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:46 pm
by Ironman
Yea, that is what I am talking about. We should socialize only the insurance. Not the hospitals and doctors offices. Because people wait for care, and it is often degraded when that is socialized. Insurance is already socialism, so why not go all the way with it. Then you could have QUALITY health care available to EVERYONE.

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:15 pm
by tyler
I personally am a liberal...but believe it or not, I like Mike Huckabee. His Christian Views vary ALOT more than mine...but he doesn't seem to let his christian views determine EVERYTHING, just some of his stances. I think he could work well for the economy and whatnot with what he has done for Arkansas...but other than that the only other republican I would throw any trust at is John McCain. Other than that...I wouldn't want any republicans being president.

Seeing as how I am pretty liberal...I would vote for Barack Obama if he gets the nomination. I'd probably vote for Hilliary over any of the republican candiates own prejudices again republicans for that reason. Call me dumb, but its hard to let the last 8 years go right now, and more of the same is not what we need. Other than that I like John Edwards, but even he just seems like more of the same. So hats off to Barack. He gets my vote!

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:11 am
by Ironman
Huckabee scares me. He seems like a right wing ultra-religious nut to me. I'd even take H-dog over that. [South Park reference for Hilary]

Barak Obama took Iowa, so I'm pretty happy about that.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:37 am
by stuward
I know Iowa is no predictor of the ultimate outcome but it's nice to see outsiders doing well. Even if they are not successful some of their ideas may survive.


Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:47 am
by TimD
I'm happy w/ the outcomes. The more I listen to Gov Huckabee, and see him closing in on the center, the less he scares me. I really don't think we are talking a theocracy here. Sounds more closer to a very religious man with good, centrist common sense, that can work w/others.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:58 pm
by Ironman
That's what I thought about Bush in 2000 and we all know how that turned out.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:16 pm
by Matt Z
I don't think Bush is very religious man. I think he merely caters to Conservative Christian voters.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:31 pm
by Ironman
Ok, well I'll admit I don't know for sure if Bush is religious or not. But he does the will of people who are, like you said.

Really I don't care if someone is religious or not. I just don't like those policies being put into law where they are forced on me.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:33 pm
by Matt Z
I think the Bush camp figured out early on that they didn't need majority approval to win elections, since the majority of Americans don't vote anyway. So, instead of reaching out to moderates, they appealed to his base, ensuring that core conservatives turned out in force on election day.

This strategy might have backfired, except that the Democrats were apparently following the same strategy, appealing to core liberal voters. Consequently, many moderates sat out the 2000 and 2004 elections, while those who did vote were split pretty evenly between two candidates that didn't really represent them.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:41 pm
by Matt Z
Of course, if recent trends continue a true moderate from either party could easily win the presidency, provided they can get past the primaries (admittedly a big if).

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:59 pm
by Matt Z
Of course, I probably should have put "Conservative Christian", since it's kind of a loaded term. For example, the Catholic Church is typically regarded as ultra-conservative for it's stances on abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and homosexuality. However, the Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty, typically regarded as a very liberal stance. Likewise, very few Catholics are strict creationists.

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:07 pm
by Ironman
Yea, that's what it looked like to me too. It was a pretty sorry affair. Gore was a pretty bad candidate and Kerry wasn't much better. This year we might actually get someone worth voting for.

It looks like trouble brewing in the Republican party between the traditional small government conservatives and the religious right. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Here is more about Huckabee ... QD8TE6AB00 ... -religion/ ... kabee.html ... 70314.html