Is Obama socialist or fascist?

Sometimes it seems like 150,the way everything is now. Anyway,thanks ,Odon. I didn't realize there were differant types of single payer there. I'm going back and check out the WIKI.

Checked it out. 60 years and counting. People here seem to be totally subject to the right-wing spiel about single payer and how it would be such a cat-ass-trophy if everyone had good medical care.

 

"individual systems" is slightly misleading.
It's organised in different ways - under one banner. It's not perfect, either.

E.G
NHS primary care trust (PCT) is a type of NHS trust, part of the National Health Service in England. PCTs commission primary, community and secondary care from providers. Until 31 May 2011 they also provided community services directly. Collectively PCT are responsible for spending around 80% of the total NHS budget. Primary Care Trusts are scheduled for abolition on 31 March 2013.
PCTs have their own budgets and set their own priorities, within the overriding priorities and budgets set by the relevant Strategic Health Authority, and the Department of Health. They provide funding for general practitioners and medical prescriptions; they also commission hospital and mental health services from appropriate NHS trusts or from the private sector. Many PCTs are now calling themselves NHS and then the name of their geographical area to make it easier for local people to understand how the NHS is managed locally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_primary_care_trust

Our friend could also go private if he wanted to

 

Well no, I'm not exactly saying that. I think that government healthcare could work, in a perfect society. Everyone contributes to the "pot," and it somehow comes back to the people. Sadly, I don't see that to be the case. Every dollar we give to the federal government goes to making BIGGER government, and a lot of people say, "Oh that's good, they're creating more jobs." But in reality they are only creating new GOVERNMENT jobs, which are paid by the taxpayer, hence it increases our deficit. The fact of the matter is that although these "socialists" ideas are belayed before us as help for the middle class and poor, it's just secretly more taxes, and LESS freedom.

Well America's dollar is no longer based on gold, it's based on bad debt and the stock market, which in the past few decades has been manipulated by our federal government. So in other words, we're economic slaves. Every dollar that's printed, loaned and, distributed, was only made off the idea that we can never pay back this endless loan. That is to say, if we returned every dollar that the federal reserve created, we would STILL owe them money.

Well I stick with my point made above. I have read all about Obamacare, and everywhere I read says it's a new tax (based off of someones income.) But I don't NEED insurance, like you said. So is it fair to FORCE me to pay a new tax to this Government Corporate Monopoly? Bringing the firemen up is completely dry, there are many volenteer firefighters here in America. Taxes may pay for their firetrucks and firehouses, but do you honestly think a local government couldn't take care of that? In fact, I'm sure many do..

Look, I don't know much about the UK's NHS. I don't know how it works for the citizens, or if it is a mandated tax, but if so, yes I think it's wrong. People shouldn't be forced to buy something the don't want or need. We've developed this idea that somehow it's morally correct to impose our will onto others, if it's the "majority vote." It's been proven time and time again, that sometimes one person is more informed than the "majority vote," of a hundred people! So I don't feel like I should have to speak any further. With Obamacare in action, everyone will be paying a PERCENTAGE of their salary. The Obama Administration keeps saying "this is not a tax," and blah blah blah. However, it only passed the Supreme Court because it IS a tax.

So, as you can see it's complicated. But to say the least, the government is notoriously bad with money, and I don't wish to contribute any more so to their diluted dimension of addiction. It has been said that, "for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction." I am a reaction to the current state of the American Government. In all my 23 years of life, the government has done nothing to make me think they're doing a good job, telling us the truth or, spending our money in a helpful and bountiful way. The 1% are getting richer, because they pick our leaders and hence their policy.

I hope I cleared it up for you a little. I respect the idea of helping, but I think there are better ways to do it...

 

Bed time - I'll pick this up later.

 

The thing is that ‘governance’ of one type or another is going to exist, since no human society has ever existed without some form of ‘governance’. The whole history of political thought has been about striving for some form of ‘good’ governance over what might be seen as ‘bad’ governance.

It seems to me that many Americans due to long indoctrination have come to see any ‘government’ as ‘bad’ not in an anarchical sense of wanting ‘no government’ but of distrust and enmity toward something that they feel isn’t working for them or doesn’t help them. That government is to them a problem not a solution to anything.

This means they stop striving for better governance and instead retreat into a ‘rugged individualist’ approach of wanting little to do with ‘society’ in a community sense.

The problem I see with this approach is that it just encourages ‘bad’ forms of governance because it means governance falls into the hands of those with the power and influence to drive policy, and it is not surprising that it is often right wing propaganda that encourages the ‘rugged individualist’ approach (a strong theme within anti-communist and neoliberal / free market thinking).

 

Obama-the best republican since Nixon :smoking:

 

StpLSD25:
First off, I'm not 100% sure what type of system you prefer.
Secondly, I would say, investigate further how the UK (NHS) model works/why it was introduced (a major factor was WWII) and what the system was like before (Heads up: A mess) - you may, infact, see that it is a good idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yrvb3 (Not sure if you can watch it - could not find it on Youtube).

I would say neither the UK or the US governments (of any persuasion) wish to have a system where the only people that have access to medical care are those who are insured.

There does seem to be a medical aid pie (public/private - the NHS also uses private companies) in both countries - it's a question of how much of that pie is private/public.

Both the UK and US have government 'Health Departments' - which govern the public and private sector.
We also have NICE ( National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) which regulates the care available within the NHS.
I presume the US has about 26 governing bodies that do this too - instead of one (more bureaucracy).

It seems that in the US the private sector is more dominant than the public sector, due to - as Balbus has pointed out - ‘rugged individualism'.
It gives the illusion of choice, freedom and individualism.

What seems to occur in the US is that you end up paying atleast twice.
You do pay for a form of 'socialised care'.
Then you pay - again - to companies that make a profit from your care.
Which seems absurd to me.

For the sake of argument, I think, approx £1000 (per person / per annum) of NI (National Insurance - a tax levied on earned income) contributes to the NHS - also corporate taxation and sales taxes (VAT).
If you fall below the NI tax threshold you do not pay any NI - and effectively don't contribute that much to the NHS (but still receive the same level of care).

You say that people should not buy (or pay for) care they do not need.
But I go back to my point about one day you will, and people do even if you don't.
Perhaps you could let me know how much your medical insurance is (or an average cost to a US citizen) and how much of your taxes pay for 'socialised' medicare/aid and all the other myriad of medical care that is government funded (Child care/Veteran services etc - we have both under the NHS: http://www.tewv.nhs.uk/veterans / http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/social-care-services/Pages/children-services.aspx ).

This seems to be your healthcare system: :juggle:

I imagine the point about Firefighters/Police etc is 'dry' - is because it is not so ideological.
It doesn't provoke so much controversy (aka boring).

I think we pay approx 12% Income tax and that pays for the the majority of services.
I don't have to worry about that much.
Care/services are there when I need it (or don't). Fairly simple/straightforward.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...ar/20/budget-2012-how-taxes-spent-interactive

If you're employed you pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions. The rates are:
If you earn more than £146 a week and up to £817 a week, you pay 12 per cent of the amount you earn between £146 and £817
If you earn more than £817 a week, you also pay 2 per cent of all your earnings over £817.

Tax breakdown for £25,500 salary

£2,080 Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits)
£1,094 on the NHS
£824 on Education
£339 on Defence
£160 on the Police
£44 on Prisons
£92 on Roads
£71 on Railways
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16744819

 

I get that. I'm not sure how it relates... : /

 

It doesn't.

 

I agree with all of this, and I am actually impressed at your insight, Balbus! I think you pretty much described how I feel about the American government. But our government has been evil and corrupt for a long time.

This is where our opinion differs. First of all, you're acting like I'm brainwashed by the right. I'm not! If you actually understood what the American government is doing, you'd understand why I feel this way. Our tax money endlessly goes into these failing businesses and programs. Our government claimed one year, that they had spent 100,000 dollars on one roll of toilet paper. Not to mention the abuses in food stamps and government welfare, in which, they were giving the Music millionaire Ol' Dirty Bastard a welfare check. Meanwhile he took his Limo to go get his government check. I respect you man. But I'm not brainwashed by the right in anyway. I'm just more aware than people on the left. Because more government, more spending and, more TAXES, isn't going to help anything!


Secondly, there's no difference in the two political parties. I'm not voting for Romney just because he's supposed to be Conservative. Obviously, I'm not voting for Obama because he's a liar and a con artist. Frankly, I don't give a fuck if he's fascist or socialist. Because the laws he's passing feels like we're living in both.

Now Americans have to be afraid of FELONY charges for merely protesting around secret service. The left doesn't want to change that! In fact, Obama signed the law, and Liberals/Democrats STILL love the guy. I think he should be tried for 3 Acts of Treason on the American people: The NDAA, HR 347 and, re-enstating the Patriot Act!! (He's lucky I believe in Due Process of law, cause he thinks we don't NEED trials to tell us if someone is guilty.

 

StpLSD25, is my reply unworthy of a reply?

 

Sorry Odon, I didn't see this. Let me hit my bowl and think about all this.

Well firstly, for the Americans on this page, BBC is like Fox News- A government propaganda machine. So of course they're going to say their health insurance plan is fantastic. But no, I don't like the idea, because the private sector is in control of America, and our program will vary in the most important ways.

Are you insinuating that the government gives me individuality? Frankly, that's a crazy suggestion. The government doesn't control Libertarians, if anything, the people being controlled are the one's saying "Give us welfare, give us healthcare," because they're developing an unhealthy NEED for the Federal Government. But the Government can't really give you anything, can they? No, because every dollar the government has is stolen from everyone else! In other words, Charities would and can, take the place of government dependencies. Many rich people like giving to Charities, it makes them feel important, and it's tax deductible (LOL.)

I think 1/25th of our entire earnings is still too much. I think it's irrelevant that other people need health insurance, because it doesn't help me at all to pay into this pot that does nothing for me. IMO this type of thinking, that empathizes with the "poor," is half of Americas problem that's destroying the middle class. (The other half being filthy rich stock brokers and banksters who receive government money, yet don't think they have to pay taxes.)

 

^^^Thank you, Rush Limbaugh:coffee:

 

I like how people try to pigeonhole each other for their views. Really smart.

 

Then you know even less about the BBC than you do about the NHS.
The BBC is absolutely nothing like Fox News.
It was not saying the NHS is fantastic.
It was showing the history of the NHS.

How so?

Like I said, work out how much of your earnings are being spent on your version of 'socialised' care, and how much you pay in insurance.

It does help you, though. If nothing else, please work out how much insurance you pay a year, and how much you would pay for treatment. Perhaps not now but later. Do a cost analysis and see which one is cheaper for you (our model/your model).

NHS 'Socialised' healthcare has nothing to do with poor/rich/middleclass etc. It is equal.


I'll ask again: what kind of system do you want?

 

Who is doing that?

 

The only REAL candidate-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxXy7n8CVAM

 

> < - are you against abortion rights too?

 

Ayn Rand was a ****. That is all.