NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

1.) Technically the US is a single nation.

2.) True.

3.) Good point.

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

You might want to re-read the 14th amendment.


2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general.

Hmm? The Brits wanted money for providing a military for the frontier? They started cutting down on smuggling? It's a little more then simple taxation.


Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

Business has been failing. Business can't provide a solution for heath care as it's profit driven.

Businessmen do not like the fact Doctors find cheap alternatives to expensive procedures(actual comment from a group that ran 120 hospitals).

Businessmen would not like preventative care. For example, a national neo-natal care would solve many problems and save tons of money.


3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

Businessmen are just as bad. You do know many services were "outsourced" right. Haliburtan ring a bell?

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I wouldn't say any of the big problems with America are crap and the idea that anyone focuses on nationalized healthcare is laughable when state religion and insane foreign policies can be just as fun :)

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

I count 3, I forgot about American education :p

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

well the E.U isn't even a military alliance and yet even that manages to keep an eye on human rights

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

universal healthcare =/= high taxes (the idea that it causes higher taxes is redundant when it saves enormous amounts of government money no?)

I could also point out the fact that the revolution had little to do with actual taxing, but I'd rather just sit here and laugh really

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

Iraq has turned out pretty well actually, considering it was an impossible battle and that congress had nothing to do with it especially control over lets say British troops

Out of interest have you ever been to Canada or made thread that didn’t involve masturbating to the flag?

...

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country...

2) Yadda yadda yadda.

3) Yadda yadda yadda.

I would like to respond by telling you two things:

1) Yes, the US is a single country.

2.) You suck at counting.

...Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising...

Have you ever checked the statistics on how much the US spends on healthcare per capita compared to the UK? Can you guess whether the amount is larger or smaller? Which do you think?

You might want to re-read the 14th amendment.

What part of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to spend money on medical services?

Hmm? The Brits wanted money for providing a military for the frontier? They started cutting down on smuggling? It's a little more then simple taxation.

Apparently, we are quite adept at providing for our own military needs :)

Businessmen would not like preventative care. For example, a national neo-natal care would solve many problems and save tons of money.

If implemented at the state level.

Remember, Congress destroys everything that it touches...

Businessmen are just as bad. You do know many services were "outsourced" right. Haliburtan ring a bell?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Haliburtan

dp

Remember, Congress destroys everything that it touches...
Well damn! I never knew that! Congress has only been touching things for over 200 years and the country still seems to be there.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

NATO couldn't force its member nations to stay by force. The US did during the Civil War. It's not a voluntary union anymore, but one that is essentially maintained by one side having more guns than the other.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

Seconded.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

Also seconded.

Apparently, we are quite adept at providing for our own military needs :)

that’s why after the war of independence America couldn’t afford to pay the troops and the nation was left wondering if independence was the right idea especially considering it was now being arse raped by Britain in trade anyway

Also up until lets say 1944 the American military was quit frankly terrible you only need to look at the slaughters of American troops in WWI which basically involved ignoring the lessons learnt from the previous years

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Haliburtan

*dies*

Well damn! I never knew that! Congress has only been touching things for over 200 years and the country still seems to be there.

Really?

*looks out window*

I guess you're right... :D

I wouldn't say any of the big problems with America are crap and the idea that anyone focuses on nationalized healthcare is laughable when state religion and insane foreign policies can be just as fun :)

State religion? The UK has an official, government-sanctioned church. The US doesn't. As for foreign policy, watch "Team America: World Police" sometime.

I count 3, I forgot about American education :p

Yes, Congress managed to fuck that up as well...

well the E.U isn't even a military alliance and yet even that manages to keep an eye on human rights

The US virtually invented the idea of human rights, and aside from the War on Drugs and a few mischief-makers at Gitmo, we continue to lead in this regard.

universal healthcare =/= high taxes (the idea that it causes higher taxes is redundant when it saves enormous amounts of government money no?)

How does government funding for something lead to a reduction in government spending? That's kind of contradictory, no?

I could also point out the fact that the revolution had little to do with actual taxing, but I'd rather just sit here and laugh really

Go ahead and laugh. Meanwhile, I'll take pride in the fact that our tax rates are still the lowest in the civilized world.

Iraq has turned out pretty well actually, considering it was an impossible battle and that congress had nothing to do with it especially control over lets say British troops

Right. Congress had nothing to do with the joint resolution against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html). Go ahead and believe that.

Out of interest have you ever been to Canada or made thread that didn’t involve masturbating to the flag?

No, I have not been to Canada.

Yes, I have never made a thread involving masturbation.

Also up until lets say 1944 the American military was quit frankly terrible you only need to look at the slaughters of American troops in WWI which basically involved ignoring the lessons learnt from the previous years


We seemed to be handling the Japanese in the Pacific quite well. As I recall, the Royal navy didn't do much over there. Aside from losing a Battleship and a Battlecruiser in one lovely afternoon of bombing.

EDIT:Oh, and as far as WWI goes...

1. We pretty much had to build an army from scratch (for an unjust war, IMHO)

2. This was our first exposure to the brutality of Trench warfare. Forgive us for not being psychics.

3. We were under the direct command of british and french generals. Forgive us for not being supermen, and getting slaughtered right beside you.

1) Australia started out as a set of individual colonies, which became one country after a vote (not a war) in 1902. We are far younger than most (if not all) other 1st world nations.

2) Aussies hate taxes too. Bt we see them as necessary to ensure the growth of our country, for the development of necessary services such as education and medical care.

3) Every political system has its failings. If it is Congress that is the issue with how America is perceived internationally, why not do something? Why not move for compulsory voting, so that Congress (and the Senate, for that matter) is truly representative of your nation's people?

And I personally don't trash America. I feel that there are some issues that America could handle better, but I don't feel the need to blame everyday Americans for the failure of their politicians and/or political system.

(Just as a quick note - almost everything I know about the American political system has been gleaned from my watching West Wing)

How does government funding for something lead to a reduction in government spending? That's kind of contradictory, no?

You are, of course, well aware that at present the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than the UK, without even managing to provide a universal system free at the point of delivery for all that money, yes?

The US virtually invented the idea of human rights, and aside from the War on Drugs and a few mischief-makers at Gitmo, we continue to lead in this regard.

Go ahead and laugh. Meanwhile, I'll take pride in the fact that our tax rates are still the lowest in the civilized world.

Yes, I have never made a thread involving masturbation.

Hahaha... you really believe all that stuff? :D

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

Your conception is out-of-date, if it ever held (which is questionable.)

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes.

But we can't ever agree on cutting spending.

Why? Because we hate the government when it takes money from us. We love the government when it does stuff for us. And we want to have it both ways.

That's hardly libertarianism.

Also up until lets say 1944 the American military was quit frankly terrible you only need to look at the slaughters of American troops in WWI which basically involved ignoring the lessons learnt from the previous years


Good enough to come out ahead in a wide range of military engagements from the Barbary Coast to the Philippines, defeating and later stalemating the (then) top military in the world in 1814. I'd say that's a pretty good track record, despite the general degradation of military talent between wars. Today's expensive standing army might solve that problem, but I'd guess many here oppose it. :p Regardless where we go with 'socialized' medicine, we're at least consistent in keeping with the cutting edge of military technology. No more stagnant development between wars seems to be the conventional wisdom today.

State religion? The UK has an official, government-sanctioned church.

yes and its one of my favourite rants at the pub also your using "because Timmy does it" logic

then again my money doesn't have "in God we trust" printed on it or wars because God told us too

As for foreign policy, watch "Team America: World Police" sometime.

"oh herro rhere" :p

Yes, Congress managed to fuck that up as well..

you should write to your senator and ask what he’s doing with all the money and reform that was promised

The US virtually invented the idea of human rights, and aside from the War on Drugs and a few mischief-makers at Gitmo, we continue to lead in this regard.

1) no you really, really didn't

2) no you really, really don't (though how one manages to get a dirty human rights record in the west is beyond me)

linky slinky (http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n08hrts.html)

How does government funding for something lead to a reduction in government spending? That's kind of contradictory, no?

no it saves the government enormous amounts of money (and makes everyone a shed load but that’s beside the point) it thus can pass this saving onto you

though looking at US deficit a good tax hike might be in order

Go ahead and laugh. Meanwhile, I'll take pride in the fact that our tax rates are still the lowest in the civilized world.

I will do mostly because there not (please put that penis flag away)

Right. Congress had nothing to do with the joint resolution against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html). Go ahead and believe that.

no congress had nothing to do with fighting the war in Iraq that involves snazzy jobs like privates and rear admirals

No, I have not been to Canada.

you should go I heard it groovy ;) (plus you can see the economic collapse brought on by a NHS:p )

Yes, I have never made a thread involving masturbation.

so why the America 1# clap trap even when its been pointed out that none of them are true:confused:

we americans have no need to prove themselves to the rest of the inferior world

just kidding!

The United States, can be look at as 50 countries and sort of is. They are just, for the most part, strongly united.

Go ahead and laugh. Meanwhile, I'll take pride in the fact that our tax rates are still the lowest in the civilized world.

Not quite. Out corporate income tax is pretty high, though I doubt too many people here are going to weep for business, big or small.

As for personal income tax, we're quite low by Western standards, but not the lowest by some measurements. U.S. income tax is lower than other Westen countries in a few ways, but tax at the median income level is about 29%, which is lower than most but not all.

We seemed to be handling the Japanese in the Pacific quite well. As I recall, the Royal navy didn't do much over there. Aside from losing a Battleship and a Battlecruiser in one lovely afternoon of bombing.

...my brain just caught fire

EDIT:Oh, and as far as WWI goes...

*uses rubber*

1. We pretty much had to build an army from scratch (for an unjust war, IMHO)

yes that nearly cost the war but that has little to do with the example

2. This was our first exposure to the brutality of Trench warfare. Forgive us for not being psychics.

we told you everything you needed to know we even had troops come in to advise your troops unfortunately nobody listened instead it was like 1914 all over again

3. We were under the direct command of british and french generals.

actually no American served under foreign command the U.S was quite strict on this

Forgive us for not being supermen, and getting slaughtered right beside you.

the Somme was 1916 (and to note the French kicked arse during that battle)

Good enough to come out ahead in a wide range of military engagements from the Barbary Coast to the Philippines, defeating and later stalemating the (then) top military in the world in 1814.

Barbary coast was pirates, Philippines wasn’t what I’d call a fair fight, yes fighting Britain when its having much more important wars surely proves a point hell its not like we had to fight are greatest rivals led by a military genius or something:rolleyes:

How does government funding for something lead to a reduction in government spending? That's kind of contradictory, no?

You already spend loads of tax dollars on health care, more per capita the the UK or Canada and yet, for all that money being spent, you still don't have universal healthcare. Universal healthcare will allow more focus on preventative medicine, 'a stitch in time' so to speak, saving money in the long run by dealing with problems early.

Instead of skipping the doctor because they think it's minor and not worth the cost, people go get checked while the cancer's still small, not waiting until there's a tumor the size of Karl Rove on their spleen before they get it looked at.

The US virtually invented the idea of human rights, and aside from the War on Drugs and a few mischief-makers at Gitmo, we continue to lead in this regard.

Do you not look at the words after you've typed them and realise how ridiculous they sound? That's a pretty fucking big aside. It's like saying Henry VIII was the world's best husband... aside from when he was chopping his wife's head off.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries

Uh, no. It is a country. The states are called states. I dunno where you are getting this from.

We absolutely fucking hate taxes.

Well, I do. But "we" as a nation pay 20, 30+ percent taxes to various governments. So apparently, not "hate" enough to avoid them.

We even fought a war over the matter

The American revolution was not about taxes. It was about independence from a foreign empire that was at least 30 days' away. It was about getting all this gigantic land to ourselves. It was about white slave owners who wanted to receive, instead of pay, taxes. ;)

most of us are very distrustful of government in general.

Haw, haw, haw.

Yeah that's why most of us were very skeptical about invading Iraq. OH WAIT WE WEREN'T.

Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

Nonsense. How about we cut down that half-trillion dollar "defense" budget a bit? I'm gonna guess you think money for killing Iraqis is necessary and thus good taxes, but money for saving Americans is unnecessary and thus bad taxes.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

That's a good argument for anarchy, or against any and all government endeavors, but it doesn't have much place in the real world. Congress exists, the best thing for us is to try to make it less incompetent and corrupt.

Barbary coast was pirates, Philippines wasn’t what I’d call a fair fight, yes fighting Britain when its having much more important wars surely proves a point hell its not like we had to fight are greatest rivals led by a military genius or something:rolleyes:

Okay then. Ignore instances from history where the U.S. Army defeated other world-class armies, and you can continue to claim that it wasn't any good until 1944. The Spanish-American war doesn't count because Spain was busy. Independence and 1812 don't count because the British were busy. Defeating an entrenched Filipino insurgency on foreign ground doesn't count. The Mexican-American war doesn't count... etc.

Also, I mention the Barbary Coast because it happened almost immediately after Independence. The claim that the military fell apart after Independence is contradicted by this, whether they were pirates or not. The fact that those pirates had dominion over the Barbary Coast for centuries until that point might also be noteworthy, but I'm sure that doesn't count either. ;)

but money for saving Americans is unnecessary and thus bad taxes.

GT, when did you start making posts supportive of universal health care?

Have we converted you? Even a little?

You are, of course, well aware that at present the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than the UK, without even managing to provide a universal system free at the point of delivery for all that money, yes?

Another example of the efficiency of Congress :)


But we can't ever agree on cutting spending.

Why? Because we hate the government when it takes money from us. We love the government when it does stuff for us. And we want to have it both ways.

Thus, the national debt. Yet another example of how Congress can't do anything correctly.

yes and its one of my favourite rants at the pub also your using "because Timmy does it" logic

WTF?!?

then again my money doesn't have "in God we trust" printed on it or wars because God told us too

"In God we trust" can refer to any god, not just the god of the Church of England. Additionally, god has never been mentioned in any of our declarations of war or other authorizations of the use of military force.

"oh herro rhere" :p

WTF?!?

you should write to your senator and ask what he’s doing with all the money and reform that was promised

I would, except that I voted for the other guy.

Also, both Senators from my state are "she", not "he".

1) no you really, really didn't

2) no you really, really don't (though how one manages to get a dirty human rights record in the west is beyond me)

Yes, we did, and we do.

no it saves the government enormous amounts of money (and makes everyone a shed load but that’s beside the point) it thus can pass this saving onto you

You know what would save us the most amount of money? No government spending on medicine at all.

though looking at US deficit a good tax hike might be in order

Or a cut in spending.

I will do mostly because there not (please put that penis flag away)

no congress had nothing to do with fighting the war in Iraq that involves snazzy jobs like privates and rear admirals

you should go I heard it groovy ;) (plus you can see the economic collapse brought on by a NHS:p )

so why the America 1# clap trap even when its been pointed out that none of them are true:confused:

What the fuck are you talking about?

You already spend loads of tax dollars on health care, more per capita the the UK or Canada and yet, for all that money being spent, you still don't have universal healthcare.

Have you not read my comments about the efficiency of Congress?

Do you not look at the words after you've typed them and realise how ridiculous they sound? That's a pretty fucking big aside. It's like saying Henry VIII was the world's best husband... aside from when he was chopping his wife's head off.

Okay. Come back to the debate when the rest of the world has legalized drugs, gambling, and prostitution. Then you can criticize us.

Thus, the national debt. Yet another example of how Congress can't do anything correctly.

That is not Congress's fault.

The simple fact of the matter is that doing either - raising taxes or cutting spending - is very politically risky.

Not because Congresspeople are bad or incompetent, though they may be. Because the American people want low taxes (on them) and government help and protection (for them).

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

1) Bullshit. If we were living in the age of the writing of the Constitution, this might be a viable argument, but it is no longer so. Years of Court rulings, and policy expansion mean that the Congress has the power to impliment almost anything it wants to, with very few, very specific restrictions.

2) You'll find that, according to poll numbers, most Americans dissagree with you.

3) The fault for the fuckups that have occured after the declaration of war against Iraq have nothing to do with the Congress, and everything to do with the President.

Come on, there's plenty you could tell them that might help explain, but none of these points is actually accurate.

GT, when did you start making posts supportive of universal health care?

Have we converted you? Even a little?

In principle, I've supported pure capitalism, even to the point of anarcho-capitalistic tendency. But in practice, I recognize the fact that governments are gonna exist, they're gonna tax us, because they have the force of military.

So, knowing that, I simply have a priority of things that they should spend their money on. Health care is included pretty near the top primarily because while I believe private health care can fill it's niche, what it can't do is address the potential of national health epidemics. There just isn't a market niche for that sort of thing, and so the only organization that both is capable of, and willing to, help safeguard against that possibility is a national health care system.

And, especially as a lot of the pollution and causal factors in national health problems are caused by the government ANYWAY, I figure it's only fair that the government foot the bill for making sure us taxpayers are alive and healthy enough to pay the taxes in the first place.

Okay then. Ignore instances from history where the U.S. Army defeated other world-class armies

sure, when was the last time America gave a fair fight against a world power? Oh wait there isn’t any how silly of me (though to be fair most wars of Americas history where fought in a time when war happened out of opportunity)

Also, I mention the Barbary Coast because it happened almost immediately after Independence. The claim that the military fell apart after Independence is contradicted by this, whether they were pirates or not.

why must you hurt history so?

The national debt after the American Revolution fell into three categories. The first was the $11 million owed to foreigners—mostly debts to France during the American Revolution. The second and third—roughly $24 million each—were debts owed by the national and state governments to Americans who had sold food, horses and supplies to the revolutionary forces. Congress agreed that the power and the authority of the new government would pay for the foreign debts. There were also other debts that consisted of promissary notes issued during the Revolutionary War to soldiers, merchants, and farmers who accepted these payments on the premise that the new Constitution would create a government that would pay these debts eventually. The war expenses of the individual states added up to $114,000,000, compared to $37 million by the central government.[43] In 1790, Congress combined the state debts with the foreign and domestic debts into one national debt totalling $80 million. Everyone received face value for wartime certificates, so that the national honor would be sustained and the national credit established.

The fact that those pirates had dominion over the Barbary Coast for centuries until that point might also be noteworthy, but I'm sure that doesn't count either. ;)

the fact that they only bothered nations with little sea power might be a clue as would the fact that piracy was rampant at this time

Yes, we did, and we do.

Locke was American?

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

Eh, no. That was the Confederate States of America(predecessor to the United States, more or less, before our current constitution was created). And that failed miserably. We are one country, with fifty states.


2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

No, we fought that war because a bunch of rich guys, whom were the only actually seriously affected by any of the taxes, didn't want to pay legal fees and wanted to illegally trade with the French(In other words, trade with the french without paying tariffs-something that is illegal in our nation today, mind you). They screamed "TYRANNY!", and got their way. Really, not to many people bought into it until the Coercive acts were put in place-that was the "final straw" for most. Infact, most people don't hate taxes today. They just like having a couple extra hundos more. Of course they don't realize that little money will make almost no impact on their lives at all, but hey. People love a lie. Most proposed tax-cuts will not only have almost no effect on most people, but will also deprive the entire nation of much needed money(Although much is wasted, admittedly).

[/quote]
3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...[/QUOTE]

Technically, Congress has no sway over how Iraq is managed. They just fund the military. That's the extent of their power(They can put limitations if they want, I would suppose, for that funding, but they can't force anything through law directly). Agreed that Congress is corrupt. But so is practically almost every part of the government. Are you under the impression that the President would willing to run things so incredibly squeaky clean if he had sole power? That's why Congress makes the budget, and the President decides to agree to it or not. Congress in turn can overturn that with a veto, but it's incredibly difficult. Checks and balances, mate. Infact, I would say that Congress has less power now than it did at almost any point in history, and is only regaining some of it's lost "glory". Quite frankly, the President has been going unchecked for so incredibly long, that I'm glad their regaining some of the power.

So what have we learned: You know nothing.

Huh. Well, there we go.

...my brain just caught fire



The Royal Navy didn't do too well over on the other side of the world. And it's not like you were busy with the oh so numerous German surface fleet.


yes that nearly cost the war but that has little to do with the example


That has everything to do with the example. Unlike Germany, France, and Britian, we had to build an army almost out of thin air. Recall that we were very isolationist, and had almost no army to speak of.


we told you everything you needed to know we even had troops come in to advise your troops unfortunately nobody listened instead it was like 1914 all over again


Battlefield experience is not something that can be granted over a lecture series. We were inexperienced. We needed fighting in battlefield conditions. And it didn't help that you guys forced us to dump our regular weapons in exchange for shitty hand-me-downs.


actually no American served under foreign command the U.S was quite strict on this


Incorrect. In the earlier stages of the AEF, units were assigned under British and French command. It wasn't until we got our new recruits trained that we were "granted" permission to form our own independant unit.

the Somme was 1916 (and to note the French kicked arse during that battle)


What, and trench warfare was all rosy and nice afterward? It was all slaughter. It just came down to which side slaughtered more. And the AEF aquitted themselves quite well in the latter stages of the war in terms of slaughtering Germans.

*hands Seangoli a special Hashijuana cookie*

GT, when did you start making posts supportive of universal health care?

Have we converted you? Even a little?

No, I assume he's only arguing against the neo-con idea of taxes bad, unless they're buying extra steel penii.

Have you not read my comments about the efficiency of Congress?

Are you suggesting Americans are that much more corrupt and/or stupid then the other industrialized nations and can't handle setting up a universal medicare system?

Because, that's just rude, and anti-American.

the idea of catagorizing all 300 million americans reduced to three points (the first one of which just being flat out wrong) is kinda silly.

*hands Seangoli a special Hashijuana cookie*

Not sure if this that is a compliment or insult, or just "Okay... time to go to your padded room now" thing, but I'm taking the cookie anyway!

*Eats cookie*

Mmm... weedy goodness.:D

Not sure if this that is a compliment or insult, or just "Okay... time to go to your padded room now" thing, but I'm taking the cookie anyway!

*Eats cookie*

Mmm... weedy goodness.:D

Oh, it's a compliment.

...But I'm still leaving your quote in my signature, because that's unintentionally hilarious gold, worthy of Yogi Berra. :D

sure, when was the last time America gave a fair fight against a world power? Oh wait there isn’t any how silly of me (though to be fair most wars of Americas history where fought in a time when war happened out of opportunity)
The British Empire (Revolution, War of 1812)
The Spanish Empire (Spanish-American War)
The Japanese Empire (Pacific Theater)
Nazi Germany (European Theater)

They were all world class powers.

And you could probably make a call on the CSA, though technically that was us. You seem to have forgotten that during that time, a lot of European powers wandered over to see what was going on, given that the US Civil War was starting to get into more of modern warfare.

Okay. Come back to the debate when the rest of the world has legalized drugs, gambling, and prostitution. Then you can criticize us.

No, you're a big fat target for criticism right now, but mindless patriotism seems to be overriding your capacity for self-evaluation. Guantanamo Bay means you fail at human rights.

Anyway, prostitution is legal in Germany, and as far as I'm aware, gambling is legal in most places that aren't dumbass theocracies. The USA isn't one of the 5 nations that have legalised gay marriage, either. And having to wait until you're 21 to buy alcohol is quite frankly punitive.

sure, when was the last time America gave a fair fight against a world power? Oh wait there isn’t any how silly of me (though to be fair most wars of Americas history where fought in a time when war happened out of opportunity)

why must you hurt history so?

How exactly does your Wiki paste contradict anything I mentioned? There was debt, and a good deal owed to former soldiers. At the same time, the military remained intact and was fighting foreign engagements within a few years of Independence. Your point about war debt was in response to someone claiming we've always funded an army (to paraphrase). We had both an army and war debt at the same time. If you want to continue the "but they were busy" line and claim that neither Britain, Spain or Mexico ever sent world-class armies against us, that's fine. But there's been a continuous military structure in operation since Independence, war debt notwithstanding.

We seemed to be handling the Japanese in the Pacific quite well. As I recall, the Royal navy didn't do much over there. Aside from losing a Battleship and a Battlecruiser in one lovely afternoon of bombing.

EDIT:Oh, and as far as WWII goes...

1. We pretty much had to build an army from scratch (for an unjust war, IMHO)

2. This was our first exposure to the brutality of Trench warfare. Forgive us for not being psychics.

3. We were under the direct command of british and french generals. Forgive us for not being supermen, and getting slaughtered right beside you.

How in the hell was World War Two unjust?

How in the hell was World War Two unjust?
oshi-

Thats why you don't post with Baseball on your mind. :p

(it was supposed to be WWI)

Oh, it's a compliment.

...But I'm still leaving your quote in my signature, because that's unintentionally hilarious gold, worthy of Yogi Berra. :D

Ah crap, I didn't realize you put that there. If you want, you can Change it to Seangoli, as that's my current account(Eh, to lazy to get any of my old ones reactivated), and it's not a large change at all. And I remember that quote... ah, at least I'll be remembered for that(And when I am President one day, you can use that as a Seanism!).

Another example of the efficiency of Congress :)

You somehow think parliament is efficient or something ?

Thus, the national debt. Yet another example of how Congress can't do anything correctly.

I think democracy itself causes this not congress

WTF?!?

You’ know as a kid you try to justify stealing cookies or something by saying someone else does it

Well that never works even in politics just because you don’t have a state church doesn’t mean you can go round doing state religion things

"In God we trust" can refer to any god, not just the god of the Church of England. Additionally, god has never been mentioned in any of our declarations of war or other authorizations of the use of military force.

1) yes it can refer to any God unfortunately it still shows a marriage between religion and state

2) God told Bush to invade Iraq if you missed that I have a rock you might be interested in living under

WTF?!?

If you don’t get it you never will

I would, except that I voted for the other guy.

Then write to them and say you did vote for them that way there listen more

Also, both Senators from my state are "she", not "he".

Good for you…I guess

Yes, we did, and we do.

Human rights date back as far as ancient Greece probably further but I’m not prepared to ponder whether the code of laws established the first human rights because well that involves too much thought for the question

And I gave you a linky to read so read it (the big underlined part that said “Linky slinky”

You know what would save us the most amount of money? No government spending on medicine at all.

….actually no the governments (and that’s just the governments) lose billions in sick days alone in short healthy citizens are profitable citizens

Or a cut in spending.

Can one cut education spending that much before they start giving the congress money?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Mostly its to do with your jingoism that to be honest makes me sick to my stomach there is also a gag or two worked in and some fun poking to be had

Okay. Come back to the debate when the rest of the world has legalized drugs, gambling, and prostitution. Then you can criticize us.

I’m sure there are plenty of Dutch coming online about now so I’d put some earmuffs on before the laughing gets too much also you made a thread for your little rant about nationalized healthcare its now the worlds turn to rip your argument to shreds and then some

So please if you can’t take a little hot stay away from wires!

the idea of catagorizing all 300 million americans reduced to three points (the first one of which just being flat out wrong) is kinda silly.

The whole thread's kinda silly. But it'll have to do for now. :p In any event, though I don't agree with many of the lines of argument the OP has been using, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether the government would be better suited to run our hospitals. I think the OP observed the common snobbery directed toward non-socialized medicine and pointed it out.

oshi-

Thats why you don't post with Baseball on your mind. :p

(it was supposed to be WWI)

Okay. I thought I was going to have a stroke at the ripe old age of fourteen. xD

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general.

If that were true, you'd see very few Democrats and Republicans get elected.

If that were true, you'd see very few Democrats and Republicans get elected.

Well, he's technically correct. The American political culture is one of Adversity, but it is not so much so as he believes.

The whole thread's kinda silly. But it'll have to do for now. :p In any event, though I don't agree with many of the lines of argument the OP has been using, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether the government would be better suited to run our hospitals. I think the OP observed the common snobbery directed toward non-socialized medicine and pointed it out.

Problem is, the OP is wrong when it comes to attitudes toward government run health care. (http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm)

NBC News/WSJ poll from January:
"Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: I would be willing to pay higher taxes so that everyone can have health insurance."
Agree--53% Disagree--40%

There are other, older polls which basically echo the sentiment.

How in the hell was World War Two unjust?

The original purpose of the war was to defend Poland's sovereignty. Yet, it ended with the Nazis being ousted from Eastern Europe and replaced with equally repugnant bastards. While the West was beating back the forces of one evil megalomaniac, they were helping prop up and subsidize another equally bad, if not worse, evil megalomaniac.

(Note: I know the poster meant WWI, not WWII, but still)

Yet, it ended with the Nazis being ousted from Eastern Europe and replaced with equally repugnant bastards.

Post-1945 I'm not aware of any Soviet atrocities that even sort of compare to what the Nazis did to the Jews of Eastern Europe alone.

Let alone the countless other millions they ruthlessly murdered.

The Royal Navy didn't do too well over on the other side of the world. And it's not like you were busy with the oh so numerous German surface fleet..

…I don’t know where to start with this so I guess I will point out the fact that the royal navy was a little busy making sure Britain got supplies and you’ know the whole protect the largest empire ever with rust buckets from Jutland

That has everything to do with the example. Unlike Germany, France, and Britian, we had to build an army almost out of thin air. Recall that we were very isolationist, and had almost no army to speak of .

*sigh* yes we know please follow the line of discussion

Battlefield experience is not something that can be granted over a lecture series. We were inexperienced. We needed fighting in battlefield conditions. And it didn't help that you guys forced us to dump our regular weapons in exchange for shitty hand-me-downs.

1) so the US army walked up to German lines despite everything warning given and yet the result is somehow not your fault…hmmm *ignores sighs telling me not to piss on electrical wiring*

2) so the US idea of sending tons of supplies (in particular inferior weaponry) across the Atlantic for its own troops was good

Incorrect. In the earlier stages of the AEF, units were assigned under British and French command. It wasn't until we got our new recruits trained that we were "granted" permission to form our own independant unit.

Lies!

General John J. Pershing, American Expeditionary Force (AEF) commander, refused to break up American units to be used as reinforcements for British Empire and French units

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


What, and trench warfare was all rosy and nice afterward? It was all slaughter. It just came down to which side slaughtered more. And the AEF aquitted themselves quite well in the latter stages of the war in terms of slaughtering Germans.

1) Trench warfare condition improved 1917-ish in particular the tactics used there was also massive “amounts of live and let live” even one report of a Frenchman joining German troops for dinner in there trench and Germans sending messages of where the artillery would strike so the allies knew

2) actually allied casualties where typically enormous compared to the Germans this was mostly due to Germanys defensive tactics (though I ‘d like to know what source your using to get the numbers for allied soldiers killing Germans)

How exactly does your Wiki paste contradict anything I mentioned? There was debt, and a good deal owed to former soldiers. At the same time, the military remained intact and was fighting foreign engagements within a few years of Independence. Your point about war debt was in response to someone claiming we've always funded an army (to paraphrase). We had both an army and war debt at the same time. If you want to continue the "but they were busy" line and claim that neither Britain, Spain or Mexico ever sent world-class armies against us, that's fine. But there's been a continuous military structure in operation since Independence, war debt notwithstanding.

o_0 you do realise that I only claimed America couldn’t pay its troops for the independence war unless of course I have travelled in time or something…

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

"About 56% of Americans would prefer universal coverage to the current U.S. system, and 68% feel providing coverage for everyone is more important than keeping taxes down, according to an October 2006 poll of 1,201 Americans by USA Today, ABC News and the Kaiser Family Foundation."
Source (http://www.benefitnews.com/detail.cfm?id=10229)

"Consider the public’s response to the question, “Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn’t this the responsibility of the federal government?”, first asked by CBS/NYT in 1996. The chart above shows that in 1996, 56 percent said guaranteeing health insurance should be a federal responsibility, and 38 percent disagreed. The latest reading in February of this year shows that almost two-thirds (64 percent) now say the federal government should provide this guarantee, and only 27 percent oppose such a guarantee."
Source (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/opinion_health_care.html)

Post-1945 I'm not aware of any Soviet atrocities that even sort of compare to what the Nazis did to the Jews of Eastern Europe alone.

Let alone the countless other millions they ruthlessly murdered.

The Soviets also ruthlessly murdered millions. The U.S.S.R. was as worthy of extinction as Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and militarist Japan were.

The Soviets also ruthlessly murdered millions.

Can you give specific examples in the countries they occupied in Eastern Europe after World War II?

Can you give specific examples in the countries they occupied in Eastern Europe after World War II?

Most of the murdering done in Eastern European countries was done by their own governments, who I might add were imposed on the people at gun-point. But the point remains, it's utterly stupid to fight a war "over defending Poland," while at the same time ignoring the Soviet rape and subjugation of Poland.

Most of the murdering done in Eastern European countries was done by their own governments

Yeah, typical dictatorial repression. Not Nazi genocide.

But the point remains, it's utterly stupid to fight a war "over defending Poland," while at the same time ignoring the Soviet rape and subjugation of Poland.

There wasn't exactly much that could have been done at the time.

Except let Hitler continue his even more murderous reign.

lol @ how far off-topic this went so quickly.

Yeah, typical dictatorial repression. Not Nazi genocide.

Not genocide, no. But extreme repression, often brutal, coupled with loss of sovereignty, yes.

There wasn't exactly much that could have been done at the time.

Except let Hitler continue his even more murderous reign.

I just find it stupid how Britain and France went apeshit when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, yet turned the other way when the U.S.S.R. did the same thing. So much for "defending Poland."

Anyway, let's wrap this up soon, before we end up completely hijacking the thread.

Welcome to NSG. ;)

:p

lol @ how far off-topic this went so quickly.

Welcome to NSG. ;)

Not genocide, no. But extreme repression, often brutal, coupled with loss of sovereignty, yes.



I just find it stupid how Britain and France went apeshit when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, yet turned the other way when the U.S.S.R. did the same thing. So much for "defending Poland."

Anyway, let's wrap this up soon, before we end up completely hijacking the thread.

While I agree with you, the Allies did not want to risk war with the USSR, after so long a war with the Nazis

:p

Time warps are back?

…I don’t know where to start with this so I guess I will point out the fact that the royal navy was a little busy making sure Britain got supplies and you’ know the whole protect the largest empire ever with rust buckets from Jutland


Lolz. Battleships don't make good convoy escorts. Neither do fleet carriers. Face it, Britian didn't do a damned thing against the Japanese. That was all us. No one else.


*sigh* yes we know please follow the line of discussion


You seem to have trouble following my thoughts. I'll be more clear next time


1) so the US army walked up to German lines despite everything warning given and yet the result is somehow not your fault…hmmm *ignores sighs telling me not to piss on electrical wiring*

2) so the US idea of sending tons of supplies (in particular inferior weaponry) across the Atlantic for its own troops was good


1) the Exact same fate befell the ANZAC units when they transferred to France

2) American weapons were equivalent to British and French designs. But they forced the AEF to give up high quality weapons in exchange for pieces of crap. Case in point, the Chauchat. The french though they were too crappy for their units to use, but they were fine for the Americans to come and die in an unjust war we should have never been a part of.

Lies!


He did not allow units to be broken up, but he allowed units to be placed under French and British command.


1) Trench warfare condition improved 1917-ish in particular the tactics used there was also massive “amounts of live and let live” even one report of a Frenchman joining German troops for dinner in there trench and Germans sending messages of where the artillery would strike so the allies knew

2) actually allied casualties where typically enormous compared to the Germans this was mostly due to Germanys defensive tactics (though I ‘d like to know what source your using to get the numbers for allied soldiers killing Germans)

1) Very isolated incidents. Every military historian knows that the trenches were the worst of the worst, some of the most savage fighting in history.

2) Well duh. It's much easier to defend then attack. Yes, our causalites were big. But we killed alot of the Germans too. And we had larger manpower reserves once the US entered the war. We could Zergrush them to death.

Anyway, let's wrap this up soon, before we end up completely hijacking the thread.

...too late.

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.



This is plainly factually wrong.

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.


You created a thread basically saying: 'America is great, we're the most free country on earth; we're the dominant culture, etc.'

You seem strangely surprised that people came back at you.

As for foreign policy, watch "Team America: World Police" sometime.

Possibly the worst rebuttal I've read since starting to visit NSG.

The US virtually invented the idea of human rights, and aside from the War on Drugs and a few mischief-makers at Gitmo, we continue to lead in this regard.

Yeeeeeeah... No. See: slavery and civil rights.

(Just as a quick note - almost everything I know about the American political system has been gleaned from my watching West Wing)

Same here lol. God bless the ABC for picking it up after Nine dumped it.

The United States, can be look at as 50 countries and sort of is. They are just, for the most part, strongly united.

What? You can look at eight slices of pizza as individual pizzas but they aren't. Bad analogy? Yes.

"In God we trust" can refer to any god, not just the god of the Church of England.

There are 15 to 30 million people in the US who don't believe in God.

Face it, Britian didn't do a damned thing against the Japanese. That was all us. No one else.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

There were no UK or ANZAC forces involved in the fighting at all. Silly me.

Burma? Borneo?

The US intentionally sidelined the contribution of its allies during the war Pacific War.

State religion? The UK has an official, government-sanctioned church. .

To be pedantic, no it doesn't. England does, the UK doesn't.

We seemed to be handling the Japanese in the Pacific quite well. As I recall, the Royal navy didn't do much over there. Aside from losing a Battleship and a Battlecruiser in one lovely afternoon of bombing.

EDIT:Oh, and as far as WWI goes...

1. We pretty much had to build an army from scratch (for an unjust war, IMHO)

2. This was our first exposure to the brutality of Trench warfare. Forgive us for not being psychics.

3. We were under the direct command of british and french generals. Forgive us for not being supermen, and getting slaughtered right beside you.

1. Not "unjust" just a pointless waste of life.

2. No it wasn't trench warfare was 1st seen in your civil war.

3. Actually you trained with Brits and French you were commanded by Americans under Pershing.

Go read a book.

To be pedantic, no it doesn't. England does, the UK doesn't.

Good catch.

The United States of America is one country, of fifty different states with fifty different sets of laws and MORE than fifty different cultures.

Visit NYC, Topeka, Tampa, Wisconsin Dells, and San Francisco and you'll see what I mean.

The Royal Navy didn't do too well over on the other side of the world. And it's not like you were busy with the oh so numerous German surface fleet. The RN was busy keeping up the blockade around Germany, and escorting merchant shipping which actually worked very well if you look at the numbers of merchant ships sunk before and after the convoy system was introduced.

The United States of America is one country, of fifty different states with fifty different sets of laws and MORE than fifty different cultures.

Visit NYC, Topeka, Tampa, Wisconsin Dells, and San Francisco and you'll see what I mean.

Pfft. NYC. :rolleyes:

I think you'll find that I won WW2 single-handed.

Good catch.

One tries.

*passes out at the honour of being complemented from such an eminent user*:)

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...


Nah. Not really.
Yeah, that's very true.
True that.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

There were no UK or ANZAC forces involved in the fighting at all. Silly me.

Burma? Borneo?

The US intentionally sidelined the contribution of its allies during the war Pacific War.

I wasn't refering to ANZACs. I was talking specifically about British forces. And they didn't do much. The ANZACs did do very well. Exept in the Java Sea. But yes, the ANZACs made notable contrabutions.


1. Not "unjust" just a pointless waste of life.

2. No it wasn't trench warfare was 1st seen in your civil war.

3. Actually you trained with Brits and French you were commanded by Americans under Pershing.

Go read a book.


1. It was Unjust from the US side.

2. The entrenchments seen in the American civil war were nothing like what crisscrossed europe during WWI. Plus, forces in our civil war were armed with single shot muzzleloading muskets, and no automatic weapons. To compare warfare in the American Civil War to WWI is simply not possible.

3. Sigh. Before Pershing has a big enough force, regular army units were put under the command of other allied commanders. The 1st (US) Infantry Division was put on the line under an allied commander before they were part of the independand command under Pershing.

And books are l33t.

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.
It's probably just the part you're from giving us all a bad name.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.
Why are there three?

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.
Technically it is one. However, there is some truth to this. Some states should even be more than one country. We here don't really have all that much in common with Alabamans, for instance.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.
Speak for yourself. I don't hate taxes, the money to do all this stuff has to come from somewhere. If we had tax funded universal health care, a good friend of mine would be a lot better off. As it is, she needs treatment because she has a brain tumor but she has no money and so far it hasn't reached the point of an "emergency" yet.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...
Congress needs a major overhaul. I think we should adopt proportional representation. Also, the people behind the Iraq war are largely opposed to universal health care.

Lolz. Battleships don't make good convoy escorts. Neither do fleet carriers. Face it, Britian didn't do a damned thing against the Japanese. That was all us. No one else.


So who was fighitng at Imphal, Kohima, Ngakyedauk Pass, the Admin Box
http://regiments.org/wars/20ww2/burma.htm
http://regiments.org/wars/20ww2/pac-au.htm
http://regiments.org/wars/20ww2/asia-se.htm

http://www.burmastar.org.uk/index.htm

War in the Far East
Fully stretched by war against both Germany and Italy, the Royal Navy could do little to halt the Japanese onslaught that began in December 1941. The battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse were sent to Singapore to try to deter Japan but were sunk by Japanese Navy torpedo bombers. Singapore fell and the Royal Navy was driven from the waters of South East Asia. Only late in the war with the defeat of enemy naval forces in Europe did the Royal Navy reappear in Asia-Pacific waters in strength. In 1945 a large British Pacific Fleet commanded by Admiral Fraser and based around a powerful carrier force fought alongside the Americans in Japanese waters. Forces in the Indian Ocean were also scoring successes against major Japanese warships. War in the Far East Royal Navy

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

Can you please not speak for all Americans? We don't all share your view of our country.

ok, now for my 2 cents. I like American health care because we don't have to wait forever for tests to be run, surgeries, and i can have a child in my own private room without having to be moved for the entire process. I like being able to call my doctor and get a same day or next day appointment. We do have quite a few free clinics that are based on income that can provide low cost health care or even free health care if needed. Its not our governments fault people in America doesn't like to go to the Doctor.

Ok, now does everyone forget that Hitler and Nazis were ww2 not ww1. I'm sure Germans and the Jewish will be GLAD to straighten out that fact.

and one thing is for sure, America IS united, and we will always be PROUD to be Americans. Even if we do have a shitty government.

ok, now for my 2 cents. I like American health care because we don't have to wait forever for tests to be run, surgeries, and i can have a child in my own private room without having to be moved for the entire process. I like being able to call my doctor and get a same day or next day appointment. We do have quite a few free clinics that are based on income that can provide low cost health care or even free health care if needed. Its not our governments fault people in America doesn't like to go to the Doctor.

There's also a lovely gap in the system for people who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals (and whose employers do not provide health plans).


The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 46.6 million Americans (about 15.9% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage during 2005

The US system works for those who can afford it, and some who can't, but neglects many others.

G-Max is a pure Neo-con drone, nothing is the president's fault everything is Congress's fault. (Despite they have been nothing but yes men for the past 6 years!)

In principle, I've supported pure capitalism, even to the point of anarcho-capitalistic tendency. But in practice, I recognize the fact that governments are gonna exist, they're gonna tax us, because they have the force of military.
I figure it's only fair that the government foot the bill for making sure us taxpayers are alive and healthy enough to pay the taxes in the first place. Damn Toastia why do you capitalists have to state things that MAKE SENSE!!

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

I, as an American, hate taxes thoroughly. I don't know how you guys in Europe do it with 40% tax rates or higher in some places. I lose 23% out of my check and I can't stand it. Perhaps it's the "American Way"?

I, as an American, hate taxes thoroughly. I don't know how you guys in Europe do it with 40% tax rates or higher in some places. I lose 23% out of my check and I can't stand it. Perhaps it's the "American Way"?

More like "I expect the government to do this for me but I don't want to pay for it to do it even though I am able, screw everyone else who can't afford something unless it's provided by the government, I'm where I am because I deserve to be and those less well off than me are ungrateful scum!" way.

Pfft. NYC. :rolleyes:

http://www.city-data.com/city/Iselin-New-Jersey.html You were saying?

1) Australia started out as a set of individual colonies, which became one country after a vote (not a war) in 1902. We are far younger than most (if not all) other 1st world nations.

2) Aussies hate taxes too. Bt we see them as necessary to ensure the growth of our country, for the development of necessary services such as education and medical care.

3) Every political system has its failings. If it is Congress that is the issue with how America is perceived internationally, why not do something? Why not move for compulsory voting, so that Congress (and the Senate, for that matter) is truly representative of your nation's people?

And I personally don't trash America. I feel that there are some issues that America could handle better, but I don't feel the need to blame everyday Americans for the failure of their politicians and/or political system.

(Just as a quick note - almost everything I know about the American political system has been gleaned from my watching West Wing)

wrong it was 1901 not 1902

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...
Weird, i'd figured you'd have mostly bs on this thread when speaking for "most Amercians", but it's not a bad OP.

I, as an American, hate taxes thoroughly. I don't know how you guys in Europe do it with 40% tax rates or higher in some places. I lose 23% out of my check and I can't stand it. Perhaps it's the "American Way"?

40% is only for the highest earners. For the average citizen it's a fair bit lower than that. For the average UK earner about 25% of your salary goes on taxes. (off the top of my head)

The US virtually invented the idea of human rights,

Right. Virtually. In reality, there was a small unimportant nation called France...:eek:


and aside from the War on Drugs and a few mischief-makers at Gitmo

That is, aside from the last 20 years?:p


we continue to lead in this regard.


In a very virtual rank, that is.;)

I, as an American, hate taxes thoroughly. I don't know how you guys in Europe do it with 40% tax rates or higher in some places. I lose 23% out of my check and I can't stand it. Perhaps it's the "American Way"?

I'm european and I pay a 23% income tax. 40%+ is for the richer guys.

Anyway, I feel fine with the income tax: it's the consumer goods taxes, like VAT etc, that get me.

Taxes support the State, and the State gives me services like police, hospitals, education, roads... Ok, there's a lot of money wasted, but the idea is ok, although the implementation could be better. Then again, this is the "European Way".;)

I'm european and I pay a 23% income tax. 40%+ is for the richer guys.

Anyway, I feel fine with the income tax: it's the consumer goods taxes, like VAT etc, that get me.

Taxes support the State, and the State gives me services like police, hospitals, education, roads... Ok, there's a lot of money wasted, but the idea is ok, although the implementation could be better. Then again, this is the "European Way".;)

I think if we add up all the taxes you pay in Europe (VAT, etc), you do pay more in taxes than most Americans.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Iselin-New-Jersey.html You were saying?

Yes, my beautiful hometown or the ruddy, smoggy Big Apple. :rolleyes:

The best thing about Americans is that we're not all alike.

Not a lot of homogeneity here.

I think if we add up all the taxes you pay in Europe (VAT, etc), you do pay more in taxes than most Americans.

Yes, I think that too. But we get a lot more services from the state in exchange, so I think it's still fair. Hell, in some places (Germany) even the UNIVERSITY is free!

The best thing about Americans is that we're not all alike.
Not a lot of homogeneity here.

Wanna talk about a loose union of states with about 22 official languages? Looks that we aren't quite homogeneous... Yay for diversity!

I think if we add up all the taxes you pay in Europe (VAT, etc), you do pay more in taxes than most Americans.
Yes...and things like education, healthcare and public transit system (or even road upkeep) pays them back.

Taxes add to the quality of life in general (assuming it's not wasted on things like "defence" budget) - High income adds only to your quality of life. I prefer a good society over income isolated communities.

I've been hearing a lot of crap from you Brits and Aussies about how backward America is, how we should nationalize our medical industry, etc.

I would like to respond by telling you two things.

1) The United States is not one country. It is a federation of fifty countries, which are united by a military alliance, a common currency, a post office, a patent office, and (in theory) really not much else. Some states HAVE implemented their own Universal Healthcare plans, but our Federal government has no more authority to do so than NATO or the UN has.

2) We absolutely fucking hate taxes. We even fought a war over the matter, and to this day, most of us are very distrustful of government in general. Given that a system of "universal heathcare" would involve not only higher taxes, but also more government control over our lives, our resistance to such a proposal should not be surprising.

3) Congress is both corrupt and incompetent. Would you have them "fix" our medical system just as they "fixed" Iraq? Because, you know, THAT turned out really well...

Some things are wrong with that...

1) We're still one country. For a while it was a bunch of smaller countries agreeing to get along, but that was done away with when the articles of confederation were ditched. A lot is still left up to the states and often times they do feel like other countries, but they're still just territorial divisions within the country.

2) To my knowledge, the government does have the authority to set up a universal health care system. I don't know if it has the authority to replace current health care systems with it or not, but I know the power to set it up is there.

3) We didn't fight a war because we hate paying taxes, it was being taxed too much without fair representation that pissed everyone off.

4) Whether more or less people would consider the rise in taxes worth it for universal health care is debatable. However, universal health care would not let the government control our lives, especially if the current health care system is left in place and people were given the choice to choose. Should that occur, I believe we'll see a golden age in health care just because of competition. And this is personal opinion, but I fail to see how someone would have issues with the government controlling health care but find nothing wrong with major corporations making the calls. And that brings me to...

5) Big companies are just as corrupt as the government. And if you're going to bring up the government and Iraq, the American people are just as much to blame. By re-electing Bush we gave the message loud and clear that we agree with being in Iraq.

6) Congress is trying the hardest out of anyone in the government to get us out of Iraq.


Personally, I'd love to see universal health care and I agree that we're a backwards country without it. Every single person in this country should have access to health care, even the poor. I don't even see how we can call ourselves the greatest country on earth if we deny health care to any of our citizens.

2) To my knowledge, the government does have the authority to set up a universal health care system. I don't know if it has the authority to replace current health care systems with it or not, but I know the power to set it up is there.


I thought that the US used to have a nationwide healthcare system until the Reaganomics.

I thought that the US used to have a nationwide healthcare system until the Reaganomics.
Not really. But it did have better healthcare options for those who couldn't afford it.

Point number 1. The USA as a whole has a common currency, a common language (in most places at least) and a common federal government. You can argue the toss if you like whether individual states could divest themselves from federal rule - but in reality it's unlikely to happen. You are also free to move from any state to any other state without being subjected to any kind of migration controls. Therefore it is probably fair to say that the USA is a single country.

Point number 2. You hate taxes? You don't want to pay them any more? Fine, but consider what would happen if everybody stopped paying taxes tomorrow (and I mean state / local taxes as well as federal taxes):

There would be no police force, no fire service, no coastguard, no ambulance service. Crime would escalate beyond anyone's control, fires wouldn't be put out, immigration control would be non-existent, and you would have to take yourself to hospital, even if you were in a bad accident. Am I being extreme? No, because the government funds all these services, and it needs taxation in order to do so.

There would be no regulation, safety control or quality control over anything, including: Water supply, power generation, fuel supply, air traffic control, food and drug safety, you name it.
Perhaps the private sector could manage some of this - but without the government to act as a referee, there would be no incentive to provide essential safety measures, and not much incentive to do anything well. Yes, the very rich would still be able to afford top quality, but everyone else would be screwed. The economy can't survive by catering only to the plutocracy.

There would be no Department of Justice, no FBI, no legislature, no supreme court, no DEA, no War on Drugs (the latter would be perhaps the only positive result). The legal system would cease to exist, and even if it didn't, it would be toothless because there would be no prisons.

There would be no welfare state - meaning no social security, no medicare / medicaid, no unemployment insurance. What free healthcare there is would also go - no more free clinics, no more government-subsidised teaching hospitals.

The worst part is that with no tax renenue coming in, the government would have to default on all it's foreign debt. Bond markets would collapse, investor confidence would nosedive, and the knock-on effect on the world economy would be nothing short of disastrous.

Essentially, the country would descend into anarchy - with the super-rich barricaded into their gate-guarded communities, and everybody else fighting among themselves for the right to stay alive. Is that really what you want?

A bit of distrust of government is a healthy thing - those in power need to be kept on their toes and be reminded every now and then that we the people are in charge of them, not the other way round. But in fact I think you have your argument a bit backwards - the media and certainly the punditocracy blindly toe the government line on just about every issue. Doesn't necessarily mean that the people do the same - but since the majority of the people get their information from TV news, they often don't know any better. Most Americans I've met have a sort of blind faith in their government, coupled with a peculiar mix of arrogance and self righteousness. Meaning they tend to believe that their government has never done anything bad, and neither can it do any wrong. The Bush Administration itself has a similar sort of infallibility complex.

Point number 3. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There is nothing wrong with government that a little efficiency can't cure. There is also nothing intrinsically wrong with having some industries nationalised, especially public services (which aren't supposed to be run for profit in the first place). In fact, the more nationalised industries there are, the more non-tax revenue the government gets, and therefore the lower the overall tax burden.
On the other hand, some industries are better run by the private sector (airlines, postal services, manufacturing and heavy industries to name but a few). The free market is a powerful ideology - but it is not some demi-god to which we must make sacrifices at any cost. Remember that the economy exists for the benefit of society - not the other way round. If that sounds like socialism, that's intentional (but not contradictory). A healthy economy / society should embody aspects of socialism as well as allowing free market capitalism to prosper up to a point.

Let's start out in a basic course in Civics.

The federal government of the United States is a single entity with THREE branches. Each one of these branches is responsible for it's primary area, and it is also responsible for providing a check on one of the other branches.
______________________________________________________________

First and foremost, none of these branches function properly without oversight from the others.

1. The Executive Branch- Simply put, this branch oversees the day to day operations of the federal government. Headed by a Chief Executive who has multi-pronged authority to sign laws into effect, conduct war, order negotiate or oversee treaties and decide national policy on both the domestic and foreign policy front, enforces US Law and appoints all federal judges and US Attorneys.

The Legislative Branch provides a check on the Executive by having the ability to override Presidential vetoes with a two-thirds vote in both houses. This branch has the sole authority to declare war, a rule conveniently ignored by the Executive Branch since the Korean War. The Senate has final approval on Treaties, Conventions and Pacts entered into by the Executive. It also has the power of "Advise and Consent," contrary to public belief it means the Senate may advise the Executive if an appointed candidate is not suitable and withold consent of that appointment, and NO, a President is not entitled to all of his candidates receiving an "up or down" vote.

The Judicial Branch checks the Executive by overseeing trials on all levels and routinely decides the scope of Executive authority.

2. The Legislative Branch- Creates and codifies laws, writes and approves the budget, orders and authorizes the Commissioning of US military officers, approves or denies Executive appointments to sensitive posts in the Executive Branch. May also remove the President and Vice President from office via impeachment and conviction. May also impeach and convict Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Executive checks the Legislative with the ability to veto laws, enact executive orders and has a LIMITED ability to declare executive privilege only in specific instances, this may be interpreted to only include advisors currently employed by the Executive.

The Judicial Branch checks the Legislative with the ability to declare laws unconstitutional or decides the scope and magnitude of the law, the Chief Justice presides over impeachment trials involving the President, Vice-President and Supreme Court Justices except his/her own, in which case the most senior remaining Justice presides.

3. The Judicial Branch- Decides case law, oversees trials and impeachment trials. Routinely decides the scope and magnitude of laws. Interprets and decides the scope and magnitude of executive privilege (see Nixon, Richard M.).

The Executive provides a check by appointing federal judges and Supreme Court Justices.

The Legislative provides a check by approving or denying the appointment of judges and justices.
______________________________________________________________

The point of this is, Congress is not fully at fault here. The laws they create must be signed into law by the President or overridden into law over a Presidential veto. The laws they create may be declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Branch.

Finally, the ultimate blame lies with us, the voters. Those of us who vote could easily change things in Congress by firing and rehiring until the Legislative Branch got the idea that they serve at OUR PLEASURE, but most Americans are either too dumb or too lazy to latch onto that concept and follow the political parties like the overmasters they frequently are.

The concept of a political party having this sort of unbridled power was feared by our founders and we have finally gotten to see what unchecked power can do to a nation's reputation and perception in the world.