Thread: Obama won re election

Seriously - I like a ton of what the Republicans stand for - except for their feelings toward the average American and their morality stances... If I want to be judged, I'll go to church not my local member of...

Originally Posted by Bruno

"If a child is born from rape, then that was God's plan"
"If a woman is raped, abortion is not necessary because a woman's body has ways of dealing with that"
"47% of the Americans are freeloaders"

I'm sure there are more.
Not only do he and the republican party officials alienate significant groups of voters, but a large number of moderates in any demographic look at those insults and say 'Dude... really..!?'

Very true sir. Which is why its a very difficult subject. The moral thing is to provide it free for everyone. That way everyone has the same chance. I am truly lucky to live in a country that offers this BUT there is the issue of who funds it. Do taxes increase massivley? does the govenrment cut finds to vital sources? someone has to pay for it. That then brings the argument around of why should some who already pay loads in taxes loose out whilst others freeload and get priorotised (i.e. if someone who lives in the EU comes to the UK they will get treatment for free. That means there is a bed taken up and that someone who actually pays gets told they may need to wait).

Morally we all know what the right thing to do is but ask me to take more money away from my family to fund other people who can get away with not putting their fair share in isnt starting to sit right with me. There are far to many people who try so hard to provide for their families and who are falling short every month. People who are working for virtually nothing, they dont get much time seeing their children, their partners, family etc. They are doing their best to make ends meet and to provide food on the table. Yet there are some who have NEVER worked, see their children all the time, have great social lives all whilst NEVER contributing a penny and receiving all of the benefits.

Where is the line drawn. I certainly know that due to this our healthcare is now suffering. Who knows what the future will hold. It is safe to say i wouldnt like to be the person who makes the final decision on what to do.

Im going get off my soap box now... its been a long day lol. I need a beer

The working poor is a real problem in any country tbert33. Free-loaders are another and in your case you have nations of them coming to you! I would take issue with that too! Just don't tell me that God has a plan for me and my body hence I'll only treat issues that i think God hasn't meddled in! I mean what the heck are you talking about!

Good luck over there - give me 8 hours and I'll join you in that beer .

Well earcutter i shall have a beer for you right now

Originally Posted by tbert33

Well earcutter i shall have a beer for you right now

Nice lol... I'll have one later for you lol! Thank goodness you and I can't drink responsibly at the same time lol. We might solve the problems of the world lol.

My next door neighbor front yard was lined with a boat load of politicals sign. After the election the next morning all the signs were gone, with only one new sign left! Nuff said!

Originally Posted by tbert33

ill hold my hands up straight away and admit im not an American but i wanted to throw my 10 pence in about healthcare.

The two problems that you are raising are not really dependent on how the health insurance is administered

1) Not enough resources to provide everybody everything they want. This is just simple fact of life and the way it's always solved it by prioritizing and going down the list until the available resources are exhausted. For example (something that doesn't involve money so it may be easier to accept) there are many people who die daily because they have failing organs and there are not enough spare parts from other dead people to go around. How do you distribute the available organs? One way is to let the free market do it through supply and demand and it will be based on pure merit - those members who have great value to the society measured by their wealth will be rewarded. But that's not the value system of our current society. May be if you are very wealthy or politically powerful you get some bias, but generally the value of people's lives are considered independent on socioeconomic status, at least on paper.

Then if you are not happy with the amount of available resources you can increase them by contributing more. In a government run system it's generally through the election process, in a marketplace you have more flexibility and can shop around for a plan that fits you better.

2) Freeloaders. Again that's irrespective of how the system is administered. The issue is that our values are to help people who suffer even if they cannot afford to pay for that help. You get that in either system - in US emergency centers are required to provide treatment to anybody, regardless if they can recover the cost of that treatment from the patient. But there is no free lunch, so the costs end up being covered by the paying customers. The thing is that your government has agreed to provide healthcare to other nationals in exchange of you getting healthcare when they are over there. May be it's not an equal trade, but you can be sure that there are other areas where your country is on he more profitable end of the bargain.

Originally Posted by tbert33

Very true sir. Which is why its a very difficult subject. The moral thing is to provide it free for everyone. That way everyone has the same chance. I am truly lucky to live in a country that offers this BUT there is the issue of who funds it. Do taxes increase massivley? does the govenrment cut finds to vital sources? someone has to pay for it. That then brings the argument around of why should some who already pay loads in taxes loose out whilst others freeload and get priorotised (i.e. if someone who lives in the EU comes to the UK they will get treatment for free. That means there is a bed taken up and that someone who actually pays gets told they may need to wait).

That is called European health care program. You can come to my country as well and get the same treatment for free as i would when visiting UK. That is a great system. Actually, i've never heard that when getting to health care services they would be interested on where are you coming from, be it from EU or not.

I understand you worries about free riders but that is only a small problem and even smaller if you talk about health care systems only. What it comes to income taxes, there are some free riders but what it comes to all taxation then everyone pays them. Both rich and poor, although rich folks have their ways to avoid paying some of their taxes. Nowadays the number of such free riders or 'big fat pigs' (as we say) is very small, luckily. Nuthing beats taxation officials.
Biggest worries with our health care system is the lack of trained professionals be it nurses, doctors or almost anyone related. That is why we have to call so many immigrants to work here and the need for those seems to grow even more.

Off topic but if you'd like to overcome Italian Mafia or make the Greek people pay more taxes, all you need is to send there Finnish, Dutch or German taxation official and you are done.
At the moment they start to harmonize taxation within EU then we get rid of most of those free riders or tax cheaters.

Nothing to do with US presidential elections of course. Guess it's time for a beer for me too.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I just read a newspaper article which mentioned that a deciding factor for Obama was the huge turnout of youth and minorities.

Yes, they currently have a demographic problem, and one of their rising stars sen. Rubio has been trying to impart it on them. The theory was that the legal hispanics would be against illegals because those are taking from them, but the reality is that the hispanics identify very strongly with other hispanics and the tough talk about illegal immigration and self-deportation just alienated them. Romney made a weak attempt to blame Obama for failed immigration reform, but that was way too late, and I think the hispanics knew that the only reason that went off the table was that republicans switched position against such reform once Obama won in 2008.

The young people are overwhelmingly for gay couples having the right to marry, so making a big deal out of that social issue doesn't work well for the republicans either. At this election for the first time ever gay marriage won in a referendum (approving existing legislature is not the same). And that's one issue where the direction of public opinion has been consistent for decades.

I think a big part of the republican party understands these problems, and the hard facts are that being too moderate was not the reason Romney lost. There are plenty of super smart people who know how to count and they have plenty of power. Romney's nomination was a result of that - Karl Rove convinced the people with money that only Romney has a chance of winning. There are some factually challenged ideologues too, but one thing everybody understands is losing, so they are bound to change eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later), or go the way of the Whigs.

I think one reason for Romney losing was not that people are for gay marriage or whatever, it was because of a fear that the Republicans wanted to turn the country into a theocracy. Not everyone is a conservative Christian. That was my fear...I am going on 57, so do not put myself into the "young" demographic, and am white, so maybe I am a minority in my demographic, but I don't want anyone dictating my beliefs.