PDA

View Full Version : Secretary of State Clinton?



IMI
11-17-2008, 10:23 AM
Secretary of State Clinton? Hillary, that is.
I could live with that. Better than Chief Justice Clinton...

I am glad though that the idea of CHANGE! didn't end with the selection of 35 year Senator Biden, and appears to be continuing with Hillary and many other ex-Clinton administration types...

I am really looking forward to all the newness Obama appears to be considering for high positions in the gub'ment. ;)

beverins
11-17-2008, 10:36 AM
I actually think that having Hillary on as Sec of State is a smart option, but I honestly think that Obama should hire McCain on as a member of the cabinet too. Might help to ease some of the anti-Obama insanity I see on the IntArWebZ. LOL

IMI
11-17-2008, 10:43 AM
I actually think that having Hillary on as Sec of State is a smart option, but I honestly think that Obama should hire McCain on as a member of the cabinet too. Might help to ease some of the anti-Obama insanity I see on the IntArWebZ. LOL

McCain has many talents. Being President isn't one of them, but he does at least have integrity. At least he did before the campaign. Hopefully he'll regain that, and, yes, it might be a smart political choice for Obama to find something for him.

Not exactly CHANGE! though...

IMI
11-17-2008, 10:46 AM
I meant to ask in my original post who thinks she'll accept the job?

Or will she bow out, worrying there could be a potential for it to damage her politically for the future?

Myself, I'd much rather be SoS than a boring ol' Senator. ;)

hrgiger
11-17-2008, 04:56 PM
McCain has many talents. Being President isn't one of them, but he does at least have integrity. At least he did before the campaign. Hopefully he'll regain that, and, yes, it might be a smart political choice for Obama to find something for him.

Not exactly CHANGE! though...

Obama and McCain had a sit down today, but I'm not sure it had anything to do with any kind of McCain appointment. I would be cool with that. I've always admired McCain as a Senator. As long as Palins out of the picture that is....

Hopper
11-17-2008, 07:20 PM
Yeah, I think McCain is a good man. He was just painted as someone he's not by his campaign managers. Unfortunate.

They may be re-thinking the whole Hillary thing because of Bill and his current affiliantions:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/clinton.cabinet/index.html

I didn't get a chance to read the article yet. Just got home.

DiedonD
11-18-2008, 06:16 AM
Bah! Nonsense really! Why mus her husbands chosen carreer effect Hillary in getting in!? So what should he do then by that? Quit his job?!

I mean, hes working for Pete's sake! Why MUST they find any small little thing and paint all lotta rubbish with it, to people around him aswell too!!

Conflict of interests! Pyahhh!! Knowing what Ive heard for their relationship, Im sure Hillary wont take orders from her husband, and compromise her polytical decisevness after what her hubby says!

And I think that she wouldnt do it even if she herself had that Global bussiness runing anyway!

ted
11-18-2008, 09:06 AM
It was just reported on CBS that She will accept the position.

DiedonD
11-19-2008, 03:35 AM
It was just reported on CBS that She will accept the position.

Great news :) . Its been a while that I havent heard the Clintons at the White House :D

Those were the days...

hrgiger
11-19-2008, 04:32 AM
Well, at least then we would know that someone in the administration knows how to balance a budget.

DiedonD
11-19-2008, 04:54 AM
Well, at least then we would know that someone in the administration knows how to balance a budget.

Oh, so The Clintons have great financial skills as well as briliant foreign affairs polytics huh? ;) :D

As far as I remember, it was President Bush that caused alotta economic debts. And this is of course what we heard over here. Then Wiliam Jefferson Bill Clinton emerged as the successor, and a great leader, and stabilized the financial crisis then!

He got switched after 8 years with President W. Bush now, and you now have crisis again. Only to be repaired by the Clintons again, then, if you look at it that way.

Looks like The Bushs fails at Economis issues, and The Clintons greatly improve in it. One ruins economy the other repairs it. And having wars during their presidencies isnt an excuse neither. Theyve both had them before you know.

IMI
11-19-2008, 05:45 AM
Presidents don't ruin -or- save economies.
Alot of Clinton's apparent "success" also had alot to do with the *enormous* tecnological boom of the time in the US and the whole world over.
Not that Clinton wasn't fiscally responsible - he was - but you can't say he "repaired" the economy.The US economy is far greater a thing than the federal government and depends on a whole lot more than a handful of people with pens in their hands.

You also can't say Bush "ruined" the economy. He did it no favors, but what you see now is the result of 6 or 7 decades of federal governmental "cooperation" to the effect of ruining the economy, with a whole lot of help from big business.

I heard just the other day Obama has said now is not the time to worry about the deficit - now is the time to spend...


EDIT:
AFAIK, Clinton has agreed to take the job but hasn't yet been approved officially for it.

DiedonD
11-19-2008, 06:16 AM
Im just recalling what I heard when Bill Clinton came to office. It was long ago but it said : '...Bush left a great debt for Clinton...' and Clinton was sitting on a chair like prepared to repair it.

And the Euro was lower than the Dollar in Mr. Clinton's time. But the Dollar got way too lower in W.Bushes time. If it goes higher again when Mrs. Clinton goes to the office, what do you expect me to believe IMI?

If we're talking about previous US President's impact on US economy then thats how its seen from here.

IMI
11-19-2008, 08:16 AM
I don't know - I'm not an economist and I don't feel like discussing it or arguing about it. :)

I can't speculate what role Hillary will have in Obama's financial decisions. I'm guessing not a whole lot.

warmiak
11-19-2008, 10:27 AM
Im just recalling what I heard when Bill Clinton came to office. It was long ago but it said : '...Bush left a great debt for Clinton...' and Clinton was sitting on a chair like prepared to repair it.

And the Euro was lower than the Dollar in Mr. Clinton's time. But the Dollar got way too lower in W.Bushes time. If it goes higher again when Mrs. Clinton goes to the office, what do you expect me to believe IMI?

If we're talking about previous US President's impact on US economy then thats how its seen from here.


Man you are clueless ... Clinton didn't really do much , except being a pragmatist and going along with the Republican congress ( who were really driving the agenda back then)
To his credit he was a smart politician, after he got terribly spanked by the voters for his idiotic national healthcare and even more idiotic new gun laws , he recognized his mistakes and adjusted his positions accordingly.

zapper1998
11-19-2008, 03:19 PM
omg
here we go again

I like here Universal Health Care plan ..

ted
11-19-2008, 06:33 PM
I am hoping his decisions are wise ones - I won't second guess his decisions until they are proved (well into his term) as being wrong. Time will tell.

I agree we all want him to do well with all the countries issues. And I'll hold judgement till he "actually does something wrong". Picking on him for what he "MIGHT" do is not productive and it amazes me how much of this is going on.

Many do find it odd that so many of his first appointments are from the Clinton Administration. Including his own party.

Kind of a mute point weather it was Hillary or Obama at this point. :) Don't freak out, it's intended as a joke. :)

DiedonD
11-20-2008, 12:46 AM
Man you are clueless ... Clinton didn't really do much , except being a pragmatist and going along with the Republican congress ( who were really driving the agenda back then)
To his credit he was a smart politician, after he got terribly spanked by the voters for his idiotic national healthcare and even more idiotic new gun laws , he recognized his mistakes and adjusted his positions accordingly.

So you say he was pragmatic, he went with Republican Congress, Smart politician, he obviosly isnt a flawless Archangel (to you at least) so got criticized on things he tried to make better, and after didnt work he amended them back.

I agree with all that.

So where am I clueless? We were talking about your previous Presidents' effect in your economy! And two questions are:

Did Mr. Bush the Senior left huge amounts of debt for Mr. Clintons administration to take care of?

And didnt Mr. W. Bush did the same thing to Mrs. Clintons possible time in the White House to take care of?

If you say no on both counts! Then why was the dollar higher compared to Euro during Mr. Clintons administration, and why did it fell so badly during Mr. W. Bushes administration?

warmiak
11-20-2008, 03:44 PM
So you say he was pragmatic, he went with Republican Congress, Smart politician, he obviosly isnt a flawless Archangel (to you at least) so got criticized on things he tried to make better, and after didnt work he amended them back.

I agree with all that.



No, he was criticized for acting in an imperial manner .. in other words, secretly coming up with a plan and then expecting others to simply flow with it.




Did Mr. Bush the Senior left huge amounts of debt for Mr. Clintons administration to take care of?



Yeah, and Bill Clinton was on his way to literally double the amount ( with his wife health-care plans and other things) but was stopped in his tracks by Gingrich and other republicans.

There you go :

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




And didnt Mr. W. Bush did the same thing to Mrs. Clintons possible time in the White House to take care of?


Sure, on the other hand all new Obama's plans are based on spending even more money ...



If you say no on both counts! Then why was the dollar higher compared to Euro during Mr. Clintons administration, and why did it fell so badly during Mr. W. Bushes administration?

That's a different story ... don't forget that all these problems with are having right now have their roots in the 90s ( starting with the first bubbles - the tech bubble)

ted
11-20-2008, 06:32 PM
If you say no on both counts! Then why was the dollar higher compared to Euro during Mr. Clintons administration, and why did it fell so badly during Mr. W. Bushes administration?

I think most people understand, Economics is more involved than who's in office.
Or else you could say... the economics graph will show the devistating collapse of the US economy coincided ALMOST EXACTLY with the Democrats taking control of Congress. :)

I don't think you can blame them...at least based on that logic. ;)

Look at how bad the entire global economy is going. It's much bigger than just the US economy or who OUR President is. This should tell you something.

Yup, the Economy trouble started before Clinton was leaving office. But I'm not putting it all on his back either. It's a bigger picture than that.

DiedonD
11-20-2008, 11:01 PM
@ Warmiak

What is wrong with With Health Care! Why are you talking about it, as if youre beeing ripped off your money! You guys are the only ones in the planet not to have universal care! Whats wrong with helping the sick?!

He was trying to make it easier for the sick man! Werent you ever sick? Didnt you ever wished you would be taken care of by professionals that are now more affordable to you? And not sell your house over it?

Or when you were sick, and saw the smile in the doctor, knowing what you will pay for that, didnt it make you have doubts about the sincerity of that smile?

We have private clinnics over here too. So I know how it is. But to the contrary, the majority is public health care, and only the rich go sometimes to the private sector.

I think instead of beeing proud of your former Presidents positivistic moves, that he tried to do good for all, your trying to make it look bad.

@Ted

Perhaps its a multifactorial thing. But, the image beeing portrayed by your media is that Liberals are stronger in Economic terms, and Reps are stronger in Millitary terms. Thus Im expecting a solution to the present economic crisis from the Obama team, especially Hillary Clinton :thumbsup: And youll see they will make it. Just like they did before.

warmiak
11-20-2008, 11:33 PM
@ Warmiak

What is wrong with With Health Care! Why are you talking about it, as if youre beeing ripped off your money! You guys are the only ones in the planet not to have universal care! Whats wrong with helping the sick?!


We also happened to have the most advanced and the best healt-care system on the planet - perhaps not as affordable as others but certainly the best in terms of outcomes.




I think instead of beeing proud of your former Presidents positivistic moves, that he tried to do good for all, your trying to make it look bad.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

DiedonD
11-21-2008, 12:34 AM
We also happened to have the most advanced and the best healt-care system on the planet - perhaps not as affordable as others but certainly the best in terms of outcomes.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So do you think great profiteering from desperate sick people is alright with you? When there are other modalities out there?

IMI
11-21-2008, 04:25 AM
So do you think great profiteering from desperate sick people is alright with you? When there are other modalities out there?

Look, you can't take every piece of highly slanted information that makes it across the oceans and make it fact. There are two sides to every story.

The liberal agenda-driven popular belief is American doctors and insurance companies are rich and greedy and don't care for anything but money.
The liberal agenda-driven popular belief is that only government can solve such problems.

The fact is, though, that the situation we have is almost entirely the FAULT of the government, which has gone out of its way to make health care unaffordable through years of over-regulation and taxation of the doctors and hospitals AND because they've failed to reign in the greedy trial lawyers who, through myriads of frivolous lawsuits have seen to it doctors and hospitals have to operate at very high costs in order to pay for their OWN insurance.

It amazes me how so many people are so willing to look at highly complex issues such as health care and conclude some simplistic reasoning like doctor's greed is the cause of the problem, when it's a whole slew of things which have conspired to create the problem. At the bottom of it all though is the government and its over-zealousness to act in the WRONG areas, while *failing* to act in the RIGHT areas.

And then some politician stands up there and proudly proclaims, "I CARE!", and the masses cheer. And then, like Clinton did, goes about trying to "fix" it by continuing the tradition of looking for answers in all the places except where the real problem is.

Why? Because for one thing, the real problem is his own organization - the government - and all the people who have helped put him where he is - the people with the money.

If Clinton was such a great, smart and caring president, why do you suppose he failed at creating universal health care?

Likely, Obama will fail for the same reasons.

DiedonD
11-21-2008, 05:47 AM
If Clinton was such a great, smart and caring president, why do you suppose he failed at creating universal health care?

Likely, Obama will fail for the same reasons.

Well you said it yourself. He failed cause of rich people that got him there, and probably those rich people portrayed his good attempts at making a health care in the first place.

But the fact is! HE TRIED TO DO IT, and it was a positive attempt! It was a good thing that he tried to do, and it shouldnt be used against him. Why is it beeing used against him, when he wanted universal care for all!

Obama should learn from his failures, and kick when they come. And Hillary is there to remind him when that will come.

Bah. Im just beeing a bit protective of my most preffered US President, thats all.

IMI
11-21-2008, 06:46 AM
Well you said it yourself. He failed cause of rich people that got him there, and probably those rich people portrayed his good attempts at making a health care in the first place.

But the fact is! HE TRIED TO DO IT, and it was a positive attempt! It was a good thing that he tried to do, and it shouldnt be used against him. Why is it beeing used against him, when he wanted universal care for all!


Well, for one thing, I'm not using it against him, I'm just trying to inject some reality into it. The majority of American citizens believe we don't have universal health care because we have a bad, uncaring president, but the truth is it's because we have a bad president who believes the market can solve all problems, which is the opposite of believing the gub'ment can solve all problems, and just as wrong.

DID he try to do it? Or did he *appear* to be trying to do it? The answer to both questions is Yes..and No.
Yes, he tried to do it insofar as it was possible without stepping on too many sensitive toes. No, he did not try to do it hard enough or in the right direction.
Now, if he wasn't also equally guilty of bowing to the rich and their concerns, did he REALLY try to do it? Think about that.

Mostly though, I believe he used the issue as a way to get elected - nothing like big, grand promises to increase one's popularity, you know. I think it was Hillary who cared more than Bill though, and she *might* have succeeded - at least made more progress - but she wasn't president, only his wife back then. But she's as equally tied in with the law community as he was, though she might have been more willing to defy the gub'ment and the law and insurance lobbies.

Having said that, I think Bill was a pretty good president overall. I know he helped you guys in Kosova out alot. ;)




Obama should learn from his failures, and kick when they come. And Hillary is there to remind him when that will come.

Bah. Im just beeing a bit protective of my most preffered US President, thats all.

Hopefully Obama will learn from Bill's failures regarding health care, but only time will tell. THAT will be one of the main indicators of whether or not his "CHANGE We Need!" slogan was more than a slogan when all is said and done. After all, we know universal health care IS possible. if Obama fails to pull it off, it will be for the same reason Clinton did - because he wasn't willing to enact *enough* change in the *right* places. Remember, we also have a democrat majority Congress now too... so if it doesn't happen, there will be nobody to blame but themselves.

I guess we wait and see what happens....

And yes, I could tell you were "being a bit protective of my most preferred US President". Preference, however, is not a great basis for fact. ;)

DiedonD
11-21-2008, 06:58 AM
Having said that, I think Bill was a pretty good president overall. I know he helped you guys in Kosova out alot. ;)

And yes, I could tell you were "being a bit protective of my most preferred US President". Preference, however, is not a great basis for fact. ;)

He surely did IMI. Surely DID. As I said before. His name is immortalized here. Even at this second, honest to God, I said to my engineer over here 'Clinton is getting back on stage' he couldnt believe his ears, remained speechless and breathless, and asked me to repeat that for three times :D

Then I thought I shuold stop the torture, the man should breath an all, and said 'Hillary', he went like 'Awwwwwww, yes yes, right, I know' :D

Hes a great President, Im glad you had him, you certainly deserve the best.

Yeah time will tell about that. Hopefully he gets it done this time, all the dices are on 'Can do it' team.

ted
11-21-2008, 08:37 AM
@ Warmiak
What is wrong with With Health Care! Why are you talking about it, as if youre beeing ripped off your money! You guys are the only ones in the planet not to have universal care! Whats wrong with helping the sick?!


The US has the best in the world. That's why people come from all over the world to be treated in the United States, even countires with "Universal Health Care". That tells you something.

The fact is, NO PERSON can be denied treatment for life threatening situations here.
The fact is, there ARE free clinics in almost every city in the US. I have shot video for many of these FREE CLINICS.

Is that free care as good as the highest care available? Is it as widely available? Probably not. But if you NEED health care, it IS available. Trust me.

What many of us here in the US understand, is that anything run by the Government is worse than what you can get in the private sector.

Look at the health care the Government provides to the veterans. IT SUCKS. That's the only example they have supplied.
My brother is retired from the Air Force and he can tell you the truth about the Government run health care. IT SUCKS!

Look at how many doctors in the US DON'T take medicare or medical patients. Because the Government is too stingy to pay AND makes it impossible for doctors to comply with all the regulations and paperwork.

So in order to keep the US health care the best, we don't want the Government providing it. ;)
The Government is like a massive HMO.

I'm not saying it can't be better here, but no service is perfect.
Not trying to to argue with you, just wanting to point some things out from this side of the ocean.

warmiak
11-21-2008, 09:43 AM
So do you think great profiteering from desperate sick people is alright with you? When there are other modalities out there?

You want people to profit from you because that's when they really care.

warmiak
11-21-2008, 09:49 AM
He surely did IMI. Surely DID. As I said before. His name is immortalized here. Even at this second, honest to God, I said to my engineer over here 'Clinton is getting back on stage' he couldnt believe his ears, remained speechless and breathless, and asked me to repeat that for three times :D

Then I thought I shuold stop the torture, the man should breath an all, and said 'Hillary', he went like 'Awwwwwww, yes yes, right, I know' :D

Hes a great President, Im glad you had him, you certainly deserve the best.

Yeah time will tell about that. Hopefully he gets it done this time, all the dices are on 'Can do it' team.

Frankly, that's what is wrong with this country these days... just like Bush had no real business in Iraq , I have no idea why Clinton got involved in Balkans - it was none of our business.

Let these people sort it out themselves - it was their own mess to begin with.

ted
11-21-2008, 11:36 AM
So do you think great profiteering from desperate sick people is alright with you? When there are other modalities out there?

Well, to put it bluntly, YES.
To explain in more detail:
If these companies are NOT making insane profit, they won't be able to develop insane technology that is helping millions world wide.

The latest advancements in Brain cancer is saving people. My Mother In-law recoverd perfectly just this year from a brain cancer that would have killed her just a year or two ago thanks to these companies insane profits.

The latest exray-scan technology did NOT come from a company barely making a profit.
All the latest life saving technology came from companies making insane profits which helped them make insane technology that helped them make more insane profit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be mean here, but the lowest level of health care technology today is better than the best health care technology of yesterday. All due to these evil profit minded companies.
Just something to ponder for a more balanced understanding how things work. ;)

hrgiger
11-21-2008, 02:22 PM
The US has the best in the world. That's why people come from all over the world to be treated in the United States, even countires with "Universal Health Care". That tells you something.

The fact is, NO PERSON can be denied treatment for life threatening situations here.
The fact is, there ARE free clinics in almost every city in the US. I have shot video for many of these FREE CLINICS.

Is that free care as good as the highest care available? Is it as widely available? Probably not. But if you NEED health care, it IS available. Trust me.

What many of us here in the US understand, is that anything run by the Government is worse than what you can get in the private sector.

Look at the health care the Government provides to the veterans. IT SUCKS. That's the only example they have supplied.
My brother is retired from the Air Force and he can tell you the truth about the Government run health care. IT SUCKS!

Look at how many doctors in the US DON'T take medicare or medical patients. Because the Government is too stingy to pay AND makes it impossible for doctors to comply with all the regulations and paperwork.

So in order to keep the US health care the best, we don't want the Government providing it. ;)
The Government is like a massive HMO.

I'm not saying it can't be better here, but no service is perfect.
Not trying to to argue with you, just wanting to point some things out from this side of the ocean.

You're seriously misinformed. The US is far from the best when it comes to health care. According to the World Health Organization, we're 37th on the list. We're 24th when it comes to life expectancy. Note that many of the countries that do offer socialized medicine rank much higher.

And as Megladon has already pointed out, you can and people often are refused treatment for life threatening situations here.

warmiak
11-21-2008, 02:30 PM
Wrong.

If you have cancer - which many types are life-threatening - you are SOL.

Yet still more people survive cancer here than in Europe ...

Korvar
11-21-2008, 02:36 PM
There have also been several famous cases of people being denied the money for life-saving treatment, even though it was explicitly covered by their policy. The insurance company, to maximise its profits and shareholder dividends, basically was banking on the customer dying before they could sue to get the money.

warmiak
11-21-2008, 02:38 PM
You're seriously misinformed. The US is far from the best when it comes to health care. According to the World Health Organization, we're 37th on the list. We're 24th when it comes to life expectancy. Note that many of the countries that do offer socialized medicine rank much higher.

And as Megladon has already pointed out, you can and people often are refused treatment for life threatening situations here.

Life expectancy is not a good way to measure health care quality...

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html


When you actually start measuring the real thing , the US is way ahead of other nations.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/surviving-cancer-us-vs-europe.html

warmiak
11-21-2008, 03:44 PM
Again.... those who can AFFORD it.

No, you are wrong .. people who GET SICK, regardless of their financial status, still have better chance of surviving cancer in the US.

In fact there are more people diagnosed with cancer in this country than in Europe ( mostly because more of them get tested).

IMI
11-21-2008, 04:21 PM
In fact there are more people diagnosed with cancer in this country than in Europe ( mostly because more of them get tested).

Which is why it's almost equally as important (if not more important) that we have "wellness care" in the US.

I believe it's time to stop being politically correct. For example, kids in school at a young age need to understand stuffing your face with candy all day and then sitting in front of the tube all night is BAD, stupid, and irresponsible. Kids, at a young age, need to learn in SCHOOL that becoming morbidly obese is not an acceptable lifestyle choice.

And all kinds of other stuff like that. Forget about "government cheese" - they can and SHOULD hand out food to poor families, but GOOD food. How about Government Broccoli and Government Farm-Raised Catfish and Government Apples?

For that matter, you should not be allowed to buy "crapfood" with food stamps. There should be a list of items and food types which have been approved as "healthy" and only those should be allowed - along with a large discount for people buying those items with food stamps. For example, a bunch of Asparagus would cost them maybe a third of the price it would cost you or me going in with cash.

Cigarettes should be BANNED. Illegal, no more, bye-bye. Why not? Jumping off the top floor of a building or shooting yourself in the head with a handgun is illegal - smoking is just a slower form of the same thing.

I could probably come up with all kinds of examples, but to avoid that and to sum it up, if we had better, healthier habits as a society overall, we would have fewer health problems, fewer costs.

Any Universal Health Care Plan needs to be accompanied by an aggressive Universal Wellness Plan, IMO

IMI
11-21-2008, 04:27 PM
I saw a piece on CNN this morning where McDonald's has actually hired a bunch of "regular moms" to try to convince other moms that McDonald's french fries are healthy and you shouldn't be afraid to feed them to your kids.

That's. Just. Pathetic.

Alright, they ARE delicious, I'll grant that. ;)
But healthy? No way. Teach the moms to julienne their own fresh potatoes and *bake* their kids *fresh* homemade fries as a snack. Make it a fun little project and include the kids. A little together time never hurt a family much, either.

hrgiger
11-21-2008, 04:57 PM
Life expectancy is not a good way to measure health care quality...

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html


When you actually start measuring the real thing , the US is way ahead of other nations.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/surviving-cancer-us-vs-europe.html

Oh yeah, we're doing great here. We're 9th in the world when it comes to the fattest people.

ted
11-21-2008, 06:05 PM
If you have cancer - which many types are life-threatening - you are SOL.

Are you saying that every person who gets cancer should get the same treatment?
Why do some of you despise those that can afford the best?

Due you realize that this would result in those that can afford it, not getting the best available?

If everyone gets the same, there will be no "best" possible because there will not be money to invest in advancing technology.

As I said before, the poor benefit today because of what the rich paid for yesterday.

ted
11-21-2008, 06:06 PM
Oh yeah, we're doing great here. We're 9th in the world when it comes to the fattest people.

And unfortunately, that is a personal choice.

hrgiger
11-21-2008, 06:26 PM
And unfortunately, that is a personal choice.

Only partly the case. You also have to blame our culture which promotes gluttony. Sort of like saying that an alcoholic chooses to drink which is true but also not true at the same time.

warmiak
11-21-2008, 11:30 PM
And how does that work if they can't afford to go to the doctor and get treated?

If you think this is not the case, there are MANY who do not have insurance (i.e. millions) and simply cannot afford to even go TO the doctor.)

So ?

Obviously, it doesn't matter since you are more likely to survive cancer anyway.

The real reason is that great majority of people who don't have insurance are generally people who don't have to worry about this stuff yet - mostly young.

ted
11-22-2008, 12:16 AM
Do you actually read what you write?

Did ANYONE say anything about EVERYONE getting the EXACT SAME care?

No? That's what I thought.

How about... EVERYONE has ACCESS to BASIC healthcare at an affordable rate.

Got THAT ted?

First off, are you capable of having a discussion without the insults? :confused:

I was responding to your statement:
-Megaldon- "And how does that work if they can't afford to go to the doctor and get treated?"

You didn't say "at an affordable rate". You said if they can't afford to go to a doctor, which "by my reading" means they can't afford treatment if they can't afford to even see a doctor first.

I was trying to DISCUSS "my opinion" that GIVING health care doesn't mean you are entitled to get everything that can be thrown at any problem.
That would be kind and very nice, but you don't pay for all that, AND still support the level of R&D that is thrown at making major advancements that in a short amount of time will be available to the masses at a lower cost. Just my humble opinion though.

How about next time you chill and try and DISCUSS your view with a little civility? I think it provides a better discussion than the tone you like to set. But again, that's just my opinion. :)

DiedonD
11-22-2008, 12:40 AM
Alotta issues in this one. I know of a Child Surgeon here. He is passionate doctor, that always insisted on not getting any extra money for himself. Say he would do the 'job' perfectly, and appart from his Health Care, which here is only called Hospital, sallary, he insisted on not getting any other tip from you.

But people took advantage of that passion of his. And would call him up 24/7!

Now theres a guy who deserves to be payed alot more I think. Be payed on a US doctor level. Cause this is what he does, regardless of money. He cares for the wellbeeing of people. The sallary is 300 Euros! Hes not in it for money!

Now compare that to doctors that dont care about the well being of people. And the next coming pacient is weighed based SOLELY on how much money he 'carries' with him! Now he'll be operating the insides of you! And of course he doesnt provide guarantees that youll come back alive! SO just do the job for money, if the pacient dies, hey its practice!

There oughta be a middle in them two...

Regarding Health Care. It covers the most of human biologic problems. If it doesnt then we go abroad. So its something on need to do basis. Everyone may be coming over to you for those tough problems, but they do so when they need and thats very rare. Is it worthy of having such high prices on health! Just for having the first place in the world! Hype!

I mean 'lets ripp off people constantly for the grand name, just so to provide a perfect place for those rare times they may need to get here' ! Thats a question for you. Is that worth it?

I think its not worth it. And would rather see everyone get Health Care, and only them rare cases be treated with high prices.

Once I went to see the private sector. He cutt and folded my kids burns for 40 Euro's. I mean for 5 minutes. You would get that for 5 here!

So why? For the hype name that its perfect place guaranteed to cover all irregularities?

DiedonD
11-22-2008, 02:34 AM
Frankly, that's what is wrong with this country these days... just like Bush had no real business in Iraq , I have no idea why Clinton got involved in Balkans - it was none of our business.

Let these people sort it out themselves - it was their own mess to begin with.

Well frankly we were very pleasantly suprized aswell! I mean its not everyday that a Superpower accross the ocean decides to interveene when we were at most need like that! We too were baffled of course! But we embraced it immediately of course!

Afterwards we started looking for causes behind the decision. And have gathered a few:

1) Millitary strategy. I dont know weather you know this. But you guys have a HUGE army base here. And youve named it 'BONDSTEEL'. Like our relation that we have is a strong bond, symbolized with strongness of steel. So perhaps you oughta need that for something, the army base I mean.

2) It was mentioned in the media that this was the first time that US lead NATO troops would interveene nobly like that. So, its a noble intervention!

3) The present 20th century war policies tend to be fought between homogenous and non homogenous nations. The non homogenous of course enforce mixture of people, in ideals of live in let live. The homogenous still want only one clean nation, and of course it is theirs that should walk this earth. US-Europe was non homogenous, and didnt wanna stand natives dislocation from land. Thus came that, and was further thought that it may have inccurred World War 3.

4) Is that cynnical nonsense about Clinton that I wont even mention, cause its not right, nor the truth and thats final, by me.

So perhaps its one of them, all of them, or Ive missed something.

Whatever the case, you were more then welcome to come here :) . And you can stay as our guests however much you want too.

Lightwolf
11-22-2008, 04:18 AM
Life expectancy is not a good way to measure health care quality...

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html


When you actually start measuring the real thing , the US is way ahead of other nations.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/surviving-cancer-us-vs-europe.html
Are you still at it? Wasn't that chart totally debunked for a number of reasons weeks ago and you agreed to that as well?

Cheers,
Mike

ted
11-22-2008, 10:29 AM
Whatever the case, you were more then welcome to come here :) . And you can stay as our guests however much you want too.

Thank you so very much. (Not that I was involved). :)
But it's nice when our efforts are recognized and expressed.

warmiak
11-22-2008, 11:26 AM
Are you still at it? Wasn't that chart totally debunked for a number of reasons weeks ago and you agreed to that as well?

Cheers,
Mike

What are you talking about ?

DiedonD
11-22-2008, 01:07 PM
Thank you so very much. (Not that I was involved). :)
But it's nice when our efforts are recognized and expressed.

Be it American, European, you all were involved mate :)

Its like a scale. That ranges from people that were totally against the US Lead NATO intervention, to people that understood us, sympathyzed with us, supported us, entered as troops with us, all the way to the nifty pilots that made their presence known so wildly.

All in that scale were involved. Be it with taxes, support all the way to direct physical involvement.

During the first week after the war I was in the hunt to find ANY foreigner, to express my gratitude. I wanted to make him feel like in heaven while in here. NATO soldiers had orders you know, they were unreachable.

Anyway, Mrs. Clinton officially accepted the offer of Secretary of State of US! Way to go Mrs. Hillaryyy. Its been a while :D

george49
11-22-2008, 02:46 PM
Huh?


The US has the best in the world. That's why people come from all over the world to be treated in the United States, even countires with "Universal Health Care". That tells you something.

The fact is, NO PERSON can be denied treatment for life threatening situations here.
The fact is, there ARE free clinics in almost every city in the US. I have shot video for many of these FREE CLINICS.

Is that free care as good as the highest care available? Is it as widely available? Probably not. But if you NEED health care, it IS available. Trust me.

What many of us here in the US understand, is that anything run by the Government is worse than what you can get in the private sector.

Look at the health care the Government provides to the veterans. IT SUCKS. That's the only example they have supplied.
My brother is retired from the Air Force and he can tell you the truth about the Government run health care. IT SUCKS!

Look at how many doctors in the US DON'T take medicare or medical patients. Because the Government is too stingy to pay AND makes it impossible for doctors to comply with all the regulations and paperwork.

So in order to keep the US health care the best, we don't want the Government providing it. ;)
The Government is like a massive HMO.

I'm not saying it can't be better here, but no service is perfect.
Not trying to to argue with you, just wanting to point some things out from this side of the ocean.

akademus
11-22-2008, 03:41 PM
Americans THINK they have best Health care in the world. But its faaaaar away from truth.

Canadian, French, UK and Australian all have much better health systems.

To set an example, in Oz, if you're foreigner you get full private medical coverage for as little as 1000AUD per year. It includes everything except some extremely expensive open heart surgery (which
you get if you take more expensive package).

Moore is probably exaggerating in his movie Sicko, but it shows examples around the world for comparison. One in Cuba is quite interesting.

I think it should be viewed before expressing that you have the best medical insurance. There is a nice bit on Hilary too.

Cheers

Huh?
Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ted View Post
The US has the best in the world. That's why people come from all over the world to be treated in the United States, even countires with "Universal Health Care". That tells you something.

The fact is, NO PERSON can be denied treatment for life threatening situations here.
The fact is, there ARE free clinics in almost every city in the US. I have shot video for many of these FREE CLINICS.

Is that free care as good as the highest care available? Is it as widely available? Probably not. But if you NEED health care, it IS available. Trust me.

What many of us here in the US understand, is that anything run by the Government is worse than what you can get in the private sector.

Look at the health care the Government provides to the veterans. IT SUCKS. That's the only example they have supplied.
My brother is retired from the Air Force and he can tell you the truth about the Government run health care. IT SUCKS!

Look at how many doctors in the US DON'T take medicare or medical patients. Because the Government is too stingy to pay AND makes it impossible for doctors to comply with all the regulations and paperwork.

So in order to keep the US health care the best, we don't want the Government providing it.
The Government is like a massive HMO.

I'm not saying it can't be better here, but no service is perfect.
Not trying to to argue with you, just wanting to point some things out from this side of the ocean.

IMI
11-22-2008, 03:45 PM
Americans THINK they have best Health care in the world. But its faaaaar away from truth.


I think if you read it a little closer you'd discover Ted meant the quality not the insurance or the accessibility.

akademus
11-22-2008, 03:52 PM
I think if you read it a little closer you'd discover Ted meant the quality not the insurance or the accessibility.

Yes. It is the most advanced, you both have it right, I agree. However, both insurance and accessibility count into it. I mean, whats the use of having the best doctors and treatments in the world if only few can afford it?

IMI
11-22-2008, 04:12 PM
Yes. It is the most advanced, you both have it right, I agree. However, both insurance and accessibility count into it. I mean, whats the use of having the best doctors and treatments in the world if only few can afford it?

I don't know, ask Ted - I didn't say it, he did, I just corrected it. ;)

Also, by writing "you both have it right", you seem to think I was agreeing, while I was - again - just correcting the statement, not adding my opinion to it.
I couldn't make such a claim - I've never been to a doctor outside the US, and I don't follow world doctor policy too closely. ;)

akademus
11-22-2008, 05:26 PM
I couldn't make such a claim - I've never been to a doctor outside the US, and I don't follow world doctor policy too closely. ;)

That is what I wanted to subtly point out - don't make a statement "we have it best" before comparing it to the others.

Now you have it right :D

Cheers

IMI
11-22-2008, 05:55 PM
That is what I wanted to subtly point out - don't make a statement "we have it best" before comparing it to the others.

Now you have it right :D



Not to beat a dead horse here dude, but, again, *I* didn't say it.

Don't go all smugly telling me NOW I have it right. I had it right from the beginning - it was you who misread what was written, and I who pointed it out.

ted
11-22-2008, 06:24 PM
Americans THINK they have best Health care in the world. But its faaaaar away from truth.

Canadian, French, UK and Australian all have much better health systems.

I think it should be viewed before expressing that you have the best medical insurance. There is a nice bit on Hilary too.

Cheers

I think you misread me. I was talking about actual medical treatment and advancements. No biggie, we don't always see the intent of typed words. That's why it's so easy to miss one's intention when we aren't sharing a discussion face to face. Like over a beer! ;)

I think we will have to dissagree about the importance of top quality. You see, most Americans are insured. And the numbers of "Uninsured" is overstated for a multitude of reasons we can discuss later.

As I said, today's high tech medical advancements are tomorrows average persons benefits.

hrgiger
11-22-2008, 07:41 PM
I think we will have to dissagree about the importance of top quality. You see, most Americans are insured. And the numbers of "Uninsured" is overstated for a multitude of reasons we can discuss later.



I'm dying to hear how the almost 50 million uninsured in this country is somehow an insignificant number.

IMI
11-22-2008, 08:03 PM
I'm dying to hear how the almost 50 million uninsured in this country is somehow an insignificant number.

It's interesting to put it into perspective like that. I think there are alot of us who don't quite realize how precarious our "insured" status is - even those of us who are insured.
Myself, I lost half my insurance last month when I got laid off from my job. (it was employer-provided) I still have my supplemental insurance which I pay for myself, but now I'm going to have to pay *alot* more to have the same overall coverage. That's not necessarily an easy thing for alot of people to do after losing a job.

I'm kinda looking at it all a little bit differently now. Having been brought back down to reality a little closer, it's alot easier to sympathize with the plight of the totally uninsured, and to realize their chances of getting decent insurance are very slim.

Hell, even for many, many millions who *do* have "insurance" it's little more than some sorry-a** HMO or PPO, which is virtually useless for anything complex involving extended hospital time or outpatient treatment.

Titus
11-22-2008, 08:42 PM
I wonder how much do you pay for your medical insurance?

Here we have a relatively good health care system but I and my familiy is also under private unlimited insurance and is like $1000 USD a year.

IMI
11-22-2008, 09:05 PM
I wonder how much do you pay for your medical insurance?



TOO much. WAAAY too much. ;)
Having been a cigarette smoker for 20 years doesn't help any, even though I quit a few years ago.

If you're asking what the average person pays, I'd have no idea, but I believe the average no-frills PPO or HMO is somewhere around $200-$250/month.

UltraViolet
11-22-2008, 11:02 PM
I wonder how much do you pay for your medical insurance?

Here we have a relatively good health care system but I and my familiy is also under private unlimited insurance and is like $1000 USD a year.

Me and my wife pay $400 a month for a crappy one, only 80% coverage + co-pay + $500 deductible (so my whole weekly paycheck goes to it). Sad...

hrgiger
11-23-2008, 01:11 AM
I was going to scold you for "exaggerating" that 50 million number, but then I'm sure it is probably now at least that and will continue to rise as the economy "sags."



That's why I put the 'almost' in front of the 50 million. I guess I should have used italics.

And IMI, you are correct when you say that even some of the ones who do have insurance, don't exactly have the best insurance, and are just as unprotected as the uninsured when it comes to serious care or hospitalization.
It's easy to say that America has the best health care in the world when you're one of the ones who has good insurance and hasn't yet fallen through any of the many cracks in our health care system.

akademus
11-23-2008, 03:25 AM
Ted: Yes, I have misread a bit, I admit. At a first glance your post seemed somewhat like, we have it best, and blah blah blah. And a lack of beer in conversation just added to it :beerchug: :D

IMI: I have no intention in starting an a fight over american medical scheme, sorry!

If a society is measured by how well it takes after its most endangered social groups than a medical insurance is measured by how well it takes after the people who cant afford to pay, often, high medical bills, or even the relatively small ones.

Good national medical scheme involves cover for everyone who is in need. I have a chance to try a few and must say differences are quite big. People from Canada and UK would only laugh at some aspects of medical coverage in US.

warmiak
11-23-2008, 03:47 AM
Ted: Yes, I have misread a bit, I admit. At a first glance your post seemed somewhat like, we have it best, and blah blah blah. And a lack of beer in conversation just added to it :beerchug: :D

IMI: I have no intention in starting an a fight over american medical scheme, sorry!

If a society is measured by how well it takes after its most endangered social groups than a medical insurance is measured by how well it takes after the people who cant afford to pay, often, high medical bills, or even the relatively small ones.

Good national medical scheme involves cover for everyone who is in need. I have a chance to try a few and must say differences are quite big. People from Canada and UK would only laugh at some aspects of medical coverage in US.

There are a lot of Canadians crossing over to get their MRIs and other services without having to wait for months ... so yeah, I guess some of them are happy.

warmiak
11-23-2008, 03:58 AM
2) It was mentioned in the media that this was the first time that US lead NATO troops would interveene nobly like that. So, its a noble intervention!


Really ?

Who defines what is noble ? You ?
I am sure the Serbs and the Russians didn't consider it noble at all.

hrgiger
11-23-2008, 06:55 AM
There are a lot of Canadians crossing over to get their MRIs and other services without having to wait for months ... so yeah, I guess some of them are happy.

well, there are about 50 million people in this country that will never receive an MRI no matter how long they wait. Which is better?

DiedonD
11-23-2008, 07:37 AM
Really ?

Who defines what is noble ? You ?
I am sure the Serbs and the Russians didn't consider it noble at all.

The media defined it as noble, not me. But if youd ask me, Id say that it was noble indeed, no doubt about it.

And I think that the good people of Serbia and Russia have also considered it like a noble act too, why shouldnt they! They have found relief in the ending of a bloody war, and just want the Kosova issue to have more recognition in declared independence, want to dissacociate themselves from indiscriminate murder, rape, looting and arson that the Miloschevich regime and immoral former Kosovar Serbs have caused here to have, and find closure to the whole ordeal in that way. '

Yeah, 'Please take Kosova away!' Ive heard them say to my utmost disbelief!

The ones I talked to. Which are ordinary working people said 'Yes, come on already, weve got better things to think about ' You know. And later on we talked about Georgia. Not much from that it got attacked from Russia, come to think of it!

So... What makes you so sure that Serbia and Russia didnt consider it like a noble act? Do you know that Russians themselves were invited here aswell, and helped push the terror up north back to Serbia!

Come to think of it. Serbia has alotta problems man. All the terrorists in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosova went back to live there! I hope them to find peace in themselves somehow.

As long as the terrorists stay clear from here for good, I can even pray and wish them that too now.

akademus
11-23-2008, 08:02 AM
Really ?

Who defines what is noble ? You ?
I am sure the Serbs and the Russians didn't consider it noble at all.

There is nothing noble in constantly bombing innocent people for over 70 days for something that was internal matter of the sovereign country, intentionally hitting bridges and industrial infrastructure Link to chronology of nobility and misses (http://www.beograd.org.yu/cms/view.php?id=201271) . Whenever NATO miss it's target it was claimed to be collateral damage and they kept missing regardless of technological superiority.

Also, there is nothing noble in punishing the same people now for something that took place 10 years ago!

IMI
11-23-2008, 08:27 AM
You know, it's occurred to me that in discussions regarding health care in the US, you can't really argue with words like "better". It's entirely subjective what "better" is, and that's going to differ for alot of people.

Think about it. people who aren't concerned about whether or not poor people can have health care are very likely to disagree with the definition of "better" than someone who *is* concerned.

The Darwinist (survival of the fittest) says, "I don't see how it's better to take my money to treat people who haven't made it enough to pay for it like I do." or, "It's better that I keep my money and they figure out some other way."

The Bleeding Heart Liberal says, "It's better to have a system where everyone has access to quality health care regardless of their income or circumstances." Or, "It's better that they can stay healthy, because you count on them to work for you."

But forget about extremes - that's not necessary to make my point here.

The Conservative Republican might say, "It's better to allow the market to operate unimpeded and to allow the employers to voluntarily supply insurance."

While the Liberal Democrat might say, "But they will get away with as little as possible - it's better to force them to offer not only insurance, but good insurance."

While the Socialist might say, "It's better to have the government pay for it entirely, to insure everyone equally."

See where I'm going with this? Everyone has a different version of what's "better" and it's highly subjective.

Those of you who do believe the gub'ment should outright *supply* it have an excellent point, which I completely agree with. I didn't agree entirely a while ago, but I've changed my mind. Flip-flopped, if you will. ;) Not that I think the Gov should pay for it all, but rather, that I agree it's a necessary thing one way or the other.

Those who believe it's "better" to keep The Fed out of it also have an excellent point, which is backed up through observation of years of government "interference" and "help" - you can't blindly trust the gub'ment to get anything right, and should probably *expect* them to screw everything up into a bloated, expensive, wasteful mess.

The Conservative doesn't necessarily not want to help the uninsured, but rather doesn't see it as his obligation to do so.

The Liberal does want to help the uninsured and the poor, but often believes the only way is through mandates and government intervention.

So, I'm going to tell y'all what's actually "better":

*What's "better" is that we end up with a population who can go to the doctors or hospitals and get treated even if they're dirt poor.
*What's "better" is that in the course of implementing such an outcome we make sure it doesn't become some bottomless government pork barrel wrapped in red tape.
*What's "better" is the less direct control The Fed has over it, the better.
*What's "better" is at the same time all the other problems contributing to such ridiculous costs are curtailed or eliminated; there's an awful lot of waste, excessive taxation and overzealous regulation going on, thanks largely to the lobbyists and the insurance companies, and, of course, the trial lawyers who are all buddied-up to the legislators who are so willing to avoid tort reform.

In short, what's "better" is that we have a system of health care that works for everyone who needs it, doesn't exclude anyone, and doesn't create an inoperable tangled heap of sticky red tape along the way.
Additionally, abuses of the system need to be dealt with with extreme prejudice, and by that I mean everyone from the guy who's figured out how to cash in bigtime off of it, to the guy who runs to the doctor every time he has a sniffle or needs a doctor's note to justify blowing off work for a few days.

What's obvious is that America's health care system has become so overrun with idiocy and greed and inefficiency that it has failed for a whole lot of people. What's obvious is that charity and the market alone can't solve the problem. What's obvious is that it IS a problem and these millions of uninsured and under-insured NEED access to quality health care.
Additionally, what's obvious is that we, as the ingeniously resourceful and creative lot that we are, CAN come up with a "better" way, and we CAN be the world's leader in not only health care quality, but also in health care accessibility.

*What's "better" is that we don't allow The Fed to settle on easy answers; that is, we can't allow them to take the easy way out and just toss more money at the problem and hope for the best.

*What's also "better" is that we all write to our reps in the House and the Senate and even The White House en masse to tell them we will not tolerate the "quick fix", and we want a quality, doable and efficient system that doesn't just take from one side to give to the other.
And that they understand we DEMAND they step on some toes in the lobbies no matter how politically painful that might be, in order to help US to create such a system.

*What's "better" is cooperation at the highest levels - The fed needs to acknowledge its part in helping to screw it all up, and the lobbies need to acknowledge their part in it too, and BOTH sides need to cooperate to create something benefiting US - we who they serve, and we who are their customers.

And that's how we make it better. We think and we act, and we don't give in to special interests, nor do we allow the gub'ment to control it all.

Other countries do it and we need to examine what they're doing RIGHT and what they're doing WRONG, and finding the midway point is how we make it better - better not only for us, but better than how they do it as well.

Not to second guess what Obama has planned, but I fear he's looking more at the quick-fix, bloated-mess, easy way out.

We cannot allow our government to go through the motions and come up with some half-a**ed, half-baked mess which superficially gives the appearance of having done something. We need to DEMAND they actually FIX the underlying problems, REMOVE the obstacles, and come up with a PLAN.

They need to know that anything short of perfection is unacceptable. They need to believe we will replace them with people who DO have a plan, at the earliest opportunity.

Small steps though, people. Write/email/call your rep's offices and tell them what you think. Do it every month, every week, every day.


We CAN have "better". We can have MUCH better, but as long as the situation is divided between those who don't see a problem and those who do; those who think there's no way to really fix it and those who want the easy way out, there will be no "better" forthcoming.
As long as the politicians believe we will swallow whatever crap they feed us and ask for second helpings, there will be no better.
*************

And that's my rant for the day. Discuss, please.
Now I have to get ready to get out of here - taking the wife to the beach for a nice little overnight getaway. If I'm not back Monday morning, you know it all went even better than planned. ;)

warmiak
11-23-2008, 11:48 AM
The media defined it as noble, not me. But if youd ask me, Id say that it was noble indeed, no doubt about it.

And I think that the good people of Serbia and Russia have also considered it like a noble act too, why shouldnt they! They have found relief in the ending of a bloody war, and just want the Kosova issue to have more recognition in declared independence, want to dissacociate themselves from indiscriminate murder, rape, looting and arson that the Miloschevich regime and immoral former Kosovar Serbs have caused here to have, and find closure to the whole ordeal in that way. '

Yeah, 'Please take Kosova away!' Ive heard them say to my utmost disbelief!

The ones I talked to. Which are ordinary working people said 'Yes, come on already, weve got better things to think about ' You know. And later on we talked about Georgia. Not much from that it got attacked from Russia, come to think of it!

So... What makes you so sure that Serbia and Russia didnt consider it like a noble act? Do you know that Russians themselves were invited here aswell, and helped push the terror up north back to Serbia!

Come to think of it. Serbia has alotta problems man. All the terrorists in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosova went back to live there! I hope them to find peace in themselves somehow.

As long as the terrorists stay clear from here for good, I can even pray and wish them that too now.

Well, look at what akademus thinks about the whole thing ...

Judging by his url ,looks like he is of Serbian ethnic background - that's your answer.

Anytime you try to "help" someone , there will be people on the other side of the issue ... in the end, there will always be someone bitching.

The military should be used only for advancing one's national interests only , period.

warmiak
11-23-2008, 11:55 AM
well, there are about 50 million people in this country that will never receive an MRI no matter how long they wait. Which is better?

It depends ... you assumpion is that these peope desperately need care and they can't get it... but a lot of them are simply young , healthy people who often have other priorities than spending money on their healt-care.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#age

ted
11-23-2008, 12:21 PM
*What's "better" is that we end up with a population who can go to the doctors or hospitals and get treated even if they're dirt poor.
*What's "better" is that in the course of implementing such an outcome we make sure it doesn't become some bottomless government pork barrel wrapped in red tape.
*What's "better" is the less direct control The Fed has over it, the better.
*What's "better" is at the same time all the other problems contributing to such ridiculous costs are curtailed or eliminated; there's an awful lot of waste, excessive taxation and overzealous regulation going on, thanks largely to the lobbyists and the insurance companies, and, of course, the trial lawyers who are all buddied-up to the legislators who are so willing to avoid tort reform.


If you promise to give us that, and the Gov won't screw it up, I'll vote for it. :)
Sadly I promise it will never work like that. Whether it's Government run or Private run, there is too much money involved. If a private sector company abuses the money you can arrest them or punish them and make them pay it back. If the Government abuses the money, they keep it. Go figure.
I値l chance it with a company I can fire if I don稚 like my services.

akademus
11-23-2008, 01:21 PM
Well, look at what akademus thinks about the whole thing ...

Judging by his url ,looks like he is of Serbian ethnic background - that's your answer.

Anytime you try to "help" someone , there will be people on the other side of the issue ... in the end, there will always be someone bitching.

The military should be used only for advancing one's national interests only , period.

Yes, I am! Proud to be one as well, on the healthy side of patriotism and nationalism, of course. Serbian people played some of the major roles in european and worlds history, especially in both World Wars and contributed to humanity on many levels.

It makes me sick sometimes seeing all the means used in order to place a stigma on Serbian people even when all the conflicts are long time gone. Unfortunate break down of old Yugoslavia left many issues behind, but from what I'm seeing ex parts are rejoining forces again, mostly because of common desire to enter EU.

What really make me happy is to see cultural (e.g. Serbian actors playing in Croatian movies and TV shows), economical ties are being strengthen, there is even a TV channel I saw, it's basically a morning show with studios in various cities (like Belgrade, Sarajevo, Banja Luka (capital of Republic of Srpska and Podgorica, capital of Montenegro) and people collaborating bringing the news from all those areas.

There is a positive vibe among these countries and people looking forward to erase borders once they enter EU (which makes one wonder why they made them in the first place!?). Dark times from the early nineties are left behind long time ago by anyone sane and everyone is moving fast forward to better lifestyle and unification with the rest of European countries.

I'm glad to say Belgrade today, 9 years after mentioned bombing, is chosen as one of the top touristic destinations in Europe (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/holiday_type/music_and_travel/article5082856.ece) and Serbia is host of the largest music festival Exit fest (http://www.exitfest.org/) in Eastern Europe (been there once, it is total insanity, 4 days of no sleep and non-stop partying) and a legendary brass trumpet festival Guca (http://www.guca.rs/eng/) (never been there, but it is in my plans!)

It's a slight digression from a topic, but it is of unusual importance that people here understand that Serbs as nation are NOT some sort of hideous monsters and war criminals and what not. That is plain ridiculous.

Cheers!

hrgiger
11-23-2008, 01:26 PM
It depends ... you assumpion is that these peope desperately need care and they can't get it... but a lot of them are simply young , healthy people who often have other priorities than spending money on their healt-care.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#age

Just like Ted, you're still making a huge number of people out to be insignificant numbers. And People who think that they shouldn't buy health care because they're young and healthy are just rolling the dice that nothing will happen to them. I broke three toes back in August and my medical bills came to over $40,000. It only takes one thing to happen to force people into dire financial circumstances. No age group should be without health care but it's unfortunate that almost 50 million people make that choice. I find it hard to believe that even a small percentage of those people would be without health care if it was affordable just because they don't want to spend the money.

Intuition
11-23-2008, 04:36 PM
Man, great post IMI. I've been out of forum posting (too busy) to catch up on all the great political threads we have here on NT forums.

But, your post is really good and a great example of objective thought.

ted
11-23-2008, 04:58 PM
Just like Ted, you're still making a huge number of people out to be insignificant numbers.... it's unfortunate that almost 50 million people make that choice..

I'm not trying to say that 15% is insignificant. And I do feel for those not insured. Maybe I don't always make that clear in my frustration. :)
But 85% having coverage IS significant. And as you say, a large portion of that 15% made a choice.

My fear is that we will screw with the coverage for 85% of the people in order to help the minority of people who have not made proper choices.

But before saying we should not do it, I'll wait to see what they propose. Makes more sense than anticipating stupidity from Government. Although I will be surprised if the plan doesn't ruin it for the 85%. ;)

hrgiger
11-23-2008, 08:10 PM
Maybe I don't always make that clear in my frustration. :)
But 85% having coverage IS significant. And as you say, a large portion of that 15% made a choice.



Well, yes, if you consider choosing between health care and paying your rent or food a choice.

hrgiger
11-23-2008, 08:49 PM
My fear is that we will screw with the coverage for 85% of the people in order to help the minority of people who have not made proper choices.



And further, why do you assume that more then 15% of Americans don't have health insurance because of some misguided choices? You do understand that there are a lot of people out there that don't have the means to pay for health insurance, people who work full time jobs, don't you Ted? Heath insurance is not cheap after all.

ted
11-23-2008, 10:54 PM
And further, why do you assume that more then 15% of Americans don't have health insurance because of some misguided choices?

What we were talking about earlier in the thread was that some of the 15% have made that choice due to being young and not thinking it's important and others that decided to gamble on not needing it, being their choice.
No doubt that most of that 15% is likely not able to afford it and would prefer it.

Megolodon, so glad you know me so well. Too bad you are so wrong. But keep thinking you know EVERYTHING if it helps you feel better. ;)

hrgiger
11-24-2008, 04:07 AM
What we were talking about earlier in the thread was that some of the 15% have made that choice due to being young and not thinking it's important and others that decided to gamble on not needing it, being their choice.
No doubt that most of that 15% is likely not able to afford it and would prefer it.



Well, I was one of those that chose not to buy insurance when I was younger. But not just because I thought I didn't need it, but because it was an expense that would have made it harder for me to pay bills each month. You'll always have those who make unwise decisions, but I think that most Americans who don't carry insurance do so because it's too expensive.
My point about choice was that it's sad that people HAVE that decision to make. At least in countries where there is socialized medicine, all people have most if not all of the help they need when there is an emergency. Health care should be a right as a nation who takes care of its citizens, not a privilege for those who are lucky enough to find themselves in the position of having it. I find it interesting that they have made laws to make us wear seat belts, but then give us the choice of whether or not we can treat say a cancer diagnosis.

IMI
11-24-2008, 04:30 AM
Man, great post IMI. I've been out of forum posting (too busy) to catch up on all the great political threads we have here on NT forums.

But, your post is really good and a great example of objective thought.

Thank you. That means alot to me. :)

I think it's time that our country as a whole moves into a more objective thought frame of mind. I'm intending on supporting Obama's efforts at being President, as long as I think he deserves it, that is, although still I would have preferred a different outcome. (I'm still not giving up on Lou Dobbs or Ron Paul. ;) )

But Obama wants to bring this "change we need" thing in, and for now I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt it was more than just a campaign slogan and tactic.

Back to objective thought though - in short, we as a nation need to be less divided. IMO, two-party politics hasn't done us much good, and the system is perpetuated by not only the politicians, but those who allow it to continue this way - us as a population, that is.
We The People need to realize that the "change we need" will not be magically delivered to us through Washington's politicians who desperately cling to old-school politics and policies. WE need to meet them half way - and in alot of cases will need to drag them screaming and kicking towards that "change we need".

As long as everyone from us commoners to the people in the upper echelons of our system see everything as US versus THEM, there will be little change forthcoming.
The course of events over the next decade may very well determine whether the US sinks or swims, and I believe we can no longer sustain this divide among the people or among the politicians.

Washington has been working for itself and their supporters for entirely too long. We need to unite and force them to once again work for us, and forcing them to carry through with this "change we need" in a way which benefits *all* our citizens is something we can't slack on.

IMI
11-24-2008, 04:37 AM
I find it interesting that they have made laws to make us wear seat belts, but then give us the choice of whether or not we can treat say a cancer diagnosis.

No you don't find that interesting. You know exactly why that is. It's because the insurance companies lobbied for seat belt laws in the hopes it would cut back injuries they have to pay for.

The gub'ment doesn't give a shite about whether or not you get injured in an accident or not - and wouldn't just create seat belt laws for your "own good" if there weren't money involved.

Verlon
11-24-2008, 05:54 AM
Silly democrats --

Whenever there is economic growth under liberals, its a 'bubble economy.'

Whenever there is so much as a blip upward under the republicans, it is 'the strongest economic growth we've seen in years.'

Whenever there is a downturn under liberals, it is 'the failure of incompetent leaderhip.'

Whenever there is a downturn under republicans, it is 'because of decades of failed democrat policies' (perhaps they really mean failed democratic policies such as letting non-billionares vote).

Mike_RB
11-24-2008, 07:15 AM
Thus I say that You were a part of that noble act! You are a citizen of a nation that decided to do that! How does all that make You the involved feel?

I was there briefly in October 1999. We Jumped in and helped patrol one of the bigger cities there for a while. That mission felt pretty good, all the people we met were generally happy to have us there as Kosovo had no police/fire/or ambulance service. We were doing the job of all them as a NATO force.

The only unfortunate thing was we were mostly protecting the remaining Serb civilians in the area as there was a lot of retribution killing going around from the UCK (KLA).

Michael

DiedonD
11-24-2008, 08:02 AM
I was there briefly in October 1999. We Jumped in and helped patrol one of the bigger cities there for a while. That mission felt pretty good, all the people we met were generally happy to have us there as Kosovo had no police/fire/or ambulance service. We were doing the job of all them as a NATO force.

The only unfortunate thing was we were mostly protecting the remaining Serb civilians in the area as there was a lot of retribution killing going around from the UCK (KLA).

Michael

Hello Mike. Nice of you to join in. Bigger cities, you mean the capital, Prishtina maybe?

Whichever city it may be, the first days after any war are greatly chaotic. No police as you say, and other control keeping mechanisms. You were there for that too, and I should use this moment to tell that you did a great job there aswell.

I remember when our factory got burned! And nobody was capable of distinguish the fire. Nobody except you that is :). Plastic burns greatly. I wasnt there, but people told me that you came and entered FROM ABOVE!! The fire inside mate, and you broke a phew rooftops and entered in! Must be some specialized millitary technique, I dont know. And the MP (That is Millitary Police) surely was HIGHLY effective, I know that by experience too.

Im glad you protected ordinary Kosovar civilians, whom belonged to the ethnic Serbs minority too. I sure would HATE to see innocent people beeing blamed for something they didnt do. Surely not all were immoral terrorizing creeps! I think the ones that left and dont want to come back, have something to worry about that they arent doing so. Otherwise today its all taken care of, as you can see by their party leaders' speech here.

Sad we couldnt meet. But I suspect that even if we were, we couldnt have said anything to each other could we? Can you tell me a bit on that please? Why were you soldiers a bit too.... distant! I mean, I was smilng and wanting to make a conv the least, go for beers is out of the question I know, but yet it was unreachable for some reason!

I would go and ask politely, 'Hello there soldier, can I see what kind of a lovely base you have here?' and they would respond 'Do you have an appointment!'. Or I would picture soldiers so as to make NATO Troop characters from them in paper, and would be arrested for 'espionage' LOL.

Were you ordered to stay put, or what?

IMI
11-24-2008, 08:12 AM
Silly democrats --

Whenever there is economic growth under liberals, its a 'bubble economy.'

Whenever there is so much as a blip upward under the republicans, it is 'the strongest economic growth we've seen in years.'

Whenever there is a downturn under liberals, it is 'the failure of incompetent leaderhip.'

Whenever there is a downturn under republicans, it is 'because of decades of failed democrat policies' (perhaps they really mean failed democratic policies such as letting non-billionares vote).


Yeah and all that is because for years we've been brainwashed into believing politics always has to be US v. THEM; one side pitted against the other; one nearly immutable force battling another equally nearly immutable force, with the general populace joining sides - many, many - way TOO many - of whom have no real idea why they're *for* one side or the other.

And it works out great for the idjits in Washington - long as they keep us believing every issue has to be either black or white, it ensures they don't have to change their MO or campaign tactics too much.

blacksmith
11-24-2008, 09:12 AM
Id say dont worry about it Warmiak. Dont let anyone make you feel bad about that noble intervention. I guess in the age that we live today: genocides, massacres, rapes, arson, torture and forceful displacement has lost its true impact for some reason.

I was having difficulties in expressing just how severe and life degrading the above are to other humans. I mean in all the goody times we live in, those dark terrorizing to death deeds are way out of reach, and I didnt saw good means of expressing the gravity of the devastation that those kinda terrorists cause.

Then Mel Gibson came to my aid. Yes the actor/director. Now... its alot easier. Have you seen the movie Apocalypto by Mel Gibson?

Its for adults so if you have kids... I wouldnt want them to see it definitely.

So just see the movie, and just replace the people with us, and slight shift in the backgrounds (houses are concrete instead of wood, and the trees are different, and no seas in Kosova at least) and youll have a first chair view of the more real gravity of the horror of that organized mass murder, rape, arson, torture and displacement did have on our lands.

Always Serbian nationalists, including in beeing the cause of world war 1 (they decided to kill the Austro Hungarian PM) are the ones to be blamed for that. They acted on their evil ways in Croatia, see Vukovar, see Bosnia, 500.000 people slaughtered, and see us in 11.000 chidren, elderly, women and men. Non distinguishable to them Warmiak. As long as its human flesh beeing cutt by terrorizing blades, its same as wood basically!

Theyve been movies about that kinda butchery.

I think ordinary decent Serbs should stand up against all that murdering machinery. Cause that kinda machinery has no place in a world where we live together. Work together, love together and hope for a better future to our young ones together. That machinery has to go from here.

And after they are gone, people should ask for forgivness. And not ask to forget about it after just 9 years! Cause the deed done, recorded, will never be forgoten. But asking for forgivness has already started as Ive come to see with people that Ive talked to.

As I jump into reality though, I see Serbia trying to skip those steps, and behave as if though nothing has happened. And I think that its because of that that Croatia is putting charges against Serbia in the Tribunal. Well see where it goes from there.

So, long words short. YOU are the cause of stoping the butchery of children from Serbian Terrorists! You came at night and day, your jets' bomb blasts deafened FREEDOM to our ears! You joined together with Brits, French, Germans Italians and the rest and said a 'NO' to an Apocalypto type of bloody hell in the 20th century and in Europe!. And pushed the terrorists up north, and together with Russians too!

Thus I say that You were a part of that noble act! You are a citizen of a nation that decided to do that! How does all that make You the involved feel?

Mike is right, there was a lot of killing from UCK, too. Raping, burning and such and you don't seem to deny it. One of the most horrifying things I have heard recently is harvesting of organs from the imprisoned Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft).
Apparently ICTY has tracked down responsible and is unveiling these awful crimes. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft)

You seem to forgot ravaging in 2003. where number of Serbs where killed and extinguished from Kosovo and great number of their medieval churches and graves where burned and digged.


Since you sinned, don't throw stones!

You've crossed the line!


Following some of your posts dude, it become very clear to me that you are abusing these forums in order to propagate your obvious hate against Serbs, which you cannot hide.

Whether you are challenged or not, you keep throwing stones not only to a nation, but also on members of these forums, especially akademus. Sometimes subtly, sometimes directly you are constantly bitching about it.

Whether let it go, or leave the bloody forums and join politic ones where you are free to crap on everything and everyone.

Producing ****** movies about it also don't add to it.

Also, do not base your attack grounds on false numbers. I followed the happenings in Balkans throughout nineties and some more recent events.

Numbers:
War in Bosnia (as the largest conflict) took some more than 100.000 people in casualties.

Quote:
Civilians and military

102,622 civilians and military personnel were killed, Tabeau and Bijak conclude. 55,261 civilians and 47,360 soldiers were killed, including Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.

The researchers estimate the number of killed civilian Muslims and Croats tobe around 38,000, while the number of killed civilian Serbians was about 16,700.
Among military personnel, the researchers think close to 28,000 people were killed in the government army, mostly Bosnian Muslims.

On the Serbian side, 14,000 soldiers were killed, while a bit over 6,000 Bosnian Croatian soldiers lost their lives because of actions of war.
End quote:

Source: ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), one that put Milosevic on trial and therefore valid, at least to you.

How then you came to a figure of half a milion people killed by Serbs???

You mentioned WWI, but forgot to mention Serbs lost 725.000 of people fighting side by side with Australia, UK, France and USA in Entente Powers.

You also omit to mention WWII, where Serbia was fighting against Nazis and lost 40.000 in one single Concentration camp named Jasenovac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Total_Number)

At the same time Albanians were on side of Mussolini fascists and helping invade Greece and later partisan Yugoslavia. You forgot infamous Skanderbey division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Skanderbeg _(1st_Albanian)), who allied with Nazis in order to grasp Kosovo and parts of Macedonia from Serbia in 1944???

I want explanation how the ones who fought against Nazis and fought with Entente Powers, suddenly become monsters, while Nazi supporters become victims!?

So next time you hand a number, support it with a valid source. When you make a statement like "medias named it noble, so it's true" name the valid source.

Until then, I'll consider you being nothing but manipulative bastard trying to abuse these forums in order to gain sympathies and misrepresent one whole nation as monstrous.

akademus
11-24-2008, 11:37 AM
Thank you Dan, again.

I have nothing to add to what you said. All balkan events tend to be bloody and unfortunate. And things keep repeating throughout history.

Calling for more never brought good to anyone.

However, I already said there is a strong move forward in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia and there is less and less on those who waving the flags of war.

Thanks mate,

Cheers to you



Mike is right, there was a lot of killing from UCK, too. Raping, burning and such and you don't seem to deny it. One of the most horrifying things I have heard recently is harvesting of organs from the imprisoned Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft).
Apparently ICTY has tracked down responsible and is unveiling these awful crimes. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft)

You seem to forgot ravaging in 2003. where number of Serbs where killed and extinguished from Kosovo and great number of their medieval churches and graves where burned and digged.


Since you sinned, don't throw stones!

You've crossed the line!


Following some of your posts dude, it become very clear to me that you are abusing these forums in order to propagate your obvious hate against Serbs, which you cannot hide.

Whether you are challenged or not, you keep throwing stones not only to a nation, but also on members of these forums, especially akademus. Sometimes subtly, sometimes directly you are constantly bitching about it.

Whether let it go, or leave the bloody forums and join politic ones where you are free to crap on everything and everyone.

Producing ****** movies about it also don't add to it.

Also, do not base your attack grounds on false numbers. I followed the happenings in Balkans throughout nineties and some more recent events.

Numbers:
War in Bosnia (as the largest conflict) took some more than 100.000 people in casualties.

Quote:
Civilians and military

102,622 civilians and military personnel were killed, Tabeau and Bijak conclude. 55,261 civilians and 47,360 soldiers were killed, including Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.

The researchers estimate the number of killed civilian Muslims and Croats tobe around 38,000, while the number of killed civilian Serbians was about 16,700.
Among military personnel, the researchers think close to 28,000 people were killed in the government army, mostly Bosnian Muslims.

On the Serbian side, 14,000 soldiers were killed, while a bit over 6,000 Bosnian Croatian soldiers lost their lives because of actions of war.
End quote:

Source: ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), one that put Milosevic on trial and therefore valid, at least to you.

How then you came to a figure of half a milion people killed by Serbs???

You mentioned WWI, but forgot to mention Serbs lost 725.000 of people fighting side by side with Australia, UK, France and USA in Entente Powers.

You also omit to mention WWII, where Serbia was fighting against Nazis and lost 40.000 in one single Concentration camp named Jasenovac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Total_Number)

At the same time Albanians were on side of Mussolini fascists and helping invade Greece and later partisan Yugoslavia. You forgot infamous Skanderbey division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Skanderbeg _(1st_Albanian)), who allied with Nazis in order to grasp Kosovo and parts of Macedonia from Serbia in 1944???

I want explanation how the ones who fought against Nazis and fought with Entente Powers, suddenly become monsters, while Nazi supporters become victims!?

So next time you hand a number, support it with a valid source. When you make a statement like "medias named it noble, so it's true" name the valid source.

Until then, I'll consider you being nothing but manipulative bastard trying to abuse these forums in order to gain sympathies and misrepresent one whole nation as monstrous.

frantbk
11-24-2008, 05:53 PM
Well, to put it bluntly, YES.
To explain in more detail:
If these companies are NOT making insane profit, they won't be able to develop insane technology that is helping millions world wide.

The latest advancements in Brain cancer is saving people. My Mother In-law recoverd perfectly just this year from a brain cancer that would have killed her just a year or two ago thanks to these companies insane profits.

The latest exray-scan technology did NOT come from a company barely making a profit.
All the latest life saving technology came from companies making insane profits which helped them make insane technology that helped them make more insane profit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be mean here, but the lowest level of health care technology today is better than the best health care technology of yesterday. All due to these evil profit minded companies.
Just something to ponder for a more balanced understanding how things work. ;)

As long as these insanely over the top profit are being returned to insanely over the top R&D I'm with you, but once the R&D slows down and the profits remain insanely high, then I'm not. Another problem with these insanely high profits is that everyone that has had cancer are stuck on 3-5-10 pills a day to keep cancer from coming back. The cost of pills that kept my late father alive for an extra 10 years was too much of a burden on them. I can see the need for balance when it comes to the pills that are required after cancer is cured.

DiedonD
11-25-2008, 04:07 AM
Hello there Dan, Im glad we have finally met in a rightful thread. Here you can say whatever you want. But Id like to keep it mature and avoid naming ourselves with names like that.

Youll find it Im a realist, and that is one area that I think we have in common. Your neutral stand to the number of murdered people, the correctness of it, regardless of outcome, shows too that you are a realist. So your worthy of the debate. Though I find your motivation unclear, your reality facets makes me want to go on with you.

To properly answer all of your points Ive systematically put a number on each of your issues, hope you dont mind. So lets get into it shall we:

1) You think I would deny facts that would serve hiding murderous deeds? No not at all. Whomever commited such crimes should be penalized.

Whomever, and to proove that, check this. Even when our Prime Minister got invited to that Tribunal, he honorably resigned his chair of Prime Ministry, and left to the Tribunal! They found no facts against him, and then he came back. See we seek justice. Whomever did crimes must be penalized, and they shouldnt find any shellter in their Governments like Serbia sadly currently does.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/43134.htm

Regarding Serbia's reluctance to capture Mladic

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/karadzic.html

So, they dont seek justice! We do!

And Its Serbian nationalists (Mind you, its not a whole nation! Its the nationalists, whom use threatening and other authoritative measures to make their own to shutup! No source on this, except my experience with ordinary Serbs.) that barely gave up their Commanders in Chief of Massacres sort of speak (Karadic). Not us. We seek justice, and trying to forget all about it isnt going to do anyone any good.

2) Again there wasnt anything to prove about that horrible deed. If it were, I too wouldve wanted them penalized! So its a thing weve heard at time beeing. No facts though! But the book is a bestseller!

3) Id like to analize the source of that one. Do go on with your neutral realism though please. Cause I know ravaging occured, but I dont recall any killings. To enlighten me on that one please.
Ravaging happened because although we went by the rules, independence wasnt coming yet! In the 4 years of patience, it alas broke loose for a while. But was immediately taken control of. It was stupid, and an emotional thing really. As insecurity of the final outcome of Kosova was reaching its peak.

4) Since I sinned I shouldnt throw stones! What is that? Like a credo of somekind! It is to my understanding that the reason why we are here on this thread today is to proove that NATO Bombing, among other good reasons, was also a noble act. And that Clinton was right to have made such a decision! So based on that heres a credo right back at you 'Whomever has sinned should be penalized. We shouldnt allow such people getaway without punishment, and genocide shouldnt be neither covered nor forgoten, but dealtwith by all means, just to insure it not to happen ever again!'

5) I think you need to prove such allegation. But sorry youve made such an image of me, hopefully youll get to know me better from this moment on.
But since youve mentioned it. What im openly against, and cannot hide my hate at, for all people to know and understand is, Serbian Nationalism.

Why? Because It is the cause for alota wars, ranging from WW1 to this day! Thats gotta go. Theres no skipping steps about it. It bares all the filth of human kind, to the last degree, stained on them! Now, Ive got nothing against the majority os Serbs that arent nationalists, are totally against it, and Id like them true patriots to stand up more, and their numbers counted for a shear domination image to come out. That and with immoral nationalist serbs out of the way for good, I think we are good to go for a final peace in the balkans.

So I hate that, cause its standing in our way to peace in EU!

6) I have no intentions of leaving thank you. Im a proud LW-ver. And mind your language will you. I think were doing great thus far.

Regarding my movie. Its media man, you should know that by now. Ive made it, cause it made me feel good. I think it scratches the surface of a HUGE emotional experience that Ive had while in that war. I was trying to show the disadvantages, the reason of so many casualties behind it all, in a more acceptable level. I didnt wanna go Apocalypto bloody in it. But to show appreciation, and to provide some link to the Albanian. Great hearts, heavily disadvantaged, type of thing.

But thats me. But if you expect that all viewers must feel the same way like the author made it in any given media, youve greatly misguided. You see 'propaganda' in it, I see a wonderful therapeutic art, and a possible shot at getting picked up from that Director perhaps :D . Id like to see what others have made of it. But its a problem that we are trying to solve, and I think rating should help in that. Cause its not just mine that dont get enough responses. Almost all do!

7) I agree with you that my casualties are above than whats seen there. But I dont know weather youve purposely tried to mystify it somehow or not, but the casualties would be around 100.000 - 110.000 Millitary and Civilians were killed. And 66% of them were Bosniaks. There, thats correct then.

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

Mind you since the special Serbian Government Massacring Unit, named the Scorpions, have hid the bodies throughout the country, the investigations are still going on. And sadly the casualties may rize!

8) It may be true that they've lost so many casualties, on the war they have caused to happen upon themselves. But again, its the Serbian Nationalists' fault for that. See my point is. Ever since they came here, theres been these edgy Serb Nationalists, that are kinda restless. They make fires, and cause terror, then hid away, while the ordinary Serbs that had nothing to do with it where then penalized for it. Thats why the Majority of non nationalist, but patriotic Serbs should stand up, and get rid of them.

Just think, theyve caused the WW1, and are still present today here. And that Nationalistic terror isnt going away, to the contrary ironically is growing. Ever since WW1, and now they have a special Massacring Unit, as seen in Bosnia and in here. So thats gotta go, and us with ordinary non nationalist Serbs would get along just fine.

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

(Scorpions, Arkan and Frenker's youll find links below for the later two Massacring Units)

9) Weve been fighting against nazzis too! We even hid Jews from them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_and_groups_assisting_Jews_during_the_H olocaust#In_Albania

There was only a small group that fought along with nazzis, but those means were to get our land back!

To answer your question. I think, that Serbs systematic cleansing from Nazzi Croatia has left it inraged so much, that ultimately theres so much support for Serb Nationalists! Now in WW2 Slavs, Jews and Gypsies were hunted! That in turn left a mark on them, as the victim rizes to be a victimizer theyve made their Massacring Unit, the Scorpions, and alotta other units like the Arkans clan,

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

the Frenckies and the rest

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

that Organizatevily Cleansed countries that they seeked to conquer in Great Serbia

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

, but with the rage induced from WW2, the techniques were already build in barbarically, and they tried to do it in the NAZZI way now! Its a bloody boomerang!

But be it a reaction, or just an action, that kinda Murdering Machinery has no place in this century! Defintely not in Europe! And I think that they knew it all along, but tried to cover it with lies and sleezy denying policies. It is ongoing now as well.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=83280&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=TopNews&videoChannel=1

They just want to forget about it! Crazy! Wish theyd calmed down, and settle this as humanly as possible. 'Yes we did! Yes we arent proud of it! Yes we wont never do it again! Yes we accept responsibility like men!' To the contrary you have that.

Its quite unresting knowing so many nationalists are running the Serbian Country! Knowing what all that implies now! And the country is your neighbour too! Deny or not, they will be indicted to court for it:

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2008/11/20/feature-01

And on the other day, the religious chief orthodox priest in Kosova, wants another 500 years of war here too!

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=124381

Thats why I think religion has lost its pure soul to god bond. Its more and more used for polytical gains today!

10) Hows that now, for sources, better?

11) Look, you can think of me whatever you want. Quit naming though, its childish, and move on realistically like you do so, thus far! And I hope youve come to realize that its never a nation! Its a Nazzi enraged minority part of Serbia that I say to you openly, I HATEM!! It wasnt my intention to hide that type of hate aimed at Nazzists in Serbia anyway. Cause theyve served nothing but evil for decades!

Perhaps you were waiting any bursts from me :) . But those uncertain days are over. All facts are by my side. All the evil was luckily documented this time, with the help of good friends :) (OSCE, UNMIK, now EULEX), and thereby the more you would dwell and demand facts the less good stuff youll find in covering Serb Nationalism! Im even wondering why do you even bother at covering nationalism! You think it is to any good? Nobody is abusing, ruining any honorable image that Serbia may have. But the naitonalism! Its gotta go man!

Nobody is ruining it of course except Serb Nationalists themselves, that you try to cover for some strange unknown reason, by saying that NATO Bombing the hell of the evil Nationalist Serbs away from Kosova, while protecting the ordinary Serbs that meant well and remained here, wasnt a noble act!

I still say it was a great Noble act. You should be proud of taking part in it. Cause, God Forbids, something the same happens to you, youll have a small but loyal friend to turn to. And you should be proud of Mrs. Clinton now, that is now the future Secretary Of State. She knows what she is talking about. And everybody loves her.



1) Mike is right, there was a lot of killing from UCK, too. Raping, burning and such and you don't seem to deny it.
2) One of the most horrifying things I have heard recently is harvesting of organs from the imprisoned Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft).
Apparently ICTY has tracked down responsible and is unveiling these awful crimes. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft)

3) You seem to forgot ravaging in 2003. where number of Serbs where killed and extinguished from Kosovo and great number of their medieval churches and graves where burned and digged.

4)
Since you sinned, don't throw stones!

You've crossed the line!


5) Following some of your posts dude, it become very clear to me that you are abusing these forums in order to propagate your obvious hate against Serbs, which you cannot hide.

Whether you are challenged or not, you keep throwing stones not only to a nation, but also on members of these forums, especially akademus. Sometimes subtly, sometimes directly you are constantly bitching about it.

6) Whether let it go, or leave the bloody forums and join politic ones where you are free to crap on everything and everyone.

Producing ****** movies about it also don't add to it.

7) Also, do not base your attack grounds on false numbers. I followed the happenings in Balkans throughout nineties and some more recent events.

Numbers:
War in Bosnia (as the largest conflict) took some more than 100.000 people in casualties.

Quote:
Civilians and military

102,622 civilians and military personnel were killed, Tabeau and Bijak conclude. 55,261 civilians and 47,360 soldiers were killed, including Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.

The researchers estimate the number of killed civilian Muslims and Croats tobe around 38,000, while the number of killed civilian Serbians was about 16,700.
Among military personnel, the researchers think close to 28,000 people were killed in the government army, mostly Bosnian Muslims.

On the Serbian side, 14,000 soldiers were killed, while a bit over 6,000 Bosnian Croatian soldiers lost their lives because of actions of war.
End quote:

Source: ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), one that put Milosevic on trial and therefore valid, at least to you.

How then you came to a figure of half a milion people killed by Serbs???

8) You mentioned WWI, but forgot to mention Serbs lost 725.000 of people fighting side by side with Australia, UK, France and USA in Entente Powers.

9) You also omit to mention WWII, where Serbia was fighting against Nazis and lost 40.000 in one single Concentration camp named Jasenovac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Total_Number)

At the same time Albanians were on side of Mussolini fascists and helping invade Greece and later partisan Yugoslavia. You forgot infamous Skanderbey division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Skanderbeg _(1st_Albanian)), who allied with Nazis in order to grasp Kosovo and parts of Macedonia from Serbia in 1944???

I want explanation how the ones who fought against Nazis and fought with Entente Powers, suddenly become monsters, while Nazi supporters become victims!?

10) So next time you hand a number, support it with a valid source. When you make a statement like "medias named it noble, so it's true" name the valid source.

11) Until then, I'll consider you being nothing but manipulative bastard trying to abuse these forums in order to gain sympathies and misrepresent one whole nation as monstrous.

IMI
11-25-2008, 03:32 PM
Jeez, did this thread ever go off track, or what?

Damn, and here I thought my past arguments with Megalodon were bad, but they never quite reached civil war status. ;)

adamredwoods
11-25-2008, 03:47 PM
No you don't find that interesting. You know exactly why that is. It's because the insurance companies lobbied for seat belt laws in the hopes it would cut back injuries they have to pay for.

The gub'ment doesn't give a shite about whether or not you get injured in an accident or not - and wouldn't just create seat belt laws for your "own good" if there weren't money involved.

Eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act

IMI
11-25-2008, 04:32 PM
Eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act

That doesn't prove anything. Maybe it all began out of some sort of idealistic desire for laws to keep people safe (just like OSHA), but the real motivation for creating mandates is to lessen the expenses.

That article tells the history of the motor vehicle safety laws, not the reasoning behind them.

Seat belts have been around alot longer than 1984 when they began mandating their usage.

And since I mentioned OSHA, it's the same thing - the only reason there are so many rules is because insurance companies end up paying more when there aren't.

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I believe we have such laws entirely because insurance companies lobbied Congress to create them.
And if that's wrong - if the government truly IS interested in our well-being and my theory is completely wrong... then why don't we have mandatory cancer care? Mandatory hospice care? Mandatory annual checkups - all paid for by Uncle Sam?

And in the case of seat belt laws (and other safety equipment), it also wouldn't surprise me to find out certain Congresscritters have constituents who just so happen to manufacture such equipment...

Maybe it lends credibility to my other theory which I've stated many many time here - that the government is only interested in curing symptoms, not diseases; to put a band-aid on a severed artery; to refill a slowly leaking tire every day rather than replacing it; to temporarily "solve" the symptoms of much deeper problems which still exist.

IMI
11-25-2008, 04:36 PM
What are ya talking about? I've been storing arms and getting ready for a massive first strike. ;)

What's really sad is... I can't remember what those arguments were about. And no, DON'T remind me! :)


Hehe. Water under the bridge, my friend, water under the bridge. :)

Speaking of which, I can blow my bridges as a last resort - your forces may get in, but they won't get out as easily. ;)

adamredwoods
11-25-2008, 05:43 PM
That doesn't prove anything. Maybe it all began out of some sort of idealistic desire for laws to keep people safe (just like OSHA), but the real motivation for creating mandates is to lessen the expenses.

That article tells the history of the motor vehicle safety laws, not the reasoning behind them.
eh?

QUOTE from the Wiki-Oracle link:
" In 1966, passage of the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorized the federal government to set and regulate standards for motor vehicles and highways, a mechanism necessary for effective prevention[2][3] Many changes in both vehicle and highway design followed this mandate. [...] "

So it wasn't JUST seatbelt mandates, but roads and car structure. Not sure that an insurance company would lobby for better ROADS...

Plus, just the lives seatbelts saves is enough of a cause...



Maybe I'm overly cynical,
Not a bad thing

but I believe we have such laws entirely because insurance companies lobbied Congress to create them.
And if that's wrong - if the government truly IS interested in our well-being and my theory is completely wrong... then why don't we have mandatory cancer care? Mandatory hospice care? Mandatory annual checkups - all paid for by Uncle Sam?

Well insurance companies lose out BILLIONS from cancer care. But yet there are no mandates for colon exams.... BUT doctors sure as hell promote them! And I do see a lot of advertising for them as well.

Cancer vs. seatbelts: Seatbelt accidents has a very quick outcome and obviously preventable source, whereas cancer is questionable and slow. So seatbelt safety is very easily and visibly mandated.



Maybe it lends credibility to my other theory which I've stated many many time here - that the government is only interested in curing symptoms, not diseases; [...]
Could be. And insurance companies do have an extreme weight to throw around in the government, so I have no idea what they've gotten their hands into....

America’s Health Insurance Plans is the new lobby group for insurance companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/20health.html?scp=4&sq=America%20Health%20Insurance%20Plans&st=cse

IMI
11-25-2008, 08:11 PM
eh?

QUOTE from the Wiki-Oracle link:
" In 1966, passage of the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorized the federal government to set and regulate standards for motor vehicles and highways, a mechanism necessary for effective prevention[2][3] Many changes in both vehicle and highway design followed this mandate. [...] "

So it wasn't JUST seatbelt mandates, but roads and car structure. Not sure that an insurance company would lobby for better ROADS...

Plus, just the lives seatbelts saves is enough of a cause...


Not a bad thing

Well insurance companies lose out BILLIONS from cancer care. But yet there are no mandates for colon exams.... BUT doctors sure as hell promote them! And I do see a lot of advertising for them as well.

Cancer vs. seatbelts: Seatbelt accidents has a very quick outcome and obviously preventable source, whereas cancer is questionable and slow. So seatbelt safety is very easily and visibly mandated.


You make great points, Adam, and I can't really argue with you. Obviously I can't back my claims up with fact. Well, I think I probably could if I had access to lobby records and state and federal legislative votes and took the time to organize it all into a cohesive proof.. but.. nah. ;)



Could be. And insurance companies do have an extreme weight to throw around in the government, so I have no idea what they've gotten their hands into....

America’s Health Insurance Plans is the new lobby group for insurance companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/20health.html?scp=4&sq=America%20Health%20Insurance%20Plans&st=cse

Now that's kinda interesting... particularly the part about, "But in return, the industry said, Congress should require all Americans to have coverage."

That, of course, following their "approval" of Congress "supporting a health care overhaul requiring insurers to accept all customers, regardless of illness or disability."

Well, isn't that nice of them? What a swell bunch of guys. They're all for trading the possibility of having to pay out more claims for the MANDATING of millions of more people paying INTO the system. And for those who simply can't pay? Perhaps they already have the paperwork made out, simply needing a signature... I guess that makes sense - I'm sure they're really freaking out over the possibility of becoming outright obsolete, and will gladly latch onto anyhting which keeps them in the picture.



Members of Congress said Wednesday that they wanted to pass legislation next year, as proposed by Mr. Obama, to expand coverage and rein in health care costs.


Interesting. Interesting that the "reign in health costs" part gets second billing in that sentence. I have a better idea though - how about Congress first reigns in itself and puts an end to those things which are in place to ensure costs remain high. Incidentally, of course. We all know their real reason behind consistently failing in tort reform, for example, is just bad luck. And the fact a doctor needs to pay for millions of dollars of insurance just to try out a new experimental tongue depressor is just "one of those things". ;)




But the industry’s position differs from that of Mr. Obama in one significant respect. Insurers want the government to require everyone to have and maintain insurance.


Well, duh!
And I bet they already have their accountants on emergency standby, just waiting for the federal checks to begin rolling in for those who can't pay for that mandatory coverage...

I really hope Obama is smarter than to fall into the same trap Billary did. The insurance companies need to recognize they had a good run, thank God for their prior good fortune, and call it a day.

I can see already the wheels are spinning; the machine is in motion - they're gearing up for the New Improved Insurance Scheme, and our "change we need" may end up becoming simply an EX-change of cash from our pockets to the insurance company's vast coffers.



Insurers did not say how the government should enforce an individual mandate: whether through fines, tax penalties or other means. Politicians have also been reluctant to specify details of enforcement, which could prove highly unpopular.


ooohhh.. highly unpopular, eh? Meh - we'll get over it.
Or so they think. ;)

Yeah, reading through that article all I get out of it is that the insurance companies have begun scheming as to how they can use it to gain more revenue. If it works out their way, they could be in for some really booming years ahead, much better than before.

Don't know about you, but if I'm going to pay taxes to fund federal programs of that magnitude, I'd prefer the money go to not-for-profit organizations, and keep the billion-dollar-CEO's out of the picture entirely. Their loss. They can still make money from people who opt for private insurance.

Not that I'm opposed to free market in the insurance industry, but it really sounds like their plan is to stack the deck in their favor and use The Obama's promises as a tool against him, politically.

Like I said, I hope he has enough sense to follow through with his IDEA; an idea which, although altruistic, isn't impossible. An idea, however, which will fail epically if he allows them to force him to play the game on their terms... just as it worked out for Billary.

DiedonD
11-26-2008, 12:14 AM
Jeez, did this thread ever go off track, or what?

Damn, and here I thought my past arguments with Megalodon were bad, but they never quite reached civil war status. ;)

Nah not at all ;) . I stand for what I believe in. I was dragged into details if you look at it. I knew facts were at my side, so I said 'What the hell, alright then!'

Let nobody touch my Clinton :) , otherwise those are the concequences LOL :D

US and EU to me have proven in deed of their intentions of living together to the cost of nationalism. Thus I now am a loyal follower of those flows :)

warmiak
11-26-2008, 01:24 AM
well, there are about 50 million people in this country that will never receive an MRI no matter how long they wait. Which is better?

It doesn't matter.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Study_Compares_U_S__and_European_Survival _Rates.asp

Read this carefully:



For breast, colon and uterine cancers, survival rates between Americans and Europeans were very similar in patients 45 or younger. They were much better for Americans in the 65 and older age group. This could be because more Americans are being screened more often, especially at older ages, according to Lynn Ries, M.S., a statistician at the NCI and a co-author of the study.


More Americans are being screened more often ....

Do you understand what they are saying here ?
Does this sound like a nation in crisis 'lagging" behind the rest of the world ?

I mean ,these are not some ******** soundbites from a politician but facts.


Now, you could argue that we are paying a lot more than neccessary but that's another story ..

hrgiger
11-26-2008, 05:34 PM
Now, you could argue that we are paying a lot more than neccessary but that's another story ..

No, it's not another story. It's part of why our health care system is indeed lagging behind many other countries. It doesn't really matter that much if our hospitals or doctors are more equipped to treat cancer if so many people here can't afford to ever see one.

ted
11-26-2008, 06:55 PM
It doesn't really matter that much if our hospitals or doctors are more equipped to treat cancer if so many people here can't afford to ever see one.

With all due respect, and I do mean that, it DOES matter for 100% of the people.
Even the clinics and their uninsured patients are benefiting from yesterdays technology.
And 85% of the people, (that's a significent number of people), are getting top notch medical treatment.

Not saying everything is honky dorey with this, but it's saving many people every day. Even the uninsured.
JMHO

hrgiger
11-26-2008, 07:21 PM
.
And 85% of the people, (that's a significent number of people), are getting top notch medical treatment.

Not saying everything is honky dorey with this, but it's saving many people every day. Even the uninsured.
JMHO

Well, just taking France as an example, 100% of its citizens are receiving top notch medical treatment so I'm not sure how us leaving out 15% (or to put a number on it, almost 50 million) is something to boast about.

Being uninsured myself, I can tell you that getting the medical treatment you need isn't quite as easy as your making it out to be by walking into your local free clinic. You and Warmiak are being very quick to dismiss the problem of people who don't have insurance as if they have the same kinds of care and options of someone with insurance. It just isn't the case.

IMI
11-26-2008, 08:07 PM
You work for the Post Office and you have no insurance? I can't remember - are you in the union or not?

ted
11-26-2008, 08:09 PM
I'm not implying that the care is equal. I've already stated that there is a difference.
I won't dissagree that there are great things about the French sysytem, but you also have issues even with spending MORE of people's money.
They are far from perfect. And I think it's a stretch to say "Top Notch".
You can always say more money will make it better, but what is the point when you deal with other national issues as well?


What are the primary issues in France regarding health care?
French health care is among the most expensive in the world. France’s health care budget is the world’s third largest, accounting for 9.8% of GNP. If spending continues at this rate, the health service may be 70 billion euros in debt by the end of 2020.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/France.pdf

Hospital facilities, although greatly expanded since World War II, are still considered inadequate. Doctors tend to be concentrated in the cities and are in short supply in some rural areas. The death rate, life expectancy, and infant mortality rate are similar to those of other industrialized nations.
http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_healthcare.shtml

warmiak
11-26-2008, 09:03 PM
You guys simply don't get it , do you ?

If cancer survival rates are higher in this country in part because people are being diagnosed earlier due to more extensive screenings it means it is actually easier to get such screening than it is in Europe, does it not ?

Notice, these stats don't refer to some specific subgroup of society (namely rich) but to the entire society.
The percentage of people diagnosed with cancer per 100 K is roughly the same in both Europe and the US , it is the survival rates which are higher in the United States, which right there destroys your argument that somehow only the rich are being included in these stats.

hrgiger
11-26-2008, 09:41 PM
You work for the Post Office and you have no insurance? I can't remember - are you in the union or not?

I am not yet a career employee yet. Most carriers start out as subs and move up to career positions (with benefits) as those positions become available. I make a good hourly wage but I'm still cheap for them because I don't earn any benefits.

Stunt Pixels
11-26-2008, 09:55 PM
The US simply does not have the best health care in the world:-

"The limited empirical international data on quality that exist様ife expectancy and infant mortality statistics用lace the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries."

Don't take my word for it, take John Hopkins Gazette's (http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2004/10may04/10health.html). And here's the full article (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/89)referred to, and where the quote is from.

If you want to see life expectancy by county or infant mortality rates, look on Wikipedia - where the figures are sourced from the CIA world fact book.

hrgiger
11-26-2008, 10:01 PM
You guys simply don't get it , do you ?

If cancer survival rates are higher in this country in part because people are being diagnosed earlier due to more extensive screenings it means it is actually easier to get such screening than it is in Europe, does it not ?

Notice, these stats don't refer to some specific subgroup of society (namely rich) but to the entire society.
The percentage of people diagnosed with cancer per 100 K is roughly the same in both Europe and the US , it is the survival rates which are higher in the United States, which right there destroys your argument that somehow only the rich are being included in these stats.

The statistic that shows that cancer survival rates in this country being higher is because the US diagnoses more cancer including types that are non-lethal which creates a misleading higher survival rate. Rudy Guiliani tried to make the claim that Englands socialized medicine is to blame for lower survival rates and Factcheck.org slapped him for it on the basis I just mentioned.
In addition, people without insurance may put off or even refuse to see a doctor and never be diagnosed at all preventing them from becoming a statistic. So the cancer survival rate in this country may not be quite as high as the numbers tell you it is.
And I never said anything about the rich, I said insured.

warmiak
11-26-2008, 10:16 PM
The US simply does not have the best health care in the world:-

"The limited empirical international data on quality that exist様ife expectancy and infant mortality statistics用lace the United States in the bottom quartile of industrialized countries."

Don't take my word for it, take John Hopkins Gazette's (http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2004/10may04/10health.html). And here's the full article (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/89)referred to, and where the quote is from.

If you want to see life expectancy by county or infant mortality rates, look on Wikipedia - where the figures are sourced from the CIA world fact book.

Life expectancy doesn't correlate with the quality of health-care because it includes things like homicides, all kinds of accidents etc ... if you exclude these factors , the United States ends up pretty much in the same category as other European countries.

As far as infant mortality rates ...

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm



First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

warmiak
11-26-2008, 10:25 PM
The statistic that shows that cancer survival rates in this country being higher is because the US diagnoses more cancer including types that are non-lethal which creates a misleading higher survival rate. Rudy Guiliani tried to make the claim that Englands socialized medicine is to blame for lower survival rates and Factcheck.org slapped him for it on the basis I just mentioned.
In addition, people without insurance may put off or even refuse to see a doctor and never be diagnosed at all preventing them from becoming a statistic. So the cancer survival rate in this country may not be quite as high as the numbers tell you it is.
And I never said anything about the rich, I said insured.

True but again, it changes nothing - it simply only proves that you are more likely to be diagnosed in the US -regardless of severity of the underlying disease.

As far as people not being diagnosed ... this would clearly show up in the stats because with many people going undiagnosed, the United States would simply end up with much lower cancer incidence per capita, which is not the case.

Stunt Pixels
11-26-2008, 11:21 PM
Life expectancy doesn't correlate with the quality of health-care because it includes things like homicides, all kinds of accidents etc ...

Err, we don't have murders or accidents in the rest of the world? Phew.

Phrase it any way you want, and try to find whatever excuses you can manage. I'll take John Hopkins University's researchers findings that:

Americans do not have the best medical care in the world

(quote from the previous article I linked). I'm guessing they know a little more about medical stuff than you or I... Feel free to email them and tell them they're wrong.

blacksmith
11-27-2008, 10:51 AM
I wont quote you DiedonD as posts are becoming enormous.

1. Again you didn't denied Albanians committed crimes against Serbian people in Kosovo. Instead, you hid it under the single case and than contra post it with critical point. Well, from what I see Serbs found Karadzic in Serbia and sent him to court. According to common sense, you have to prove they know where the other one is in order to prove they are intentionally hiding him. Until then, they are proving you're wrong!

And if you visit ICTY website you'll see number of Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks facing charges and penalties for committing crimes.

2) Again there wasn't anything to prove about that horrible deed. If it were, I too wouldve wanted them penalized! So its a thing weve heard at time beeing. No facts though! But the book is a bestseller!

If you read more carefully, you'll see they found the illegal clinic and arrested some people involved in it.

On November 3, Kosovo Police uncovered illegal organ transplanting in the Medicus clinic of Kosovar capital Pristina and arrested several doctors.
On November 14, UNMIK has let Serbia's War Crimes Prosecutors join their side in a new investigation about the yellow house[9].
On November 20, ICTY (The Hague Tribunal) started cooperating with Serbia on the case. Serbia has received important information from Serge Brammertz (current ICTY chief), evidence of the alleged operation house in northern Albania, but the Albanian side wish not to cooperate. A report shows that seven points are confirmed in the allegations and that the Albanian prosecutor and UNMIK had failed to tell the truth when investigating the findings of different surgical equipment

3. "Cause I know ravaging occured, but I dont recall any killings" Again, you twisted it a bit.
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/christians-under-siege-in-kosovo/
Plenty in here
http://www.spc.rs/Vesti-2004/pogrom.html
Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo

Acording to wikipedia 28 people died, large number of Orthodox Cristian churches were burned... etc etc.

To prove your statement: "So, they dont seek justice! We do!" you need to hand me names and proofs of the people arrested and convicted for killing or burning down the church, like I did with the ICTY site.

"4) Since I sinned I shouldnt throw stones! What is that? Like a credo of somekind!"
You are most likely non-christian, but you should knew this one anyhow.
Joh 8:7 NRSV
7 When they (Jews) kept on questioning him, he (Jesus) straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her (an adulterous woman caught in the act)."
I'll leave to think some more on that. And there are no US proving NATO bombing was righteous or noble, it seems to be you in singular bringing up and supporting that.

"We shouldnt allow such people getaway without punishment, and genocide shouldnt be neither covered nor forgoten, but dealtwith by all means, just to insure it not to happen ever again!'"
I find this sentence filled with manipulative thoughts.
Questions: Who are us, or we in plural? Who are "such people". Prove the genocide (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6395791.stm) you are according to. From what I know Serbia was cleared of accusation in case against Bosnia. The other case between Croatia and Serbia is not done yet. Therefore, bring common sense again.
If you mean Srebrenica massacre here is next UN judgement (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1441632.ece)

"5)What im openly against, and cannot hide my hate at, for all people to know and understand is, Serbian Nationalism."
This is the first time you are formulating it like this. Until now you referred to object of your raging hate as Serbs!

"Why? Because It is the cause for alota wars, ranging from WW1 to this day! Thats gotta go."

Of "whata" wars? Whats "gotta" go? WWI was triggered by murder of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Political scene and the tensions between blocks in the world at the time where reasons for the War itself. War wasn't their fault.
"World War I was the result of leaders' aggression towards other countries which was supported by the rising nationalism of the European nations. Economic and imperial competition and fear of war prompted military alliances and an arms race, which further escalated the tension contributing to the outbreak of war." Source (http://www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/great_war/causes.htm)
"It bares all the filth of human kind, to the last degree, stained on them!"
So all the filth of the human race is to blame on Serbs!? I wouldn't say that even for Nazi Germany in forties!

"So I hate that, cause its standing in our way to peace in EU!"
I don't think they are cause of you not being in the EU. Problem lies in high unemployment rates, no industry and overall low standard of living in Kosovo.

"6) Regarding my movie. Its media man, you should know that by now. Ive made it, cause it made me feel good."

I already said it's far from art and way into propaganda. Compare your "creation" with all other movies and you'll see how behind movie making art you actually are.

7) I said casualties in Bosnia were around 100.000 What is mystified there? In your number "Bosniaks" consist out of Muslim and Croatians in Bosnia on one side and Serbs on the other side. However, there were numerous fights between Muslims and Croats, meaning that some of that figures they did to themselves, meaning Serbs didn't kill all 66%
Meaning, they didn't kill half a million people you tried to represent, but instead less than 66% of 100.000 bringing to some 10% of what you stated!

8) It may be true that they've lost so many casualties, on the war they have caused to happen upon themselves. But again, its the Serbian Nationalists' fault for that. See my point is.

"Rugova's policy of passive resistance succeeded in keeping Kosovo quiet during the war with Slovenia, and the wars in Croatia and Bosnia during the early 1990s. However, as evidenced by the emergence of the KLA, this came at the cost of increasing frustration among the Albanian population of Kosovo. In the mid-1990s, Rugova pleaded for a United Nations peacekeeping force for Kosovo. In 1997, Milošević was promoted to the presidency of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (comprising Serbia and Montenegro since its inception in April 1992).

"Continuing Serbian repression had radicalized many Albanians, some of whom decided that only armed resistance would affect a change in the situation. On April 22, 1996, four attacks on Serbian security personnel were carried out virtually simultaneously in several parts of Kosovo. A hitherto unknown organization calling itself the "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA) subsequently claimed responsibility. The nature of the KLA was at first highly mysterious. In fact, it was initially a small, mainly clan-based but not very well organised group of radicalised Albanians, many of whom came from the Drenica region of western Kosovo. The KLA at this stage consisted mainly of local farmers and displaced and unemployed workers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

Now we know who caused the war there in nineties, how and why!

Ever since they came here, theres been these edgy Serb Nationalists, that are kinda restless.
Kosovo Serbs are the second largest ethnic group in the disputed territory of Kosovo. They are native to the region for at least one millenia.; by 12th centuries the cultural, diplomatic and religious core of the Serbian Kingdom was located in Kosovo, as the nucleus of the powerful Serbian Empire of the 14th century.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

"They make fires, and cause terror, then hid away, while the ordinary Serbs that had nothing to do with it where then penalized for it. Thats why the Majority of non nationalist, but patriotic Serbs should stand up, and get rid of them."
This looks more like actions of KLA than anything else!

"Just think, theyve caused the WW1, and are still present today here. And that Nationalistic terror isnt going away, to the contrary ironically is growing. Ever since WW1, and now they have a special Massacring Unit, as seen in Bosnia and in here. So thats gotta go, and us with ordinary non nationalist Serbs would get along just fine.

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

(Scorpions, Arkan and Frenker's youll find links below for the later two Massacring Units)"

We already found out what caused the WWI and what triggered it!
We already found out UN cleared Serbia from responsibility in Srebrenica.
We already found out Serbia and International Court are penalizing people for committing crimes, but here is some more
Scorpions (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=9071)
Arkan (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/ark-ii970930e.htm)
Those who you referred to appear to be criminal on other grounds too, so they resemble to the unit I described in earlier post.

"that Organizatevily Cleansed countries that they seeked to conquer in Great Serbia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Serbia"

but you omit the place the link for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Albania
The term Greater Albania[3] or Great Albania refers to land which is outside the borders of the Republic of Albania that Albanian nationalists claim as their own, because of either present-day or historical presence of Albanian populations in those areas. The term incorporates nationalistic claims for territorial expansion over the neighboring countries.
Interesting territories they claim to belong to them:
Kosovo
Montenegro
Southern Epirus
Republic of Macedonia
Preševo Valley in Serbia

"Interesting quotation
We spent the 1990s worrying about a Greater Serbia. That's finished. We are going to spend time well into the next century worrying about a Greater Albania.”
—Christopher R. Hill, US Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, 1999

Did you omitted that deliberately or you were just forgetful?

"But be it a reaction, or just an action, that kinda Murdering Machinery has no place in this century! Defintely not in Europe! And I think that they knew it all along, but tried to cover it with lies and sleezy denying policies. It is ongoing now as well."
Another sentence with a lot of manipulation and no proofs.

What "Murdering Machinery" in THIS century. Serbs sent Milosevic to Hague, together with other war and/or regular criminals, has chosen a new path with new leadership (like States did recently) back in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor). Only violence that happen in this century was the one performed by Albanians over Serbs in that siege in 2004.

"Its quite unresting knowing so many nationalists are running the Serbian Country! Knowing what all that implies now! And the country is your neighbour too! Deny or not, they will be indicted to court for it:

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setime.../20/feature-01"
Who is running Serbian country? Is current president Tadic nationalist like Milosevic? There are people in the link you posted, both of them Serbian government seem cannot find. Link you provided has little to do with what you expressed.

And on the other day, the religious chief orthodox priest in Kosova, wants another 500 years of war here too!

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=124381
Don't you think he is frustrated a bit by burning of all those churches!?

From the same paper, there come some interesting tidbits how terrorist become Prime minister:
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=125467
I wonder how some with that sort of criminal activity in their record can become PM???

10) Still lousy.

I still say it was a great Noble act.

Bombing is not noble. I think it's sick to think of it that way. Following your logic, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were also noble acts!

All facts are by my side.
Sure...

And you should be proud of Mrs. Clinton now, that is now the future Secretary Of State. She knows what she is talking about. And everybody loves her.
That should convince me... armmm... NO!

You seem to fight the things that are no longer existent there. Nineties are gone and with them all the evil that happen.

Being nationalist is not a bad thing. It can go to bad extremes when pushed to far. You seem to have vague idea about that concept and poor knowledge of history.

From my point of view, you were granted separation based on two things.

Provoking unrest in there with terrorist acts of KLA thus provoking West to intervene.

Second, yanks needed BondSteel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel) base, known as smaller Guantanamo, in the (passing) times of G.W.Bush), which they couldn't build on Serbia's soil. So they chopped the part and build the base to counterfeit Russians. American foreign policy is changing. Obama already urged closing Guantanamo (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-will-close-guantanamo-bay-1021731.html) and BondSteel may be next in line. Then you may loose american interest and support...

Dan
P.S. I merely see above the things you try to represent in here!

warmiak
11-27-2008, 12:38 PM
Err, we don't have murders or accidents in the rest of the world? Phew.

Phrase it any way you want, and try to find whatever excuses you can manage. I'll take John Hopkins University's researchers findings that:

Americans do not have the best medical care in the world

(quote from the previous article I linked). I'm guessing they know a little more about medical stuff than you or I... Feel free to email them and tell them they're wrong.

You don't have so many murders and you certainly don't have so many car related deaths because I don't think anyone in the world drives as much as Americans do.

The point is not that the American health-care system system is the best in the world but rather that is not some sort of inferior , outdated way of handling these issues as some like to claim - it tends to be superior in some areas while lagging in others (especially when it comes to cost)

jperk
06-22-2017, 08:08 PM
Who voted Hillary in 2016?

roboman
06-22-2017, 10:19 PM
apparently not enough.......

jperk
06-22-2017, 10:23 PM
lol

Verlon
06-22-2017, 11:00 PM
Doesn't matter now, unless you have a time machine. Just remember to vote next time. Don't settle. Force both parties to deliver better candidates.

probiner
06-23-2017, 01:40 AM
http://i.imgur.com/1c9kw50.jpg

Was fun to see some poster names. Time flies.

ActionBob
06-23-2017, 07:28 AM
I certainly did not. Had I did something similar (given that we had the same basic security training), my butt would be warming a bench in a prison cell right now.

Anyway, that is all I can say on that..... Given that everything is monitored here. ;-)

I am not a Bernie fan either and HE GOT SCREWED by his own party and the dirty dealings of a certain other candidate.

-A

SBowie
06-23-2017, 07:36 AM
seriously? :twak: