Sarah Palin not running for president?
-
It's a real shame. Maybe she will focus on earning her nobel prize instead? What do you guys think?
-
SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT? NOBLE PRIZE? ARE YOU CRAZY?
-
Hey, she sees Russia from her home. I mean damnit, that must mean something in the area of physics, light and such …. Lights out mostly, eh?
-
If I was to be honest, my general feelings about her are not all that postive, especialy as a president. But I'm also a Brit and most of the stuff I heard been via media.
-
Don't the Brits already have Obamacare? It's called Obamacare there too right?
-
Needs more Winston Churchill smashing the right damn fiendish Nazis.
You Americans have terrible politics. George W 4 lyfe
-
This year's election is going to be a joke. That being said, with Palin out of it, it's going to be far less funny.
-
Nailin' Palin was a good movie.
-
@Deadlock:
Don't the Brits already have Obamacare? It's called Obamacare there too right?
No its called a negligent health system. Seriously guys I wouldn't wish a state controlled health system on my worst enemy, let alone the nation I have the highest opinion of after my own.
Read this to understand the wonders of the British National Health Service:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ients.html
While from what I have heard Americans saying, I do understand that many are deeply frustrated with their present health system, although a state controlled health care model really is not the way to go.
The problem with the NHS is that patients have no substantial choice between health providers, for when the state is in control there is only one choice and that choice is the state.
The inherent problem of removing choice is that competitive pressure is also removed from the system and without pressure, the individuals within that system have no strong vested reason to perform, which leads to a level of substandard performance. This of course leads to negligence and death.
Great Britain with its wonderful state health system has some pretty terrible cancer detection rates and this leads to needless suffering and death in our nation. A socialised health system also in some cases has led to entire hospitals becoming death traps, as in the case of Staffordshire hospital.
And while I would also agree that in a market run system it is still possible to have a really poor hospital, in a market system you can change health providers, while in a state run system you cant and your screwed unless you want to move regions.
None of which I have wrote is to suggest that I think the American health system is perfect, I don't, but the system you have is better than the one Obama is trying to create. As for a better health system, I consider the best one in the world to be the Singapore health system. This is one which encourages people to live a healthy life, is effective and efficient and affordable to the poor.
You can read about this system in this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Mon ... 130&sr=8-5
As for what a lot of Brits really think of Obama, while on the road to power and upon entering the White House, it was thought by many, that his biggest boon would be his skills internationally, including by myself. He seems to be too friendly with autocrats and disrespectful to democrats.
For instance he with the Arab Springs, he supported the autocratic Egyptian leader, as opposed to the people who wanted to bring down a dictatorship. He has also infuriated and insulted the British when he suggested to us, that we should embrace the European Union.
The difference incidentally between the American President and the European President incidentally is that the American President is elected, the European one is not. Another one being that the American Parliament exists with the consent of the American people, the European parliament was hoisted on the British without our say so, the only vote we have had was in the 1970's before I was born and it wasn't to create a new political body, but we were told, it was to establish a trade agreement.
So when Obama runs around propping up dictators and encouraging democracies to give ever more power of government away to institutions which have no legitimacy in the eyes of their own people, I got to tell you guys he isn't doing your nations reputation internationally a world of good. While I accept Bush had his faults, he was a good American patriot and understood the basic principle that a leader of a democracy should be hostile to dictatorships and friendly to democracies, a point lost on Obama, who seems the other way around.
With regards to Sarah Palin, while she isn't a College Professor like Obama, she does understand, unlike Obama, that a government cannot keep on borrowing and spending forever, as this means more taxes in the present or more taxes in the future, which is like a tax on your childrens future. While Sarah Palin is not perfect, she does believe in getting American finances under control which would help with American prosperity.
Obama with his high end intellect though believes that he can keep on borrowing forever and for all his spending, the American economy hasn't took off.
This is a great article to read on the difference between real intelligence and real overconfidence:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danie ... conomists/
While I would agree Sarah Palin had her faults, she has some great strengths as well. Although all this said, if I was American my ideal President in a hypothetical election would be Ron Paul, as he has integrity, judgement and intellect in spades.
Spartan
-
Denmark has a national Health Care system. Its GREAT!
Then again, you have to willing to pay for it, but still…
-
The NHS is great, but you can also go private as well.. so there is a choice if you can afford it.
-
The NHS is great, but you can also go private as well.. so there is a choice if you can afford it.
You speak right MrMagpie, but it is the 'if' you can afford it bit which is the word in point. The way in which Obama is presenting his health system to Americans, is that if the state runs health care, it means that the poor will receive a higher quality of health care, at the expense of the eventual death of the private health care model that America already has.
The reality is that with a socialised health care model, you will pay outrageous amounts of tax for it, much more expensive per person, than the equivalent free market model, while also driving off and closing down decent free market health providers.
While yes you can get better health care in Great Britain if you can afford it, your in trouble if you are a middle or lower income family. The point I am making to Americans, is that Obamacare will not change health provision for the poor and will make health care worse for all Americans.
The way to improve the American model, is to ensure that those who are unemployed or have a lower income, still have access to health, through a health voucher like system, which gives credits to people when they are having a financially hard time.
Seriously if state controlled health worked everyone would have it now, and all Brits would be bragging about their healthy utopia created by he wonders of the state. Instead I will say I dread going to the doctors, I do consider the majority of them incompetent and sincerely hope that I don't develop any serious illnesses before, I am able to afford private health care.
Spartan
-
@O'louth:
Denmark has a national Health Care system. Its GREAT!
Then again, you have to willing to pay for it, but still…
Does Denmark have a private health system?
Spartan
-
The NHS is great, but you can also go private as well.. so there is a choice if you can afford it.
At least there /is/ a choice.
I go to the VA and get everything I need but I see a lot of people who don't have that (or similar) option(s) and suffer for it. It hurts to watch a family friend die of cancer while his wife steals money for under the counter morphine but that's the society we're living in.
There are pros and cons to every NHS argument but unfortunately it doesn't look likely to change any time soon. I'd much rather see people focusing on driving the cost of health care down- get the bureaucrats out and so forth.
-
@Kathrine:
The NHS is great, but you can also go private as well.. so there is a choice if you can afford it.
At least there /is/ a choice.
I go to the VA and get everything I need but I see a lot of people who don't have that (or similar) option(s) and suffer for it. It hurts to watch a family friend die of cancer while his wife steals money for under the counter morphine but that's the society we're living in.
There are pros and cons to every NHS argument but unfortunately it doesn't look likely to change any time soon. I'd much rather see people focusing on driving the cost of health care down- get the bureaucrats out and so forth.
Prety much my views on the public sector in general. Get waste down. Get rid of people doing none jobs and lower some of the most insane pay packets a notch or two. Would free up a fair bit of money that could be invested in more front line workers, or good old tax cuts.
-
@Kathrine:
The NHS is great, but you can also go private as well.. so there is a choice if you can afford it.
At least there /is/ a choice.
I go to the VA and get everything I need but I see a lot of people who don't have that (or similar) option(s) and suffer for it. It hurts to watch a family friend die of cancer while his wife steals money for under the counter morphine but that's the society we're living in.
There are pros and cons to every NHS argument but unfortunately it doesn't look likely to change any time soon. I'd much rather see people focusing on driving the cost of health care down- get the bureaucrats out and so forth.
While my first choice would be free market model, backed up with a health voucher system, so as to be accessible to the poor or those without work, I would have to agree that socialised health will not be changed anytime soon in Great Britain.
I think that the second best system and one which would improve things, would be to introduce elected Health Managers into the NHS. An elected manager would create accountability within the NHS and so therefore also create pressure on a manager to perform competitively or be removed. This way waste can be minimised and standards driven up.
Spartan
-
SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT? NOBLE PRIZE? ARE YOU CRAZY?
They gave this maroon a Nobel Prize… http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zum9XqoWOM
The interior of the Earth Several Million degrees? :shock:
-
Belgium has a state-controlled health system. It's pretty awesome.
"For instance he with the Arab Springs, he supported the autocratic Egyptian leader, as opposed to the people who wanted to bring down a dictatorship."
Because obviously, a theocratic dictatorship would be so much better than what they used to have. You know, like the one Bush (whom you praise later in the post) killed hundreds to end?
-
SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT? NOBLE PRIZE? ARE YOU CRAZY?
They gave this maroon a Nobel Prize… http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zum9XqoWOM
The interior of the Earth Several Million degrees? :shock:
Haha, yes academia really isn't the institution it once was. But then the left wanted to get rid of all those silly ideas like right and wrong (as it is hurtful that someone has to lose), empirical evidence (climategate anyone) or open debate (the reason why it took climategate to expose the cranks).
For those who want to read about climategate:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
Something I love about Great Britain, is that we have some of the best newspapers in the world. Our papers have real balls our largest papers especially.
The nutshell of climategate was that East Anglia University, the single institution which has and still does have, the most influence on climate change, was caught red handed manipulating data and actively supressing the objective facts that the worlds climate has 'cooled' not warmed up, over this last decade.
Seriously I worry about the state of some universities, as they seem more and more to swim against Enlightenment principles, those of reason, fact and objectivity.
I frankly think the left just likes to frighten people as fear is powerful in overriding rational debate. As a conservative I am more of a hope and reason kind of guy. I kind of consider all this fear mongering being done by the left on this pretty sickening, especially as facts show the real truth.
Spartan
-
Belgium has a state-controlled health system. It's pretty awesome.
"For instance he with the Arab Springs, he supported the autocratic Egyptian leader, as opposed to the people who wanted to bring down a dictatorship."
Because obviously, a theocratic dictatorship would be so much better than what they used to have. You know, like the one Bush (whom you praise later in the post) killed hundreds to end?
As I am pretty political I have been following things in Egypt and while yes some of the opponents of the last Egyptian government, were overly and in fairness, scarily theocratic in their views, an awful lot of the people involved in the overthrow, I think even the majority, were not.
The revolution in Egypt was a genuine revolution against tyrannical rule. It was also a revolution not orchestrated by Al Qaeda or organisations of that type.
As for Bush overthrowing theocratic governments in the Middle East, I quite agree and think Bush was right. I think it is stupid to appease nations which want to destroy liberal democratic nations, and correct to invade in order to prevent situations like 9/11 or 7/7.
Spartan
