Obama Gives iPod to Queen of England

[Herbert_HA]

[citation][nom]Square_Head[/nom]Obama just keeps giving crap gifts. First the 20 DVDs to the Brits, now an Ipod. Gee sounds like the gifts a little kid would want and therefor give. Obama = Big JokeNever trust black people[/citation]

Wow...that's so wrong...

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom][nom]njalterio[/nom]Definitely, but don't spread B.S. like autoworkers are making $160,000 a year.[/citation]I was unaware those figures included pension. That still doesn't change that fact that these people were being paid extremely well for working on an assembly line.Maybe you missed the part where I said:Who said anything about my father?[/citation]

Ah I missed the part where you mentioned it being 2004. When you mentioned the household made only 20K and had 5 kids I assumed you were talking about the 70s. In this day and age, someone who makes only 20K a year has no business having 5 kids.

Other than that, we agree. 60K a year is a lot for an assembly line job, but not completely ridiculous (like 160K).

 

[JJBB]

Apparently, Wal-Mart is now a branch of the Federal Government.

 

[rooket]

Lydon got his throat slit for McLaren's song God Save the Queen, let's hope that one isn't on the ipod

 

[bustapr]

3 months as president and so far he's danced salsa with Ellen Degenerate, bummped his head on his chopper ,and now he's giving an ipod to the queen of england? This is just the best president that has ever lived. Not like Bush who was always grumpy and had the urge to make enemies with all the other countries in the world.

 

[sinclaj1]

Let's just hope that it wasn't an iPod with one of those mysterious exploding batteries. Talk about an international incident!

 

[hurbt]

Socialism = Bad

Capitalism = Good

The US Senate requiring banks to make sub-prime loans = bad (and this is not capitalism gone amuch, as the media tries to portray it)

It's the governments fault we're in this mess, and now they're claiming to be the only ones that can get us out? Doesn't make any sense to me. Barak is just gonna dig the hole deeper, like FDR, and every other Socialist in Democrat clothing.

Democrat is one who panders to the mindless whims of the masses.

/salud

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Anyhow, if nationalized healthcare means the goverment runs the hospitals and stuff, then I'd expect it to be a good thing. That's how it works here in denmark, and I'm rather liking it to be honest. If I had to pay for getting my nose fixed out of my own pocket, I'd never afford it, if I had to pay for my other small problems myself I'd be unable to afford a car. And with a mother in a wheelchair I can say it is a really good system, as it gives rich and poor equal chances. And my parents are definetly not in the rich group, so I like equality.[/citation]
Not only does finland have a really small population, it's relatively homogeneous. Most people have a similar ancestry, and are afflicted with similar ailments.

If you look at countries like Canada or England, both of which have nationalized health, it can take up to 3 months to get a simple proceedures, like getting blood drawn, or an MRI. That can be the difference between catching some early, and discovering a terminal illness. And neither of those countries have populations close to that of the US (33 million for Canada, 51 million for England, and 306 million for the USA).

In our current system, if I need to get a blood test I could get one within the week. I don't need nationalized health care. Giving it to me means you lower the health care standards for those who can afford it. I have health insurance for a reason.

We need to provide free and discounted health care for those who can't afford it, which will still allow our currently expedient system to continue. It also means we don't spend a huge amount of tax dollars paying for something some of us don't need.

I can go into further detail if you're really that interested.

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]And imo a boss, or president for that matter, that is actively trying to archieve something good, is a good boss.[/citation]
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]If you look at countries like Canada or England, both of which have nationalized health, it can take up to 3 months to get a simple proceedures, like getting blood drawn, or an MRI. That can be the difference between catching some early, and discovering a terminal illness. And neither of those countries have populations close to that of the US (33 million for Canada, 51 million for England, and 306 million for the USA).[/citation]

Get your facts right. It never takes three months to get a blood test. You get one within a day or two. Anything life threatening and there aren't bad wait times. In fact, the waiting times aren't very bad at all. Besides which, if you want to get seen quicker then you always have the option to pay and go for private healthcare or take out private health insurance. Just because we have a nationalised healthcare in the UK doesn't mean that we don't have any private healthcare. Its about everyone having a good standard of healthcare no matter what they earn. I myself have private health insurance. I haven't once had to make a claim since the national health system is good enough for everything I've needed so far. Do I resent having to pay for poorer people's healthcare? Hell no - its the right thing to do. Every human being deserves a good healthcare and a good education as a birth right, money or no money.

 

[Tindytim]

And you live where?

The fact of the matter is, we in the USA spend an amount on health care roughly approximate to the GDP of the UK. And we don't even have nationalized health care. Just imagine if tax payers (AKA all the people that work for their money) not only had to foot the bill for everyone, but for the whims of the hypochondriacs.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]Unless you have no job, you do NOT have free health care. Its taken directly out of each and every paycheck you get, its called taxes. And comparing national health care for a country with 5+million people and a country with 330+million people is not at all possible. Look at the state run health care systems in Massachusetts and California. Each state alone has more people than the entire country of Denmark and despite raising taxes like crazy to pay for the programs, each state's health care program is in the tank. Also, I hope that your mother in a wheelchair stays healthy. In national health care systems like yours, when people get to a certain age they get denied almost everything that could possible save their life.[/citation]
Admittedly it takes a lot more planning and a much more refined structure to provide the same level of service in a country with many people as it does in one with few. But I still believe the system is good if it works as intended. What I care about is making sure that even the poor can get treatment if needed.
As for the state you mentioned - well our taxes range from 38% to 58% - and we've got 25% vat on everything. So we probably pay a lot more tax to keep the system running than you do (taking population ratio into account). Running a country the way we do with free medical service, free school system and all that does cost money. And our politicians aren't much better than yours, so they're wasting half the money before it's spend too. I suppose our system is a bit like communism, just without the major drawbacks of a zentralkommitee and all that.

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]Not only does finland have a really small population, it's relatively homogeneous. Most people have a similar ancestry, and are afflicted with similar ailments.If you look at countries like Canada or England, both of which have nationalized health, it can take up to 3 months to get a simple proceedures, like getting blood drawn, or an MRI. That can be the difference between catching some early, and discovering a terminal illness. And neither of those countries have populations close to that of the US (33 million for Canada, 51 million for England, and 306 million for the USA).In our current system, if I need to get a blood test I could get one within the week. I don't need nationalized health care. Giving it to me means you lower the health care standards for those who can afford it. I have health insurance for a reason.We need to provide free and discounted health care for those who can't afford it, which will still allow our currently expedient system to continue. It also means we don't spend a huge amount of tax dollars paying for something some of us don't need.I can go into further detail if you're really that interested.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.[/citation]
What's finland got to do with anything? Anyway, as for a potential health care service decrease - Rich people can always just go to a private hospital if need be. Or go to another country for that matter. My aunt went to Thailand last month to get some surgery that they didn't dare/want to provide here at the given time. That costs extra, but it isn't being taken away. As it is you guys already pay extra just to be treated in the first place, so for you the extra mightn't be more than what you'd put in the budget in the first place.

As for your last sentense - that makes it sound like it's better to do nothing, than to innovate? The chinese thought that too once, but they've gotten smarter. Or perhaps you mean that actions taken with good intentions lead to more ailment than actions taken with other, less valiant, reasons provide a more positive outcome? I'm sure castro would agree with that, but I wouldn't.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]And you live where?The fact of the matter is, we in the USA spend an amount on health care roughly approximate to the GDP of the UK. And we don't even have nationalized health care. Just imagine if tax payers (AKA all the people that work for their money) not only had to foot the bill for everyone, but for the whims of the hypochondriacs.[/citation]

Yup, I live in the UK. Yup, US healthcare spending is about 75% of our GDP. However, US healthcare costs you ~15% GDP per year whereas our public healthcare costs us just ~3% GDP per year. Public healthcare doesn't cost as much as private - its all state run and its not run in a way so as to make a 'profit'. US hospitals get away with charging insane amounts because they know that health insurances will pay out for it all. Also, the size of a country doesn't matter. Once you get over a relatively small size then the costs of healthcare per person is relatively constant. The GDP per person is basically the same amongst developed countries. If you can't accept that then consider the fact that pretty much all countries in the European Union have largely publicly funded healthcare and collectively as a financial and regulatory body, the EU's GDP is a fair chunk higher than the US'. Most countries in Europe also have very high levels of public funded education and in fact most universities are free or next to free for students to attend.

 

[mmmmmmmm]

"The reason those companies went under is because of an overly powerful union. By bailing them out, we allow that Union to continue."

Companies go under if they don't modernize quickly enough. Most automakers in Detroit make huge and heavy gasoline slurpers, in stead of light weight cars with good fuel economy.
Gasoline has had it longest part anyway... Burning oil isn't wise in the first place, but it will be too expensive in the coming decades. Meanwhile, the ecology (while burning all oil) on earth goes down the drain.