Artful Dodger: His speech seemed to clearly OUTLINE his plans for the healthcare system.. He clearly stated that he would be tackling the healthcare system before he was elected.

A certain amount of problems that ALL politicians face before being elected is being able to have full access to the government depts.

Did you listen to his speech in full?

"But key democrats say that a government option IS THE LOGICAL STEPPING STONE to a single payer system."

All politicians are entitled to their opinion... but they are not the CEO. Like that Conservative MEP getting dosh spouting about the NHS.. His CEO of the Conservative party here in the UK totally rejects his opinion as being based on fact.

So in fact.. he was elected on the outline of his plans, such is normal politics that they need development, as he has been doing consulting with people from left, right and centre which can only be done after getting into office!!

This is just the way things work in government, most democratic societies work this way.

Czuch: Nahhh, minor adjustments are by nature going to happen just like in building or DIY.... otherwise he will not get re-elected. And if that is the case.. he deserves it.

"you cant leave either side unchecked and un scrutinized, it how we keep ourselves going more or less down the middle of the road, with each side pulling as hard as they can on the steering wheel in opposite directions."

How it happens here.. just certain over dramatising here is very unpopular except to minority groups, and they if they go to far....

Is it me.. or is there a bug in posting?

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

"..... Political ideologies in the United States vary considerably. Persons in the U.S. generally classify themselves either as adhering to American liberalism, American conservatism or as moderates. American liberalism aims at the preservation and extension of human, social and civil rights as well as the government guaranteed provision of positive rights. It combines social progressivism and to some extent, ordoliberalism and is highly similar to European social liberalism of parties like the British Liberal Democrats, Dutch Democrats 66 and Belgian Flemish Liberals and Democrats. American conservatism commonly refers to a combination of economic liberalism and social conservatism and to an extent, libertarianism. It aims at protecting traditional values (especially on social issues) while promoting the concept of small government. The ideological position a person or party takes may be described in terms of social and economic policy. The ideological positions a person assumes on social and economic policy issues may differ in their position on the political spectrum. Milton Friedman, for example, was left-of-center on social issues but right-of-center on fiscal matters.[1] Several ideological demographics may be identified in addition to or as subgroups of liberals and conservatives with nearly every possible ideology being found in the general population. The U.S. has a de facto two-party system. The Democratic Party generally represents liberal ideals, while the Republican Party commonly represents conservative ideals. Smaller parties such as the Libertarian Party and the Greens play a minor role in American politics and are not deemed able to capture the presidency.[2]

The size of ideological groups varies slightly depending on the poll. According to a 2007 poll, 35% of Americans identified as moderate, 36% as "conservative" and 25% as "liberal."[3] In a 2005 study, the Pew Research Center identified nine typological groups. Three groups were identified as part of each, "the left," "the middle," and "the right." In this categorization system, "the right" roughly represents the Republican base, those on the "the left" the Democratic base and those in "the middle" independents. Within the left are the largely secular and anti-war "Liberals", the socially conservative but economically left"Conservative Democrats", and the economically "Disadvantaged Democrats" who favor an extended welfare state. In "the middle" are the optimistic and upwardly mobile "Upbeats", the discouraged and mistrusting "Disaffecteds," and the disenfranchised "Bystanders." The right compromises the highly pro-business "Enterprisers," the highly religious "Social Conservatives" (also known as the Christian right), and the "Pro-Government Conservatives" who are largely conservative on social issues but support government intervention to better their economic disposition.[4]...."

Artful Dodger: ... How are you going to fix problems if ya don't face what's broken??

And less then half the room wasn't standing.. I did see some brave republicans clapping though.... correct me if I'm wrong.

"It's enough to know that you are basically clueless on American politics and clearly you don't understand the US mindset."

If you are so sure.. direct me to a non biased site that can educate me then. People are not that different from country to country in many ways... Politics is not so much different from country to country.. I still see things used that date back (as far as my knowledge on 20th C politics) to the 1930's.

Vikings: I thought Acorn was another government people.. It's lawyers.. well... enough said.

And as for the lies... where is your proof? All I hear is knee jerk scaremongering, just like McCarthy did!!

And wasn't that a wonderful display of justice!!

Vikings: Yeah right. A forgetful memory??

Vikings: So it's allright you being a Republican that Bush had a blank cheque book, and Obama cannot make everything cheaper for you guys to live and have health cover? Change takes time, supporting the economy takes money. If you think he's wrong, that's ok.... but he won the election saying he'd support America, and isn't it better people stay in work rather than lose their houses and jobs??
The phrase NIMBY comes to mind. it was invented after conservatives over here said we need expansion, as long as it's Not In My Back Yard.

And don't try and tell me healthcare was not a MAJOR factor in his campaign..

"A key feature of Obama's election manifesto was to address the unavoidable issue of America's growing uninsured population, making healthcare affordable to all US citizens, especially for children, and regardless of pre-existing conditions Currently, the federal government provides health coverage through Medicare (for the elderly), Medicaid (for poor families and the children of families that do not qualify for Medicaid) and military programs. US healthcare expenditure rose rapidly from 9.1% in 1980 to 17% in 2008, and this rise is expected to continue over the next decade, outpacing income and inflation. As such, healthcare expenditure will account for 20% of the gross domestic product, or $4.3 trillion, by 2017 if left unchecked."

What is your problem in having a cheaper healthcare system, that covers you better??

..... and as for the video.. No org is perfect, you get bad apples and idiots everywhere.

Wasn't Acorn around when Bush was in power??

Vikings: Absolute rubbish. He was ELECTED by the people of America on the basis of his policies as stated before the election. Is there a problem with Democrats being elected? You don't want a one party dictatorship do you.. Moaning about a certain type of socialist, yet at the same time wanting the same.... Is that what you want???

Also.. Pres Bush ran up the budget deficit.. you didn't complain then.

Czuch: Like what? And are you saving that the average American is stupid, and that Republicans like yourself are smarter???

Ferris Bueller: It's basically sour grapes. I think I saw McCain even giving a thumbs up to Obama, over certain items he knew needed to be sorted. The health firms have been committing daylight robbery and people in the USA support that, companies basically causing the deaths and pain of USA people, and those hardliner righties support it.

Not nice to think that some Americans do not give a damn that fellow Americans are dying and suffering because of profit making.

... what gets me by the speech... Obama wants to make the health insurance market more competitive, he wants to end cancelling insurance for silly reasons (by those who get paid commission on finding ways not to pay out)... more preventive medicine.

What are the objections to this by Republican hard liners? I thought competitive markets were an idol of Republican hard liners.

.."more competition and more choice.... accountability.. Non profit option to keep insurance companies honest in the insurance exchange, no-one will be forced to choose it.. believe less then 5% of people will sign up.. self sufficient scheme by premiums.. "

And this is bad??

And yes I heard the "you lie" Ferris... ... Lot of booing at the bloke as well.

Ferris Bueller: I've not sat through all of it yet.. bit early before I have my second cuppa

You'll always get idiots in all parties. Blinkered people that choose ideology over what needs to be done. From what I gather Obama has listened to his party as well as the Republicans... those that want to work with him anyway.

Well one thing can be said no matter what.. He's being a better Pres then Bush because he is listening. Not to just the parties but those (such as doc's and nurses) who have working knowledge of the problems.

Ferris Bueller: Well by the standing ovations, I recon both sides in congress liked what he said. And by talk with everyone in congress and the senate, it looks like a plan has been formed.

As he said.. build on what works and reform what doesn't. Common sense really

".....But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

(APPLAUSE)

Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. ..."

I was right....

Pay scales for nurses/midwifes range from £13.2K to £65K+

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=4

+ upto nearly £7K in London allowance

Snoopy: I cannot agree with that, I know it didn't use to be that way (mum was a SRN and use to earn good money just doing two nights.. as much as a week of days) .. I know the gov has a tendency to listen to the nurses and midwife reps...

I think it's more a case of how qualified they are, and what speciality (if any they have).

Czuch: Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. People here still fight to goto certain universities and colleges. I believe alot of Americans get scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge don't they? Rowing and all. Certain colleges specialise in certain fields or, have special depts that reflect the demand for specific skills in that area. We have Private and Public schools, Boarding schools, etc as the need and dedication arises.

We have national Private Health companies.. over 50 off them... not thousands.. All that complexity and having to monitor them.. that's why they want you HR Republicans to support them. NHS trusts that cover counties, live medical record systems so doc's can see each others notes to make better decisions. Private works with Public. And from only 32p per day.. Just about $200. But complaints have been filed regarding over pricing against some companies... such is a matter of trading standards and possible court.

And no... No elites, wages are set, limits and all by government in the NHS. Doesn't mean rubbish pay, doc's here can easily earn $200K+

Czuch: Wrong. It'll never happen, companies would have to be gone as such. And I cannot see any reason why that would happen.

Czuch: In some respects Czuch, your constitution contains socialist (of a type) values..

btw.. Are you trying to tell me that the Republican mind still thinks in McCarthy style ways? I thought that horror died decades ago, and further died when the Berlin wall fell (as in the end of the cold war)...

Why can't you do as we.. private and public working side by side?

Artful Dodger: No they don't, that is a complete lie. The 'experts' disagree, and because of WWII they've been arguing (pro repub's and pro demo's) since. AS WWII (I'll say this one more time) interfered with a pure run of data. IF WWII had not happened then there would be the ability to make a full analysis of the great depression.

But WWII did happen.

Universal Eyes: Let me put it this way... Over here one council cancelled the warden system for it's sheltered OAP accommodation. Those that moved there understanding they would have a warden now found that service cancelled, and the ability to live where they were in some cases severely impaired to the point that some had to go into care homes.

One supporter of this move complained about wardens helping old folk out of hours.

I didn't know caring was a crime these days.

Czuch: What i don't get is that you say the government run clinics are fine, yet you object to them!!

Politics (Czuch, 2009-07-27 13:08:17)

I quote.. "Lack of health insurance does NOT equal lack of health care, not in the US anyway!"

and ...."..have no confidence that the government health care will do any better than the US postal service when it comes to competing with private industry..."

So, are you saying, or not saying that the gov is perfectly capable of running a health system?

Universal Eyes: Unfortunately for that author, one of the main points of the election was healthcare. The people voted..... yes.

And the analogy of fruit and veg is really bad... I would say looking for a "knee-jerk reaction"

Czuch: No. I don't. I would like it made so kids cannot just take guns. I made that quite clear. Seeing as much gun crime is kid related.

Is being responsible regarding firearms anti republican?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Who is an expert???

Pedro Martínez: One thing that gets me about this 'freedom' of owning arms is the situation in which it came about. IE the time of American independence. It has led imho to much gun crime on the streets, in schools, etc in current times.

I can accept that to change such a freedom would be not possible, but the nature of what people are allowed to own, or at least the nature of how they are kept needs sorting. When my brother owned two guns, he had to be vetted by the police (even though he was a serving member of the UK military, his guns had to be stored as such that if someone broke in, they could not just nick them (steel boxes bolted down) and that each weapon was stored so that someone could not just break into one box and have a gun, as the firing mechanisms were stored in a separate steel box, again bolted down.

Access as such in homes I can appreciate in America needs to be quick due to the number of criminals with guns, but this ought to be handguns only, anything heavier stored to prevent thieves getting easy access to them. Or as has happened.. kids using them.

A small safe, does not cost much. And with keypad combo's is quick to open.

Artful Dodger: So, in dismissing my comments, you dismiss the FACT that WWII came at a point that interfered with the data as such to give an accurate assessment of how the dealing with the great depression back then worked or failed? Can you explain how you arrived at this assessment??

The progressive movement seems to have come from Republicans who joined the Democrats as they no longer agreed with the Republican idols... as you know, ideology is a dangerous business.

Yes.. most people are centre in views, neither left or right.. having to choose between two parties who are left or right. That's why the Republican party failed to be re-elected.. Bush and McCain had gone toooooo far right to be fair representatives of the people.

GTCharlie: I ain't shooting ya Dude.. Just the Telegraph has become a bit of a joke over here compared to it's past.

And yes, no president is above criticism. Just at the moment so many want him to fail just because he is not a republican, which is crazy. Much of what led to the problem in the USA as it is goes back decades, and all the various politicians have just sat on their bottoms and not bothered... Just like over here with the expenses scandal.

As I've said before everyone needs to work the problem.

Artful Dodger: When does history show this? As I said, the great depression does not count

GTCharlie: Well... unfortunately Obama inherited alot of problems from the Bush administration. As for Dear leader...

"FDR was responsible for killing 400,000 American soldiers in WWII."

I guess the axis forces just sat at home name calling then.

.... As for printing money... In small doses that is fine, inflation is effected by more then just printing money. Ya just don't want the policy of Germany after WWI.

And as for the first article you posted... "The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s."

This is the point of who knows!! WWII intervened with the ability to have the authors of the article having a clear case and argument.

GTCharlie: I like this member comment...

"Why is everybody blaming Obama? He has been in office for 8 months. It is the disasterous policies of the Bush administration that have this country on life support. Obama is doing his best to contend with a patient (the USA) with multisystem organ failure caused by greed and deception over decades but magnified by bush and his people!"

Artful Dodger: Will he beat Raygun and Bush II??

What about Nixon??

Bernice: Blimey!! That practice of making doctors work stupid shifts was made illegal over here about 5 years ago. I'm surprised it's not the same over in Aussie land!!

Czuch: Not unless normal people stop having babies the normal way, and people are grown (like in "Brave New World") rather then born.

Czuch: As mentioned.. Czuch, our NHS covers everyone and has turned around a £500 million overspend to a £1 billion plus surplus that is to be wholly reinvested.

It can be done, all that the USA has to do is work out which scheme is right. Controls such as full audits need to be made law for all providers. Tort law needs reforming, as in reasonable levels of compensation.. not this "it has to be bigger" attitude that is lining lawyers pockets and robbing the people of the USA as they have to pay for the lawyers getting rich.

It is possible.

Pedro Martínez: Having a healthcare system where some die due to lack of money (workers) and bosses don't as they have the money..... Last I looked into the infrastructure of a company.... The bosses needed workers.

It's inhumane to say that one person can have quality healthcare and one cannot, especially in the same country.. such is, that such a policy is liable to end up in revolution in one form or another.

"Animal Farm" springs to mind

GTCharlie: Poor lifestyle is a factor the docs know how to adjust for. The science and technology exists to determine all the factors that lead upto a persons death.

Little things called autopsy's and post mortems...

As for college.. the more that go to that level of education and complete it the better potential for high skilled employees. That level of workforce potential should be nurtured and kept open otherwise you end up with a lack of skills. It is simple economic sense to have college open to as many potential skilled employees as possible.

As long as they pass the entrance tests.

Czuch: You tell me, you say you know better

As for the other 2 questions.. read back and study some economics. Most people who like to talk about things do so.. so other don't keep having to explain the simple things and repeat themselves.

Only one minor thing.. I called it "maximum employment", while the term seemingly used (a bit of a rusty memory on the name) is full employment.. where as it is expected that some of the population will not be in employment as a natural event.

Czuch: I did, by using the term maximum employment. I was taught it during classes in economics at the age of 14. If you studied and looked at the subject on the web, you'd understand.

Didn't I sorta say it was something we do as humans, and as such.. our governments are supposed to represent the will of the people.. doesn't it state so in your constitution?? Or did you skip that bit.

"Why/how are they to be different???"

One deals with health, one deals with post... can you see the difference??

"You say our postal under charges?"

Yes..

"and the US postal service is going bankrupt"

Well if health care frauds were gone that save $1,000,000,000

“This resolution protects the FDA in its vital mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective. When manufacturers undermine the FDA’s rules, they interfere with a doctor’s judgment and can put patient health at risk,” commented Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. “The public trusts companies to market their drugs for uses that FDA has approved, and trusts that doctors are using independent judgement. Federal health dollars should only be spent on treatment decisions untainted by misinformation from manufacturers concerned with the bottom line.”

“This settlement demonstrates the ongoing efforts to pursue violations of the False Claims Act and recover taxpayer dollars for the Medicare and Medicaid programs,” noted Jim Zerhusen, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

“This historic settlement emphasizes the government’s commitment to corporate and individual accountability and to transparency throughout the pharmaceutical industry,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. “The corporate integrity agreement requires senior Pfizer executives and board members to complete annual compliance certifications and opens Pfizer to more public scrutiny by requiring it to make detailed disclosures on its Web site. We expect this agreement to increase integrity in the marketing of pharmaceuticals.”

“The off-label promotion of pharmaceutical drugs by Pfizer significantly impacted the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s healthcare system,” said Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. “This illegal activity increases patients’ costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the over nine million military members, retirees and their families who rely on this system. Today’s charges and settlement demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute those that abuse the government’s healthcare programs at the expense of the taxpayers and patients.”

“Federal employees deserve health care providers and suppliers, including drug manufacturers, that meet the highest standards of ethical and professional behaviour,” said Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. “Today’s settlement reminds the pharmaceutical industry that it must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places health care consumers at risk.”

“Health care fraud has a significant financial impact on the Postal Service. This case alone impacted more than 10,000 postal employees on workers’ compensation who were treated with these drugs,” said Joseph Finn, Special Agent in Charge for the Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General. “Last year the Postal Service paid more than $1 billion in workers’ compensation benefits to postal employees injured on the job.”

................... From the FBI press release..
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/justice_090209.htm on the Pfizer Inc. business.

Czuch: You don't get it do you? Our society as such relies on a certain level of health. What is called 'maximum employment' relies on health care as part of the figures. That health care is not a right directly affects the ability of the population to meet the demands of the economy. It is NOT your mail service, which by the looks is very much undercharging.

"put all your hope and faith in your government to provide for you."

Never have.. I am a natural sceptic when it comes to politicians, but those who run our NHS trusts have proven to give a damn, and kick butt as needed. Also, our NHS as a whole spent less then budgeted for last year. A surplus the trusts get to keep and invest into the system. No shareholders grabbing their piece of the pie here!!

"Well that would be fine with me, as long as they are competing on the same playing field."

It would mean that your health companies would have to get lean, it would mean that your silly fragmented insurance system gets a kick up the butt. It would mean health care companies would have to be able to offer a national service I hope.

.... And hopefully then they will stop defrauding the USA.

Czuch: That being one thing... I mean, you quite happily support your government re recent wars don't you?? Or has that changed??? Our Royal mail has been been pretty good, some troubles, but no way as bad as your system. Perhaps if your parties stopped arguing it could be sorted.

Oh I don't mind hypothetical, but can you name one realistic 'normal' event that would cause people to stop caring and wanting to help others? A sudden mutation in genes that cause us to become all psychotic maniacs? Some release of a nerve toxin that causes humans to stop being humans?

As I said.. caring is hard wired. That part of human nature has been documented for 1000's of years. Even Jesus commentated about Samaritans

Czuch: Really?? Since when? I mean, isn't it true that many USA private individuals have been storing their 'cream' in offshore accounts to avoid taxes.. Over 100 big building companies over here have been caught fiddling the books. ... Madoff, etc, etc, etc. Believing something does not make it true.

And yes.. it is silly to presume that doctors will just dry up... unless someone invents some virus that attacks people who want to become doctors.. or.. a catastrophic event happens... but in such an event, everyone and everything has gone to the dogs as the infrastructure/economy will completely collapse..

But people will still care about people. It's hard wired into us.

Czuch: In your hypothetical situation, no-one can guarantee someone will become a doctor, but many feel it is a vocation being a healer. But since many people want to be doctors, nurses, etc... your hypothetical is kinda silly. There have been healers of sorts since the beginning of recorded time.... somehow I don't think that is suddenly going to change.

And I think an answer deserves an answer... why do you want a system that is abused by fraud to the cost of billions of dollars? Why do you say such abuse by private individuals and companies is a good thing?

And by your hypothetical.. no private company can guarantee health care either, or any service. well... they don't anyway!!

Czuch: Ohhhhhh yes it is. And at less cost then your current system, and with less fraud then your current system.


"at least not my government....."

And since when have you run America? I've never heard of President Czuch!! Also, since your constitution says for the people, then the government has to listen to the people... which requires a certain amount of sensitivity.

... If you feel you don't need healthcare.. go without.

Looking at the news.. It looks like the FBI and other gov depts are cracking down on medicare fraud.

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june09/healthcare_062409.html

Übergeek 바둑이: Not just the doctors, but anyone involved in inappropriate money making. Management, politicians.. anyone. Also if doctors are caught red handed.. they ought to be struck off.

I've heard talk since the Clinton admin of how health firms buy people off. Such is the profit available that a few million here and there is nothing to them.

Artful Dodger: In certain respects, the stripping of Germany's forces after WWI gave them the advantage of starting afresh in their war machine building. It's why Dunkirk happened. Luckily we had a channel!!! Not just for us, but for the rest of the world.. as a fallen UK would have led to a very horrible battlefield logistically for the remaining Allies.

Übergeek 바둑이: The guys themselves may not have worked for the USA.. but an incomplete (not assembled together) plane was exported to the USA.. As such, it would have given ideas on what could be done.

The fighter/bomber was designed to break the British radar defences and neutralise them. Without them, the air defences that relied on the radar system were 'blind' and would have been unable to stop the German airforce effectively.