Artful Dodger: You know, I TOTALLY agree with what you say, especially when you say : " Only the most needy and unable to work would get a lifetime of help. Others would only get temporary help and then they would be charged for paying back the government ". I don't imagine myself to ask something and I work since the end of my studies (I had to pay myself) and I've always paid taxes for others !
But it's perhaps (we read it, I don't know if it's true !?), to avoid that these persons have illegal jobs, and they don't steal (or less).

Artful Dodger: Yes, there's assistance for people who have incomes lower than 460 Euros for a single, 690 Euros for a couple, and this increases with children : example : 828 Euros for a couple with a child (under 18 years old) : it's the RSA.
But all the incomes of the family are in this amount. Example : a couple and the man earns 490 Euros, so they will receive 200 Euros but not 690 Euros.
For people who don't work (except if they are very ill), they have to look for a job and to prove it, a insertion contract is signed, and they have a personal adviser. Every 3 months, the situation of the person is studied.
People under 26 years old can't have this assistance except if they are alone with children.
Do you have the same in your country ?

Artful Dodger: To receive the " green " card (for 75 %), you have to work about 6 months minimum, and for the other (for 25 %), you receive it as soon as you have paid your contribution.

Artful Dodger: I'm not payed back, because I don't pay : I've 2 cards (one for the 75 % and the other for the 25 %) that I give and the pharmacist puts the cards in a device and then he receives money.

Übergeek 바둑이: I totally agree with what you said : the 2 systems are necessary.
And, as you said, in every case, we have to pay : either a tax or a contribution to a private company.

Artful Dodger: I'll go ahead and take that statement at face value...How will poor kids receive education in a system where education is privatized?

What is so great about American healthcare? We pay more by a bighugegiant amount than everyone else, and our life expectancy is 49th in the world.

Bernice, did you also Google efficiency of health insurance companies? People here are dying because health insurance companies think they know better than doctors what is best for a patient. It's tragic. For-profit health insurance corporations have their own best interest in mind, not anyone else's.

(V): OK :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/31/healthcare-barack-obama-nhs-childbirth

Cleaning up US healthcare's mess
I know first-hand the difference between healthcare in the US and UK. My experience shows why the profit motive isn't healthy

Bernice: As one greatly respected news presenter said. "good news does not make good news".

And when things do go wrong, at least (unlike in the USA) it can't be brushed under the carpet.

(V): can you tell us why then when we "google" NHS competancy/efficiency etc there is nothing but bad news....or is it different on your computer?

Artful Dodger: really!! You have proof of this?

And yes.. believe it or not we have A&E as well.. also 24/7 GP services. And also there is not a single medical need that I've not had covered.. with NO having to pay 1000's of $ before the tab is picked up by an insurance company.

As for privatisation of the NHS..... they tendered out the prep of surgery kits to private sector companies. What a joke that was. Essential operations had to be cancelled as the kits were wrong, incomplete or not upto standard regarding sterilisation.

The private companies put profit first above quality control.

Artful Dodger: And if the government backs out of certain areas (such as education) ..... how much more paperwork and administration costs do you think you'll have to pay for.

N' from what Rod has said regarding what you get for your $ in terms of healthcare...

... it's pretty crap compared to our NHS system. Plus.. one point. Even if you have a private health insurance plan here in the UK, you can still use the NHS GP's...

.. just you have to declare you have a private health scheme so the cost of the GP visit is charged to your scheme.

Übergeek 바둑이: over here the bludgers on the Govt. assistance get everything for nothing, but must pay $5.40 per script for medication. The working man/woman pays a total of 3% of their total earnings , but must pay full price for scripts, some of which are exorbitant prices. You can have private health care if you pay for it but it doesn't cover everything. If you have served your country in any way militarily in combatitive service you get a gold card which entitles you to EVERYTHING.
Retirees get all medications for $5.40 and can choose whether they go public which is free or private, which is paid for by themselves,

Lets see if this post is left here, as my last 2 posts have dissapeared for some reason..

Mélusine:

> My government pays nothing : every month a part is taken from my wage.

This is true everywhere. Here in Canada most essential medical services are "free" meaning that the government "pays" for them. In reality it is tax dollars that pays for the services. I pay income tax every month, and that tax pays for everything that the government does.

If people have private health insurance, ultimately it is really the same thing. People pay either taxes, or a private company. The difference is in who makes a profit. If one pays private companies to cover healthcare costs, those companies operate by making a profit. If one pays the government, the government operates without making a profit.

Different countries range from purely private healthcare systems to systems run completely by the government. In reality both systems are needed. Countries where the government has little or no involvement in the healthcare system are usually the worst to live in in the world. Those where the government (tax dollars) pays for everything often have problems with very high costs and high taxation rates.

No system is purely capitalist or purely socialist. Much of it has to do with preception. What to one person looks like socialism, to another looks like capitalism.

Bwild: My government pays nothing : every month a part is taken from my wage. All the salaried employees have to pay every month, even they are ill or not. And if you don't work, so don't contribute, you have no insurance at all (not 75 % and not 25 %). Children are with their parents under 18 years old. After, they have to pay a part, even they work or not, so you see, actually, I have to pay for my son 18 years old who is student at the University.

Mélusine: so your government pays 75% and you pay 25%,unless you have supplemental insurance?

Artful Dodger: I've forgotten to answer to this question.
Not exactly. The general rate for paying back is 75 % for a visit to the Doctor. If you don't want to pay the 25 %, you have to suscribe a private insurance you pay every month. Most of people do that. Anyway, you always pay 1 Euro in a visit, it's an obligation, with insurance or not.
But in reality, it's more complcated : all the medecine aren"t payed back at the same level : some at 20 %, others at 40 %, other at 75 %. And it's the same for the Doctors who are " specialist ", according to the category they belong. It's the reason why people pay a private insurance in order to get 100 %.
And if you decide to go and see a " specialist " and that your " general " Doctor doesn't agree, you won't be payed back at all.
When you go to hospital, it's the same, but if someone has no money for paying, he's sure to get a treatment.

Artful Dodger: The tax care depends on the product (or the service charge) sold. It's more important for luxury products.
And income tax depends on your wage and the number of your children (children when they can't provide for themselves and under 20 years old), tax about the house depends where you live (a big city or not for example).
And don't speak about tax on petrol !

And for you ?

Artful Dodger: When you say it like that, it's better. But political men say that but don't really do it. Here, there will be always some help for people who have difficulties, even the government isn't socialist (as actually).
And don't believe the decrease in the statutory working hours (we spoke about before) was only for the salaried employees. Many companies have made this to their advantage : for example, a member of my family doesn't works 35 h/week but 30 h when the
production is low and 40 h when it's high, and no possibility of vacation during this period.

Artful Dodger: No, what you're saying is absolutely wrong ! I'm not in a socialist system ! As I said before I've just a little money (150 Euros) for my 2 children, but that's all. I must work to get money, I pay taxes and I had to ask a credit to buy my house. Where is the difference with the way you live ?
I agree with (V) when he says : " Have we at the moment any country that could be called strictly socialist or of a free market nature. "

Artful Dodger: No you didn't. But it's nothing I don't expect... An answer would be why you did think she'd make a good pres and no you don't.

As for Socialism.. "China is the fastest growing economy in the world. It's a State controlled economy...."

you are contradicting yourself.. Yet again!!

Artful Dodger: So if socialism does not work... why is China buying up so much of the USA debt..... It could be said that China has/is keeping the USA afloat.

It could also be said that no purely free market country works... but. Have we at the moment any country that could be called strictly socialist or of a free market nature.
... could you point out some so we can do a reasonable comparison?

As for Palin being pres...... why the change of heart? You've still not answered that. Just over a year ago you thought she would make a great president.... now you don't.

why is it that 1% of Americans take home 24% of monies earned?

Does this mean they are overpaid?

or does it mean the other 99% are underpaid?

Übergeek 바둑이: Your general analysis is rather good, and I thank you for this commentary, but I don't totally agree with, only on a few details :

- In France, the unemployement is about 10 % of the active population : sometimes less, sometimes more but the variation is little : about 1 to 1,5 %. We have also a system for counting unemployed persons which is different from other countries in Europe : example : if someone works 70 % of the time and says " I look for a job with a time 30 % more or else 100 % ", he's considered as un unemployed person. So, you see the notion of unemployement is very wide and I could give you other examples if necessary.

- When you speak about benefits when a couple has a child : paternity leave is very recent and the father gets only 11 days with the mother. And with only 1 child, there's no family allowance, it begins with 2 children and it's not very important (example : for my 2 children, I receive about 150 Euros (210 $) and my elder son is student and believe me, I don't make benefits !).

- About the last strikes in France : the problem doesn't come only from the retirement age. The president Sarkozy has a very authoritarian politics and rejects the dialog with the labor unions. When we see the opinion polls, people rather agree to raise the retirement age but not for the hard jobs, for example the building trade. But the government doesn't want to hear that.

- About the decrease in the statutory working hours (a shorter work week), it hasn't really changed for many people, because many companies have decided to maintain the same length and to give breaks. I'm in this case : I work during 38,5 h instead of 35 hours per week, and I've sometimes the possibibily to reduce this length. It gives me a benefit of about 10 days in the year, but some of these days are choosen by the employer.

As you can see, it's not simple !

Artful Dodger: The social welfare hasn't changed since many years. You know, in France, people are rather against the changes. However the government is (socialist or not), there are no big differences in your current life.

As I understand it, the current problems in France arose from policy decisions made in the early 1990s. Back in 1991-1992 the world experienced a massive recession (brought about by Reaganomics and the end fo the Cold War). Back then France experience two problems: high unemployment and a decreasing birth rate. In order to counteract those two problems, the French government decided to enact laws that would allow for lower unemployment and a growth in the population (seen as necessary to maintain economic growth):

1. Increasing maternity leave, paternity leave and other parental benefits when a couple has a child. France brought in what is one of the most generous parenting leave systems in the world.

2. Stimulate population and econmic growth through an increase in immigration. This saw an influx of immigrants from former French-speaking colonies, particularly from Africa.

3. A decrease in the retirement age so that yonger workers would have greater opportunities to find work, while the aging population would enjoy the benefits of an earlier retirement.

4. A decrease in the statutory working hours (a shorter work week) in order to help increase the number of available jobs per capita. France could afford to do this because France has the highest productivity per hour of all G8 nations.

These solutions worked well to some extent. France achieved what no other Western European country had been able to do. France increased its birth rate and saw a healthy growth in its population. In fact, since 2003 France's population growth has accounted for all "natural" population growth in the European Union. While other European Union countries have negative population growth, France achieved a positive population growth.

As the population has grown, a recession has taken hold in the European Union. This has meant that the employment rate has decreased and as unemployment rose, marginalized segments of the population saw themselves experiencing high unemployment. If any of you recalls, this led to rioting among North African immigrants.

The recession has also meant that the government has experienced a shortfall in taxation revenue. In order to account for the deficit, the govenment has tried to mdify some of the benefits that the population has received. The government has tried unsuccessfully to increase the working hours per week, and to raise the retirement age. In backtracking from policies of the past, the government has alienated the population and this has led to the strikes that we saw in the last few months.

To say that France is a "total disaster" is a reflection of a lack of understanding of the French economy. After all, France still is the 5th largest economy in the world. France is also the smallest emitter of carbon dioxide among industrialized nations. About 80% of France's electricity is generated by nuclear plants. France is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. Like any other country, it has its problems, but it is far from being a disaster.

Artful Dodger: No, I can't let you say this, for 2 reasons :
(1) actually, the french government isn't socialist but UMP (on the opposite) since several years,
(2) you absolutely don't know how it works in our lives everyday.
Please, don't say generalities about France which can be wrong, but give accurate examples we can speak about.

Artful Dodger: Do they??? If a certain companies had their way at the moment, the government spending and interference that has caused some of their products to be severely criticised. The aimed market as such was not one that could easily protest... especially when the products could lead to neurological damage or death.

without government spending, the fact that they lied about the effects of their products would be hard to check into because of the budget and infrastructure needed to analysis and check these products.

But I guess you are saying that as such the free market protects us from frauds who'd quite happily let people be die or be damaged mentally beyond what medical science can fix in the name of profit.

Artful Dodger: But......

Politics (Artful Dodger, 2009-07-04 21:55:11)

4. July 2009, 20:55:11
[Artful Dodger, United States, Brain Rook (forever), Male] Artful Dodger (hide)
show this user posts | show thread | link
Subject: Re:Bush is a republican, McCain a republican, Palin a conservative, Reagan a Conservative
Vikings: Spot on. Many Republicans are talking about returning to their conservative roots. Palin would make a great President. Obama will ruin the economy and put us into so much debt I'll be long dead and we'll sill be paying back from his reckless spending.
Reply (box)


************************* Do I understand you now that you think Palin is crap as a potential VP or President???

......... If so... why the change of heart??

Artful Dodger: Yes, true. And being disrespectful of Americans was not my intention either.

Indeed, I believe, one of the most important qualities, other than values and beliefs, of a president (any leader) is to put together an effective team. Without an effective team in place, all those beliefs of small government, less taxes and central spending (good imho), will not get implemented.

What does she propose to do to the Fed? Will Bubbles Bernanke remain or will real change be seen? Obama promised it, but the old team remains.

(V):



Facts: Sarah Palin is stupid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irklZ-iZjhI

Fox News Proves Sarah Palin Is Dumber Than Bush - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFPiP1Nv8c&feature=fvw

Sarah Palin Thinks Humans & Dinosaurs Co-Existed - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-4ZgxosiKY&feature=channel


The 10 dumbest Palin quotes - http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm


Africa is a country, not a continent etc.
This is hilarious, but the Americans seem to have a wonderful knack of choosing the dumbest canditate for president. The clever ones get assinated!

Artful Dodger: You don't really care that Palin who is (as it appears) is going for being the next President of the USA, and that she is as about as qualified for the job as a monkey is to run a nuclear reactor!!

mmmmmmmm

Experienced Politician =
Know how to lie
Always have a fall guy to take the blame
Give credible platitudes
Know how to spin spin spin
Be able to waffle
Be able to manipulate their expenses
Talk down your opponents and their ideas, no matter how good they are.
Know how to smile
Know how to look sad
Hold a baby
When all goes fails, bring out national pride and raise the flag
Be able to say "it is the right thing to do" with a straight face, whilst all others think you are living on a different planet.

Hmmmmm, sure you can add to the list :)

Artful Dodger: So he was there all the time the Senate was in session??

Artful Dodger: How much experiance compared to Obama?

Artful Dodger:

> He had very limited political experience. So no, that stuff doesn't count.

I suppose 7 years as state senator and 3 years as US senator does not count. But then, nothing Obama could do is right or good. To admit that Obama could have any redeeming qualities is next to impossible.

Bwild: "yomama" ?

Artful Dodger: Palin has no real experiance.. when asked, a senior Republican from Alaska (after pausing) could only come up with two reasons why Palin should run for VP..... one of them was that she was the right age!!

rod03801: .... I wouldn't be surprised at that... Quite frankly some of what was said in olde days to get the blood up.. well.. .. being in league with devil was a common fear inducing tactic.

... But I was referring to ads used in the mid term campaigns.

I read/saw today Palin's new ad....... "We're going to get back to the time-tested truths that made this country great,"

.. That is I must admit, genius in terms of empty could mean absolutely anything talk... some of the best "fill in with own imagination talk" that I've heard in a long while.

Artful Dodger:

> Yeah, like Obama.

Let's see. Obama ... Harvard Law School... Juris Doctor magna cum laude... Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School ... As senator, member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee, Chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee ... As member of the Foreign Relations Committee he made official diplomatic trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Eastern and Central Asia, and Africa.

I suppose all those things don't count at all since he did them all BEFORE becoming president.

Earlier this week Brazil elected Dilma Rousseff as its president. This is the first time that Brazil has elected a woman to be president. Rousseff is a former Marxist-Leninist guerrilla fighter, and she is the protege of outgoing president Ignacio Lula DaSilva.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101101/wl_afp/brazilvote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilma_Rousseff

Dilma Rousseff garnered 56% of the vote. The outgoing Ignacio Lula DaSilva had an 80% approval rating, but was barred by the constitution from running again for president.

In the 1970s Dilma Rousseff had been imprisoned and tortured by the CIA-backed dictatorship of General Emilio Garrastazu Medici. After her release from prison, she took a less radical political stance and joined the Brazilian Democratic Labour Party (social democrats) and slowly climbed the ladder of power until becoming Lula DaSilva's chief of staff in 2005.

Dilma Rousseff is inheriting a booming economy and an overvalued currency. She will have to implement austerity measures to curb inflation and lobby with China and the US to stop artificially lowering their currencies to stimulate their own economies.

It will be interesting to see how the Americanj overnment deals with the increasing influence of the left wing in Latin America. Democratically elected left wing governments will put their own national interests ahead of those of foreign powers and corporations. The US and Europe will have to work with these presidents for improved relations and greater trade while accepting the increasing shift to the left in Latin America.

Bwild:
Like I said, it would be foolish to underestimate Sarah Palin. She is a lot smarter than people give her credit for. If she has a weakness in politics, it is her lack of experience in foreign policy and running an economy on a national scale. If she can convince the public that she has qualities that overcome her lack of experience, then she will be a serious threat to Obama. However, if she fails to do that, she will lose the election. I think it is why Obama has to chose Hilary Clinton as his running mate. Another factor will also be who becomes Sarah Palin's running mate. She has to chose somebody that makes her look good in the voter's eyes.

The Col: lol...unless your on an airbus...you'll be wanting a qualified mechanic!
as far as Palin....over half those she supported were elected(36 out of 52 I think) how'd yomama do?
to me thats a pretty good bite.

Quotes should be attributed to a source, I only noticed it cuz I've never seen it not done before..........the anti intellectual fad that has been in vogue on the right is a head shaker.It's almost like a Harvard degee is to be mocked, and politicians with zero experience, or little education are in.I've done ok without a degree, but I respect education. If I'm boarding a plane,I want a qualified pilot.............Palin has appeal to a very small segment of the voting public, her bark is bigger than her bite country wide.

The Col:

Some of the quotes I posted are from Yahoo News, which they probably got from Reuters. One things is true. Both Democrats and established Republicans capitalized on previous statements or relatively minor wrongdoings of Tea Party candidates. As always, there was a lot of negative advertising and character assassination. On the other hand, having a "news commentator" like Sarah Palin support individual candidates is really a conflict of interest. After all, the media and political parties are supposed to be independent of each other (now I can hear everyone going "Really?!").

Well, representative democracy is not about electing capable individuals or intelligent individuals. Representative democracy is a pseudo-popularity contest in which individuals are elected based on how much media exposure they can buy for themselves. and how much negative media bias their opponents can raise against them. To some people some of the things that Tea Party candidates might do or say might seem too far to the right, but obviously a large portion of the American public does agree with them. Otherwise, why would they vote for these candidates?

If Sarah Palin runs for the presidency, it is likely that she will face a fate similar to that of Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle and Ken Buck. I think that Sarah Palin attracts a lot of people and reflects their values, but ultimately established Republicans and the public at large will question her ability to be president.

The next Republican elected into office will set about to repealing the Healthcare Reform Act of 2010. That president will also be responsible for undoing the financial nightmare that started with the Bush administration and was aggravated by Obama's bank bailouts. That person will have to raise interest rates while at the same time dumping billions of dollars of treasury bonds that the Federal Reserve has been buying back in order to prop up unemployment below 10%. That person will also be responsible for continuing the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, keep Communist expansion in check, and deal with left-wing Latin American governments, which continue to be unbeatable in Latin American elections. That president will have to deal with the increasing power of the People's Republic of China, techonologically more advanced and nuclearly-armed North Korea and Iran, plus the never-ending mess in Israel-Palestine.

It will be a huge job and the question is, can Sarah Palin do it? It would be unwise to underestimate her. She is a lot more intelligent than she is given credit for, but she lacks experience in foreign policy and managing the national economy. She will also face a Congress and Senate that are incapable of changing and constantly mired in bipartisan politics and lobbying.

If Democrats can capitalize on her lack of experience, while making Joe Biden retire while Hilary Clinton becomes the vice-presidential running mate, it is quite likely that Obama will be reelected. Obama has two years to improve his image, and at this point he has nothing to lose be being more aggressive in his policies. In fact, the more aggressive he becomes, the more it will look like the failure of the government to achieve anything is due to Republicans blocking important bills. Having a minority now might actually be advantageous to the Democrats at the next election because now they can blame Republicans for failing to cooperate in congress.

It wil be interesting in two years time. In the meantime, while the American government is busy with infighting, hard left-wing governments are winning elections by landslides in Latin America. Democracy is a funny thing. People vote, and they rarely get what they really want!

(V): "Recent Ads"??? I saw examples tonight of negative ads from even back in the late 1700's and early 1800's. It's hardly a "recent" phenomenon. I can't remember now who it was about, but they had ads about a candidate's mom being a "whore". I bet we wouldn't even see something THAT nasty, now.

The Col: Infighting ... if recent ads I've seen are an example of the way politics can get dirty .. then it'll get even worse.

The USA seems to be having one hell of a lot of problems at the moment. Our dollar this morning was at a dollar to the USA 99.1c...90 minutes later..the USA dollar was worth 100.55c....first time in living memory. I think it is about time Somebody took things more seriously in the USA when it comes to the selection of your politicians....well after the elections last week it looks like a good start LOL