US Presidential Elections

[themadhatter114]

Abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both infections and pregnancy.

 

Um, I never said I supported preaching abstinence to the exclusion of all other methods of prevention. However, I do advocate that the effectiveness of contraceptives not be overstated.

 

Or was it something else that makes you sad? Care to explain?

 

Hmm, I guess it's the whole bat**** crazy religious conservative thing that gets me down a bit. Don't worry about me, though - I'll cheer up.

 

Funny, I don't know what gives you the impression that I'm religious, since I'm not. Or that I'm a "social conservative" who wants to push my moral values onto everyone else, since I don't.

 

All I ask for is that, before you make a factual claim that abstinence-only education is less effective, someone actually show a study that shows that abstinence-only education is in fact less effective than so-called "comprehensive" sex education, whatever the hell that really means.

 

I'll tell you what I personally don't like about abstinence-only education. I don't like that I think one of the requirements for federal funding (which I don't see why sex ed. needs federal funding, anyhow, since, you know, it should be 1 or 2 days of health class and shouldn't need extra funding) is that it's supposed to promote marriage. I do not understand what relevance marriage has to sexual health. Obviously, monogamy is what is an asset to sexual health, since you don't have to worry about spreading diseases. But marriage is pretty irrelevant. But I don't think it's the government's business to advocate marriage. Let the church and the family take care of that. I'm sure that single moms like essentially being called whores by the public school system.

 

 

I am, however, a Republican. And despite my distaste for John McCain (because he ONLY voted with Bush 90% of the time har har), I will be supporting the Republican ticket because I like the choice of Sarah Palin. I don't care what her views are on creationism, especially given that she said pretty much that it was not an issue she cared about. I admire her actual consistency with her stance on abortion. I like her as a pro-life role model, but she seems to me more like a social conservative who doesn't at all govern like a social conservative. I don't care about federal funding for stem cell research. I think a lot of lobbyist's are hyping it to get government handouts, but I think that there would actually be private investment in the issue if it were actually promising. Funny that there are absolutely no campaigns for private funds on the issue. I like her because she's pro-gun, and because if her address to the AIP is any indication, she might actually respect the Constitution and might actually be an advocate for liberty. She was more supportive of Ron Paul back during the primaries. So she sounds good to me. I'm also supporting John McCain because I think Barack Obama will be a terrible president if elected. But before John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I didn't even plan on voting.

[themadhatter114]

The Department of Health and Human Services found that abstinence-only education is ineffective as a deterrent against teen sex. Data seems to indicate that oral sex increases with abstinence ed, and that's only reasonable, as either kids are smart enough to know that oral doesn't get you pregnant or just dumb enough that they don't think oral sex "counts". It's a safe bet that Bristol Palin was not taught safe sex, her mother being a rather strict social conservative and promoter of abstinence education. The father of the child was vocal about his being a "redneck" who "doesn't want kids". Given that they're not married it's probably an accident. Anybody who's lived in a college town with fraternity chapter houses knows that this sort of thing happens all the time.

 

But, given that Bristol Palin is white and not living in an inner city she didn't really make a "bad choice" so much as "mistake". In true conservative fashion there's a shotgun wedding on the way. I give it three years, assuming Palin takes office, otherwise I'm putting money on one year.

 

If you actually read the report it states over and over again that the abstinence-only program is not less effective than other programs. It also states that it has a possible short-term impact but that the numbers even out at the end of 6 years. So that leaves open the possibility that abstinence-only programs could reduce pre high school sex and perhaps thus pre high school pregnancies. They even out by the end of 6 years and equal numbers used protection in both groups, likely because in high school every kid has a separate health class to supplement the abstinence only indoctrination they received earlier. Your attack on abstinence-only programs = epic fail.

 

Also, regardless of Sarah Palin's beliefs, the abstinence-only funding is a federal program, and despite that, you have no clue what they were teaching in her children's school.

 

Also, Bristol's boyfriend's myspace page hadn't been updated in over a year, and I don't know how many high school guys will actually admit to wanting children on those stupid myspace surveys. I doubt he was vocal about not wanting kids; I assume he simply filled out the survey. And oh no he's a self-described redneck! Rednecks are the bane of America! He probably hates all the black people in Alaska!

 

Yes, obviously it was probably an accident. Unless Bristol Palin was very eager to get married and used a pregnancy to force her parents to allow it. And since this sort of things happens in college towns all the time, it's apparent that educated young adults get pregnant on accident, many of them having done so while using contraception. So you don't have substantial proof that they didn't use contraception so it's not relevant to anything.

 

What's the difference between a bad choice and a mistake? A teenage girl got pregnant. She fortunately happens to have a supportive family. When teenage girls become single moms and then the kids become single moms and then their kids become single moms and their sons grow up without male role models and they have no one willing to help them out and they become a drain on the American taxpayers or end up in America's prisons then that's a social problem. When a teenage girls gets pregnant and the families take care of the matter then it's a family problem. There were a lot of teen pregnancies in my rural town back when I was in high school, and we had sex ed in health class in junior high and again our freshman year of high school. A lot of teenage girls, with the help of their families, raised their children and stayed in school and it wasn't a big deal to anybody. And many other girls had abortions that no one knew about, one girl claiming to have had about 20 by the time she was 18.

 

Of course you also think that the marriage is some idea of the parents rather than the children, and that that's "in true conservative fashion." Getting married before you turn 20 is just so unhip! Though I thought it was last year when Sarah Palin kept her daughter out of school and faked her own pregnancy and lied to everyone that that was in true conservative fashion. Get over it; it's a non-issue and the uncertainties and logical fallacies make it impossible to use in an argument. So trying to use it as an argument or speculating that they'll get divorced is simply being an ass.

 

As much evidence as people supposedly have that Sarah Palin is a social conservative, I'd like to see some evidence that she actually governed like one.

Edited September 4, 2008 by themadhatter114

[Humodour]

The Department of Health and Human Services found that abstinence-only education is ineffective as a deterrent against teen sex. Data seems to indicate that oral sex increases with abstinence ed, and that's only reasonable, as either kids are smart enough to know that oral doesn't get you pregnant or just dumb enough that they don't think oral sex "counts". It's a safe bet that Bristol Palin was not taught safe sex, her mother being a rather strict social conservative and promoter of abstinence education. The father of the child was vocal about his being a "redneck" who "doesn't want kids". Given that they're not married it's probably an accident. Anybody who's lived in a college town with fraternity chapter houses knows that this sort of thing happens all the time.

 

But, given that Bristol Palin is white and not living in an inner city she didn't really make a "bad choice" so much as "mistake". In true conservative fashion there's a shotgun wedding on the way. I give it three years, assuming Palin takes office, otherwise I'm putting money on one year.

 

If you actually read the report it states over and over again that the abstinence-only program is not less effective than other programs. It also states that it has a possible short-term impact but that the numbers even out at the end of 6 years. So that leaves open the possibility that abstinence-only programs could reduce pre high school sex and perhaps thus pre high school pregnancies. They even out by the end of 6 years and equal numbers used protection in both groups, likely because in high school every kid has a separate health class to supplement the abstinence only indoctrination they received earlier. Your attack on abstinence-only programs = epic fail.

 

Also, regardless of Sarah Palin's beliefs, the abstinence-only funding is a federal program, and despite that, you have no clue what they were teaching in her children's school.

 

Also, Bristol's boyfriend's myspace page hadn't been updated in over a year, and I don't know how many high school guys will actually admit to wanting children on those stupid myspace surveys. I doubt he was vocal about not wanting kids; I assume he simply filled out the survey. And oh no he's a self-described redneck! Rednecks are the bane of America! He probably hates all the black people in Alaska!

 

Yes, obviously it was probably an accident. Unless Bristol Palin was very eager to get married and used a pregnancy to force her parents to allow it. And since this sort of things happens in college towns all the time, it's apparent that educated young adults get pregnant on accident, many of them having done so while using contraception. So you don't have substantial proof that they didn't use contraception so it's not relevant to anything.

 

What's the difference between a bad choice and a mistake? A teenage girl got pregnant. She fortunately happens to have a supportive family. When teenage girls become single moms and then the kids become single moms and then their kids become single moms and their sons grow up without male role models and they have no one willing to help them out and they become a drain on the American taxpayers or end up in America's prisons then that's a social problem. When a teenage girls gets pregnant and the families take care of the matter then it's a family problem. There were a lot of teen pregnancies in my rural town back when I was in high school, and we had sex ed in health class in junior high and again our freshman year of high school. A lot of teenage girls, with the help of their families, raised their children and stayed in school and it wasn't a big deal to anybody. And many other girls had abortions that no one knew about, one girl claiming to have had about 20 by the time she was 18.

 

Of course you also think that the marriage is some idea of the parents rather than the children, and that that's "in true conservative fashion." Getting married before you turn 20 is just so unhip! Though I thought it was last year when Sarah Palin kept her daughter out of school and faked her own pregnancy and lied to everyone that that was in true conservative fashion. Get over it; it's a non-issue and the uncertainties and logical fallacies make it impossible to use in an argument. So trying to use it as an argument or speculating that they'll get divorced is simply being an ass.

 

As much evidence as people supposedly have that Sarah Palin is a social conservative, I'd like to see some evidence that she actually governed like one.

 

Dude, just calm down. You need to smoke a joint or have sex or something.

[themadhatter114]

The Department of Health and Human Services found that abstinence-only education is ineffective as a deterrent against teen sex. Data seems to indicate that oral sex increases with abstinence ed, and that's only reasonable, as either kids are smart enough to know that oral doesn't get you pregnant or just dumb enough that they don't think oral sex "counts". It's a safe bet that Bristol Palin was not taught safe sex, her mother being a rather strict social conservative and promoter of abstinence education. The father of the child was vocal about his being a "redneck" who "doesn't want kids". Given that they're not married it's probably an accident. Anybody who's lived in a college town with fraternity chapter houses knows that this sort of thing happens all the time.

 

But, given that Bristol Palin is white and not living in an inner city she didn't really make a "bad choice" so much as "mistake". In true conservative fashion there's a shotgun wedding on the way. I give it three years, assuming Palin takes office, otherwise I'm putting money on one year.

 

If you actually read the report it states over and over again that the abstinence-only program is not less effective than other programs. It also states that it has a possible short-term impact but that the numbers even out at the end of 6 years. So that leaves open the possibility that abstinence-only programs could reduce pre high school sex and perhaps thus pre high school pregnancies. They even out by the end of 6 years and equal numbers used protection in both groups, likely because in high school every kid has a separate health class to supplement the abstinence only indoctrination they received earlier. Your attack on abstinence-only programs = epic fail.

 

Also, regardless of Sarah Palin's beliefs, the abstinence-only funding is a federal program, and despite that, you have no clue what they were teaching in her children's school.

 

Also, Bristol's boyfriend's myspace page hadn't been updated in over a year, and I don't know how many high school guys will actually admit to wanting children on those stupid myspace surveys. I doubt he was vocal about not wanting kids; I assume he simply filled out the survey. And oh no he's a self-described redneck! Rednecks are the bane of America! He probably hates all the black people in Alaska!

 

Yes, obviously it was probably an accident. Unless Bristol Palin was very eager to get married and used a pregnancy to force her parents to allow it. And since this sort of things happens in college towns all the time, it's apparent that educated young adults get pregnant on accident, many of them having done so while using contraception. So you don't have substantial proof that they didn't use contraception so it's not relevant to anything.

 

What's the difference between a bad choice and a mistake? A teenage girl got pregnant. She fortunately happens to have a supportive family. When teenage girls become single moms and then the kids become single moms and then their kids become single moms and their sons grow up without male role models and they have no one willing to help them out and they become a drain on the American taxpayers or end up in America's prisons then that's a social problem. When a teenage girls gets pregnant and the families take care of the matter then it's a family problem. There were a lot of teen pregnancies in my rural town back when I was in high school, and we had sex ed in health class in junior high and again our freshman year of high school. A lot of teenage girls, with the help of their families, raised their children and stayed in school and it wasn't a big deal to anybody. And many other girls had abortions that no one knew about, one girl claiming to have had about 20 by the time she was 18.

 

Of course you also think that the marriage is some idea of the parents rather than the children, and that that's "in true conservative fashion." Getting married before you turn 20 is just so unhip! Though I thought it was last year when Sarah Palin kept her daughter out of school and faked her own pregnancy and lied to everyone that that was in true conservative fashion. Get over it; it's a non-issue and the uncertainties and logical fallacies make it impossible to use in an argument. So trying to use it as an argument or speculating that they'll get divorced is simply being an ass.

 

As much evidence as people supposedly have that Sarah Palin is a social conservative, I'd like to see some evidence that she actually governed like one.

 

Dude, just calm down. You need to smoke a joint or have sex or something.

 

I already had sex while watching the Republican Convention. I was disappointed that they didn't count all the votes.

[Hildegard]

I already had sex while watching the Republican Convention. I was disappointed that they didn't count all the votes.

 

I bet you're doing it with your teddy bear.

 

[Killian Kalthorne]

I know there have been a lot of discussion back and forth on politics, some of it has been good fruitful discussions while others have been a load of meaningless drivel.

 

So, I say lets forget about the Bush administration, about "experience," and who is pregnant and who isn't. Lets go issue by issue of Barack Obama and John McCain. This material is coming from CNN so take that bias in account.

 

Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.abortion.html

 

Abortion: Definite a hot topic and something that both sides of the line feel very strongly for. On this issue, I am siding with Obama.

 

Obama: 1 McCain: 0

 

Afganistan: Both McCain and Obama has similar stances on what to do with Afganistan and both would work for me so they both earn a point here.

 

Obama: 2 McCain: 1

 

Cuba: Both have solid plans but I have to side with Obama. Isolating regimes will not make them friendly to change for the better, it will only ostracize them and force them to be even more against what you want to see done in terms of reform. As the old saying you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

Obama: 3 McCain: 1

 

Economy: Again I have to agree with Obama. Trickle down economics did not work with Reagon and will not work now. Trying to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results is indeed insane. Just ask Einstein.

 

Obama: 4 McCain: 1

 

Education: As Obama has pointed out that the No Child Left Behind laws ahve a noble goal but it has failed. The law is flawed and needs to be fixed. McCain also has some good ideas here that I like, specifically expanding the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program. They both earn a point here.

 

Obama: 5 McCain: 2

 

Energy: Both are fairly similar with one key difference. McCain is in favor of pandering to the public with a gas tax holiday with Obama stating that tax money is needed to maintain our highway systems. Since I am also against offshore drilling, for the time being, the point here goes to Obama.

 

Obama: 6 McCain: 2

 

Environment: Both McCain and Obama has some good ideas here, but Obama wants it taken to a more worldwide stage while McCain is keeping it at home. The global environment needs to be taken care of in a coalition of nations. No single country can do it alone.

 

Obama: 7 McCain: 2

 

Free Trade: NAFTA needs some changes to it and Obama wants to do it. McCain's view on NAFTA is acceptable as well. So, they both get a point.

 

Obama: 8 McCain: 3

 

Guns: Obama and McCain have voted similarly on this issue but one key phrase that has me wary about Guns and Obama: "But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right." No points for Obama here.

 

Obama: 8 McCain: 4

 

Healthcare: Obama all the way here. Sorry, Chiefsfan.

 

Obama: 9 McCain: 4

 

Homeland Security: Both seem to have solid plans here and I would find both fairly acceptable. Especially about Gitmo.

 

Obama: 10 McCain: 5

 

Housing: I disagree with both of these buggers on this issue, especially about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The housing market is in shambles but it needs to be restructured from the ground up, not be given a band-aid. Throwing money at a problem will not solve it. No points for either of them

 

Obama: 10 McCain: 5

 

Immigration: Both are spieling about the same noise here and I disagree with both of them. They both want to give amnesty to criminals and I just cannot abide by that. No points for either one.

 

Obama: 10 McCain: 5

 

Iran: I with Obama here for the same reasons for Cuba.

 

Obama: 11 McCain: 5

 

Iraq: Again I have to side with Obama on this issue.

 

Obama: 12 McCain: 5

 

Israel: Both have the right idea on Israel I guess, and I find both of their views acceptable. A point for each!

 

Obama: 13 McCain: 6

 

LGBT Issues: I have to side with Obama on this, and while I am all for full marriage rights, civil unions is a good compromise. In fact I would like to see all marriage be treated as civil unions under the law.

 

Obama: 14 McCain: 6

 

Social Security: I have to side with McCain with this one. What Obama is proposing is a band aid and we don't need band aids, we need solutions. McCain has a solution that might work and we should give it a go.

 

Obama: 14 McCain: 7

 

Stem Cell Research: Both have similar plans and both would be acceptable to me, but I do disagree with human cloning. I think that human cloning is key in helping those who are in dire need of organ transplants. Instead of being on a waiting list for a new kidney or heart, one could be cloned and implanted. However, that objection won't stop me from giving both a point.

 

Obama: 15 McCain: 8

 

Taxes: I like Obama's tax plan over McCain's. Call me selfish but it would benefit me more than what McCain's would. Obama gets the point.

 

Obama: 16 McCain: 8

 

 

 

Well, that is that. Just going down the issues, Obama is my candidate. Personally I would have like to see an Obama-McCain ticket than a Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin tickets, but this isn't an ideal world.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Where is the evidence that the "abstinence policy" is the reason for the increase in STD?

 

There are such studies, and a recent congressional investigation found that these programs were deliberately spreading false information within the schools. Not only has this unethical practise blurred the lines between religion and science, but there is a general consensus that these so called "sex education programs" -although they should be known as sex uneducation programs and will be for the reminder of this posting- have actually caused a rise in risky sexual practises and teen pregnancies. Think about it, if the young adults are going to have sex anyways, as numerous studies have showed that the students in the "uneducation programs" are just as likely, if not more likely, to have intercourse or another form of sexual interaction, would you rather they know about sexually transmitted diseases and birth-control, or would you prefer them to believe that condoms cause AIDs and masturbation will cause cancer? ****, these programs even support the misguided "abstinence "virginity" pledges" - things that, while marginally helpful in preventing "regular" sexual intercourse, raised the likelihood that the students would engage in unprotected anal and/or oral sex to avoid breaking the "pledge." We must top the uneducation and brainwashing of America's children!

 

Resources:

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041...02153-50247.pdf

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publication...tabstinence.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2004Dec1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041301003.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/...23/feature.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/opinion/28sat1.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/...=Health_3976972

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080423/sc_nm/abstinence_usa_dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/health/06birth.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7368219.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/...d.ap/index.html

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I already had sex while watching the Republican Convention.

 

"Sex" with your hand while watching Palin's speech -assuming you could stand it- doesn't count....

[SteveThaiBinh]

Sarah Palin's positions on gay marriage and abortion, while I disagree with them, are what you'd expect any Catholic politician (for example) to believe, and it would be disgraceful to say that you didn't think a Catholic should be Prime Minister or President. The policy that's most off-putting to me is creationism, because that's so alien and unfamiliar to British politics, I think, but there's really no reason to say it disqualifies her from office. She's shown herself willing and able to stand up to her own party while in office - that's a big plus with me. Has she shown herself able to compromise and build consensus, though? Alaska is a pretty Republican state, I gather, so maybe she hasn't needed to, but as President or Vice-President she's responsible for a country that's very divided over a lot of issues. Can she work with people on the other side of the debate? I guess it will be difficult to tell during the campaign as apparently (says BBC World News) the role of the VP in an election campaign is to be an 'attack dog'. I don't think that will be particularly edifying, but never mind.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Let's get off the subject of sex before lines are crossed and PMs start flying.

[taks]

Economy: Again I have to agree with Obama. Trickle down economics did not work with Reagon and will not work now. Trying to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results is indeed insane. Just ask Einstein.

repeatedly ignoring data that is contrary to your existing ideology is even more insane. reagan's economic policies are what started the boon we had up through the clinton years. sane economists know this.

 

Environment: Both McCain and Obama has some good ideas here, but Obama wants it taken to a more worldwide stage while McCain is keeping it at home. The global environment needs to be taken care of in a coalition of nations. No single country can do it alone.

one of these days we might actually see some proof that there is a problem. i'm sorry, but rational scientists, nay, rational people do not believe that simply because a handful of broken computer programs say we are cooking does it make it true. both are idiots for falling for the scam. the populace largely does not care, but i'm not surprised at your opinion here.

 

Healthcare: Obama all the way here. Sorry, Chiefsfan.

hehe, there was a reason billary's efforts failed miserably. you think it's bad now, wait till the last bastion of capitalist healthcare goes socialist.

 

Housing: I disagree with both of these buggers on this issue, especially about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The housing market is in shambles but it needs to be restructured from the ground up, not be given a band-aid. Throwing money at a problem will not solve it. No points for either of them

finally...

 

Immigration: Both are spieling about the same noise here and I disagree with both of them. They both want to give amnesty to criminals and I just cannot abide by that. No points for either one.

finally number 2.

 

In fact I would like to see all marriage be treated as civil unions under the law.

almost here... why not simply remove federal recognition at all? leave it to the states to deal with unions, churches to deal with marriages, and companies to decide how benefits should be allocated for "life partners." edward jones allows anyone to be designated a partner for insurance benefits, for example, without a law mandating it. others will follow simply to attract qualified candidates for employment.

 

Social Security

the ultimate tax on the poor should be abolished.

 

Taxes: I like Obama's tax plan over McCain's. Call me selfish but it would benefit me more than what McCain's would. Obama gets the point.

soak the rich. it's always easy to advocate taxing the other guy, ain't it? and i'm the greedy one for supporting capitalist solutions. sheesh. same benefit for me either way, btw, perhaps 0.2% in favor of obama (can't recall), but immaterial overall. we have a full year of two incomes and not enough deductions for the first time in 6 years so i'm screwed either way.

 

Obama is my candidate.

while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, factual breakdowns such as these are rather silly. your score-keeping was pre-determined in your head, for sure, even if you fail to recognize it as such.

 

taks

[Xard]

hehe, there was a reason billary's efforts failed miserably. you think it's bad now, wait till the last bastion of capitalist healthcare goes socialist.

 

only american can talk like this

 

 

enjoy your AIDS while Canada and Europe facepalms at your healthcare system

[taks]

enjoy your AIDS while Canada and Europe facepalms at your healthcare system

the only people that think canada and europe have better healthcare than the US are the same fools that think socialism works. it's not a surprise that people in canada and europe come to the US for quality care, not the other way around. or were you just trying to be sarcastic? certainly you aren't so foolish to think either of those two systems are "better" in any measurable way, are you? hehe...

 

i should add, once the US system goes socialist it won't be a surprise to folks like me when all healthcare around the globe deteriorates. drugs in particular.

 

taks

Edited September 4, 2008 by taks

[taks]

ya know, i'm repeatedly amazed by the ignorance displayed by those of you that have never lived in the US, yet seem so qualified to judge our systems. i'm not even sure what xard's retarded aids comment means. what does that have to do with our healthcare system at all? are you capable of making any sort of argument without committing every known fallacy (this one is a strawman)? really, i want to know, what the heck are they teaching you in finland? is it back to the old "rah rah, communism good" nonsense? i know several finnish engineers (one is a professor) and they certainly aren't this myopic about the world.

 

taks

[Xard]

enjoy your AIDS while Canada and Europe facepalms at your healthcare system

the only people that think canada and europe have better healthcare than the US are the same fools that think socialism works. it's not a surprise that people in canada and europe come to the US for quality care, not the other way around.

 

 

lol

 

"Sweden socialists would've collapsed if it wasn't for US" to freely paraphrase your old post. Tells all what one needs to know of your understanding of Europe and "socialism"

 

I used word AIDS just like I could've used word cancer to represent whatever nasty disease one might have. Internet thing

 

 

edit: ****, the thing you think/thought of Sweden as socialist country in the first place tells enough

Edited September 4, 2008 by Xard

[Gfted1]

In this completely unrelated to politics whatsoever post, I have decided Killian Kalthorne is Sands newest alt. He uses many similar terms and Sand has been AWOL since he showed up. That is all.

[taks]

"Sweden socialists would've collapsed if it wasn't for US" to freely paraphrase your old post. Tells all what one needs to know of your understanding of Europe and "socialism"

not sure what you're getting at here. rather than paraphrase what you think i said, why don't you post what i actually said and then explain to the rest of us why you are incapable of understanding what it means. i know plenty of socialism, and what it means to europe. folks like you benefit madly from cradle to grave government support. nuff said.

 

I used word AIDS just like I could've used word cancer to represent whatever nasty disease one might have. Internet thing

still not sure how the strawman is relevant. the US is where people come for treatment of these and other diseases. you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot. my biggest point is that you really don't understand... much of anything.

 

edit: ****, the thing you think/thought of Sweden as socialist country in the first place tells enough

uh, not sure about what you're getting at here, either. sweden has more socialist aspects than the US, by far. but the country makes its living off of capitalism. at some point that is going to take its toll (and apparently it has, since it was sweden that was discussing reducing benefits because they are running into issues paying for them...).

 

taks

[taks]

In this completely unrelated to politics whatsoever post, I have decided Killian Kalthorne is Sands newest alt. He uses many similar terms and Sand has been AWOL since he showed up. That is all.

probably. some sense mixed in with a bunch of silliness, hehe. sand has had probably a dozen known alts, not to mention probably 100 unknowns. heck, for all you know, maybe i'm one of his alts!*

 

taks

 

*uh, i'm not. anyone that really tried could figure out who i am anyway.

[Calax]

I donno if this was said before but isn't Palin in court against the EPA over the fact that the Polar Bear was put on the Endangered species list and that would impact Alaskan Drilling?

 

That said I would prefer either candidate over the fool in chief we have now.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Remember Giuliani vs. the NHS? He said he had better chance of surviving prostate cancer under the US system, somewhat missing the point that he had a level of health insurance unavailable to many Americans, whereas the UK's less stellar service was available to all.

 

My understanding has always been that the US had better health services for those who could afford it, but European state-funded health systems had greater access, especially for the poor. Is that inaccurate?

[Meshugger]

Europe, socialist?

 

Source

 

As a comparison, american politicians:

Edited September 4, 2008 by Meshugger

[Hurlshort]

Remember Giuliani vs. the NHS? He said he had better chance of surviving prostate cancer under the US system, somewhat missing the point that he had a level of health insurance unavailable to many Americans, whereas the UK's less stellar service was available to all.

 

My understanding has always been that the US had better health services for those who could afford it, but European state-funded health systems had greater access, especially for the poor. Is that inaccurate?

 

It is inaccurate. Something like prostate cancer is going to be taken care of regardless of how much money you have or whether you have healthcare or not. You go into a hospital and they will treat you. Anything that is life threatening is dealt with in the US quickly enough.

 

The complications in our health care system come from the more hazy health issues. Hip replacement surgery can be done is many different ways. If you want it done well, you are going to be paying a lot for it. Insurance might cover a percentage of that. On the other hand, if you are dirt poor, you will get the cheapest solution possible.

 

But it isn't free, you will be paying whether it is life threatening or not. Except the bills come in after the service has been rendered. Hospitals can't legally refuse service to anyone.

 

I don't blame the government or the insurance companies for the current state of the US health care system, I blame the dumbass citizens who sue whenever something doesn't go perfectly. That's why the costs in the US are so prohibitive.

[SteveThaiBinh]

But it isn't free, you will be paying whether it is life threatening or not. Except the bills come in after the service has been rendered. Hospitals can't legally refuse service to anyone.

So does this not lead to people opting to endure a chronic, treatable condition rather than face (or have their families face) expensive bills later?

[julianw]

^From personal experience, healthcare was much more affordable for my family back in China's state-funded health systems than here in US even though our income are much greater now. Even now, we dread doctor visits because they are so damn expensive comparing to costs in other aspects of living since in China it used to be the other way around.

Edited September 4, 2008 by julianw

[Hurlshort]

But it isn't free, you will be paying whether it is life threatening or not. Except the bills come in after the service has been rendered. Hospitals can't legally refuse service to anyone.

So does this not lead to people opting to endure a chronic, treatable condition rather than face (or have their families face) expensive bills later?

 

Sure. Again it isn't a perfect system. You really do need a health care plan, especially in your later years. Fortunately most companies offer these. Heck, even a minimum wage job and McDonalds can get you a health care plan.

 

Also, debt is a tricky thing in the US. Your family will probably not have to pay much of your medical bills if you bite it. I'll write more later.