State rights. A state can pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't break federal law.CammRobb wrote:
Can someone point out to me, why, if Massatuechets (sp) have their own socialist healthcare plan in operation, and if they would have to be taxed twice now that a Liberal is in power in the state, why did Scott Brown get voted in? Shooting themselves in the foot, no?
I still don't understand, surely the people of the state would have to vote a Liberal candidate in, and if they had enough smarts they would see that the Liberals are trying to impose a socialist healthcare plan, thus making their own healthcare obsolete? Was it a Liberal or Republican state before Brown was voted for?Cybargs wrote:
State rights. A state can pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't break federal law.CammRobb wrote:
Can someone point out to me, why, if Massatuechets (sp) have their own socialist healthcare plan in operation, and if they would have to be taxed twice now that a Liberal is in power in the state, why did Scott Brown get voted in? Shooting themselves in the foot, no?
Brown isn't a liberal.CammRobb wrote:
Can someone point out to me, why, if Massatuechets (sp) have their own socialist healthcare plan in operation, and if they would have to be taxed twice now that a Liberal is in power in the state, why did Scott Brown get voted in? Shooting themselves in the foot, no?
Massachusetts has been a blue state for about 50 years. So, it's been liberal for 50 or so years.CammRobb wrote:
I still don't understand, surely the people of the state would have to vote a Liberal candidate in, and if they had enough smarts they would see that the Liberals are trying to impose a socialist healthcare plan, thus making their own healthcare obsolete? Was it a Liberal or Republican state before Brown was voted for?Cybargs wrote:
State rights. A state can pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't break federal law.CammRobb wrote:
Can someone point out to me, why, if Massatuechets (sp) have their own socialist healthcare plan in operation, and if they would have to be taxed twice now that a Liberal is in power in the state, why did Scott Brown get voted in? Shooting themselves in the foot, no?
ahh well that clears everything up, I thought that it was a republican state before, not too big on yank politics y'see.JohnG@lt wrote:
Massachusetts has been a blue state for about 50 years. So, it's been liberal for 50 or so years.CammRobb wrote:
I still don't understand, surely the people of the state would have to vote a Liberal candidate in, and if they had enough smarts they would see that the Liberals are trying to impose a socialist healthcare plan, thus making their own healthcare obsolete? Was it a Liberal or Republican state before Brown was voted for?Cybargs wrote:
State rights. A state can pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't break federal law.
Why would they vote in a liberal to double up on a health care system that isn't liked in the first place? The national plan that is currently sitting in our House of Representatives is almost a carbon copy of the system that they have imposed in Massachusetts. If the national plan passed, it wouldn't have any effect in Massachusetts except for the fact that because of our lovely progressive tax system that doesn't take into account cost of living, those of us that live in states with higher cost of living pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes. The system that has been proposed isn't Socialized health care, it's a system where there is a mandate for individuals to buy private health insurance (which is unconstitutional). All it has proven to do is drive up prices and lower care.
And no, we don't want a system like your NHS anyway.
US gov can't run anything for shit, let alone health care. Hell they couldn't even run schools properly.CammRobb wrote:
ahh well that clears everything up, I thought that it was a republican state before, not too big on yank politics y'see.JohnG@lt wrote:
Massachusetts has been a blue state for about 50 years. So, it's been liberal for 50 or so years.CammRobb wrote:
I still don't understand, surely the people of the state would have to vote a Liberal candidate in, and if they had enough smarts they would see that the Liberals are trying to impose a socialist healthcare plan, thus making their own healthcare obsolete? Was it a Liberal or Republican state before Brown was voted for?
Why would they vote in a liberal to double up on a health care system that isn't liked in the first place? The national plan that is currently sitting in our House of Representatives is almost a carbon copy of the system that they have imposed in Massachusetts. If the national plan passed, it wouldn't have any effect in Massachusetts except for the fact that because of our lovely progressive tax system that doesn't take into account cost of living, those of us that live in states with higher cost of living pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes. The system that has been proposed isn't Socialized health care, it's a system where there is a mandate for individuals to buy private health insurance (which is unconstitutional). All it has proven to do is drive up prices and lower care.
And no, we don't want a system like your NHS anyway.
And what's wrong with the NHS? You believe that people whocant afford healthcare shouldn't get it? That's incredibly harsh
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-01-23 10:00:07)
Medicaid (Medicare is for retired folks). But yeah, people in poverty already have socialized health care here.Cybargs wrote:
US gov can't run anything for shit, let alone health care. Hell they couldn't even run schools properly.CammRobb wrote:
ahh well that clears everything up, I thought that it was a republican state before, not too big on yank politics y'see.JohnG@lt wrote:
Massachusetts has been a blue state for about 50 years. So, it's been liberal for 50 or so years.
Why would they vote in a liberal to double up on a health care system that isn't liked in the first place? The national plan that is currently sitting in our House of Representatives is almost a carbon copy of the system that they have imposed in Massachusetts. If the national plan passed, it wouldn't have any effect in Massachusetts except for the fact that because of our lovely progressive tax system that doesn't take into account cost of living, those of us that live in states with higher cost of living pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes. The system that has been proposed isn't Socialized health care, it's a system where there is a mandate for individuals to buy private health insurance (which is unconstitutional). All it has proven to do is drive up prices and lower care.
And no, we don't want a system like your NHS anyway.
And what's wrong with the NHS? You believe that people whocant afford healthcare shouldn't get it? That's incredibly harsh
Edit: And if you're REALLY that poor that you can't buy health insurance, Medicare should cover you.
Which is essentially like the nhs? No?JohnG@lt wrote:
Medicaid (Medicare is for retired folks). But yeah, people in poverty already have socialized health care here.Cybargs wrote:
US gov can't run anything for shit, let alone health care. Hell they couldn't even run schools properly.CammRobb wrote:
ahh well that clears everything up, I thought that it was a republican state before, not too big on yank politics y'see.
And what's wrong with the NHS? You believe that people whocant afford healthcare shouldn't get it? That's incredibly harsh
Edit: And if you're REALLY that poor that you can't buy health insurance, Medicare should cover you.
No.CammRobb wrote:
Which is essentially like the nhs? No?JohnG@lt wrote:
Medicaid (Medicare is for retired folks). But yeah, people in poverty already have socialized health care here.Cybargs wrote:
US gov can't run anything for shit, let alone health care. Hell they couldn't even run schools properly.
Edit: And if you're REALLY that poor that you can't buy health insurance, Medicare should cover you.
Read wikipedia and compare man. I don't have a guidebook to NHS in my back pocket.CammRobb wrote:
How so?
Last edited by CC-Marley (2010-01-23 13:35:04)
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p1741627ghettoperson wrote:
That's quite interesting actually, I had no idea there were states that already had socialized healthcare. Is Massachusetts the only one, or are there others?
Kmarion wrote:
Just a smidgen.
http://www.adph.org/allkids/
http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/
http://health.hss.state.ak.us/dpa/programs/atap/
http://www.de.state.az.us/faa/cash.asp
http://www.de.state.az.us/faa/medical.asp
http://www.medicaid.state.ar.us/
http://www.teaboard.net/
http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/
http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/fap/index.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/
http://www.dhss.delaware.gov/dss/medicaid.html
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/tefap/
http://www.dhs.dc.gov/dhs/cwp/view,a,3, … 30989|.asp
http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHR-DFCS/
https://www.realchoices.org/AGModules/F … x?FormID=3
http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHR-DFCS/
http://www.med-quest.us/contact/index.html
http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Default.aspx
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/default.htm
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/ts/fss/tanf.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/332.html
http://www.in.gov/faqs.htm?faq_id=244
http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/dhs2005/dhs_ … icaid.html
http://www.ksinsurance.org/consumers/medicare.htm
http://www.dss.state.la.us/departments/ … rary_.html
http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/?id=92
http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/OIAS/
http://www.dhr.state.md.us/how/cashfood/tca.htm
http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-12 … --,00.html
http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/ … 05325.hcsp
But only one is as comprehensive as something like the NHS in Canada or the U.K. -- Massachusetts's.Kmarion wrote:
So MA wanted to keep their state run healthcare. It seems like maybe a referendum on national healthcare.http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p1741627ghettoperson wrote:
That's quite interesting actually, I had no idea there were states that already had socialized healthcare. Is Massachusetts the only one, or are there others?Kmarion wrote:
Just a smidgen.
http://www.adph.org/allkids/
http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/
http://health.hss.state.ak.us/dpa/programs/atap/
http://www.de.state.az.us/faa/cash.asp
http://www.de.state.az.us/faa/medical.asp
http://www.medicaid.state.ar.us/
http://www.teaboard.net/
http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/
http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/fap/index.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/
http://www.dhss.delaware.gov/dss/medicaid.html
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/tefap/
http://www.dhs.dc.gov/dhs/cwp/view,a,3, … 30989|.asp
http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHR-DFCS/
https://www.realchoices.org/AGModules/F … x?FormID=3
http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHR-DFCS/
http://www.med-quest.us/contact/index.html
http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Default.aspx
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/default.htm
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/ts/fss/tanf.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/332.html
http://www.in.gov/faqs.htm?faq_id=244
http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/dhs2005/dhs_ … icaid.html
http://www.ksinsurance.org/consumers/medicare.htm
http://www.dss.state.la.us/departments/ … rary_.html
http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/?id=92
http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/OIAS/
http://www.dhr.state.md.us/how/cashfood/tca.htm
http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-12 … --,00.html
http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/ … 05325.hcsp
Which again, just proves my point. Americans are fickle. They always have been. Give the Republicans more power, and they'll bitch about that too.FEOS wrote:
From the Washington Post (so you can't blame Rasmussen bias)
I think Americans realize that unchecked power to one party is a recipe for disaster. This was the first step towards correcting that. Watch November.Turquoise wrote:
Which again, just proves my point. Americans are fickle. They always have been. Give the Republicans more power, and they'll bitch about that too.FEOS wrote:
From the Washington Post (so you can't blame Rasmussen bias)
my intuitive feeling is that the democrats will lose a fair bit but maintain a simple majority. say 52 or 53.FEOS wrote:
I think Americans realize that unchecked power to one party is a recipe for disaster. This was the first step towards correcting that. Watch November.Turquoise wrote:
Which again, just proves my point. Americans are fickle. They always have been. Give the Republicans more power, and they'll bitch about that too.FEOS wrote:
From the Washington Post (so you can't blame Rasmussen bias)
Depends on how many and which seats are up for re-election. All House seats are up, so that will be the big change. Senate may still see a slim majority, but you may just see a new Speaker next year...Spark wrote:
my intuitive feeling is that the democrats will lose a fair bit but maintain a simple majority. say 52 or 53.FEOS wrote:
I think Americans realize that unchecked power to one party is a recipe for disaster. This was the first step towards correcting that. Watch November.Turquoise wrote:
Which again, just proves my point. Americans are fickle. They always have been. Give the Republicans more power, and they'll bitch about that too.
Would that include the military?Turquoise wrote:
But only one is as comprehensive as something like the NHS in Canada or the U.K. -- Massachusetts's.
But that doesn't matter anyway, because I think Galt said it best. Our government can't run much of anything for shit. So fuck it.
The military is ridiculously inefficient and wasteful.Kmarion wrote:
Would that include the military?Turquoise wrote:
But only one is as comprehensive as something like the NHS in Canada or the U.K. -- Massachusetts's.
But that doesn't matter anyway, because I think Galt said it best. Our government can't run much of anything for shit. So fuck it.
Americans don't seem to mind pumping billions of tax dollars into it though.JohnG@lt wrote:
The military is ridiculously inefficient and wasteful.Kmarion wrote:
Would that include the military?Turquoise wrote:
But only one is as comprehensive as something like the NHS in Canada or the U.K. -- Massachusetts's.
But that doesn't matter anyway, because I think Galt said it best. Our government can't run much of anything for shit. So fuck it.
What's it to you anyway? Worry about your own 'troubles'.Braddock wrote:
Americans don't seem to mind pumping billions of tax dollars into it though.JohnG@lt wrote:
The military is ridiculously inefficient and wasteful.Kmarion wrote:
Would that include the military?
Sorry, didn't realise this was the "American Debate and Serious Talk" section.JohnG@lt wrote:
What's it to you anyway? Worry about your own 'troubles'.Braddock wrote:
Americans don't seem to mind pumping billions of tax dollars into it though.JohnG@lt wrote:
The military is ridiculously inefficient and wasteful.
No, I'm just curious why the amount of money we spend on our military matters to you. I think the chances of us staging an invasion of Ireland are rather small so it really doesn't have any impact on your life. Why do Euros feel the need to point out the size of the American military as if it's of any consequence to their lives?Braddock wrote:
Sorry, didn't realise this was the "American Debate and Serious Talk" section.JohnG@lt wrote:
What's it to you anyway? Worry about your own 'troubles'.Braddock wrote:
Americans don't seem to mind pumping billions of tax dollars into it though.
Don't ever show your face in a European thread on this forum.
The chances of you staging an invasion on Ireland are probably zero given that a vast proportion of your army are of Irish descent. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency in Americans happily pumping billions of their tax dollars into an inefficient and wasteful military (your words, not mine) and yet baulking at the idea of putting tax dollars into a universal healthcare program that they have more chance of getting actual use out of.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, I'm just curious why the amount of money we spend on our military matters to you. I think the chances of us staging an invasion of Ireland are rather small so it really doesn't have any impact on your life. Why do Euros feel the need to point out the size of the American military as if it's of any consequence to their lives?Braddock wrote:
Sorry, didn't realise this was the "American Debate and Serious Talk" section.JohnG@lt wrote:
What's it to you anyway? Worry about your own 'troubles'.
Don't ever show your face in a European thread on this forum.