-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
Not even trying. They pay more as a percentage of tax for healthcare than the uk.
I'd cut medicare and medicaid completely. Put it state level rather than federal. Then you might see some real changes.
There's no need to narrow it down. It's the approach to governance that needs to change.
The default position has to be to not spend. Then that which absolutely has to be paid for by govt should be, but should be open to competition and leave choice with the consumer.
It's unfortunately true that Conservative govts have to repair the overspending of the other lot all the time.
Not sure who's going to repair Boris's overspending though.
Tbh i don't disagree too much with that. The argument would be what has to be paid for by government. Something that has huge barriers to entry due to cost obviously would reduce competition to a very few that can monopolise. Such as energy, rail, healthcare. Others are more obvious. Emergency services, millitary.
Healthcare works very well in a number of countries without something as monolithic and over priced as the NHS. Germany is probably the best example.
Yet the nhs isn't considered overpriced. There's problems with it but the world health index rates it better than germanys.
https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp
https://ceoworld.biz/2021/04/27/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2021/
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
The market? Leaving it to the greed of humanity will be the death of us.
I don't mind public funding for healthcare as long as an insurance model with open market access is used.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/19/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-friday/index.html
It'll be interesting to see how many people think the appropriate response to this is to go and set fire to/steal other people's stuff.
It'll be interesting to see how many people think the appropriate response to this is to go and set fire to/steal other people's stuff.
And attack someone who has an assault rifle?
Before anyone starts, he should not have had an assault rifle.
milo
Jack L. Jones
What a strange first thought after an obvious miscarriage of justice
Like it or not us law has right to bear arms and stand your ground.
It's absolutely fudged up he was walking the streets with an assault weapon. But i don't think he broke the law.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
To be fair I could understand the rage. He is a murderer. What a truly fcuked up country that he was not convicted.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Really so killing unarmed people is not a crime. Amazing.
If you are being attacked. It's self defence. Even in the uk.
Ok try and look at it from another perspective.
During the london riots a group of sikhs banded together to protect property. If one of those was singled out attacked by a group of edl. Knocked to the ground. He then stabbed someone with his ceremonial dagger (that he's allowed to carry). Would you feel the same way?
I'm not saying what happened is right at all. Just stop letting bias determine what justice is.
During the london riots a group of sikhs banded together to protect property. If one of those was singled out attacked by a group of edl. Knocked to the ground. He then stabbed someone with his ceremonial dagger (that he's allowed to carry). Would you feel the same way?
I'm not saying what happened is right at all. Just stop letting bias determine what justice is.