Will Trump ever get fair treatment?
Discussion
Nanook said:
I understand it, I just don't agree with it.
What do you need a gun to defend your family from? Tigers? Alligators? No. Other people with guns. So get rid of the guns?
As for healthcare, do you know how much it costs in America? Do you know what a year or two's worth of cancer treatment will cost you, if you don't have insurance? Many insurance policies have limits on them. Your life is only worth so much, insurance companies are not there to save lives, they're there to make money.
Our NHS is far from perfect, but if someone runs me down in the car park tonight, I'll to to A&E, get patched up, and go home.
Little bit of devils advocacy:What do you need a gun to defend your family from? Tigers? Alligators? No. Other people with guns. So get rid of the guns?
As for healthcare, do you know how much it costs in America? Do you know what a year or two's worth of cancer treatment will cost you, if you don't have insurance? Many insurance policies have limits on them. Your life is only worth so much, insurance companies are not there to save lives, they're there to make money.
Our NHS is far from perfect, but if someone runs me down in the car park tonight, I'll to to A&E, get patched up, and go home.
The love affair with guns is because it removes the element of size and strength from threats of violence.
Unarmed thug breaks into 80 year old Doris's house and he wants to threaten to hurt her in order to make her give him stuff, she's got no chance.
Thug breaks into Doris's house with a baseball bat, but Doris has a bat too - she's still got no chance.
Thug breaks into Doris's house and they've both got guns - she stands a much more equal chance.
The point is that you can defend yourself if necessary regardless of your own physical ability compared to the attacker.
Re: healthcare - I'm not saying the NHS is a bad thing, I certainly enjoy it'd benefits, I'm just saying I understand the US system.
Why should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
Venturist said:
Why should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
His profile will go some way to explaining his "right to other people's money" stance. 
Yes, the Americans (mostly) still believe that self-reliance is a good and honourable thing. Good for them.
Funkycoldribena said:
Nah,its just when someone's complaining about quality of debate yet there's words generally used by 9 year olds its a tad hypocritical.
If someone disagrees with your views they're a scumbag? Nice reasoning...
The liberal progressive left in action If someone disagrees with your views they're a scumbag? Nice reasoning...
You are literally Hitler! They'll carry on losing, and carry on moaning. After Blair and Obama, and Brexit. They HATE not being relevant anymore
Venturist said:
Re: healthcare - I'm not saying the NHS is a bad thing, I certainly enjoy it'd benefits, I'm just saying I understand the US system.
Why should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
Indeed. But the same lefties will champion out International Health Service. And our International house and clothe ANY old wWhy should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
ker that rocks up system as proof we are enlightened. Even if we destroy ourselves in the process. Apparently that's somehow better too
Edited by Rich_W on Thursday 4th May 19:38
Funkycoldribena said:
Nah,its just when someone's complaining about quality of debate yet there's words generally used by 9 year olds its a tad hypocritical.
If someone disagrees with your views they're a scumbag? Nice reasoning...
I am surprised you didn't drown to death by now with the monsoon of Liberal Tears in here.If someone disagrees with your views they're a scumbag? Nice reasoning...
Same whining and b
hing about America. Move on Euro libtards, you have bigger problems of your own.5ohmustang said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Nah,its just when someone's complaining about quality of debate yet there's words generally used by 9 year olds its a tad hypocritical.
If someone disagrees with your views they're a scumbag? Nice reasoning...
I am surprised you didn't drown to death by now with the monsoon of Liberal Tears in here.If someone disagrees with your views they're a scumbag? Nice reasoning...
Same whining and b
hing about America. Move on Euro libtards, you have bigger problems of your own. Brilliant.Venturist said:
Little bit of devils advocacy:
The love affair with guns is because it removes the element of size and strength from threats of violence.
Unarmed thug breaks into 80 year old Doris's house and he wants to threaten to hurt her in order to make her give him stuff, she's got no chance.
Thug breaks into Doris's house with a baseball bat, but Doris has a bat too - she's still got no chance.
Thug breaks into Doris's house and they've both got guns - she stands a much more equal chance.
The point is that you can defend yourself if necessary regardless of your own physical ability compared to the attacker.
Re: healthcare - I'm not saying the NHS is a bad thing, I certainly enjoy it'd benefits, I'm just saying I understand the US system.
Why should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
A gun in the hand of Doris, is better than a cop on the phone.The love affair with guns is because it removes the element of size and strength from threats of violence.
Unarmed thug breaks into 80 year old Doris's house and he wants to threaten to hurt her in order to make her give him stuff, she's got no chance.
Thug breaks into Doris's house with a baseball bat, but Doris has a bat too - she's still got no chance.
Thug breaks into Doris's house and they've both got guns - she stands a much more equal chance.
The point is that you can defend yourself if necessary regardless of your own physical ability compared to the attacker.
Re: healthcare - I'm not saying the NHS is a bad thing, I certainly enjoy it'd benefits, I'm just saying I understand the US system.
Why should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
Freedom, since 1776.
Criminals love gun control, it makes their jobs safer.
Venturist said:
In fairness that makes sense if you take a step back. The right to own a tool with which to defend yourself and your loved ones. But NOT a right to have your medical bills footed by someone else if you can't afford them yourself.
I'm not saying it's pleasant, but it's consistent. It's a theme of "look after yourself, and take pride in not expecting anyone else to do it for you" which fits with their heritage.
Or the other one, 'I like to be really dangerous in a more dangerous world and screw my neighbour if I shoot him.'I'm not saying it's pleasant, but it's consistent. It's a theme of "look after yourself, and take pride in not expecting anyone else to do it for you" which fits with their heritage.
Edited by Venturist on Thursday 4th May 15:09
Venturist said:
Re: healthcare - I'm not saying the NHS is a bad thing, I certainly enjoy it'd benefits, I'm just saying I understand the US system.
Why should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
You don't understand it if you have not lived in the US.Why should I have a right to have someone else pay to keep me alive, regardless of cost, even if I have never contributed anything toward that cost myself?
I've had family members and friends change their tune when they had catastrophic health care bills that they could not have possibly prepared for and for which their insurance did not provide adequate coverage. The system needs reform.
My aunt and Uncle once lived in the US ( Aunt is a born US citizen).
She was back at work mopping floors 3 days after a hysterectomy. because healthcare.
My uncle had a heart attack and was on intensive care. 3 days later he was back at work. because healthcare
Both blue collar workers. No work, no cover.
They moved back to the UK 100% because my uncle could get a free house (benefits), free car (mobility), free healthcare. because had they stayed in the USA he would be dead. because healthcare.
Thats the reality of life in the US.
She was back at work mopping floors 3 days after a hysterectomy. because healthcare.
My uncle had a heart attack and was on intensive care. 3 days later he was back at work. because healthcare
Both blue collar workers. No work, no cover.
They moved back to the UK 100% because my uncle could get a free house (benefits), free car (mobility), free healthcare. because had they stayed in the USA he would be dead. because healthcare.
Thats the reality of life in the US.
RobDickinson said:
My aunt and Uncle once lived in the US ( Aunt is a born US citizen).
She was back at work mopping floors 3 days after a hysterectomy. because healthcare.
My uncle had a heart attack and was on intensive care. 3 days later he was back at work. because healthcare
Both blue collar workers. No work, no cover.
They moved back to the UK 100% because my uncle could get a free house (benefits), free car (mobility), free healthcare. because had they stayed in the USA he would be dead. because healthcare.
Thats the reality of life in the US.
This is what many see as wrong. Your Aunt and Uncle lived the good life in the US (figuratively speaking) and now return to the UK where they have not fully contributed and get a free house, free car and free healthcare, is the right for the rest of us to pay that burden?She was back at work mopping floors 3 days after a hysterectomy. because healthcare.
My uncle had a heart attack and was on intensive care. 3 days later he was back at work. because healthcare
Both blue collar workers. No work, no cover.
They moved back to the UK 100% because my uncle could get a free house (benefits), free car (mobility), free healthcare. because had they stayed in the USA he would be dead. because healthcare.
Thats the reality of life in the US.
I have American friends and it was not until they explained how Obama care worked that you could see why it was unpopular. From what they and their friends explained as a result of the way it is funded, they are now having to pay much more for their cover to give to people who have none. And as a result more people were saying, why bother as it is now free and the burden was going to grow on the few.
The US system is one of self reliance, ours has developed to one where we fix everything for free for those who know they system. That is what they fear, where a person with one arm who could work can now live very well in the UK for no return should they want to, they do not want that in the US.
Changing their attitudes in the US is never going to be easy and Obamacare seemed to be unworkable long term as explained to me.
spaximus said:
This is what many see as wrong. Your Aunt and Uncle lived the good life in the US (figuratively speaking) and now return to the UK where they have not fully contributed and get a free house, free car and free healthcare, is the right for the rest of us to pay that burden?
I have American friends and it was not until they explained how Obama care worked that you could see why it was unpopular. From what they and their friends explained as a result of the way it is funded, they are now having to pay much more for their cover to give to people who have none. And as a result more people were saying, why bother as it is now free and the burden was going to grow on the few.
The US system is one of self reliance, ours has developed to one where we fix everything for free for those who know they system. That is what they fear, where a person with one arm who could work can now live very well in the UK for no return should they want to, they do not want that in the US.
Changing their attitudes in the US is never going to be easy and Obamacare seemed to be unworkable long term as explained to me.
Yep, that's what people didn't grasp, a classic redistribution of wealth via the private health insurance sector who were also holding a gun to the head of the US government (= taxpayers) to provide the funding for Obamacare. It wasn't as great as the Democrats made it out to be.I have American friends and it was not until they explained how Obama care worked that you could see why it was unpopular. From what they and their friends explained as a result of the way it is funded, they are now having to pay much more for their cover to give to people who have none. And as a result more people were saying, why bother as it is now free and the burden was going to grow on the few.
The US system is one of self reliance, ours has developed to one where we fix everything for free for those who know they system. That is what they fear, where a person with one arm who could work can now live very well in the UK for no return should they want to, they do not want that in the US.
Changing their attitudes in the US is never going to be easy and Obamacare seemed to be unworkable long term as explained to me.
5ohmustang said:
I am surprised you didn't drown to death by now with the monsoon of Liberal Tears in here.
Same whining and bhing about America. Move on Euro libtards, you have bigger problems of your own.
I thought you were leaving? Several weeks ago?Same whining and b
hing about America. Move on Euro libtards, you have bigger problems of your own.Oh, and it's just "drown", not "drown to death". If death doesn't happen, you haven't drowned.
Venturist said:
In fairness that makes sense if you take a step back. The right to own a tool with which to defend yourself and your loved ones. But NOT a right to have your medical bills footed by someone else if you can't afford them yourself.
I'm not saying it's pleasant, but it's consistent. It's a theme of "look after yourself, and take pride in not expecting anyone else to do it for you" which fits with their heritage.
If only they would let individuals make that choice with other forms of taxation. For example people should be able to opt in or out of funding the Police, the Fire Brigade, or Military...why can't the "self-reliance" argument be used in those cases?I'm not saying it's pleasant, but it's consistent. It's a theme of "look after yourself, and take pride in not expecting anyone else to do it for you" which fits with their heritage.
Edited by Venturist on Thursday 4th May 15:09
I'm not against the US model per se I just think people can be quite hypocritical and self-serving at times.
5ohmustang said:
A gun in the hand of Doris, is better than a cop on the phone.
Freedom, since 1776.
Criminals love gun control, it makes their jobs safer.
Freedom, since 1776.
Criminals love gun control, it makes their jobs safer.
Classic bit of Yankee indoctrination there.The truth is "a gun in the hand of Doris" leads to higher per capita gun deaths than any other first world country, and almost daily "mass shooting events*".
Yeeha!
The fun part, America seems to think that almost daily mass shootings are simply caused by "mental illness". Classic American compartmentalisation and post-rationalisation. Everywhere in the world suffers with mental illness - the difference is that mass-killing weapons aren't readily available in these countries.
'* "mass shooting" is defined as more than four people wounded/killed by a firearm. Forget whether the definition is right or wrong, it's a simple measure of an horrendous event.
On the topic of Trump, I'm kind of over the shock factor. It's more now a case of pitying a guy who looks completely out of his depth, and has selected an awful team.
He will get fair treatment when:
- He can defend any of his policies robustly under questioning
- He doesn't seek to circumvent the COB to get a bill worth a significant % of the total budget passed
- He doesn't perpetuate lies (see the end of the CBS interview with John Dickerson - truly cringeworthy)
- He doesn't treat Twitter like an official comms channel, and stops using it like a hormonal teen
- His team fully divest themselves of their commercial interests
Europa1 said:
I thought you were leaving? Several weeks ago?
Oh, and it's just "drown", not "drown to death". If death doesn't happen, you haven't drowned.
Whining over a healthcare system that doesn't even affect you?Oh, and it's just "drown", not "drown to death". If death doesn't happen, you haven't drowned.
Just save the whining. Let the social justice flow through you and start the crying.
Meanwhile for the realists in the room, Obummercare will soon be a distant memory.
A few years from now people will be saying "remember that time when we were fined thousands of dollars because we didn't have the money to pay for extremely expensive healthcare in the first place, what were they thinking."
5ohmustang said:
Meanwhile for the realists in the room, Obummercare will soon be a distant memory.
A few years from now people will be saying "remember that time when we were fined thousands of dollars because we didn't have the money to pay for extremely expensive healthcare in the first place, what were they thinking."
Indeed. It seems ridiculous to us over here. The NHS is far from perfect, but neither is only private healthcare.A few years from now people will be saying "remember that time when we were fined thousands of dollars because we didn't have the money to pay for extremely expensive healthcare in the first place, what were they thinking."
But are the costs comparable to the costs we would spend over here?
I don't like the idea of having to pay up front when I'm in some medical need that is beyond my control and is something of a genetic lottery in many cases.
As such, I pay the tax rate that I am liable for and then should the need arise, I'm given the treatment I need. What I can't specifically tell you, is how much of that tax that I pay, is to contribute to the NHS.
In the US though.. how much is medical insurance? I'm 32, I don't smoke, I'm married with no children, I work in an office based environment.
Am I also correct in my assertion that truly, what Obama wanted was something much more akin to the NHS. But there was some give to the Republicans, blocked this, and instead it had to be the insurance companies who were the providers of the Obamacare? And, as such, you were now paying twice because many people maintained their own private healthcare?
I have other thoughts. I won't get into them now.
>>Will Trump ever get fair treatment?
No, and he should not, because he wouldn't offer the same.
If you think he, (or in fact anyone) would willingly not attempt to turn anything to their advantage, you're very naive and I have some magic beans you might like.
You reap what you sow, and I strongly doubt Trump wouldn't enter into anything where there aren't kick backs or the opportunity to get some.
No, and he should not, because he wouldn't offer the same.
If you think he, (or in fact anyone) would willingly not attempt to turn anything to their advantage, you're very naive and I have some magic beans you might like.
You reap what you sow, and I strongly doubt Trump wouldn't enter into anything where there aren't kick backs or the opportunity to get some.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff