Charlyc

It was an 1hr long doco on the CI channel, I think done by PBS originally. And they were rather broke by then, living in a smallish house. Life saving treatment here isn't bureaucratic at all. The doc calls the hospital, or the ambulance takes you there, and you or next of kin sign the order and that's it, you get done. No HMO approvals or claim forms. If its public and not life threatening or urgent then there's usually a waiting list but its still free. Private is a different process as you are usually refunded or there is a gap payment but its done without waiting time. Cheers, cause 32 pages should be enough to get a message across

Actually, there is a huge difference between Reaganomics, or supply-side, and government cutting spending & waste. Point is that the Tax revenue increase under Reagan was never enough, never enough actual real money, to compensate for the tax cuts. That's the central problem with supply side economics. Its currently a discredited macroeconomic theory because of that problem. It could only have worked if it was accompanied by major cuts in government spending, something Reagan didn't do. But there are many places online to explain this since I can't convince you.

You're kidding here right? I'm mean we have some 3 decades now to go back on and check the numbers. Conclusion is that the resulting expansion of the economy was never large enough to bring in the amount of extra taxes needed to cover that revenue loss. Clinton/Gingrich though almost did manage it by cutting expenditure. I say almost since the underlining deficit didn't end with them. Others like Canada, the conservatives here under Howard and others did it by both cutting taxes and cutting government spending. Growth resulted from the private sector and these governments actually ended public debt. Today, during the financial crisis, they can afford to take out debt to spend away and actually avoid a recession, as we have done so here. Biggest problem though was that Reagan not only lost that revenue from tax cuts but under his stewardship government expanded. Oh, that expansion also produced some economic growth which in turn brought in more taxes, but still not enough to cover his loss of revenue. The numbers are there for anyone, even freshmen uni kids, to study.

Moo...... j/k Its that the HMO horror stories far outweigh the NHS or our Medicare horror stories. I mean here, in Britain, in Germnay, Italy, Japan, China etc if one gets cancer they can get treatment, or if you have a heart attack and no money you can still get a quad bypass if you need it. In the US if you don't have insurance and aren't eligible for a special program, mostly you die, like that Ramsey lady died, without getting any treatment for her ovarian cancer (the little girls mom from Col) There's a huge difference there. There is also a huge difference off course at the other end of the scale: US cutting edge med is the best in the world, new experiments go on constantly, and if you can pay enough you get probably the best treatment in the world for most things.

Yes, Jessica Watson Jessica Watson - youngest ever to sail around the world who also loves the publicity. But on her first attempt she ran into a cargo ship, damaged her yacht and had to return, all cause she was asleep and didn't have her radar set up properly. And she's been sailing all her life, so its still a difficult issue this one. But then a 17 year old boy did the trip 2 or 3 years back, still holds that record, but no one questioned him. They saluted him and he was all over the media as a hero. People say that's because he's a boy and Jessica doesn't seem to be Just modern day sexism I say.

Yes, but I did say 'some' answers and 'from' the lefts viewpoint Its crazy to think that health costs will fall but then their budget was just as bad in forecasting a drop in the deficit after 4 years I think, from memory. Now our costs here went up and down over the two decades depending on a) how many took up private cover b) which side was in government at federal and state level. Now they are proposing to pass it all over to the federal government to save some cash avoiding duplication of admin and services but that's going on treasury's numbers, so we'll see what happens a few years from now.

It should be consider based on sailing ability, although 14 is a bit young in my book.

Yes certainly. Although I'm no fan of Reaganomics or Supply-side (voodooism in my book) it was what they believed in but abandoned. The result of abandoning their principals were seen in 08 and is still seen today -and its looking like in 2010 too.

What??? Sadly?? You should be jumping for joy You've seen the light here!

There's a lot here! Definitely should've stuck their necks out and followed their principals. The biggest problem I see for the GOP, both in '08 and today, is that they lacked conviction to do what they say they will do, ie spend less, less taxes for all classes. smaller government. Now that they say that they can fix health care via private enterprise, well it rings hollow to people who follow politics (as amateur analysts :) ) Sorry I expressed it poorly. I meant that the laws banning selling across state lines should be unconstitutional. they don't need a new law to allow it but a supreme court challenge. But you're right that they could limit them with licencing requirement -but then those requirement would also be unconstitutional? Anyway that 's another post. if they actually try to do it. If no ones tries then you're on your way to becoming a new Mexico! We'll see if Obama does try to grow SS. There's a lot of scaremongering out there by right supporters, or so it seems to me. As a minority the democrats played the political game of a minority, as this 'boehner' guy is trying to do but does badly. Romney had a majority Dem legistalature...Bush didn't at first. That's the difference with MA Some Republicans did. Others attacked him.....but that's politics. And yes, the truth does win out in the long run, doesn't it. It will also with these stories about the NHS in Britain. They're very one sided, they pick out the current problems but britain is actually a two-tire system, and its a lot better than what people like Foxnews claim.

The 'go pray' was tongue in cheek . Seriously its that they will claim that its a lifestyle choice to not have insurance, or "why should I pay for their medical costs" etc etc. GOP voters seem to me to be ok with charity as long as they control who it goes to and how much is given but especially as long as the government isn't charitable. Point is that somethings simply can't be done by anyone else other than the biggest enterprise in a country, ie defense, customs, universal basic health care.....etc takes time and generations to pass these things over to the private sector as nuclear power plants are a good example off

Oh, by the way, this site has some decent answers, albeit from the lefts point of view Wonk Room Top 10 Reasons Why Republicans Should Support The House Health Bill

Republicans tried to push SS onto the private market (in summary), that's why it failed. Healthcare was already private though and the attempt was to go the other way so maybe some dems could've got onboard, but we'll never know now. Well you have a valid point there because the votes certainly weren't there for tort reform. But a decent majority lead campaign could have, I believe, changed selling across state lines (which I thought was unconstitutional anyway, but I'm an outsider looking in so maybe I'm wrong there) and possibly your 3. But it does take a campaign with the right leadership skills to get it down. Done correctly you could even have gained political points from a democratic filibuster. Why? because its the right thing to do and the voters would have seen that in the long run. (By the way the proposed health exchange & insurance compacts partially solves the state lines limitation anyway) Now Romney is a good example of a GOP man getting things done. Sure a lot of the plan was dems work, like, I think from memory, birth control for 97 year olds or something just as ridiculous that the they put in, but it was an improvement of what was there before. Then the next 'improvements' could be closer to what you guys actually want, because MA does have problems with its plan, but it comes in steps. You will never get a full rightwing agenda through because there just aren't enough voters. But doing nothing seems to have been the default position of the GOP , and today you can see the consequences of that flawed strategy. Schwarzenegger? Yea, he only proposed a plan, but then again he also supports anti-global warming campaigns AND they say he is morphing into a democrat...so, you're right but...

They could have changed a lot with that 1 vote majority, plus they could've lobbied some help from a few then Dems like Lieberman. Romney did it in MA in just, about, 2 years. Arni in CA also made some improvements in a short time, both GOP men with opposing Dem legislatures (and different plans) This democratic senate has only started working on this, what 4-5 months ago? After 6 years of stalemate you could argue this point imho.

So your saying that Bush capitulated to the Saudis' cultural practices? just like bowing to a King?

Because they're OK with Conservative Gayness? Its the hollywood type gayness they'll condemn.

Really?? Because their actions never matched the rhetoric. They had both houses and the white house for several years and did nothing about healthcare, no freeing up the market, no ending preconditions clause etc. They did make sure that Halliburton got their contracts in Iraq though and they let oil go through the roof -something which hurt the entire world and then they blamed it on the Chinese. Anyways..... But as an outsider, who is more than happy to stay here in Auz by the way, I go through forums like this and just end up feeling sorry for you guys. You seem to have no idea what basic health care requires. Nor do you realize that the homeless guy who catches TB will only pass that TB onto you. Plus there are some really wild people in this debate (in townhall meetings and the like). I mean calling obama or the speaker nazi? or socialists? drawing Hitler mows on them? Goodness, its almost as bad as when McCain presented that immigration reform package before the election when GOP voters went ballistic! Again those GOP voters.... The question I had at first was why so many US LDS are aligned with the GOP and it seems that its because of a) issues like abortion and gay marriage b) that Reagan rhetoric (that never really became reality). So because the pro-lifers are on the GOP side mormons go with the GOP and swallow all the other BS they spit out no matter how illegal or criminal, like that Iraq invasion!! And then that freedom small government talk, which never eventuated, since your government has only grown since the '60s...and on and on it goes... I would humbly suggest you look closely at all the GOP party platform and see that very little is actually aligned with LDS ideology so you really need a new party, maybe a conservative democrats wing or 'The Mountain Party'? Yeap that would do it 'The New Mountain Party'

Yeap! by-products of Reaganomics

Cheers, and thank-you for your concern

Glad you edited out 'lie' and softened things down a bit. I certainly didn't know that it was a lie nor is it a misrepresentation, but GOP voters might be a bit touchy these days, right?

1- DEMS: part of everyones taxes pays for the poor' basic medical costs and some of the middle class medical cost. 2- GOP: doesn't want to see their taxes pay for their fellow citizens medical cost period. Plus they want insurance companies to make as much money as possible in a free open market. Plus they want a full 'users pay' system where the wealthy pay for the best coverage and the poor who can't afford insurance, or someone denied coverage, go and pray in church for divine intervention when they get sick. between the two, like mixing oil/water, wont happen so the majority wins out: so part of your taxes, if not all, will pay other peoples medical costs. I hope that explains it

"Neos are a version of modern progressives that only differ in what they want to spend money on" interesting comments and ideas, although I thought this bailout total was more around the 4T mark. If it is 13T well then no wonder the US dollar is weakening today -and if China drops the dollar altogether, well, only a war with China will save the US economy imho I actually like your ideas of the states doing more and the Fed less, I'd say thats what the founders tried to set up. It an idea that is also growing here in auz, the states simply end up doing things more efficiently by nature. But here all income tax -which kicks in at $6K- and business tax goes to the feds, the states only keeps a 10% GST or VAT as its known elsewhere, so the feds would need to agree to give up a massive amount of revenue to let this happen so I doubt it will happen anytime soon. In the US partisan politics would probably not allow it to be even debated in Congress!

Hmmm...continuation of Gulf War? Intersting new addition to the long list of 'creative' arguments used to justify that invasion. But I did hear Bush say that he'd fix DC spending and stop big government and so on; but yes he did also claim to be a compassionate conservative i recall now that you've mentioned it. I agree that the people have lost control, plus it seems that only 55% odd of the people actually take part in the process. But I don't think Congress controls anything -they're just a basketcase! probably beyond repair.

I guess you wont be needing my advice then. But one would be extremely lucky to find a Deacon/Priest who hasn't masturbated during the previous week if not that same weekend but you just can't stop them passing the sacrament for that. The church, and I believe the Lord himself, just aren't that worried about minor sins especially when teens or singles are doing it. Off course we tell them its wrong and to stop and so on but that comes with time and maturity. I believe its because the Lord tries to bless as much as he can and condemn as little as He can. But that's just mho.

Goodness me!!!!! No wonder yank Bishops are so overworked. I was never bugged that much. I did ask about porn within the context of the Law of Chastity question for recommend renewals, but that was something I added in myself -and was told several times that we had to just read them without adding anything by the way. I also asked the youth sometimes to make sure they knew it was wrong -and that's why I know girls also see porn at times- but no, it isn't a major sin and really only the 'major' sins require a confession to the bishop. But then again I've heard stories of old ladies seeing their bishop for every minor thing -as Kimball wrote in MoF, so I guess you will keep advising "go see your bishop" -poor bloke. Anyway the real point of this thread was addiction to porn. And on that point he needs to see a professional. Prayer & fasting and yes even the poor overworked bishop may be of some assistance but I'd say your wrong here (above several people), the atonement wont cure him if he doesn't break that addiction first. Nor did Jesus cure that adulteress, probably another addict, she needed to repent fully first and then the atonement could heal her. Same with the son of Alma and many more: first we end or stop the sin, whatever sin it is, then we can be healed by Jesus etc. I'm really surprised that people here suggest otherwise because I thought it to be common knowledge, but hey, maybe your Bishop can help out here!!??