Churchill said it best.....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

It doesn't do good to open doors for someone who doesn't have the price to get in. If he has the price, he may not need the laws. There is no law saying the Negro has to live in Harlem or Watts.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

It's difficult to believe that people are still starving in this country because food isn't available.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.

Ronnie Reagan is probably my favourite US President, his sense of humour and his way of putting words made him stand out, and I know he would have frowned upon the direction that the US government is taking right now, he would certainly frown upon further government involvement within the free market, I do myself, but I don't quite understand the big deal about the Health Care Bill, aside from the desperate measures the government seems to have been considering to get it through, perhaps this is because I come from a nation where free health care is a right, not a privilege or perhaps it is because I do not have a full grasp of how the US system runs. If anyone wishes to enlighten me with calm and level headed facts without dragging this thread into a flame war, then I would be grateful.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Facts are stubborn things.

Actually that was originally said by John Adams.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html

Originally Posted by Oberon

perhaps this is because I come from a nation where free health care is a right, not a privilege

That's really the crux of the problem. America was founded on the idea that all individuals are free to choose their own destiny, without interference from anyone else, especially the government. It's true that people should never be allowed to starve, or to go without health care; but it's also true that nothing is ever free. If someone recieves "free" health care, someone else has to pay for it. While it's a good idea on the face of it, I don't see it as truly being a "right". I have the right to do what I want, not to make other people do what I want. I'm not actually arguing that point so much as stating it, because I see the need and the correctness of both sides of the issue, just as I do for most.

The problem is that the more power is given to the government to accomplish things, the less America becomes America. Is that a good thing? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Actually that was originally said by John Adams.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html


That's really the crux of the problem. America was founded on the idea that all individuals are free to choose their own destiny, without interference from anyone else, especially the government. It's true that people should never be allowed to starve, or to go without health care; but it's also true that nothing is ever free. If someone recieves "free" health care, someone else has to pay for it. While it's a good idea on the face of it, I don't see it as truly being a "right". I have the right to do what I want, not to make other people do what I want. I'm not actually arguing that point so much as stating it, because I see the need and the correctness of both sides of the issue, just as I do for most.

The problem is that the more power is given to the government to accomplish things, the less America becomes America. Is that a good thing? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.

Understandable, and I see where you're coming from, certainly our NHS has eaten large portions of the British budget over the years, however I would suspect that there would be as great a protest here if the NHS was turned from free to paying as there is in America at this time, if not more so.
I think it is something that I, and most people in Europe, will not be able to grasp easily because we do not have the same history or spirit that America does, we do not see eye to eye on a great many things, and yet we do on others, that is how things are, how they always will be.
Either which way, I do find it concerning the measures which are being used to get this bill through Congress, however the US government is not alone in this kind of endeavor, the British government is forever ramming things through through one technicality or another, but no matter who is voted in, they'll be just as bad as the last one. It might sound defeatist but when Tony Blair ousted the Tories in 1997 many people hoped for real change, it was the promise of a new era, I recall the word 'Cool Britannia' being thrown around, but at the end of the day, not a great deal changed, about the only positive thing to come out of the Blair years was the minimum wage. The Conservatives will be in next (most likely) and they'll cut a load of things which will probably make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and the great circle begins again.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Tony Blair ousted the Tories in 1997 many people hoped for real change, it was the promise of a new era, I recall the word 'Cool Britannia' being thrown around,

That was a sickening display was it not? Nulabour never had any class anyway.
!! two horse race is still flogging two dead horses !!

The thing with the NHS is that it isn't 'free', well it is at the point of access, but we pay for it in taxation. Everyone contributes a little bit, so when they need treatment, then it's there. (I know u know this Oberon )
I wonder how many people who feel that 'paying for someone else's medical care is wrong' are happy to give money to charity to feed starving africans, or displaced people who have experienced some natural disaster or whatever?
I don't really see the difference - surely given the choice of the latter, then the argument against the former is moot as it amounts to the same thing - giving your money to help someone else.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

...we do not have the same history or spirit that America does, we do not see eye to eye on a great many things, and yet we do on others, that is how things are, how they always will be.

Three years ago I was involved in a discussion that led to the War of 1812, and the idea of "who won". The United States tried to capture Canada, and failed miserably. Not really relevant, but what I said then I think ties in:

Anyway, who won the war depends on what goals you set. The Americans thought the Canadians would welcome the chance to throw off the "chains of bondage" and be free, but of course Canada had not had the same experience as their southern cousins; the American Revolution came out of attempts by the mother country to force the colonists to help pay for the Seven Years' (French and Indian) War, whereas Canada had been aquired by Britain during that same war. Canadians were very happy to be British, and had no desire to become American.

Rather than throwing out quips, would you care to elaborate?

What was the first government funded health service which came about a decade after independance and was deemed neccesary for the good of the nations finances and business interests.

Three years ago I was involved in a discussion that led to the War of 1812, and the idea of "who won".

My favourite war It fits in nicely as it involves the same business interests which saw the benefits of government funded healthcare.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What was the first government funded health service which came about a decade after independance and was deemed neccesary for the good of the nations finances and business interests.

My favourite war It fits in nicely as it involves the same business interests which saw the benefits of government funded healthcare.

For all my resources I'm not finding what you mean. Reference please?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Not an arse, sure he liked his booze, so what, still the best Brit leader .Funny thing is he was defeated after the war then elected again in the 50's You guys were lucky to have had him, he had guts, America could use him now.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Easy to see we are nearing war...not armed uprising or anything, but a war indeed for the future of the US from Obamunism and othe progressive dangers.

Churchill had a brain AND guts and saved the Brits, America could use him now because he would get the RIGHT things done and save this country.Hell Brits could use him again, maybe tackle the nasty muslim problem you guys have

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I fail to see what was wrong with Churchill's leadership, apart from his sometimes poor ideas for grand strategy. Surely it can't be worse than Chamberlain's, whose appeasement policy miserably failed at preventing the war, right?

Good points guys

[Ducimus]

Cracked.com ( i love this site).

The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are Bull****)

Churchhill ranks number 4. Satire site though it may be, they do cite references.

[Onkel Neal]

Churchill was awesome. He was half-American, you know. Just think how great he would have been if he had been a full-blooded Yank!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Churchill was awesome. He was half-American, you know. Just think how great he would have been if he had been a full-blooded Yank!

He would have been...what?? Cherokee? Sioux?

[Raptor1]

It doesn't really say anything about Churchill's wartime leadership, does it?

As I stated before, Churchill had some pretty aweful ideas when it came to grand strategy and Unthinkable was one of them. I've argued before, somewhere, that an Allied attack on Russia in 1945 was doomed to fail horribly. The Russians had more men, tanks, guns, planes; better equipment, especially tanks which far outclassed the Allies' and more experienced troops which fought the Germans for years.

Other than that, it's main point is that the Indians didn't like him, and that's rather moot considering they probably didn't like any of their other colonial rulers much more either.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Three years ago I was involved in a discussion that led to the War of 1812, and the idea of "who won". The United States tried to capture Canada, and failed miserably. Not really relevant, but what I said then I think ties in:

That, I think, sums it up quite nicely and underlines the very strong American belief of 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' having grown up and out from an oppressive force to become a nation. Obviously, there are other factors as well, I think having rather passive neighbours for the past hundred years or so has also helped the American culture grow as well as perhaps polarise America and Europe where we've spent the past couple of centuries fine tuning new and exciting ways to kill each other. Britain has been lucky in a sense that we have not been the subject of an invasion since the last visits from Dowly and friends although we have had a few try, and as such, we do not know that feeling of subjugation and of state control, on the contrary, we've usually been the ones dishing it out, well, up until relatively recently anyway.
American culture fascinates me because it is all so new, America is a very young nation and it's perhaps like a slice of our own history in a modern setting.

For all my resources I'm not finding what you mean. Reference please?

!798, 5th congress.
Take a look at the name you use here

[Sailor Steve]

Ah, the Act for Disabled Seamen. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that particular one.

Of course it could be argued that that was the begining of the Veterans Administration, and the VA has been used as an example of why we should not have government-run healthcare. It has also been argued that veterans deserve such benefits because of their service. I don't take either side on that one, since I'm in the middle of it. On the other hand here in Utah we have a pretty good VA system.

I'm also up in the air on the current arguments. My own belief is that the American federal government was originally created just to deal with foreign policy, and I like the idea of social programs being run at a lower level, where abuses can be addressed more easily. I like the idea of keeping the federal government as small and powerless as possible. Of course that's a losing battle all around, but one must try.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-Thomas Jefferson