Churchill said it best.....

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

If this is tea, please bring me some coffee. If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. - Abraham Lincoln

"If I was two faced, do you really think I'm be wearing this one?" - Abraham Lincoln (I paraphrase)

[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.

[Bubblehead1980]

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.

well said sailor steve, my sentiments exactly


The major problem in America is we have generations who depend on social welfare programs to get by instead of picking themselves up and doing something with their lives, the productive citizens like myself end up footing the bill, which is not how America is supposed to be.Not sure how it is in other countries and this sounds harsh but MOST people that are poor in America are so because of a series of bad choices throughout life.People who breed and thus have children they are not equipped to raise financially or mentally , this usually brings about more idiots who repeat the cycle and since we have all the entitlements they just take advantage of it, sucking on the federal teet.

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.

And that lasted only a very few years before they woke up to reality and realised that they had to start the nations first public health service.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And that lasted only a very few years before they woke up to reality and realised that they had to start the nations first public health service.

Wow wait what? Are you speaking of those stellar examples of Medicare and Medicaid?

Did you know that Walgreens recently announced that they will no longer accept Medicare patients? Other pharmacys will probably follow suit. Espically now that those funds are destined for the health control...sorry health care.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...greens18m.html

Wow wait what? Are you speaking of those stellar examples of Medicare and Medicaid?

Not unless they were founded within a couple of years of the constitution being written.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What use is a drunken arse to America?
Churchill, the man who came to power after another one of his many balls ups brought down the government.

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.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Bubblehead - the only problem is even Churchill would likely struggle to figure out whether we are at peace - or nearing war - with our own government....

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

Not an arse, sure he liked his booze, so what, still the best Brit leader

Can you name a few other Brit leaders and their achievements and failings as a measure?
But perhaps given this....

You guys were lucky to have had him

...it might suggest that your knowledge of politics and history match your knowledge of geography

Hell Brits could use him again, maybe tackle the nasty muslim problem you guys have

You have been reading too many posts by Skybird.

[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?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Can you name a few other Brit leaders and their achievements and failings as a measure?
But perhaps given this....
...it might suggest that your knowledge of politics and history match your knowledge of geography


You have been reading too many posts by Skybird.

Oh tribesman, my knowledge of politics and history is pretty broad I assure you, although I know more about US then the UK, I know quite a bit .So hmm other Brit leaders....Atlee, Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Chamberlain, Macmillian, Eden, Walpole etc etc They are the ones I know off the top of my head. Walpole was the first and not regarded well from what I've read.Churchill lead Brits during the war and took the fight to Hitler because Chamberlain was a scumbag appeaser,.Atlee implemented the NHS etc .Eden was PM during Suez Crisis, did not do too well.This should suffice for now.I know geography fairly well also, not sure why you question that.I have not read too many posts by skybird.I have talked to Brits in person and read countless reports about the muslim problem in UK.

Back my original post though, I know Churchill was a Brit leader obviously but having studied him for a long time and authored several papers about him when I was in college, I know a lot about the man.I was simply saying the US could use him or someone like him right now.A leader with the correct ideas and the balls to push them, not the jackass we have right now who seems intent on running this nation into the ground via debt and other policies.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And that lasted only a very few years before they woke up to reality and realised that they had to start the nations first public health service.

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

[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.