It's Morning Again in America

The funny thing is, (and I’ve seen it with my own eyes) all the Africans here ran around with Obama tee shirts and flags etc., expecting that he was going to haul Africa out of its poverty status into some sort of paradise, and they still think that way.

I suppose its the yawning gap between the zealous hopes, out of all proportion to the reality, of the millions who decided that Obama was the saviour of the US and the World, and the reality of where we are now.

To be fair, I think it’s got more to do with people in the USA becoming increasingly annoyed at Obama for not living up to all of the promises that they made to themselves on his behalf.

If he was truly a mould-breaker, then he wouldn’t have stood a snowball’s chance in Hell of becoming President.

Guys, what is new? Give me a penny for every pre-election promise that has not been honored and I will be the richest ****** in the world.

I suppose its the yawning gap between the zealous hopes, out of all proportion to the reality, of the millions who decided that Obama was the saviour of the US and the World, and the reality of where we are now. Not dissimilar to what happened here in 1997. And look where we are now!

Guys, what is new? Give me a penny for every pre-election promise that has not been honored and I will be the richest ****** in the world.

If you want the straight dope on American politics, consult this fellow:

Little guy sends message to Washington: Drop dead

Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

Washington Examiner

January 20, 2010

The final percentages aren’t in as this is written, but it’s plain that Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a substantial margin in the race for the remainder of the late Edward Kennedy’s Senate term. In Massachusetts. The state that in the last four presidential elections has voted on average 61 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican. That’s a bigger margin than in any other state.

If a Republican can win there, he (or she) can win anywhere. That’s a message that is not lost on anyone whose name is on the ballot later this year.

A lot of attention over the next several days will be focused on health care legislation. Liberal bloggers and think tank denizens have been demanding that Congress pass a health care bill, by slow-walking Scott Brown’s swearing-in and slamming a compromise through the Senate, or by having the House pass the Senate bill, or by using the reconciliation process that would require only 51 Senate votes.

Have any of these people ever worked a precinct?

The slow-walk tactic is probably illegal, as Fred Barnes has argued in The Weekly Standard; there don’t seem to be 218 votes in the House for the Senate bill (because of the abortion issue and the Cadillac tax on union health care plans); the reconciliation process is not available for many of the key features of the Democratic bill.

Plus, the Massachusetts vote is a loud and clear signal that the American people hate this legislation. Barack Obama came into office assuming that economic distress would move most Americans to favor big-government legislation. It turns out that’s not so. Not when Democratic bills would take away the health insurance most of them are content with. Not when it’s the product of backroom deals and blatant political bribery.

But Scott Brown’s victory was not just a rejection of Democrats’ health care plans. Brown also stoutly opposed the Democrats’ cap-and-trade legislation to reduce carbon emissions. He spoke out strongly for trying terrorists like the Christmas bomber in military tribunals, not in the civil court system where lawyers would advise them to quit talking. He talked about cutting taxes rather than raising them as Democrats are preparing to do.

Brown’s victory represents a rejection of Obama administration policies that were a departure from those of the Bush administration. In contrast, on Afghanistan, where Obama is stepping up the fight, Brown backed Obama while his hapless left-wing opponent Martha Coakley was forced (her word) to oppose it to win dovish votes in the Democratic primary.

Democrats will be tempted to dismiss Brown’s victory as a triumph of an appealing candidate and the rejection of an opponent who proved to be a dud. But Brown would never have been competitive if Americans generally favored the policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders. In that case, even a dud would have trounced the man who drives a truck.

Unfortunately there was no exit poll (because news organizations didn’t think this would be a seriously contested race until 10 days ago), and so we can’t be sure whether, as at least one pre-election poll indicated, Brown swept young voters in a state where they voted 78 percent to 20 percent for Obama.

But a look at the incoming election results in Massachusetts’ cities and towns shows the depth and breadth of his support. Brown ran especially far ahead of John McCain’s 36 percent in blue-collar areas, and turnout was sharply down in inner-city neighborhoods of Boston and old mill towns. In other words, those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the Democrats’ health care and “spreading the wealth around” either trended Republican or stayed home.

Brown’s gains were not as great in areas dominated by what the New York Times’ David Brooks called, perhaps archly, “the educated class.” Cambridge and Amherst remained solidly monopartisan. But in suburbs with many upward strivers, people who (like Scott Brown) have worked their way from the economic margins to some comfort, turnout was almost as high as in November 2008. Towns that split evenly in the presidential race went 2-to-1 for Brown.

Obama and “the educated class” think they know what is best for the little guy. The voters of Massachusetts (Massachusetts!) beg to differ. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Michael Barone, The Examiner’s senior political analyst, can be contacted at [email]mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com[/email]. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Little-guy-sends-message-to-Washington_-Drop-dead-82127817.html#ixzz0dDAzf8Up

Healthcare in the UK isn’t free either.

The NHS is paid for through direct taxation. We seldom think of it as compulsory medical insurance, for some reason.

By the way, people from the USA are often surprised to learn that there is also a thriving private sector in UK health care.

Well said that man! I pay nearly £400 per month to my “free” health care. However, I do appreciate that some of it is used on research and on treatments that I would not subscribe too if I had to buy my own medical plan.

Furthermore (I have Dr friends in drug and knife), if all the Private Dr’s did a few hours per week (About 4 was enough) back on NHS, ALL operation waiting time would be nulled.

It is freedom indeed, freedom to choose if you want can afford a healthcare plan, or not.

Guys, the USA isn’t Europe. things work otherwise, mentalities are different. While a socialised healthcare works and is necessary here, it will not necessarily work there. It would rather bankrupt the country totally even more.

It is good news in the way that democracy works, and that the same party will not control the oval office and both houses on Capitol Hill.

_____________

Fixed it for you, Frank 😉

Wellll… It can sometimes be true, for a small minority. But in many cases, if you choose to max out your credit card because you want that 50” plasma screen, and a large pick up truck when you never carry anything, who will you blame if all your money goes to reimbursing your debt instead of paying for healthcare plans ?

Why would the ones who work hard and spend smart to be in a good position need to be taxed more for those who decided not to play the game ?

Every time I’m in the US, I’m surprised to see Corvettes or SUVs modified to be higher sporting a handicapped placard, parked in malls in the middle of the day. (Ever tried to get in or out of those vehicles ? As a perfectly valid person, I find it hard.. ) Some people just milk the system, and earn more money doing it than the hard working men and women who double jobs, just to see their taxes increased to support such a healthcare reform bill ..

So, yes, some people do fall through the system, but I bet you that more will, in a different way, if such a bill is enforced.
Government subsidised plans are usually just good as long as the government can pour money into it. They are not sustainable, and just give the state more power. That is a little in contradiction with the american way, I’d say…

Oh no it wouldn’t!:D

Regards,

kev35

I think it would, Kev. One of things we all do in the forums is debate and argue with each other, usually in a friendly way, and out of that come new thoughts and new ideas. We often end up agreeing to differ but sometimes, I would suggest, understanding the other man’s opinion more than when we started.

Wouldn’t you admit that the wonderful diversity in these forums of opinion, temper, intransigence, pragmatism, generosity of spirit and sheer bloody-mindedness is more interesting than us all agreeing all the time?:D

I wouldn’t say MOST.
Some certainly, but not most.

It’s certainly the case here in the UK, JB.

And that’s where I was talking about.

At the end of the day, it’s not a stupid liberal vs conservative argument…its common sense. Sadly, that’s in short supply in politicians of all parties.

On this, at least, we are in agreement.

And there are quite a number of types of medical condition that most private insurance doesn’t cover at all.

I wouldn’t say MOST.
Some certainly, but not most.
My sister has severe diabetes, she’s never had a problem.
Liikewise a neighbor with a youong daughter with unexplained seizures, their insurance has paid hundreds of thousands over the last 3 years.

That’s the trouble with the current debate.
The liberals tend to lump all insurance plans in with the worst. Many people have had personal experiences like those above and they’ve never had problems.
So they’re not inclinded to share the view that all firms are crooks.
They’re afraid of giving up something that works for them for a government bureaucray that probably won’t work as well.

Fair point.

Again like I said, the trick here is to fix it for those who need it without lowering the standard of service and quality to the rest.
At the end of the day, it’s not a stupid liberal vs conservative argument…its common sense. Sadly, that’s in short supply in politicians of all parties.

Fine by me, Grey. It would be a boring old world if we all agreed with each other, wouldn’t it?:)

Oh no it wouldn’t!:D

Regards,

kev35

Fine by me, Grey. It would be a boring old world if we all agreed with each other, wouldn’t it?:)

I don’t follow your point. And you make exactly my point in your second paragraph.

I was trying to make the point that IF the 7 million did not use private care but used the NHS just how much would that extra burden reflect the NHS’ ability or inability to treat both them and the remainder of the population. I.e. it is fortunate for the NHS and the taxpayer that so many people are prepared to spend even more of their money privately.

I can see your point, but I don’t see the relevance and I certainly don’t accept it.

Not everyone who subscribes to private medical care falls ill, you know. And there are quite a number of types of medical condition that most private insurance doesn’t cover at all.

I also think you’re rather twisting what I said in my second paragraph to conform to your own political opinions. Which is, of course, something we all do.

Perhaps we’d best just agree to differ on this one, eh? 🙂

A highly constructive contribution to the discussion from JB, there. :rolleyes:

That’s something of a non-sequitur, if I may say so.

Your 7 million would still be paying the same level of tax and NI whether they chose to subscribe to private medical insurance or not.

If they’ve got the disposable income to do so, then good luck to them. What they choose to do with their own money is their own business.

Private medical insurance is not the only “benefit in kind” from employers that is taxable. Company cars and even car park spaces are treated in much the same way.

I don’t follow your point. And you make exactly my point in your second paragraph.

I was trying to make the point that IF the 7 million did not use private care but used the NHS just how much would that extra burden reflect the NHS’ ability or inability to treat both them and the remainder of the population. I.e. it is fortunate for the NHS and the taxpayer that so many people are prepared to spend even more of their money privately.

And I agree totally with your third paragraph and your fourth, which I was not discussing in any case.

It is freedom indeed, freedom to choose if you want can afford a healthcare plan, or not.

Guys, the USA isn’t Europe. things work otherwise, mentalities are different. While a socialised healthcare works and is necessary here, it will not necessarily work there. It would rather bankrupt the country totally even more.

It is good news in the way that democracy works, and that the same party will not control the oval office and both houses on Capitol Hill.

_____________

Fixed it for you, Frank 😉

Stop wasting your keystrokes…on this topic…and many others…Grey Area knows what’s best for all. 😀
Let’s get him going on his athiest rant…that’s always fun. 😀

A highly constructive contribution to the discussion from JB, there. :rolleyes:

Indeed and where, I wonder, would the NHS be without the thriving private sector. At the last count 7 million people had health insurance and just to make sure our Amercian friends do not misunderstand, these 7 million pay twice, once through their taxes for the NHS and again for their health insurance. If the insurance is paid for by their employer then they are taxed on the benefit, anyway.

That’s something of a non-sequitur, if I may say so.

Your 7 million would still be paying the same level of tax and NI whether they chose to subscribe to private medical insurance or not.

If they’ve got the disposable income to do so, then good luck to them. What they choose to do with their own money is their own business.

Private medical insurance is not the only “benefit in kind” from employers that is taxable. Company cars and even car park spaces are treated in much the same way.

Of course, I could get banned for saying this

Not at all

There is a distinction between my personal posts and my moderation

Disagreement and standard bar-room brawling over the former cannot bring with it banishment, however much I feel like it :p

Meanwhile, back at the ranch I still am not quite clear what our cousin finds such a misstatement. He appears to me to be celebrating the freedom for not everybody to be able to afford treatment when they are ill. It’s a strange ‘freedom’, but it’s all his own and who are we to carp?

Moggy

In other words, everyone who lives a decent lifestyle doesn’t have to subsidize the lifestyles of those who endanger themselves through drugs, unsafe sex, etc.

…and you could have added ‘those who endanger themselves by eating the chemical, preservative and salt-laced products of American multinational food manufacturers’.

Hands off Cadbury’s, by the way.

A rather deliberate mis-statement of the argument, and by a moderator no less. Shame.

It’s his typical response.
I don’t think he’s serious, he just likes provoking arguments.

The best response is to ignore him or take the “mickey’ out of him.
Of course, I could get banned for saying this….:D

I think I understand

You are happy that everybody now has the freedom not to be able to afford health care.

Excellent.

A bright shining new dawn indeed.

Moggy

A rather deliberate mis-statement of the argument, and by a moderator no less. Shame.