OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[LintMan]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Why don't you take a look at Canada, where better health care than what is available in the U.S. (30th in the world vs. 38th), costs 57% as much per person.

I'm curious: can you tell me where you got those statistics from (meaning the health care world ranking and cost stats). Do you have a link? I'd love to check that out.

Thanks!

[Frosted Flake]

no hospital in the United States can turn away a patient in need. go to the emergency room in any hospital and the indigent poor receive treatment that the hospital knows will never be paid for- thats a fact. Yes the rich get better health care but if you think that isnt true everywhere ..well I have a bridge to sell you.
As for Mr. Kerry we have this thing called seperation of church and state and no religious group can tell there members how to vote. If Catholic leaders withhold the sacraments from politicians they dont like, which they can do, the government can take away their tax exempt status

Frosted Flake

[vigabrand]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:

quote:

---

Even more importantly is John Kerry is going against his catholic religion which is a serious moral issue.
John Kerry is unapologetically pro-abortion... yet as a Catholic, he is required to be personally opposed to the idea.

What does religion have to do with being a good president? You don't need to be religious to have decent moral values (in fact, many "bad" people tend to have some religious background. Suizide bombers who claim its for their god, paedophilic priests...).

I am a catholic, so I am not allowed to have an oppinion other than that of the pope?

---

The problem is not one of religion. What John Kerry is doing, is claiming that he is Catholic, in order to appeal to Catholics/Christians, but then votes for something that is very high on the Catholic no no list. He wants to have it both ways, and that is what people are taking issue with. Actually, John Kerry has been quoted as saying he is personally against abortion, but he would never push his personal views on anyone. So he votes in favor of abortion whenever it comes up. I'm not saying every Catholic has to believe in everything the church says, but don't pander for a congregations vote, then vote against them on one of their most heated issues.

Vig

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by vigabrand:
What John Kerry is doing, is claiming that he is Catholic, in order to appeal to Catholics/Christians, but then votes for something that is very high on the Catholic no no list. He wants to have it both ways, and that is what people are taking issue with. Actually, John Kerry has been quoted as saying he is personally against abortion, but he would never push his personal views on anyone. So he votes in favor of abortion whenever it comes up. I'm not saying every Catholic has to believe in everything the church says, but don't pander for a congregations vote, then vote against them on one of their most heated issues.

Ever consider that what Kerry is doing is claiming that he's Catholic because ... he's bloody Catholic? Catholicism isn't exactly the ticket to getting elected in the USA - there's been exactly one Catholic president thus far. Percentage-wise, Catholics are one of the smallest Xian denominations in this country - if he was claiming a religion in order to get elected, he'd claim dumb-**** Southern Baptism, or whatever the current traitor to his country (Bush) is.

Remember, this is America, where the Catholics take what the Pope says with a grain of salt. In fact - this is true with a lot of the world. My girlfriend lives in a heavily Catholic country in South America and is Catholic. Much to my surprise - no, not even the latin american countries go along with the Pope on matters of birth control, pre-marital sex, or *gasp* abortions.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by LintMan:
I'm curious: can you tell me where you got those statistics from (meaning the health care world ranking and cost stats). Do you have a link? I'd love to check that out.

The cost is from a CBC article:
Canadian health care quality comparable to other rich countries

It looks like the most recent ranking actually places the U.S. at 37th.

The report is very long, but a summary and a link to the rest of the information, can be found here:
The World Health Report 2004

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Skolem:
As you are discussing this topics, can I ask the americans of this bord, a single thing: I never understand why things that are organized by the state are such a terrible thing?

It's because our government has had a recent (Last 30, 40 years) tendency to horribly waste the taxpayer money when it gets involved. At least - that's why the guy on the street distrusts government getting involved.

(This ignores the fact that big government in the USA has done some _GREAT_ things, if you go back to, say, Roosevelt's time.)

More importantly, right now the current administration believes that what's good for the rich, what's good for the corporations, is good for America. Baby Bush and the other Bushes never met a rich person they didn't like, except for Saddam and Democrats.

[vigabrand]

Originally posted by Skolem:
As you are discussing this topics, can I ask the americans of this bord, a single thing: I never understand why things that are organized by the state are such a terrible thing?
As a society it is normal to help others when you aren't in need, as they will help you if you are, thats one of the most basic idea, and health or education belongs to this, why should someone not receive any help in such thing just because he hadn't the money? Sure they may be some who would profite of this but there aren't the majority, AND there are the others who had no chance in life, why punish them?
I never understand this point of view, but maybe it's just that I am a foolish european
Skolem

A lot of Americans don't like having to depend on the gov't for anything. While some things are necessary, like defense, people take issue with others. Americans don't like the gov't having too much power over them, and creating huge beurocracies that govern important things like healthcare or social security, is viewed by some as too much. The two idealogies are 1)the gov't should provide, and 2)the private sector can do better. The main difference to me is that if the gov't provides, your taxes are greater, and your service sub par. If the private sector provides, you are at the mercy of the current market, but you have more personal wealth to enrich yourself. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the average western European pays like 50 to 60 percent of his income in taxes, in order to pay for all the socialized services. In America, it's like 20 to 30 percent I think. Keep in mind that we are still paying for socilized services like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Securtiy, Welfare etc., but they aren't as broad or general as Europes. Instead the idea is that you have more to spend, and hopefully save or invest for the things you need. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Americans who want to be just like Europe, I'm just giving my personal perspective.

Personally, I think gov't empowering it's citizens economically is the best solution. I've never seen anyone happy with the return they get from Social Security, nor with the care they get from Medicare. The investments they made into these systems have horrible returns, usually nowhere near what you put into it.

Vig

[Gandalf Parker]

I would think that US politics would be easy for space gamers to understand.
Under the democrats we would become the federation.
Under the republicans we would become the ferrengi.

[ July 26, 2004, 22:35: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Demosthenes]

It's important to note that the opposite of anti-abortion is not necessarily pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

One may disapprove of abortion but still believe that private citizens have a right to choose what's is best for them. Which I believe is Kerry's stance. And probably the most libertarian approach.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Skolem:
You are catholic ... you have no right to have an opinion that is different from the pope

Precisely what is fundamentally wrong about being a Catholic (or Republican): having other people doing your thinking for you (be it the Pope, or in the case of Republicans, some self-appointed, demagogic, hypocritical arbiter of morality and social values).