the fd does charge for ambulance runs here.
Printable View
the fd does charge for ambulance runs here.
Right, I can hardly believe that.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Sh*t, you are actually producing valid and reasonable excuses to elect Bush again. I don't know if I should be happy or not about it :rolleyes:
About the health-care part, my uncle residing in the US recently narrated an incident about his heart attack. Just because he was not showing any of the common symptoms for a heart attack, he was not diagnosed and treated for close to 19 hours. No senior doctors attended to him for many hours. They also gave him some wrong treatment meanwhile. Finally when he was diagnosed for a heart attack and was taken to another hospital that specializes in cardiac treatment (in New York) he found to his horror that the ambulance carrying him didn't have a flashing light/siren and so couldn't get through the heavy traffic, and the driver and one accompanying paramedic didn't know the way to the hospital. My uncle had to give them directions all the way. The cardiologist told him he was lucky to stay alive after 19 hours just because he had been observing his diet for all these years.
And instead of asking where Canada's doctors are working, how about thinking why the US has to "import" trained doctors and nurses from countries such as India? Speaks a lot about the education system there. Where in India parents consider it a duty to educate the child at least till graduation, we hear stories about the kids in the US who can barely make it to highschool because they can't afford it further.
.
Let me remind you honeybee that america is at the forefront of research into Cancer and other diseases. The private sector is involved into extensive research into medicine for new diseases. Once a company actually spends millions of dollars in making a new drug, countries like Brazil and India reproduce free of charge!
What we pay for healtcare goes into maintaining a certain standard of living and alot of the money that we pay in medicine goes into alot of research that has helped in controlling many diseases which probably alot of people in other countries can be thankful for.
My aunt died recently from cancer which progressed to her lungs. Although she died, the dedication of the doctors I met there was amazing and they probably did the best medicine could offer to extend her life as much as they could. She was in hospital for about 8months on and off and the final hospital bill was about $1M. Insurance paid 100% of that.
I don't see anything wrong with the healthcare system. The doctors and nurses here are very well trained so I do not see the necessity of "importing" them from other countries.
Honeybee, I'm very familiar with the Indian education system and although its improving, its still backware IMHO. I was studied and was brought up in NYC and went to a public school. I didn't pay anything. Private school education was out of my reach and I enjoyed my school days (especially highschool)
I went to uni from there and what distinguishes american education from India is the emphasis on research and practical applications. In India, things are based alot on theory and hardly any pratical application comes into play.
Let me remind you thousands of Indian students come to america each year for education.
:p I'm not saying anything..... ;)Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
I was studied and was brought up in NYC and went to a public school. I didn't pay anything.
He is well studied. The sentence structure was just messed up is all. Most likely a result of hasty chit chat on an internet forum.Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
:p I'm not saying anything..... ;)
"I was studied in general education at a public school- and was brought up in NYC." (which would be proper)
Sounds like NYC material to me... :D
sounds like he edited the sentence without proof-reading it later. not a grammar-school error.
I guess you get what you pay for . . .
Actually, our health care system is becoming known as the worst in the developed world for the average person, and it is becoming reflected in the average life expectancy for Americans. I think we have the lowest average life expectancy of any developed country, but that probably depends on how you define developed countries.
As for guns, there is a middle ground. We require drivers licenses to operate automobiles because the potential risk to other people is such that we require a few standards to be met. We could certainly do the same thing for guns. The NRA feels that licensing guns would be the first step to banning them. However, cars are not being banned anytime soon, so that argument falls flat.
As for using a gun for home defense, most people don't seem to be thinking this through very well. If the gun is not locked up, it WILL be stolen if it is found by a burglar, because they are probably more valuable than most anything else other than cash. Therefore, you should lock guns up for safety (financial and health), but that means that you have to assume that you will be robbed by somebody who will be nice enough to let you get the gun (this is true so long as you are not carrying it with you at all times) from wherever it is so that you can shoot him. Not very likely.
So let me ask: If you have a gun for home defense, where do you keep it, and in what circumstance would you be able to use it?
I do not have one, because I expect that if somebody were to break into my house with a gun, while I am there, they would probably be able to shoot me before I could get out a gun. Therefore, I feel that t me being able to use a gun for self defense requires such a specific and unlikely set of circumstances that it really isn't worth bothering with.
I don't carry a gun hiking for the same reason. Any predators in this area are ambush predators used to hunting animals with far better senses than mine. If they attack me, they will be on me before I have a chance of drawing a gun unless I were to wear it in a holster, and it is unclear whether I would have a chance to use it even then.
Oh, and David, most law enforcement would tell you that if you shoot someone, make sure they are dead. Don't try to wound someone, they will make your life hell. If you point a gun at someone, be prepared to kill them. Don't expect them to like you after you have threatened their lives. Do not draw the gun unless you are willing to kill.
Holy Shiite! There were about 7 posts while I wrote that.:eek2:
Let's not be sentence nazis. Should we pick apart everyone's posts from now on for spelling errors and missing words?Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
I guess you get what you pay for . . .
Shaggy, not being arrogant, but do you have any links to back up those statements about the health care system?
I am aware certain parts of California have a crisis because of the immigrant population that is uninsured.
The recent flu vaccine shortage is a direct result of poor quality control at a British pharmaceutical plant.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...+british&hl=en
Thats what they want you to think. They really hate us, and want us all to die of the flu.Quote:
Originally posted by nemaroller
The recent flu vaccine shortage is a direct result of poor quality control at a British pharmaceutical plant.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...+british&hl=en
Nope; the quality control of a flu-jab factory over here was deemed inadequate.
Ah - Technically you could argue that the Quality Control was good as it stopped a bad shipment going out.....:p Sorry, ignore me, I'm in pedantic mode this morning! :thumb:Quote:
Originally posted by nemaroller
The recent flu vaccine shortage is a direct result of poor quality control at a British pharmaceutical plant.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...+british&hl=en
Sorry, I didn't think it was an issue of debate, so I didn't bother citing anything. I was refering largely to two things. One was a recent study that showed average life expectancy (at birth). I'd have to search around to find a linkable reference. The second item was another study that I'm afraid I can't remember the author or the forum well enough to be able to cite it.Quote:
Originally posted by nemaroller
Let's not be sentence nazis. Should we pick apart everyone's posts from now on for spelling errors and missing words?
Shaggy, not being arrogant, but do you have any links to back up those statements about the health care system?
I am aware certain parts of California have a crisis because of the immigrant population that is uninsured.
The drop in life expectancy should be easy enough to find.
Yea... today that same company magically found 2.3 million additional flu vacinnes... now that's f##$$n scary!Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
Ah - Technically you could argue that the Quality Control was good as it stopped a bad shipment going out.....:p Sorry, ignore me, I'm in pedantic mode this morning! :thumb:
The CEO stockpiled it in his shed!
or they realized that their projections on the strain might be off, and that they were near-useless anyways. they could have made a lot more $$$ if they held out with a working vaccination...
The NHS in the UK keeps getting in a mess too. Mainly because the goverment pays pencil pushers more than it pays nurses :lol:
All other stuff aside, I went Kerry. I really hate Kerry as a person, but I realized that doesnt matter. He was for certain things that are important to me. Like Stem cell research, and against outsourcing/off shoring. Plus I like Edwards, and if I have to deal with Kerry for 8 years to possibly see Edwards run, so be it.
:thumb:
8 years? If by some ****ed up twist of fate Kerry were to get in for four, there's no way he'd stay in for eight.
Alot of people said the same about Clinton.
And he didnt do too bad :afrog:
Other than almost getting impeached and shaming the entire office, he did ok.
I guess you'd have to ask Monica how long he managed to stay in for? :o <- Lewinsky smileyQuote:
Originally posted by Cander
Alot of people said the same about Clinton.
Did you here that Monica said she is voting for Bush because Democrats left a bad taste in her mouth?
:lol:
If he got impeached for receiving a sexual favor in the oval office, that would have been the most ludicrous and ridiculous impeachment.Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
Other than almost getting impeached and shaming the entire office, he did ok.
Bush getting impeached for knowingly going to war in Iraq with false information at least would have roots in how it affects the lives of SO many more people and at such a FAR larger level.
Actually, I believe he did get impeached, he just wasn't removed from office. The impeachment is the house vote (right wing majority). The removal is in the Senate, where the Reps couldn't even hold their own party in line with that travesty.
Clinton was not the first president to have a little on the side, he was just the first president to do so in an era where the politics have gotten so ugly that people were willing to mention it publicly.
It was only in the 80's that the republicans began the scorched earth form of politics whereby any method to attack a Democrat was ok, and no character issue was off the table.
This is bad for politics, bad for America, and bad for the world. At this point, the Dems have remained on the high road, but you have to wonder how much longer this can last. When allegations of Bush's cocaine use surfaced back during the 2000 election, Al Gore denounced them, not because they were false (when asked about the allegations, Bush didn't deny their truth), but because that is personal business and not public business. There it should remain.
Right now it is clear that if any Democrat is elected to office, the Republicans will form another Arkansas project to dig up and make up as much dirt about that person as they possibly can.
Democracy can withstand terrorist attacks. Whether democracy can survive the personal attacks from within is another question.
In case you didn't know about this address: www.globalvote2004.org
Kerry is a bit more popular than Bush outside the US, don't you think?
sums up nicely what is wrong with the US: selfcentered pathetic morons ruining it for everyone else.Quote:
"We don't care what the world thinks. We do what is best for America.
Up yours, *******."
Jessica Carroll
"Do me a favor, Get Lost, Get a Life and mind your own business."
Jim, Citrus Heights, CA
"One thing you and the rest of the world should know --- WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHO YOU THINK WE SHOULD ELECT AS OUR PRESIDENT !!!!! Just remember next time you or what ever country you represent needs us to come save your butts -- call the french,
germans or the russian's, see how fast they come to your aid."
Gordy Smith
"Quit trying to meddle in US affairs, you stinking liberals!"
Anon
"I suggesst you keep your nose the hell out of our political system and we'll do the same for you. Get out, stay out and shut the hell up. Didn't you Brits learn your lesson well enough in the 1700's ? Sic Semper Tyrannus... never forget."
Rick Sampson
"Welcome to the real world, real americans dont care what the **** you think *****
*****, **** off"
William Beckner
Skull and Bones Wins 2004 Election. Tyranny Wins
time to draft
Oh come now... you happily left out all the positive comments....Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
sums up nicely what is wrong with the US: selfcentered pathetic morons ruining it for everyone else.
Quote:
"Interesting site. I'm an American and my vote will go for Kerry tomorrow. I do find your site a tad offensive, however. I don't mind the idea of having the world voice its opinion in our election. In your feedback section, however, you choose the most belligerent emails you could find to try to paint all Americans as hateful people. The most offensive quote of them all is highlighted at the top of the feedback section and you quote it on the front page! I have no doubt that these are all real emails, but the way in which they are presented is unfair. You are not acting as truth seekers as someone in your position should act. You have an agenda and you try to paint America in a certain way. The disclaimer you give only adds insult to injury. Obviously you are not going to capture the entire American sentiment in six quotes, but you don't even make an effort to show a balanced view of our country. Either way, other than that, it was a very interesting site. All the best"
Carlos Aguilar
"I am a US citizen and I love this...if only people realized this is the truest level of democracy. Although I am sure it pisses of many 'patriots', they really don't get patriotism if the don't get the value of understanding the outside world's perceptions...best of luck!"
Mark A. Douglas
The worryng thing about the whole affair is that the Americans managed to elect Bush out of around 300 million other Americans.
It makes one ponder - just a little . . .
Or does that just meant there are 299,999,998 Americans with a lot more sense?Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
The worryng thing about the whole affair is that the Americans managed to elect Bush out of around 300 million other Americans.
It makes one ponder - just a little . . .
I'm still pondering that bit . . .
I'm not getting on this debate, but a democrat brought up the draft to push through senate. (Which by the way never got through even the bottom of the voting process) I highly doubt Bush would bring up a draft :sick: Though...I doubt Kerry would either~Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Skull and Bones Wins 2004 Election. Tyranny Wins
time to draft
edit:
Also, they were both members of the Skull and Bones Frat back in Yale~:bigyello:
nothing lights a fire around Americans like bringing up the draft. No politician in his right mind would consider actually doing it.
Outside of use of military - presidents typically do not have power that affects Americans on a daily basis. More Americans are concerened with senators and congressman, because those people decide the state issues, which are far more intrusive, plus they also directly control federal legislation.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
The worryng thing about the whole affair is that the Americans managed to elect Bush out of around 300 million other Americans.
It makes one ponder - just a little . . .
States vary but many tax sales, property, income, inheritance,etc.
States decide abortion, same-sex marriage, speeding limits. They fund welfare, tuition assistance, and community development.
I voted for Kerry, but recognized that with a Republican majority congress and senate, he would have a difficult time getting things done anyhow. Clinton attempted to bring government healthcare to the US, but the congressmen and senators knocked it down.
The most likely scenario for Iraq (I assume this being the only reason you are concerned since you live in a foreign country), is funding will be harder to come by, and the President will have to finish up quickly or forced to be withdrawn. Senators and congressmen must answer to the people at home, so its their political careers on the line, not the president.
Bush got elected because a major voting effort by conservative religious factions who opposed gay marriage and liberal views, was brainwashed by effective marketing into believing Bush will protect their values.
Regardless of the reason he was elected. The people decide who goes into office, make any excuse you want, but the bottom line is....the people vote. (You might want to reword it so that the conservative religious factions "influenced" voters. But they only vote once just like the rest of the country.)Quote:
Originally posted by nemaroller
Bush got elected because a major voting effort by conservative religious factions who opposed gay marriage and liberal views,
Quote:
Outside of use of military - presidents typically do not have power that affects Americans on a daily basis.
I disagree. The president signs or vetoes (sp?) every bill that is run through office. Obviously, whether it is passed or vetoed depends solely on the president's views and how it will benefit the country (and in some cases himself :( ).
Quote:
States decide abortion, same-sex marriage, speeding limits. They fund welfare, tuition assistance, and community development.
Unless an elected official makes it a federal law. Typically most democrats (or people on the left) try to push federal laws while most republicans (or people on the right) try to push conservativism. Once again. They are both looking out for the country when they make those decisions (and again sometimes themselves).
Quote:
was brainwashed by effective marketing into believing Bush will protect their values.
My dad is strong conservative and says the same thing about liberals. Gets old. Sounds narrow-minded and arrogant. No one is brainwashed. They are influenced to believe certain things. Bush doesn't believe he is "brainwashing" anyone. He believes he is protecting the peoples values. The people that voted for him think he is doing the right thing. Kerry thinks Bush is doing it wrong and could protect the peoples values in a different way. They are similar in what they want to do for the country, they are different in how they believe it should be done. I shouldn't have to tell you that ;).
But neither of them are out to "hurt" the country.
For example:
All people are similar in that they want peace. (Well most people.) Even the radical Islamist want world peace. They have a different view than we do on how to get it. In their mind, America is the devil (infadels) and should be killed. Most narrow-minded americans are quick to say "Turn the desert floor into glass" or "Kill all the sand-ni****". Both are bad.
Anti-war protestors say the war was a bad idea. Right? Well Bush thinks the war helped them in the long run. (We don't know yet. So don't pick that sentence out when you quote me.) And some people think the war hurt them in the long run. But everyone wants to help. That is how the views are similar.
edit:
You would be suprised:Quote:
Originally posted by dglienna
nothing lights a fire around Americans like bringing up the draft. No politician in his right mind would consider actually doing it.
Rangle, Charlie [NY - D]
Murtha, Jack [PA - D]
Stark, Pete [CA - D]
And the sponsers:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI - D]
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL - D]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI - D]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO - D]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI - D]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD - D]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL - D]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL - D]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX - D]
Rep Lewis, John [GA - D]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA - D]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA - D]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA - D]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY - D]
California Yankee Blog
Digger's Realm
Digger's Realm #2
David,
What you stated makes sense. The president has the power to veto, but for the most part his party affiliation decides the exercise of that power. Since Republicans are the majority in the congress and the Senate now, there will be little veto action in the next 4 years, unless some issues split the party. And most presidents make use of line-item vetos, I of course have no history at hand on how many times Bush has used it.
The religious conservatives, and god knows there are multitudes of them in rural American, believe Bush was more in tune with their morals. Bush is a president that never denied snorting cocaine, claimed it would be easier if he was the dictator, declared himself the 'war president', continued executions of 165 death rows inmates even without scrupulous review (since Illinois found 7 of theirs were innocent) , and yet somehow one issue of gay marriage tipped him the backing of many organized christian groups.
The president is far removed from the war in Iraq, he has never served in war time, and therefore really has no clue about the operation he is persisting. If I told you to trust me to go parachuting with me, even though I had never done it before, would you still think I was competent to guide you? Terrorism was always here, just never as ugly and dramatic as 911.
Containment worked for Iraq, and it costs us far less lives and money. Bin Laden WAS dangerous.. and I approve that Bush invaded Afghanistan... but he redirected for no reason toward Saddam within months..... imagine the results had we thrown $150 billion into that campaign instead?