More gun sickness.

Post Reply New Topic

that is still not fully socialized medicine.we are a country of 300 million people how would we pay for that without gutting the military and if america gutted the miltary european nation would have to increase there's and that would effect there health care.

also americans work more than europeans.im western europe a 30 to 35 hour work week is normal.the amount americans work causes stress that leads to cancer and heart disease.americans are sicker and less healthy than europeans which would compound even more the health care costs

Much more could have been done if health care reform was accomplished in the 90's, as a $1 federal excise tax on cigarettes would have gone a much further distance in accomplishing the goal than now when the price of health care has moved into the astronomical range.

We can at least in part, thank the lobbying efforts of big tobacco for that failure in the 90's, that eventually gained success in the Obama administration in 2010, with that administration's successful effort to finally make the excise tax of $1 on cigarettes a reality, affording the opportunity for healthcare for many more children, and pregnant mothers who were either US citizens or immigrants, as only a start for the eventual expansion of health care coverage for others.

Firstly, I'd like some citation on the first 'part', secondly, Europeans can also get Stress, Cancer and Heart Disease - not just Americans and thirdly, If Americans are less healthy, why don't they get healthier instead?



Why do we need a big military? If the one we have does the necessary job it is for then why change it? Do Americans put the military over health? Is that a healthy mentality?



Like what the f**k? We're talking about healthcare for everyone, which is a fundamental basic right of a civilized society...not world war 2.



i just don't understand the point your babbling on about here. There was no open conflict, hence the word - cold - and yet you're forgetting the whole Falklands war, where British people did go to war - and won

Yep, it's unhealthy and part of the problem. The world should be moving to limit the military and increase social services to improve the lives of the populations. This will do more for crime than anything else.

(Ironic and off on a tangent: proponents of liberty in the US tend to forget that the point of the 2nd Amendment is there so the citizens can defend themselves and their homes from an aggressor until a standing army can be created in a time of war and then disbanded afterwards. The "war" for liberty has long been lost.)

I am confused by this statement because overall support for freedom to purchase guns are still stronger than they have been in the US, since 1959.

According to the gallup poll below there is only a 1 percent increase of the number of individuals that support a ban on the "assault weapons", a percentage that was on a continued steady decrease before the Sandy Hook incident.

Along with the statistics provided earlier in this thread from gallup, for a high of 74% of individuals against a ban of hand guns, since 1959.



The only two potential changes that are likely to see the light of day in legislation are the two being considered below. It's not going to hurt the second amendment or potential defense of the country by a militia of citizens, if more back ground checks are done, and ammunition clips are limited to 10 rounds.

The house of representatives will not likely pass any bill that bans any type of firearm, considering that public opinion and the NRA is against it, and we already know where the mindset of the republican controlled house is on this issue. I'll be surprised if even the ammunition clip restriction can get through the house, but it is going to be hard for them to balk on expanded back ground checks and greater legal enforcement of the restrictions that already exist.

I'm not sure what it would take for public opinion to change dramatically on the "Assault Weapons" ban, with only a 1 percent nudge in favor of it, after 20 kids were killed in an elementary school.

The bar for public tolerance doesn't go much higher than that. And highly unlikely we will see a copycat killing anything close to that, in an elementary school in the coming years. It is one of the rarest of all potential rampage killing events. And even if they were 2 in the next month, and public opinion went up over 50 percent for a ban on legally defined "assault weapons", I don't see the republicans in the house, budging on the issue. Inevitable result again, a heavier armed civilian population, from increased gun sales during the push for any type of gun restrictions.

Do you think there is any chance that any gun is going to be banned at this point in the US? I don't see any realistic scenario of it happening. There is nothing in the data as it exists that supports the possibility. At least as long as there is a republican controlled house.

i did not say europeans dont feel stress or get sick,im not stupid,but americans are compulsive workaholics and they neglect there health.

2.your right americans should get healthier but they likely wont
3.is wish we could put health care over the military but that would put the U.S in danger
4.yes i heard of the falkland war during the thatcher era,like my post said if you read it was that the U.K is to the right of mailnland europe politicaly but to the left of the U.S

What makes you think it could not happen in the USA?

ruveyn

Also, no one can be turned away from an Emergency Room because they have no insurance.

ruveyn

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Not every American is an unhealthy workaholic who neglects personal care and not every European is a lazy, health conscious fanatic either. I just don't see the point in all this health talk?


Danger from what exactly? The only danger to the US at the moment is by terrorism, which is a culture, not an enemy or state to which you can attack from. Like communism, the only way to defeat terrorism is by long term surveillance and deliberate ignorance against it. Or as Obama puts it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfkOXQXdUjs


So in the middle? Best of both worlds really...

now your putting stereotypes in my mouth just to discredit me.americans have higher rates of heart disease and cancer.hard working and lazy is not always defined by technical hours on the job.im not making blanket statements on how everyone from a particular country.there is no shortage of lazy american and studies released in germany indicate that although americans work more hours,they get less done bacause there so tired.that german worker get more done in a 30 hour workweek then americans get done in a 50 hour workweek.i dont have the links because i suck at computers and i dont know how to put a link in a post but look up for your self these studies.

stop putting stereotypes in my mouth to discredit my arguements.these studies indicate prevalent trends in a culture but not what everyone does all the time

When did anyone claim that it was fully socialized? Your claim was that socialized medicine couldn't work in the United States. I responded that socialized medicine already does work in the United States.

How would you pay for it? First, divert every dollar that the private sector currently pays in medical insurance premiums to a single, national insurer. Second, give that national insurer the authority to negotiate fee agreements with physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and other medical and allied professionals.

Your present system introduces moral hazard: no person with health insurance has any incentive to seek out competitive fees. Accordingly, health care costs balloon, which is why your governments spend more than Canadians governments do on health care (both as a %'ge of GDP and per capita), and your governments have less to show for it.

American workplace practices are not, I suggest, the leading causes of early mortality. I lay that issue squarely at the feet of American food policy.

What? Where have I misquoted you? Provide the evidence where I have misquoted your words. I have asked for citation which you have failed to show.

I didn't ask for this rambling chat about health and lifestyles, I originally stated that I find it rather hilarious that the same group of people and politicians who were quick to ridicule the PPACA were also the same group that are pro-gun & are pushing America over the fiscal cliff.



Why should I find the citation for your arguments? Copy & paste is one of the first and easiest shortcuts that any novice computer user learns...but just for you:
CTRL + C = Copy
CTRL + V = Paste

i wouldnt even say im a novice with computers,more a nightmare to who ever owns the computer im using.all the ramblings about lifestyle was to illustrate that socialized medicine would be to expensive even relative to the population.insuring 300 milliom american would be like 600 million europeans.it would take time to dig up old artices i read about places that work less actualy get more accomplished.do you save every written or electronic article you read

There was a kind of copycat crime in my area yesterday where a man called the paramedics and then shot at them when they showed up. But at least he didn't set any fires. And this was in a "nice" neighborhood, too.

Well firstly, I don't save every written article I read. If I need an article to explain my point, I'll copy in the address to the reply and forget all about it.

Secondly, I don't get where you get your 300 = 600 equation from? This should help clear any confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_f ... ealth_care

the numbers are just a ballpark figure,i was simply illustrating that i would be to expensive to ensure americans.
if america cut its military budget enough to pay for health care then europe would have to start building its military and then they would have trouble paying for there health care.