|
wracket
|
Re: health care
On one hand I agree with you Cybele, but I think you focus a little too much on the whole socialism/big gov't vs. free market/federalist issue. The real issue is the fact that both the Republicans and the Democrats are bought and paid for by the big corporations. Not that we look like we're getting rid of this two-party monstrosity of a political system anytime soon though...
As far as national health care is concerned, here in France one has the choice to have private health insurance on top of the state-sponsored program, and a lot of the middle-to-upper class types do so. If private and public health care can coexist in an effective way here, why not in the US?
|
Jun 16, 2009, 23:33
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Mars Rover
|
Re: and
cybele wrote: Yes, such great socialized medical systems they have in Canada and the UK. I've heard nothing but great things about it.
Cybele
Ok, tell us the horror stories. Surely they can be countered. They don't seem to be pushing for an American system in those countries.
|
Jun 17, 2009, 03:37
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Mars Rover
|
Re: health care
wracket wrote: On one hand I agree with you Cybele, but I think you focus a little too much on the whole socialism/big gov't vs. free market/federalist issue. The real issue is the fact that both the Republicans and the Democrats are bought and paid for by the big corporations. Not that we look like we're getting rid of this two-party monstrosity of a political system anytime soon though...
As far as national health care is concerned, here in France one has the choice to have private health insurance on top of the state-sponsored program, and a lot of the middle-to-upper class types do so. If private and public health care can coexist in an effective way here, why not in the US?
i think the people that are against this simply don't want to GIVE any leeway to those of us pushing for it. Its all about winning and losing arguments and not about what is right.
|
Jun 17, 2009, 03:39
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Mars Rover
|
Re: health care
Mars Rover wrote: wracket wrote: On one hand I agree with you Cybele, but I think you focus a little too much on the whole socialism/big gov't vs. free market/federalist issue. The real issue is the fact that both the Republicans and the Democrats are bought and paid for by the big corporations. Not that we look like we're getting rid of this two-party monstrosity of a political system anytime soon though...
As far as national health care is concerned, here in France one has the choice to have private health insurance on top of the state-sponsored program, and a lot of the middle-to-upper class types do so. If private and public health care can coexist in an effective way here, why not in the US?
i think the people that are against this simply don't want to GIVE any leeway to those of us pushing for it. Its all about winning and losing arguments and not about what is right.
for some people i should add, of course their argument vs. big gov...ect is valid.
|
Jun 17, 2009, 03:44
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Mars Rover
|
|
Jun 17, 2009, 04:05
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
cyberpainter
|
Re: health care
cybele wrote:
Nowhere in our constitution does it mention running railroad companies into the ground, owning mortgages, or limiting the school choice of my children to the point where they are taught by a bunch of illiterate criminals.
Cybele
Is this what you're calling teachers now? Nice.
|
Jun 17, 2009, 04:14
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Mars Rover
|
Re: health care
cyberpainter wrote: cybele wrote:
Nowhere in our constitution does it mention running railroad companies into the ground, owning mortgages, or limiting the school choice of my children to the point where they are taught by a bunch of illiterate criminals.
Cybele
Is this what you're calling teachers now? Nice.
i'd like to see Cybele teach. having been in the system for 5 years i can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that teachers are not the problem, it is parents. parents get their kids addicted to gizmos and gadgets and then they can't pay attention in school or work hard after, teachers get all the blame, but nobody's stopping kids from studying and becoming good time managers at home. The day starts and ends at home.
|
Jun 17, 2009, 04:27
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Labhead
|
Re: distractions, distractions & Huxley vs Orwell
Mars Rover wrote: parents get their kids addicted to gizmos and gadgets and then they can't pay attention in school or work hard after, teachers get all the blame, but nobody's stopping kids from studying and becoming good time managers at home. The day starts and ends at home.
I've been thinking about this lately (I have a young teenage boy). I think there are so many distractions that it's harder for kids to feel motivated towards working for things and discovering/inventing/imagination, etc etc etc.
IN MY DAY, we didn't have these Innerwebs! We had to walk next door to talk to our friends, and that's the way we liked it! IN MY DAY, we didn't have this DIGITIMAL Tee-Vee... we had rabbit ears with 4 stations that we could tune in, and that's the way we liked it! If you wanted to see a movie in Letterbox, you had to get a Laserdisc!
I'm worried that 2 theories are colliding... I can see both of these things happening together now:
|
Jun 17, 2009, 05:32
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Mars Rover
|
Re: distractions, distractions & Huxley vs Orwell
i agree with this theory. there are way more distractions today than when we were kids. we had video games. today kids also have video games. however add to that- twitter, facebook, cell phones, fancy i-pods (remember a cassette walkman?), wii, and the stereolab forum them kids are always raving about.
|
Jun 17, 2009, 07:18
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
jauntymonty
|
Re: health care
The kids need structure at home as well as at school. The parents need to start early with this while the children are grade school age so as to provide positive (not actually brainwashing) direction on how the kids should go about making decisions and what they should occupy their time with. This is real work (or maybe enjoyment) on the part of the parents. Parents can be self envolved and ignore the needs of their children. It is too easy to let them sit in front of a tv or video game etc. My son is 21 and will do okay, but I am now aware after all these years of where I fucked up.
|
Jun 17, 2009, 19:02
|
