|
The Politics Thread
|
| Smoothie |
Posted on 19-10-2008 16:07
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5732
Joined: 04-02-2007
PCM$: 300.00
|
I lol'd |
| |
|
|
| t-baum |
Posted on 20-10-2008 02:37
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2006
Joined: 07-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well about the whole tax deal.
Obama does want to lower taxes, but he will raise taxes on corporations and we know they don't really pay taxes, they just pass it on to you.
Macquet wrote:
"We all know that wasn't the real footage of the Worlds anyway. That was just the staged footage to perpetuate the coverup that it was actually Vinokourov that won the race." |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 05-12-2025 18:04
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 20-10-2008 08:02
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4851
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Health care system in France : when it's a mere doctor visit you have to pay 22 € (make that 30 $ nowadays), then the state pays you back 21 € (22 if you're old, child, pregnant, unemployed, disabled, etc.).
If you go to hospital you don't need to pay anything at first, only something like 3 or 5 € a day (4 to 7 $).
Basically, the state welfare pays 70 % of the bills (through taxes, etc.) whereas your employer can pay you a complement (30 %), it's case in most firms (it is in mine) and the price depends on what they exactly pay, must be 2,62 % of my raw wage here.
The one euro left is there "to remind people health has a cost". |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 20-10-2008 08:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 27880
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
They are considering a similar solution here in Denmark for the same reason (to remind people that health has a cost), but so far, it's free (for us, not the state  ).
However, they did change something although I never really saw it myself. It's something like that when you've been at the hospital, you'll receive a 'bill' saying that you have to pay 0 DKR. However, it lists all the expenses, but it then says that the welfare system will pay it. It's for the same reason: To remind people that health has a cost.
I'm not sure how it works exactly, though. |
| |
|
|
| Dankan |
Posted on 20-10-2008 08:45
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 993
Joined: 29-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
That would make sense here in Spain, as there isn't any consciousness towards what health care takes to the state and to ourselves's pocket. But it would cause foreigners having to pay, and thus avoiding to use it and causing illnesses to be entended among that population massively (no wealth at all for Romanians, Muslims, South-Americans...).
Poor organisation at hospitals and medical centres here; they got completely overwhelmed since inmigrants started coming here to work, around 10 years ago.
Edited by Dankan on 20-10-2008 08:46
|
| |
|
|
| p3druh |
Posted on 20-10-2008 09:17
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2388
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dankan wrote:
That would make sense here in Spain, as there isn't any consciousness towards what health care takes to the state and to ourselves's pocket. But it would cause foreigners having to pay, and thus avoiding to use it and causing illnesses to be entended among that population massively (no wealth at all for Romanians, Muslims, South-Americans...).
Poor organisation at hospitals and medical centres here; they got completely overwhelmed since inmigrants started coming here to work, around 10 years ago.
More or less the same as in Portugal. Except the poor organisation has been around ever since 1974 (end of the portuguese dictatorship). And since the early 90's, with the wave of immigration from Eastern Europe, the conditions have only gotten worse, to the point where it's not about the people you cure, it's about how fast you can get them out of there to make room for another one. Also, we have too little doctors nowadays (mostly because it's really hard to enter medicine in college) so we keep getting spanish doctors to cover the hospitals in the interior(?) of the country because no one wants to work there.
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 16:41
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8755
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
UK has one of the best health services in the world
Our service is nearly completely free (some drugs cost money), waiting times are going down. 5-10 years ago our health service wasn't that great, but now, I have to say it's pretty darn good
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 16:44
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Definitely, one of labours best moves
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 16:47
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8755
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
Definitely, one of labours best moves
Don't go there.
The labour government has made it good at the moment, but the way they've run it means it'll get worse in about 20-50 years
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 18:30
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
they've done a good job of rebuilding the disaster that was thatcher
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 18:41
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8755
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
they've done a good job of rebuilding the disaster that was thatcher
That they did, but there are still plenty of major problems about to lurk around the corner 
Sorry if I seem so pessimistic, but given I'm British, I crave disappointment 
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 20-10-2008 18:50
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5535
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Thatcher wasn't a disaster she revolutionised the economy, admitedly Brown has just undone all her good work. |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 18:53
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
sadly, crommy, it seems no economy is safe these days.
Thatcher ruined the lives of millions, taking away their livelihoods. she's one of a very select few people i hate more than jeremy clarkson
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:05
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5535
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Communist 
While Thatcher was a bit dud in the last year or two as has been labour. I also find Jeremy Clarkson higly amusing. |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:11
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
i can't agree with you in any way but i'm sure you feel the same about my opinions so i'm sure you'll beg to differ.
but i still feel britain might be a bit better financially if she hadn't destroyed all our industries
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:19
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5535
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I agree about our inability to agree but I am going to continue to argue with you for no particular reason.
In this crisis yes Britain would be better off with the industries still running, but with the minimum wage as it is britain just couldn't keep the industries running without massive subsidies.
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:26
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
like we subsidise farmers and pretty much every rich country subsidises their own industries so they can compete against cheaper prices of weaker countries and drive their prices down
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:42
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8755
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Lets address these issues:
1. Our primary and secondary industries were already failing when Thatcher took power. The rise of China and other Newly Industrialised countries means we could no longer compete globally. Blame globalisation for that.
2. The farming subsidy is an EU operation, which eats up 50% of the EU budget.
3. Thatcher may have ruined some things on the way, but the fact she broke the trade unions was only a good thing. The trade unions were encouraging a lack of productivity (how well people worked), higher wages etc, which all contribute to a lack of competitiveness internationally. Now which is better: a very, large, expensive subsidy to keep inefficient firms in business, or to force them to be competitive and efficient or go under
3. Our financial sector is one of the strongest in the world. London is the (or one of the) world capital of finance. We are better off with this than our older industry.
So no, Thatcher wasn't a bad thing for the economy. She was a good thing.
As for ruining the lives of the trade unions she broke, that's a bit of an overstatement, but I would agree with you
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:50
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
she ruined society - during her time unemployment rose, public transport deteriorated, and thousands of council homes were sold off which caused part of the housing shortage we have now. she encouraged greed, increased the break-up of families, she ostracized single mothers and doubled crime. public services and schools were all gravely under-funded, something labour have had to solve. she supported capital punishment and alienated gays.
she went into politics for entirely her own interests
Edited by wackojackohighcliffe on 20-10-2008 20:11
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:58
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8755
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
she ruined society - during her time unemployment rose, public transport deteriorated, and thousands of council homes were sold off which caused part of the housing shortage we have now. she encouraged greed
If she ruined society so much, why did we re-elect her twice?
|
| |
|
