My Aussie friend just said the sentiment in her country is that Americans are so opposed to the ACA because our country's majority is selfish and greedy...so much so that we are unwilling to give up even a little to care for our own people.
It's a theory, good for her
Europeans have similar opinions but their system is already a type of ACA and they have nothing to compare it to.
Don't really care what the prison colony thinks
Of course, we are selfish, the hell with our neighbor. And, we also think we are the best country in the world. Most of us have never ventured outside our country, some of us even outside of our own State! But we just "know" we are "special".....LOL
I tend to agree but I am not sure it is a majority. A sizable loud minority.
I don't think it's the majority but the very wealthy and powerful ... there's the rub.
I'd say the people of Australia are spot on in their assessment.
She is correct, that is the sentiment in her country.
What's greedy is capable individuals who don't apply themselves enough to be productive citizens and then expect everyone else to pay for their lack of personal responsibility because they feel "life's not fair if some have more than others." Grow up
When was the last time you heard the words "compassion" or "sharing" in our political discussion?
The government cannot be compassionate because it is based on the use of force. Furthermore, the ACA is an over complicated POS.
She's right, except I'm not sure about the majority part. I think most people are very concerned about the huge divide between the rich and poor in this country.
Asking an Austrailian about a situation in America is like asking an American about a situation in Iraq.
Outsiders do not understand the American brand of federalism. The "American experiment" created a unique blend of state/ federal separation of powers that is different than what most of the world has, and ours was the first like it.
Sadly, ours isn't working anymore, although it did until the 1930s when the New Deal, FDR, and court-packing threats gave way to a new balance.
Now I'm afraid the end is inevitable. Greece or bust!!!!!!
If they understood that in our system each state is supposed to be like it's own country (with the exception of the military, postal system, and a few other things) then they'd better understand why we struggle with things like the ACA.
FTR: while I don't fully agree with her, Australia's federalism was largely based on ours.
Interesting what you get from an objective point of view.
this is why aussies should stay out of our business
She doesn't know what she is talking about. She probably doesn't know substantially more about the US than we know about Australia, which is close to nothing. ACA is not about healthcare, it's a wealth redistribution and government control project.
Resistance to so called wealth redistribution is exactly what she's pointing to as American greed.
Try ask her how they treat immigrants.
And try ask about the environment.
I have nothing against Australians but it's so easy to sit thousands of miles away and criticize. I hear the same from my family in Europe.
Wherever she is she's right. I'm setting here in America and I fully agree. It's greed.
I call it greedy when you want me to pay your insurance. I cannot see it can ever be greed to want to keep what I lawfully earned.
Actually she and I have discussed immigrants in Australia. Sounds like they get a pretty good benefit package. I don't remember talking about the environment with her though.
She's totally right.
A spot on observation!
It's not so much greed, but an opposition to forced charity and a concern for our already troubled finances. I don't like that young, healthy people like me are forced to pay higher costs than our risk in order to subsidize costs for other people.
That's greed my friend. I pay taxes too and I don't feel resentful at all.
Taxes are not entirely forced charity though, aside from welfare. They resolve things the no one person or group could take care of such as common defense or infrastructure. I do not resent my taxes. I do resent paying above my risk category.
You're totally off the charts here with that view. Appeals to you but majority simply does not agree.
As respectfully as I can muster, and before I issue a rebuttal to that, but how am I off the charts per say?
Your view of taxes as "forced charity"
I only view welfare as forced charity, and would like to see those substantially scaled back. Is it wrong to expect someone to save for their own retirement than to rely on the next generation to barely fund their basic living expenses?
The remainder of taxes are not charity, but a necessary evil. Common defense, infrastructure, unprofitable but necessary ventures like NASA or the FDA; these would not be possible without the government and taxes. They are a joint responsibility.
You say this often probably and you're not used to hearing someone disagree, by your response to it as incredulous, but it is in fact not the majority view. Also it will continue whether you like it or not. Why: because it's a minority fringe view.
Haha, I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. First, what makes that a minority view exactly? Second, why on Earth is my response incredulous? Because I expect people to take personal responsibility for their own outcome in life?
Didn't mean to say your response is incredulous. I meant that you likely view mine that way because you so often hear only agreement that you think you are the majority. Proof is it's still the
Law of the land and has not and will not change.
Oh, I see. No, I welcome disagreement. I understand that it is in fact the law, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. I think it's doomed to failure personally. As it is, it's not financially sound.
I also understand why it makes no sense to you. We are irreconcilably at odds on the question and neither of us will change. Lol. Agreeing to disagree is best course.
I don't think we're necessarily at irreconcilable odds with each other. We're not Congress after all, and can in fact compromise. I never heard your position during your rebuttal. Care to share?
My position is clearly there. I think responses that characterize welfare as unnecessary, coerced charity, unaffordable, illegitimate, people won't work and don't deserve it; it's unfair to workers etc are all greed based and a minority view.
I don't disagree that it's somewhat greedy, but what source do you have indicating that greed is the minority? After all, this country is great because of greed and capitalism. I don't think most people would favor socialism.
Did your Australian friend also tell you that a doctor in Australia can't prescribe certain drugs if the government thinks that they're too expensive.
On one of our trips there my wife got sick and had forgotten to pack her Ciproflaxin.
We went to a doctor, paid him his $200 for a visit and..
... were told that we wouldn't be able to take the drug that my wife's doctor in the US had previously said was the best for her situation. He said that he would love to prescribe Cipro for us, but the Government wouldn't let him, so he gave us 2 prescriptions for 2 different drugs saying that...
... if one didn't work she should stop and start taking the other one. :-\
Did she also tell you that they consider coronary bypass surgery an "elective" procedure? Or that the Aborigines are subjected to longer wait times than whites for most procedures?
Happy that happens in America as Insurance Company bureaucrats make the same type decisions.
I'm inclined to think that most of it is people not wanting anything to do with Obama. In other words, they're just being ornery.
Lux. I agree.
I agree, those people are hurt the most.
I think part of our problem here is that there is no accountability in government to make sure public assistance is going to the right people. Certainly there are those who will never be able to help themselves for health or mental health reasons...
And those people hurt the most!
However, there are many who should be on temporary assistance, with a limit, and looking for jobs. The economy will fail if people depend on the government to meet their needs when they really don't need too.
I could get behind something that truly helped the ones that need it most and had restrictions on those that need a leg up.
There is also no accountability when private sector insurance companies do it alone as they do today.
Australia probably doesn't have the same people of Walmart that we do. We have a large and ever growing part of the population that expects entitlements and does nothing to help themselves.
Just as everyone in TX rides horses and has a gun attached to their belt?
I don't know, I've never been to Texas.
I do see quite a bit of people who believe they are OWED food stamps, section 8, WIC, and healthcare they don't pay for while they have 6 kids to 4 different dads. I see people like this every day.
Just a few months ago there was an article in the paper about a 25 year old with 10 kids who was shot in a bar. His pregnant "girlfriend" said that she didn't see what happened because she was outside smoking a cigarette.
Yet no one seems to be allowed to say these people are losers anymore, they're just victims.
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
Oy! Oy! Oy!
ACA does not provide healthcare, it provides health insurance. Care will diminish.
I could not agree more! It makes me so sad that we cannot have compassion for others.
Compassion? Like raising the costs of health insurance on most people? Causing job loss or reduced hours? Which part of ACA is compassionate? The only valid argument is pre-existing conditions.
Well, having a mother who has been ill my whole life that is a HUGE part for me.
I will gladly pay more so that people can get care they need.
They will pay more too. It's not just those that can already afford it.
I personally don't think that the ACA does enough but it is a starting point. I listened to newt speak in the early 2000's this plan is what he laid out then. He was angry that it could not get passed in the 1990's...
Single payer is much worse if that's what you're thinking.
I need to go do other things but will return to continue taking later if you care to continue.
If I'm free sure.
Wrong. Its a personal thing with me, I don't want health care provided for me, I currently don't have any, and I'd rather choose what I get, if at all.
I'm against the gov't telling me I have to buy something I already have. Did you explain to her we already have the best medical care in the world? When royalty around the world gets sick, where do they go? The Mayo clinic in Rochester, MN.
If you already have it you don't need to buy anything...
I know, I'm just against the gov't getting that involved in people's lives. Just like I wear my seatbelt when road conditions are poor but I don't the rest o the time because its a law to wear it. My body, my choice.
Wrong aj. Some insurers are dropping out of markets around the country already and some businesses are lowering hours or just getting rid of employees so they don't have to provide their insurance.
You don't get it rickvee. We have the most expensive medical, not the best! Of developed nations, we have more people not covered by medical insurance. Taxpayers are subsidizing those that get care by ER visits, as Romney pointed to as "health care."
And, the government is not telling you that you have to buy medical insurance if you already have it! Doh!
And, if you aren't insured, it may be your body, but the taxpayers bill!
Yeah, the taxpayer. Me. Also the welfare payer, once again, me.
Those that go to ERs for a headache or splinter? Oh, and illegal aliens that give false names and have no intention of paying.
Yes, taxpayers are subsidizing huge companies (Walmart and others) that pay low wages, no health care, and make mega billions. The middle class continues to diminish, and the rich get richer.
No rickvee, those that go to the ER as a last resort, as they have no health care! Your statements are based purely on hyperbole and uninformed anecdotes! Why don't you open your mind and get some facts!
Rick is right abt the ER visits. They do go for headaches and simple stuff that OTC medication is for. And the illegals use fake names and addresses as they never intend to pay the bills.
Thank you kscott
Those "illegals" would gladly give their real names if they didn't live in constant fear of deportation. The unwelcome and fearful atmosphere conservatives actively foster is what leads people to measures such as false names.
Also, "best" is a lofty descriptor for a health care system that comes in 37th in the world per the WHO: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064
I couldn't have said it better bethanyq! :-)
What's with the quotation marks Beth? They ARE here illegally! Would you rather I use the convoluted "migrant worker" or "undocumented worker"? That's like calling a shìt a poop...
Way off Bethany. They have no fear of deportation whatsoever. Just in FL recently there were a group of illegals protesting in the Governor's office for DAYS. No one was arrested nor deported. They game the system.
ACA is LAW so we have to fund it, yet illegal entry into the US is a LAW but we're supposed to look the other way. Typical progressive thinking.
The word "illegal" is an adjective, not a noun, and I'm drawing attention to your othering language, Rick. Kscott, do you have an ounce of evidence that people here without border clearance have *no* fear of deportation? What a ridiculous assertion.
I believe I JUST gave you an example. You're welcome to look it up. Gov Rick Scott.
Ok Beth, instead of calling them illegal aliens (which they are) how about we call them FELONS? Illegal border crossing IS a felony after all...
Kscott, that is not evidence that they have no fear. The fact that some may be courageous enough to show up in large numbers, presumably with others whose right to exist is recognized by the government, hardly means they have "no" fear as I said.
Rick, I'm not going to let you goad me into a fight. You're free to be as mean-spirited as you like, and I'm free to reject your mean-spiritedness.
I'm not trying to start a fight or be mean. I'm just stating that they're here illegally. And trying to obscure that by calling them anything different is enabling behavior.
Enabling what? All these people want is a chance to work hard and better themselves. Have you ever worked with someone trying to get into the country legally? Were you aware that it is not a matter of simply processing paperwork, but that in fact
there are limits on the numbers of people allowed in? That if you're not rich or employed, depending upon your nationality, it's a lottery to even get the right to VISIT? We are one of the most unwelcoming countries in the world. It saddens me how we
talk about the US as the land of opportunity and yet are so stingy about actually letting people take advantage of those opportunities.
Anyway, my point is that the language you use to refer to people less fortunate than you reflects how you see them. You are focusing on their paperwork as though it is a moral characteristic. I do not believe it is.
There's a reason we limit the amount of people allowed in...we cannot sustain our economy by providing for an inestimable number of takers. There are thousands "looking for a chance to better themselves" that commit tax fraud as it is. These are
criminals and should be treated as such. I'm sorry but we are not just expected to let everyone in that wants to. Most other countries, including Mexico, are much more strict on immigration.
And yes, I'd say that if they are brave enough to spend hours or days in a government building then they have no fear of deportation.
Bravery =/= lack of fear. And, again, the things you point to are arguably primarily BECAUSE of our restrictive immigration laws. Why does the accident of birth make us more deserving of opportunities? And I take it you don't believe in a free mkt?
In that case why should we prohibit anyone from coming here? Just let everyone in. That won't take long to totally bankrupt the country.
A true free market would not have me pay for their laziness. If they'd like to move here and be a net positive
financially so be it.
What makes you think immigrants are lazy? Have you actually met any??
Those darn lazy immigrants, they risked their lives and left their homeland just to come over here to live a life of luxury while they sit on their lazy a$$ taking advantage of our generosity. Uh huh.
I wouldn't say all of them are lazy. Just the ones sucking up welfare and other gov't programs. It's pretty easy to become a LEGAL American. And yes, TRY to sneak into Mexico, they have a much much stricter immigration policy.
I have no issue with immigrants coming here, working hard, and playing by the rules. I have no sympathy for those illegally crossing, committing tax and Medicare fraud, and increasing crime levels.
I couldn't have said it better myself kscott. Kudos!
Rick, how many immigrants have you known while they went through the immigration process? I have several family members and numerous close friends who would take issue with your blithe assessment of its ease.
Five friends that came here and went through the process legally. One from Mexico, one from Japan, one from Saudi, one from Russia, and one from Vietnam. Alexi from Russia had the hardest time because he served in the Russian army in Afghanistan.
And do they all concur with your assessment that getting into the US legally is easy?
Alexi and I constantly tease back and forth about serving in the military of two countries that were enemies for a long time. They've said it was fairly easy. Alexia's only hardship was proving he was never involved in combat against America.
Trying to get his military records after the fall of communist Russia proved somewhat difficult.
I am sincerely glad to hear it was easy for your friends. For my friends and family, it was less so - most of all for my friend's Moroccan husband, whose family will likely never be able to *visit* him in the US because of our draconian border laws.
Sorry to hear. Did he become a citizen first or did he marry in?
He isn't a citizen. Naturalization takes years. I'm talking about just the right to live here. He had no interest in living in the US before falling in love with an American. Even then he wanted her to live there but she wanted to live here. So to
say he "married in" is dismissive and inaccurate.
How sad that people from different countries can see how selfish and greedy we are. Just listen to some people talk on here. It's just sad.
There is at least some truth in the statement.
For the record, I agree with her.
I think that's a pretty accurate statement.
I agree with your Aussie friend. Blind hatred of the present administration and unmitigated spite are also factors. Misunderstanding, misrepresentation . . .