• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Everywhere.

The aim of every govt should always be to do as little as possible.

Not even trying. They pay more as a percentage of tax for healthcare than the uk.

I'd cut medicare and medicaid completely. Put it state level rather than federal. Then you might see some real changes.
 
Not even trying. They pay more as a percentage of tax for healthcare than the uk.

I'd cut medicare and medicaid completely. Put it state level rather than federal. Then you might see some real changes.
There's no need to narrow it down. It's the approach to governance that needs to change.

The default position has to be to not spend. Then that which absolutely has to be paid for by govt should be, but should be open to competition and leave choice with the consumer.
 
There's no need to narrow it down. It's the approach to governance that needs to change.

The default position has to be to not spend. Then that which absolutely has to be paid for by govt should be, but should be open to competition and leave choice with the consumer.

Tbh i don't disagree too much with that. The argument would be what has to be paid for by government. Something that has huge barriers to entry due to cost obviously would reduce competition to a very few that can monopolise. Such as energy, rail, healthcare. Others are more obvious. Emergency services, millitary.
 
Tbh i don't disagree too much with that. The argument would be what has to be paid for by government. Something that has huge barriers to entry due to cost obviously would reduce competition to a very few that can monopolise. Such as energy, rail, healthcare. Others are more obvious. Emergency services, millitary.
Healthcare works very well in a number of countries without something as monolithic and over priced as the NHS. Germany is probably the best example.
 
There's no need to narrow it down. It's the approach to governance that needs to change.

The default position has to be to not spend. Then that which absolutely has to be paid for by govt should be, but should be open to competition and leave choice with the consumer.
The market? Leaving it to the greed of humanity will be the death of us.
 
Not sure where the comparison with germany comes into it anyway. It's mostly state funded, broken down to regions control. Less than a quater of it's funding is private health insurance.

Anyway back to america.
 
Not sure where the comparison with germany comes into it anyway. It's mostly state funded, broken down to regions control. Less than a quater of it's funding is private health insurance.

Anyway back to america.
I don't mind public funding for healthcare as long as an insurance model with open market access is used.
 
What a strange first thought after an obvious miscarriage of justice

Like it or not us law has right to bear arms and stand your ground.

It's absolutely fudged up he was walking the streets with an assault weapon. But i don't think he broke the law.
 
If you find yourself on the same side of the argument as this lot, it's probably time for some self reflection
20211119-201939.jpg
 
Ok try and look at it from another perspective.

During the london riots a group of sikhs banded together to protect property. If one of those was singled out attacked by a group of edl. Knocked to the ground. He then stabbed someone with his ceremonial dagger (that he's allowed to carry). Would you feel the same way?

I'm not saying what happened is right at all. Just stop letting bias determine what justice is.
 
Back