Obama has officially conceded on the healthcare bill.

Article 25 of the decleration of human rights.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical careand necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

toast_burner

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Obama actually hasn't conceded on the healthcare bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/obama-smerconish-intervie_n_264297.html

Considering the fact that the definition of a 3rd world country is a large gap between the rich and the poor, then it would only raise our status in the world (and our quality of care, which is severely lacking) to have a full single-payer system, which I advocate, and which the Scandinavian countries have.

danwallacefan

But I encourage you to read the policy analyses of various single-payer healthcare systems around the world. The quality of care is very poor compared to American healthcare and other states where you're allowed to purchase insurance and medical care.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

This is terrible. Denying the basic right of healthcare to over 50 million people is a human rights disaster, and I have lost much of the faith in my country because of this fearmongering and vitriolic nonsense. :evil:

toast_burner

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical careand necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Oh, please, the Declaration of Human Rights isn't even a US document. It's a United Nations document that was signed in Paris. It has NO effect on US law so don't pretend it does.

Oh, please, the Declaration of Human Rights isn't even a US document. It's a United Nations document that was signed in Paris. It has NO effect on US law so don't pretend it does.

Love_my_PS360

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

A human rights disaster? What right? A right to healthcare? There is no such thing.limpbizkit818

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical careand necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Oh, please, the Declaration of Human Rights isn't even a US document. It's a United Nations document that was signed in Paris. It has NO effect on US law so don't pretend it does.

[QUOTE="Love_my_PS360"]Oh, please, the Declaration of Human Rights isn't even a US document. It's a United Nations document that was signed in Paris. It has NO effect on US law so don't pretend it does.

Stevo_the_gamer

Who honestly cares about the UN? The USA is a sovereign nation, we don't needTHEM to make OUR laws. That would be like if I were to barge into your house and order you to go the rest of your life standing on your hands, it's just wrong.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] A human rights disaster? What right? A right to healthcare? There is no such thing.Love_my_PS360

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical careand necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Oh, please, the Declaration of Human Rights isn't even a US document. It's a United Nations document that was signed in Paris. It has NO effect on US law so don't pretend it does.

Who honestly cares about the UN? The USA is a sovereign nation, we don't needTHEM to make OUR laws. That would be like if I were to barge into your house and order you to go the rest of your life standing on your hands, it's just wrong.

Love_my_PS360

[QUOTE="Love_my_PS360"]Who honestly cares about the UN? The USA is a sovereign nation, we don't needTHEM to make OUR laws. That would be like if I were to barge into your house and order you to go the rest of your life standing on your hands, it's just wrong.

Stevo_the_gamer

well, we shouldn't. no wonder the economy's so screwed up, we keep spending all this money that we don't have.

well, we shouldn't. no wonder the economy's so screwed up, we keep spending all this money that we don't have.

Love_my_PS360

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

yoshi-lnex

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

peaceful_anger

Maybe instead ofa huge stimulus package, we could have worked on healthcare and reducing the national debt first?

[QUOTE="Love_my_PS360"]well, we shouldn't. no wonder the economy's so screwed up, we keep spending all this money that we don't have.

Stevo_the_gamer

The UN does so little though :lol:

The UN does so little though :lol:

chessmaster1989

I like the people that don't bother reading this thread then chiming in by saying "the Republicans are holding the country back." Ignoring the basic facts that the Democrats control the government right now. Funny how when Bush was president, and the conservatives were the majority, bills were passed efficiently. Now the Dems can't even pass something they all pretty much agreed on 2 weeks ago.

Stop saying its the Republican's fault when the Dems are in control. That's just ignorant.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Love_my_PS360"]well, we shouldn't. no wonder the economy's so screwed up, we keep spending all this money that we don't have.

chessmaster1989

The UN does so little though :lol:

Not funny. The UN is perhaps the most noble organization on the planet, and could do a hell of a lot more good if the U.S. wasn't undermining them at every turn in the name of 'imperialism.'

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Now, mate. lol. Our recent "stimulus bill" was about 160 times more than the UN budget. That's how small the UN budget is so no worries. (About 4 or so billion) :P

Hot-Tamale

The UN does so little though :lol:

Not funny. The UN is perhaps the most noble organization on the planet, and could do a hell of a lot more good if the U.S. wasn't undermining them at every turn in the name of 'imperialism.'

if by "noble", you mean they sit on the sidelines, say "don't do that", and do absolutely nothing when someone disobeys them. If the UN was around during the holocaust they would have asked hitler nicely to stop killing jews.

if by "noble", you mean they sit on the sidelines, say "don't do that", and do absolutely nothing when someone disobeys them. If the UN was around during the holocaust they would have asked hitler nicely to stop killing jews.

Love_my_PS360

[QUOTE="Love_my_PS360"]if by "noble", you mean they sit on the sidelines, say "don't do that", and do absolutely nothing when someone disobeys them. If the UN was around during the holocaust they would have asked hitler nicely to stop killing jews.

Stevo_the_gamer

Uhh, dude, the UN was formed in '45 (if I remember my history).

And, yes, my post earlier was a joke (and a bad one at that >_>).

Uhh, dude, the UN was formed in '45 (if I remember my history).

And, yes, my post earlier was a joke (and a bad one at that >_>).

chessmaster1989

The official charter and what was signed and drafted in 45, yes; if you want to be that official -- but before that, nations came together to fight Germany. Ahem. Atlantic charter. Hell, even looking at who the five permanent Security council members were -- they all were fighting against the Germans. Most of the world united back in 1942 for a common goal -- defeat Germany and its allies.

Most are naive to what the UN does, so I was a bit shocked that you were make such a blind accusation like that. I took a class on the United Nations, and even went to Model UN conferences so I know my stuff. Phew though, that you were joking. :P

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Uhh, dude, the UN was formed in '45 (if I remember my history).

And, yes, my post earlier was a joke (and a bad one at that >_>).

Stevo_the_gamer

The official charter and what was signed and drafted in 45, yes; if you want to be that official -- but before that, nations came together to fight Germany. Ahem. Atlantic charter. Hell, even looking at who the five permanent Security council members were -- they all were fighting against the Germans. Most of the world united back in 1942 for a common goal -- defeat Germany and its allies.

Most are naive to what the UN does, so I was a bit shocked that you were make such a blind accusation like that. I took a class on the United Nations, and even went to Model UN conferences so I know my stuff. Phew though, that you were joking. :P

You cannot compare the effeciency and sacrifice of the WWII Allies to the UN we have now. The UN does some great things when it comes to supplying food and medical supplies to 3rd World nations. However they are a weak ass organization when it comes to security, sanctions, and enforcement in general.

Most of the world united back in 1942 for a common goal -- defeat Germany and its allies.

Stevo_the_gamer

WTF!? The whole point of WWII was that the world was DIVIDED between those that supported germany and those that supported england.

And evenif the world was "united" against germany as you say, how do you explain russia? The SAME russia that betrayed its allies at the end of the war, starting another war that would continue for decades.

This thread got hijacked fast.

Obama actually hasn't conceded on the healthcare bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/obama-smerconish-intervie_n_264297.html

Considering the fact that the definition of a 3rd world country is a large gap between the rich and the poor, then it would only raise our status in the world (and our quality of care, which is severely lacking) to have a full single-payer system, which I advocate, and which the Scandinavian countries have.

This thread got hijacked fast.

sonicare

Lol yup. It is now a UN Thread.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

Most of the world united back in 1942 for a common goal -- defeat Germany and its allies.

Love_my_PS360

WTF!? The whole point of WWII was that the world was DIVIDED between those that supported germany and those that supported england.

And evenif the world was "united" against germany as you say, how do you explain russia? The SAME russia that betrayed its allies at the end of the war, starting another war that would continue for decades.

Oh, come on, there was only a handful of countries that actively supported Germany. The Allies, on the other hand were made up of dozens of different countries.

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Obama actually hasn't conceded on the healthcare bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/obama-smerconish-intervie_n_264297.html

Considering the fact that the definition of a 3rd world country is a large gap between the rich and the poor, then it would only raise our status in the world (and our quality of care, which is severely lacking) to have a full single-payer system, which I advocate, and which the Scandinavian countries have.

Pyro767

I suppose you're correct, but from my (admittedly biased) sources I still think it's obvious that there's a tangible correlation. I'm sure you'd agree with me: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World/Grotesque_Inequality.html

You cannot compare the effeciency and sacrifice of the WWII Allies to the UN we have now. The UN does some great things when it comes to supplying food and medical supplies to 3rd World nations. However they are a weak ass organization when it comes to security, sanctions, and enforcement in general.On3ShotOneKill

The UN has faltered from a vareity of reasons in recent decades; one of them is the United States involvement -- or lack there of. After the fiasco in Somalia, the United States has decided it's not worth getting involved. Peacekeeping operations or peacemaking operations are ran by developing countries instead of developed countries. UN forces lack the necessary supplies, training, and manpower to be effective. It's a big mess now, if the United States and other developed nations stepped up to the plate -- a lot of things could get done. Unfortuately, that's not going to happen.

WTF!? The whole point of WWII was that the world was DIVIDED between those that supported germany and those that supported england.

And evenif the world was "united" against germany as you say, how do you explain russia? The SAME russia that betrayed its allies at the end of the war, starting another war that would continue for decades.

Love_my_PS360

That poster was made in 1943, btw.

How do I explain Russia? They're communists. The Western Allies needed Russia, but they also distrusted Russia. Why? Again. Communism. If it were up to Churchill... or Patton, I can't remember who -- they wanted to continue on the fight after Hitler was defeated and fight Russia. What's the best thing a capitalist can watch?

This thread got hijacked fast.

sonicare

lol. Indeed, it has.

Anyways, this thread needs to get back on topic. Democrats can pass whatever they please, I say for them to do it without the popular support -- that way come next election. Bye bye Democrats! :D

(if you want to cvontinue the WW2 talk, PM me)

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Now, mate. lol. Our recent "stimulus bill" was about 160 times more than the UN budget. That's how small the UN budget is so no worries. (About 4 or so billion) :P

Hot-Tamale

The UN does so little though :lol:

Not funny. The UN is perhaps the most noble organization on the planet, and could do a hell of a lot more good if the U.S. wasn't undermining them at every turn in the name of 'imperialism.'

Now, I agree with you that the U.S. is an empire. However singling it out and implying that it is the only imperialist country is ignorant at best. Or, maybe you're right? Maybe France never tried to forcefully keep Vietnam as a colony in the French Indochina War. Maybe the U.S.S.R never invaded Afghanistan. Maybe North Korea (then China) never invaded the South. Or maybe, just maybe Russia never invaded Chechnya. The list goes on and on. Btw, all of this has happened under the FANTASTIC eye of the UN, and commited by other UN permanent seat members.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

The UN has faltered from a vareity of reasons in recent decades; one of them is the United States involvement -- or lack there of. After the fiasco in Somalia, the United States has decided it's not worth getting involved. Peacekeeping operations or peacemaking operations are ran by developing countries instead of developed countries. UN forces lack the necessary supplies, training, and manpower to be effective. It's a big mess now, if the United States and other developed nations stepped up to the plate -- a lot of things could get done. Unfortuately, that's not going to happen.

[QUOTE="Love_my_PS360"]

WTF!? The whole point of WWII was that the world was DIVIDED between those that supported germany and those that supported england.

And evenif the world was "united" against germany as you say, how do you explain russia? The SAME russia that betrayed its allies at the end of the war, starting another war that would continue for decades.

Stevo_the_gamer

That poster was made in 1943, btw.

How do I explain Russia? They're communists. The Western Allies needed Russia, but they also distrusted Russia. Why? Again. Communism. If it were up to Churchill... or Patton, I can't remember who -- they wanted to continue on the fight after Hitler was defeated and fight Russia. What's the best thing a capitalist can watch?

This thread got hijacked fast.

sonicare

lol. Indeed, it has.

Anyways, this thread needs to get back on topic. Democrats can pass whatever they please, I say for them to do it without the popular support -- that way come next election. Bye bye Democrats! :D

(if you want to cvontinue the WW2 talk, PM me)

By recent, I hope you mean last 15 years.Saying the U.S. is the main reason for the UN's horrible track record for the 20th Century is completely false, but we do need to get back on topic :P

Btw, I agree with you when it comes to the UN being underfunded. Just don't blame AMAIRIKA for everything, mmm K? No hard feelings.

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

The UN does so little though :lol:

On3ShotOneKill

Not funny. The UN is perhaps the most noble organization on the planet, and could do a hell of a lot more good if the U.S. wasn't undermining them at every turn in the name of 'imperialism.'

Now, I agree with you that the U.S. is an empire. However singling it out and implying that it is the only imperialist country is ignorant at best. Or, maybe you're right? Maybe France never tried to forcefully keep Vietnam as a colony in the French Indochina War. Maybe the U.S.S.R never invaded Afghanistan. Maybe North Korea (then China) never invaded the South. Or maybe, just maybe Russia never invaded Chechnya. The list goes on and on. Btw, all of this has happened under the FANTASTIC eye of the UN, and commited by other UN permanent seat members.

I am obviously referring to the troubles the UN is currently undergoing. Their funding is down and countries are talking about going it alone.

Anyways, this thread needs to get back on topic. Democrats can pass whatever they please, I say for them to do it without the popular support -- that way come next election. Bye bye Democrats! :D

Stevo_the_gamer

Actually, no, that is not true. If an unpopular bill passes today, it will not necessarily negatively affect the party that passed it in the next election. What matters will be it's popularity then (or, rather, how happy people are with it's effects).

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Not funny. The UN is perhaps the most noble organization on the planet, and could do a hell of a lot more good if the U.S. wasn't undermining them at every turn in the name of 'imperialism.'

Hot-Tamale

Now, I agree with you that the U.S. is an empire. However singling it out and implying that it is the only imperialist country is ignorant at best. Or, maybe you're right? Maybe France never tried to forcefully keep Vietnam as a colony in the French Indochina War. Maybe the U.S.S.R never invaded Afghanistan. Maybe North Korea (then China) never invaded the South. Or maybe, just maybe Russia never invaded Chechnya. The list goes on and on. Btw, all of this has happened under the FANTASTIC eye of the UN, and commited by other UN permanent seat members.

I am obviously referring to the troubles the UN is currently undergoing. Their funding is down and countries are talking about going it alone.

Ah I misunderstood. However the UN situation right now still isn't all of America's fault.