PDA

View Full Version : Report says health care will cost more!



Apocalypse
04-23-2010, 12:25 PM
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

Who would have guessed this?

AmPat
04-23-2010, 12:48 PM
When I joined the army (under a CONTRACT), my dependants were covered 100%. Over the years, the army switched to insurance for Dependants where I pay for them like any other insurance program. This is fine with me except for the violation of a CONTRACT. However, that is somewhat off track. More to the point, that insurance has begun to cover less, is harder to get the actual care paid for, and is more expensive.

What part of NO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE do you DUmmies not understand?

lacarnut
04-23-2010, 01:06 PM
What is scary to me is that doctors and hospitals will receive cuts in their reimbursements. I am on Medicare and had out patient surgery. Doctor bill was $3k - $2350 not allowed==$650 the doctor got paid. Medicare was billed $300 for blood work; they paid $24. An EKG was done; medicare paid zero.

At this rate of payment, doctors and hospitals will quit taking Medicare patients.

Obama and the Democrats are a lying piece of shit. They knew that the HC bill was going to cost much more. Plus, only a moron would believe that this plan would wind up with cost savings.

djones520
04-23-2010, 01:10 PM
What is scary to me is that doctors and hospitals will receive cuts in their reimbursements. I am on Medicare and had out patient surgery. Doctor bill was $3k - $2350 not allowed==$650 the doctor got paid. Medicare was billed $300 for blood work; they paid $24. An EKG was done; medicare paid zero.

At this rate of payment, doctors and hospitals will quit taking Medicare patients.

Obama and the Democrats are a lying piece of shit. They knew that the HC bill was going to cost much more. Plus, only a moron would believe that this plan would wind up with cost savings.

Tricare is much the same. Had an emergency room bill that Tricare paid about 20% of. I think the only reason why a lot of hospitals and Dr's take it is because it's the military.

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 01:20 PM
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

Who would have guessed this?

Um. Everyone who's paid attention would have guessed it. Obama and the leaders in congress have very openly stated that the current bill primarily focuses on expansion of coverage, and additional measures will need to be taken to bring down costs.

I think this current bill, by itself, without additions to it, is ATROCIOUS, awful, and wrong.

As a stepping stone, it's excellent, but if this is all we are getting, it amounts to nothing more than the most blatant example of a government handout to big business, and this bill by itself without any additional legislation is, in my opinion, morally wrong and I'm totally against it, even though there are some good things about it (subsidies for those who can't afford it, health exchanges, and the reduction in deficit spending because of our current rising health care expenditures)

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 01:22 PM
The Public Option is the key to this, without it, I may dare say I hate this bill and if nothing is changed before 2012 Obama will lose my vote.

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 01:23 PM
The hilarious part is that people actually associate this bill (as it is) with socialism, when it will ultimately benefit the wealthiest capitalists in the world.

AmPat
04-23-2010, 01:27 PM
The hilarious part is that people actually associate this bill (as it is) with socialism, when it will ultimately benefit the wealthiest capitalists in the world.

Socialism creates and benefits the wealthiest. There are those who are more equal than the others. You are going to eat your words one day. This will amount to government takeover of health care. Kiss the best health care in the world good bye.

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 01:46 PM
the best health care in the world

lol

lacarnut
04-23-2010, 01:48 PM
lol

You can always move to Canada or the EU.

djones520
04-23-2010, 01:49 PM
lol

And pray tell where are you going to find better health care?

AmPat
04-23-2010, 01:50 PM
lol

Do tell laughing boy, where do you propose has a better health care?

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 01:50 PM
You can always move to Canada or the EU.

I can also vote, donate, and engage in discussion to help improve my country that I love.

lacarnut
04-23-2010, 01:53 PM
I can also vote, donate, and engage in discussion to help improve my country that I love.

When are you going to start paying Fed. Inc. Taxes, freeloader?

Articulate_Ape
04-23-2010, 01:56 PM
And pray tell where are you going to find better health care?

If it wasn't for the asshats in the White House and Congress, we wouldn't have to look.

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 01:59 PM
And pray tell where are you going to find better health care?

Depends on how you define "better". If by better you mean the best services available to purchase for exhorbant amounts of money if you're able to afford it, then this is the place to find it.

If by better you mean a better system, resulting in lower infant mortality rates, longer lifespans, lower rates of chronic diseases, better affordability and access to all citizens, lower national costs, lower deaths due to preventable diseases or easily-cured-if-treated-early diseases, and (yes believe it or not) even waiting times. then almost every other advanced industrialized nation is where you can find it

http://i48.tinypic.com/24kw86x.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/2ap151.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/2ezh0nk.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/160vfcp.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 02:00 PM
http://i48.tinypic.com/5uep6s.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/dz7z8x.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/2v0j05f.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/s652kh.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 02:00 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/2z57r0y.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/oigbok.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/1ilkk2.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/2yv31pc.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 02:01 PM
http://i48.tinypic.com/2wqwkfk.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/24pi8aa.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 02:04 PM
When are you going to start paying Fed. Inc. Taxes, freeloader?

When I start making taxable income. I've paid them before, and I'll pay them again. I don't accept welfare, foodstamps, unemployment benefits or anything of the sort.

Also I still pay several other taxes so sure thing buddy, if it makes you so butthurt then I'm a "freeloader" by whatever whacky definition of the word you're using.

Articulate_Ape
04-23-2010, 02:07 PM
snip Chart Fart

It's 2010, WWW.

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 02:10 PM
It's 2010, WWW.

You're right, and those numbers have only grown and not in our favor, we are spending more and more on healhcare, both the government and individuals out of pocket and the overall results aren't getting any better.

Keep in mind though that most of these studies range from 2005-2008, and that it would be impossible to get data newer than 2009, so this is still pretty recent. (unless of course if you believe the whole world radically turned upside down and inside out in just 2 years, which would imply that we became the best health care provider in the world when Obama took office)

Articulate_Ape
04-23-2010, 02:23 PM
Well, we sure as hell are gonna spend a lot more now that the government has its fail hands on it.

Molon Labe
04-23-2010, 02:25 PM
You're right, and those numbers have only grown and not in our favor, we are spending more and more on healhcare, both the government and individuals out of pocket and the overall results aren't getting any better.

I visited my family practitioner on Tuesday. I asked him what he thought the outcome of the new system would be. He said it's already endless paperwork and red tape. He said he expects it to now be more paperwork, except he'll be paid less.

Do you think there's truth in that? And how do you think it effects health care in the future?

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 02:35 PM
I visited my family practitioner on Tuesday. I asked him what he thought the outcome of the new system would be. He said it's already endless paperwork and red tape. He said he expects it to now be more paperwork, except he'll be paid less.

Do you think there's truth in that? And how do you think it effects health care in the future?

1st, we don't have a "new system". We are just 'forcing' people into the existing system, and helping subsidize those who can't afford the current system.

We are only boosting the system we have now, which has given us the results shown in all of the graphs I posted (which I expect to be fully ignored, although I always hold out hope that the few sensible posters here will add some insight)

I can't say if what the doctor said is true, I'm not familiar with how much paperwork he personally has to do in his job, but one of the things being pushed for in terms of health care reform is to help RAISE the pay of general family practitioners to incentivize students to go in that area because currently there's a shortage of them because specialists get paid more.

Molon Labe
04-23-2010, 02:57 PM
1st, we don't have a "new system". We are just 'forcing' people into the existing system, and helping subsidize those who can't afford the current system.

We are only boosting the system we have now, which has given us the results shown in all of the graphs I posted (which I expect to be fully ignored, although I always hold out hope that the few sensible posters here will add some insight)

I can't say if what the doctor said is true, I'm not familiar with how much paperwork he personally has to do in his job, but one of the things being pushed for in terms of health care reform is to help RAISE the pay of general family practitioners to incentivize students to go in that area because currently there's a shortage of them because specialists get paid more.


Several points:

I'm not sure what those graphs say that would convince me that the solution to rectify our medical care mess lies in what was passed in congress. It seems to me if you admittedly don't know about the system and the root causes of the problems, you might like talking to doctors and those in the field about the nature and consequences of the costs of providing medical and how it affects THEM on a daily basis before jumping on the current bandwagon?

My doctor isn't a political man, but he certainly understands how regulatory behavior on his profession has limited his ability to provide services at affordable costs and how he envisions that more regs will, A. require more costs and, B. limit pay.....and then theres, C. lessen quality of health care, which is always the case of regulation. But leftists don't usually acknowledge that.

By forcing "individuals" into the "system", you just helped every insurance corporation in the country out by forcing "people" to subsidize their premiums. Insurance is the problem.

Lasty: It's always very telling about the true nature of someone who uses words like "Force" to describe the conditions under which something like medical care should be administered.

So I think it's fair to assume you believe in a societal system of force and coercion of individuals.......over Health care? :confused:

Wei Wu Wei
04-23-2010, 03:26 PM
Several points:

I'm not sure what those graphs say that would convince me that the solution to rectify our medical care mess lies in what was passed in congress.

Nothing in the graphs suggest that. Like I said, I am very opposed to what was passed in congress, as it is. I qualify it because there are some benefits coming from this bill, but without additional measures being passed (like [the biggest one] a public option and other cost-saving measures, adminstrative restructuring to get rid of some of the red tape, and incentives for more people to enter into the health industry).

Again, this current bill, by itself, without additional measures (which unfortunately were blocked by every single republican and some democrats) is something I am NOT happy about.


It seems to me if you admittedly don't know about the system and the root causes of the problems, you might like talking to doctors and those in the field about the nature and consequences of the costs of providing medical and how it affects THEM on a daily basis before jumping on the current bandwagon?

I know some about the system and the root causes, I won't ego-bate and elevate myself to the level of expert, but I know more-than-your-average-bear about the system as a whole (although I admittedly lack knowledge of the day-to-day activities of individual doctors).




My doctor isn't a political man, but he certainly understands how regulatory behavior on his profession has limited his ability to provide services at affordable costs and how he envisions that more regs will, A. require more costs and, B. limit pay.....and then theres, C. lessen quality of health care, which is always the case of regulation. But leftists don't usually acknowledge that.

The graphs directly deal with regulation and quality of care, as well as costs, if you assume that other advanced nations are "more regulated" than we are in terms of health care (which I would assert is true).


By forcing "individuals" into the "system", you just helped every insurance corporation in the country out by forcing "people" to subsidize their premiums. Insurance is the problem.

I totally agree and have been saying since December when the Senate was wrapping up the bill that ended up passing that it would be nothing more than a handout to the corporate entities that are causing the problem. (and don't take this to mean that all corporations are evil or that they are inherently evil, as I'm sure some loon just spilled his bud light trying to mash his keyboard to point out)




Lasty: It's always very telling about the true nature of someone who uses words like "Force" to describe the conditions under which something like medical care should be administered.

I put it in quotes for a reason ;)


So I think it's fair to assume you believe in a societal system of force and coercion of individuals.......over Health care? :confused:

Nope

AmPat
04-23-2010, 04:29 PM
[QUOTE=Wei Wu Wei;263619]Depends on how you define "better". If by better you mean the best services available to purchase for exhorbant amounts of money if you're able to afford it, then this is the place to find it.
Exorbitant by whose definition. Are you talking about the cost due to government interference and frivolous lawsuits? The same lawsuits that Gov't refuses to address? Or do you intend to say that Doctors are paid too much? Please, no long boring charts, just an answer.

If by better you mean a better system, resulting in lower infant mortality rates,
Let us begin the schooling here; Infant mortality rates are not adjusted worldwide to account for ALL infant deaths. Apples and oranges.

longer lifespans, lower rates of chronic diseases,Not a measure of health care. This is a result of life styles and choices. These choices have societal consequences such as heart disease etc. Health care successes would have to be measured against recovery after the fact. Why do these socialist fat cats come to the USA for their life saving procedures?


better affordability and access to all citizens, lower national costs, lower deaths due to preventable diseases or easily-cured-if-treated-early diseases, and (yes believe it or not) even waiting times. then almost every other advanced industrialized nation is where you can find itMy gawd, you almost sound like O Blah Blah, and equally ignorant. Better affordibility? Are you insane? One more thing you cannot compare unless you equal the playing field. Out of pocket health care in a socialized medicine nation must be weighed against the TOTAL cost by adding in tax burden. As for waiting times, either you are willfully ignorant or lying through your keyboard. Waiting times are much greater in socialized medicine countries.
Access to all citizens? All citizens have access. Are you doing the DUmmy Shift and waffling between Health Insurance and Health Care? Prevention? Sure if by that you mean the gov't saves money by mandating sugar content, sodium content, mandatory P.T. for school children and any other totalitarian dictate to reduce cost. They also have a say in whether you get the treatment. How's that Hopey Dopey Changey thingy workin out?

malloc
04-23-2010, 04:53 PM
Are you talking about the cost due to government interference and frivolous lawsuits??

Of course not....

http://i48.tinypic.com/5uep6s.jpg


Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 -- Heavily subsidized HMO's keeping that failed, and too expensive system afloat. See, bailouts aren't new, just bigger in scale.

Uniform Health Care Information Act of 1985 -- Imposed heavy regulations on how medical records are kept, made available, and transported. Unfunded, passed on costs to the States.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or "HIPAA" -- Wow. Too much to deal with. Anyone who worked in Health IT at this time, like I did, knows that in just the Maricopa Integrated Health System alone, tens of millions were spent on becoming compliant. Many more millions were added to each years budget to remain compliant, and track our 'compliance'. You see that upturn on the graph around 2000-2002? That was the deadline for compliance. Notice how the graph as % of GDP levels out between 92ish and 2000. That's 8 years of no spending increases and even a slight decline, coincidentally, very little new regulation was enacted during this time period. Then HIPAA, and it shoots up again.

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act 2003 -- Not sure what the effects of this one are going to be. I'd need more research time that I don't have right now.


Look Wei. No one here is arguing that medical care isn't too expensive, or that anyone can get it. However, sooner or later you are going to have to face facts. The government has done enough already to break the system, and past performance indicates that more government B.S. is not going to fix it.

You point out that 'other countries' have government controlled medical systems, and their systems costs less. That's a farce. Money doesn't grow on trees. They pay for it in taxes, they pay for it in national sales taxes, VAT, gasoline and energy taxes. In tough times, they pay for it with inflation of their currency which hurts everyone, especially the poor. They pay for their health care out of their pockets, and that's a fact, they just don't pay it to their provider directly. You are forgetting that the governments of these other countries do not have the power to create wealth. The wealth required to cover the medical care has to come from somewhere, right? Go find out where it comes from.

Molon Labe
04-23-2010, 04:55 PM
Nothing in the graphs suggest that. Like I said, I am very opposed to what was passed in congress, as it is. I qualify it because there are some benefits coming from this bill, but without additional measures being passed (like [the biggest one] a public option and other cost-saving measures, adminstrative restructuring to get rid of some of the red tape, and incentives for more people to enter into the health industry).

The bill that passed is what you got though....so it is either a bill that will work or it will not work. If the main things you wanted is a public option then this bill is an abject failure and your buddy the big O' just showed his true colors.

I guarantee a plan that would both reduce costs, rid the sytem of the middle insurance man and bring more people into the medical profession and keep a free market system intact. Problem is liberals won't go for it because it doesn't use theft of taxpayers.

Here's the best public option. Ever heard of Dr. Robert Berry (http://www.aapsonline.org/freemarket/berry.htm)? This article is brief, but it's one of the best examples of just one of the main ways to get health care fixed.

Apocalypse
04-23-2010, 06:00 PM
Um. Everyone who's paid attention would have guessed it. Obama and the leaders in congress have very openly stated that the current bill primarily focuses on expansion of coverage, and additional measures will need to be taken to bring down costs.
No he did not, and that is a BS lie.


#
Three Facts about Barack Obama and Health Care
The Obama plan will lower health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family by investing in health information technology, prevention and care coordination. ...
www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/index_campaign.php - Cached

Obama says Senate healthcare plan will lower costs | Reuters
[Jul 15, 2009] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama welcomed the U.S. Senate health committee's approval of a proposal on Wednesday to overhaul healthcare, saying it would ...
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56E4C820090715 - 51k -

#
Meet Barack Obama: Health Care
Barack Obama has a plan to expand coverage, lower costs, improve care and ensure that no ... Obama's plans "include tackling medical inflation and spiraling health care costs, ...
www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_healthcare.cfm - Cached

#
Obama Will Promise Lower Cost Health Insurance
President Obama's let's-get-it-done health care speech tomorrow afternoon will touch on the predictable points and make the case that it's a bipartisan bill, with ...
nydailynews.com/blogs/.../obama-will-promise-lower-cost.html - 61k - Cached

Any simple google search calls BS on that 'Everyone' would have guessed it. All were told that it would lower cost. Now we are being told, prep for higher cost.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:11 PM
Look Wei. No one here is arguing that medical care isn't too expensive, or that anyone can get it. However, sooner or later you are going to have to face facts. The government has done enough already to break the system, and past performance indicates that more government B.S. is not going to fix it.

You point out that 'other countries' have government controlled medical systems, and their systems costs less. That's a farce. Money doesn't grow on trees. They pay for it in taxes, they pay for it in national sales taxes, VAT, gasoline and energy taxes. In tough times, they pay for it with inflation of their currency which hurts everyone, especially the poor. They pay for their health care out of their pockets, and that's a fact, they just don't pay it to their provider directly. You are forgetting that the governments of these other countries do not have the power to create wealth. The wealth required to cover the medical care has to come from somewhere, right? Go find out where it comes from.

I always acknowledge that taxes are higher in these countries, however the financial burden of tax payers is balanced out because they also have higher wages, they have better work benefits, they pay less for education and health care (which are often the two largest expenses in any family) . When you take in all of these financial benefits into account, it more than makes up for higher tax rates.

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 07:24 PM
I always acknowledge that taxes are higher in these countries, however the financial burden of tax payers is balanced out because they also have higher wages, they have better work benefits, they pay less for education and health care (which are often the two largest expenses in any family) . When you take in all of these financial benefits into account, it more than makes up for higher tax rates.

They are also facing financial collapse even before we do. Hello? I predict that the EU will not exist 10 years from now; nor will the Euro. If we think we have troubles, they have way bigger troubles. What part of "no money" do you people on the Left not understand. You could tax at 100% and it would still take decades for many global governments to become solvent. Wake the fuck up!

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:27 PM
They are also facing financial collapse even before we do. Hello? I predict that the EU will not exist 10 years from now; nor will the Euro. If we think we have troubles, they have way bigger troubles. What part of "no money" do you people on the Left not understand. You could tax at 100% and it would still take decades for many global governments to become solvent. Wake the fuck up!

We can speculate on the unknowable future based on people who are sponsored by "panic investment companies", or we can look at known history which demonstrates that the European higher tax rates have not yet destroyed their families or their corporations and that they live with higher wages, better work standards, universal health care and inexpensive education.

Lager
04-25-2010, 07:29 PM
they pay less for education and health care (which are often the two largest expenses in any family) . When you take in all of these financial benefits into account, it more than makes up for higher tax rates.

Largest expenses in a family? Where do you get these ridiculous assumptions? What about housing, transportation, and food? You obviously aren't the provider for any family.

Apocalypse
04-25-2010, 07:34 PM
We don't need to speculate on the future. Look at Greece. Look at Spain. Look at the UK. Look at any EU nation.

They all are going broke, or are already there. Taxing their people into the dirt, while the whole time, cutting those same 'benefits' that all liberals believe we must have here. Hell look at Belgium. They don't even have enough hospitals to treat their own people, and must contract out with its neighbors to treat their own people under their failing health-care program that has cancer patients waiting up to 6 months before they receive treatment, which many with cancer die before they get to see a doctor.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:35 PM
Largest expenses in a family? Where do you get these ridiculous assumptions? What about housing, transportation, and food? You obviously aren't the provider for any family.

Often, not always. If your family is in perfect health and you do not have any student loans and your children are not attending college, then you're right, those other (also large) costs will dominate the expenses.

Europe has better public transportation systems, and instead of being dominated by government Projects (aka: the Ghettos in America), they have higher standard housing projects from non-profit organizations and their legal requirements for acceptable housing are far better than ours.

Off the top of my head, I can't remember food policies so I can't comment on that.

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 07:36 PM
We can speculate on the unknowable future based on people who are sponsored by "panic investment companies", or we can look at known history which demonstrates that the European higher tax rates have not yet destroyed their families or their corporations and that they live with higher wages, better work standards, universal health care and inexpensive education.


Just remember that prediction and where you read it, WWW. It is already starting to happen even as we discuss it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:39 PM
We don't need to speculate on the future. Look at Greece. Look at Spain. Look at the UK. Look at any EU nation.

They all are going broke, or are already there. Taxing their people into the dirt, while the whole time, cutting those same 'benefits' that all liberals believe we must have here. Hell look at Belgium. They don't even have enough hospitals to treat their own people, and must contract out with its neighbors to treat their own people under their failing health-care program that has cancer patients waiting up to 6 months before they receive treatment, which many with cancer die before they get to see a doctor.

Just do a google search for 'American going bankrupt' or 'American financial crisis'

That's not something unique to Europe, that's also going on here where we do not have NEARLY the sort of social programs that they do, and we also have far more money over all.

The 2008 financial crisis affected most nations, especially our European allies. To blame it on 'liberals' again is fetishistic scapegoating.

I haven't looked too much into Belgium so I can't comment on it but I'll be sure to look into it, as well as their history, their current social/poltiical context, and their specific policies and problems to get a broad idea of what is going on there.

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 07:40 PM
Look at Denmark. Wages are high...they have to be, given the punishing tax rates.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:41 PM
Just remember that prediction and where you read it, WWW. It is already starting to happen even as we discuss it.

I wonder how far back I can look at the predictions being posted here.

Specifically predictions about the 2006 congressional elections, the predictions about the 2008 presidential elections, the predictions about your doctors office turning into the DMV with white gloves, and the other lovely predictions coming from the people at this site.

Apocalypse
04-25-2010, 07:41 PM
Often, not always. If your family is in perfect health and you do not have any student loans and your children are not attending college, then you're right, those other (also large) costs will dominate the expenses.

Europe has better public transportation systems, and instead of being dominated by government Projects (aka: the Ghettos in America), they have higher standard housing projects from non-profit organizations and their legal requirements for acceptable housing are far better than ours.

Off the top of my head, I can't remember food policies so I can't comment on that.
I can call BS on this one right now.

European Ghettos

Based on the four definitional attributes, ghettos exist in most, if not all, of the industrialized European countries even in the twenty-first century. There are, of course, no more Jewish ghettos. Contemporary European problems involve visible minorities, namely recent, and second, if not third, generation immigrants.

In France, the poorer banlieues, or suburbs, especially those of Paris, house an impoverished population, largely of North African Muslim and black African origin, in large high-rise building developments known as Cités. These were built in the 1960s and 1970s in the industrial suburbs to the north and east of Paris, especially in the Seine-St-Denis area, as well as in other French cities like Villeurbanne near Lyon. They are similar in style to the large, inner-city, urban renewal projects in the United States, such as the former Cabrini Green in Chicago, and have similar problems. Though most of the young people were born in France, and are citizens, this North-African and African population has suffered routine discrimination in the job market as well as by the police. The 2005 riots in France originated within these ghettos as a reaction to legal discrimination and the attitude of French society that the minorities in ghettos threaten their secularism. Thus, although the generally poor economic situation aggravated social hardship, it was mostly the legal and security attributes that incited the unrest. On the other hand, most of the recent African immigrants, from places such as Cote d'Ivoire and Dakar, Senegal, prefer the biased, but functioning, legal system in the French ghettos over the complete breakdown and chaos in their home countries.

In Germany, the “post-war economic miracle” happened with considerable help from Turkish immigrants. They came, officially invited in, to boost a much-needed labor force in the heavy machinery sectors and, as in France, they settled in ghettos. They did not seem to mind, and certainly their social, economic and overall way of life dramatically improved, as long as the “economic miracle” lasted. With increasing unemployment in the machinery sector and other industries, the state had to step in and, to preempt riots, offered the Turkish families reasonable settlements if they returned to their homeland.

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 07:43 PM
the predictions about your doctors office turning into the DMV with white gloves, and the other lovely predictions coming from the people at this site.

Oh it will, believe me. Wei you ignore my comments, yet I can speak from first hand about what is going to happen to your system. What's the matter, afraid I might be right?

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:44 PM
Isn't it interesting that the people who are most vocal about these devastating predictions are sponsored by companies that sell: Gold, Silver, Non-Hybrid Seeds, Security Protections, Computer Backups?

Every single one of those corporations benefit financially when people are frightened about a near collapse of the economy. If those corporations profit when people are scared of financial collapse, and they are sponsoring most of the pundits that preach that collapse is near, how many brain cells does it take to make the connection?

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:48 PM
I can call BS on this one right now.

European Ghettos

Based on the four definitional attributes, ghettos exist in most, if not all, of the industrialized European countries even in the twenty-first century. There are, of course, no more Jewish ghettos. Contemporary European problems involve visible minorities, namely recent, and second, if not third, generation immigrants.

In France, the poorer banlieues, or suburbs, especially those of Paris, house an impoverished population, largely of North African Muslim and black African origin, in large high-rise building developments known as Cités. These were built in the 1960s and 1970s in the industrial suburbs to the north and east of Paris, especially in the Seine-St-Denis area, as well as in other French cities like Villeurbanne near Lyon. They are similar in style to the large, inner-city, urban renewal projects in the United States, such as the former Cabrini Green in Chicago, and have similar problems. Though most of the young people were born in France, and are citizens, this North-African and African population has suffered routine discrimination in the job market as well as by the police. The 2005 riots in France originated within these ghettos as a reaction to legal discrimination and the attitude of French society that the minorities in ghettos threaten their secularism. Thus, although the generally poor economic situation aggravated social hardship, it was mostly the legal and security attributes that incited the unrest. On the other hand, most of the recent African immigrants, from places such as Cote d'Ivoire and Dakar, Senegal, prefer the biased, but functioning, legal system in the French ghettos over the complete breakdown and chaos in their home countries.

In Germany, the “post-war economic miracle” happened with considerable help from Turkish immigrants. They came, officially invited in, to boost a much-needed labor force in the heavy machinery sectors and, as in France, they settled in ghettos. They did not seem to mind, and certainly their social, economic and overall way of life dramatically improved, as long as the “economic miracle” lasted. With increasing unemployment in the machinery sector and other industries, the state had to step in and, to preempt riots, offered the Turkish families reasonable settlements if they returned to their homeland.

Well they do have substianial non-profit funded housing programs far better than our country's, but I'll acknowledge touché that you're right here and I shouldn't have overlooked the similarity of real ghettos in most countries.

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 07:50 PM
Wei you ignore my comments, yet I can speak from first hand about what is going to happen to your system. What's the matter, afraid I might be right?

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 07:59 PM
I wonder how far back I can look at the predictions being posted here.

Specifically predictions about the 2006 congressional elections, the predictions about the 2008 presidential elections, the predictions about your doctors office turning into the DMV with white gloves, and the other lovely predictions coming from the people at this site.

Those were not my predictions. This one is. Mind you, I could be wrong. After all there is a first time for everything. Me? I'd bet my life that I'm right. You are betting your life anyway, so we are even.

AmPat
04-26-2010, 09:21 AM
Just do a google search for 'American going bankrupt' or 'American financial crisis'

That's not something unique to Europe, that's also going on here where we do not have NEARLY the sort of social programs that they do, and we also have far more money over all.

The 2008 financial crisis affected most nations, especially our European allies. To blame it on 'liberals' again is fetishistic scapegoating.

I haven't looked too much into Belgium so I can't comment on it but I'll be sure to look into it, as well as their history, their current social/poltiical context, and their specific policies and problems to get a broad idea of what is going on there.

These two statements appear to confirm who is to blame.:cool:

Elspeth
04-26-2010, 03:50 PM
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

Who would have guessed this?

OF COURSE this was going to be what happened. You have two untrustworthy groups here: the Health insurance industry and Congress. No way ANYTHING good was going to come out of that.

:mad::mad::mad::mad: