Results 101 to 112 of 112
Thread: Affordable health care = hitler
23-10-2013, 05:22 PM #101
He may be thinking of "One Nation Under God", which is definitely a US thing. I can see it getting translated to German and Back to English oddly. It's also why I've blanket refused to have children in the US (my partner is from the US, but she prefers London so it's mostly hot air on my part).
23-10-2013, 05:28 PM #102
By the way, isn't The Queen technically the head of the Church of England? :p
Although, how The Queen works with UK culture has always kind of confused me. Legally the royal family are just a bunch of figure heads nobody ever has to listen to, right?
23-10-2013, 06:01 PM #103
As for the Queen. Technically she has supreme executive power, though that has a whole load of qualifications. So she can technically dismiss the government, call a new election, refuse to pass a bill into law etc. But actually she gives that royal prerogative to the Government (Prime minister etc.) who are part of the legislature. On the understanding that if she attempts to use it herself we'd probably cut off her head.
There's also the Privy Council which advices the Queen in the use of her powers and can issue orders in council, which are also laws (but haven't been near parliament), that typically gets used for things like granting universities their charter, giving royal seals to professional bodies (Royal Society for Scientists for example). However the council is generally made of the current Government and maybe a few other people like head judges. So again the Queen doesn't do anything apart from sign stuff the elected government tells her to. Again all under the tacit assumption we'd cut her head off, or if the Government tried passing something dodgy that way, cut off their heads.
They keep trying to formalise all this but it's a mess.
Oh and for Religion. Technically the Queen is Head of the Church of England, and they have appointees in the House of Lords (which is a body of review not the legislature itself), they're also historically the established church of the country. But various laws and the queens oath at coronation means they all have to promise to tolerate all other religions. Also the churches in Scotland and Wales aren't established and the Queen is just an ordinary member of them who makes an oath to defend them or something.
So yeah lots of stuff technically is de jure in charge of everything but de facto/de rigueur just a rubber stamp. Same goes for the Established church.
I'm not going to defend it for being a sensible solution. But the habit of just making do means; that when people say we should all swear oaths or salute a flag, they get told to fuck off.
EDIT: I realise this is of very little help re-reading it. Basically it's representative democracy that matches what John Locke suggested but not in any way anything like they way he would have organised it.
Last edited by Zephro; 23-10-2013 at 06:03 PM.
23-10-2013, 06:07 PM #104
Last edited by c-Row; 23-10-2013 at 06:12 PM.- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -
23-10-2013, 06:14 PM #105
23-10-2013, 06:59 PM #106
Reminds me why I usually stay away from the sulfuric pit that is the politics forum on other sites.- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -
23-10-2013, 10:49 PM #107
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
23-10-2013, 10:59 PM #108Historically speaking it's a rather recent development.
New poll shows 75% disapproval of most Republicans remaining in office.
According to the poll, only a third say they have a great deal or some confidence in the people who run government, down 10 points since May. And only 14% say they are satisfied with the way the nation is being governed. "That's an 11-point drop since March and is lower than the 26% who felt that way in September of 1973, when the Watergate crisis was in full swing," Holland added.
24-10-2013, 09:54 AM #109
Has anyone suggested reforming anything in light of this?
24-10-2013, 01:27 PM #110
I read the title of this thread as "Affordable Hitler care", everytime.
24-10-2013, 01:39 PM #111
04-10-2016, 08:33 PM #112
So, yesterday Bill Clinton said "Obamacare is whack." Or to be more complete, he said "it's better than what we had, but it still sucks donkey balls." The Trump campaign of course focused on the first part and ignored the part where he said that, bad as it is, it's better than repealing it as the Republicans and Trump want to do.
This is the peril in being honest about an issue if you're a politician. I suspect that just about everyone on the hill who cares about the issue (i.e. not most Republicans) is aware that anything short of a single-payer system is not going to curb out-of-control US health costs. They just won't say so because it hurts chances of making more incremental changes. Bernie Sanders being a notable exception. The problem with Bill Clinton's comments wasn't that he was wrong, but that he said it and allowed the myopic to seize on it.
Which brings me to the reason for necro'ing this thread, rather than starting something fresh. Skalpadda's link on the first page to a video that covers pretty comprehensively that the problem in the US is total cost of health care. We're paying more per person for less care and worse results for a variety of reasons, most notably being a lack of collective bargaining power. Individuals can't negotiate for better health care prices because health care isn't exactly optional.