too much to read...i'll read up on it later but one thing caught me eye

> [RPA]Sir SupAll wrote:

> Gladiator, you might as well just marry Obama if all you're going to talk about is Obama in the politics forum.  We don't even have to look at the title anymore - if the author is you, it's going to be about Obama.  I bet that if you were around in 2004, you would've made nothing but Kerry threads.

actually supall i HATED kerry and bush, i hated them both, i didn't vote, wasn't even interested in the election...this is the first time intersted and participating in an election

get them to understand that freelancer and i'll vote you instead of obamarama

France I KNOW has a better infant mortality rate because live births of terminally ill children aren't counted.  In the USA, if the kids is born alive, even if his lungs aren't fully formed and he dies in a few hours, he's counted towards our infant mortality statistics.   Each country does its own reporting.

UK controls costs by turning people down, right?   Sure we could do that, universal healthcare that works like our veteran's care---Sgt Roy Benevidez won a Medal of Honor in Vietnam, got shot six times and took a bayonet through the hand kicking ass and rescuing a squad, and then spent thirty years trying to get the VA to help him.   

But what always happens, always, when you give Americans a service and figure they'll use it as often as if they'd buy it---they triple their use and the price explodes.   Bush's Prescription Drug benefit is already 2x overbudget and Medicare is 30x what it was projected to cost.

"France I KNOW has a better infant mortality rate because live births of terminally ill children aren't counted.  In the USA, if the kids is born alive, even if his lungs aren't fully formed and he dies in a few hours, he's counted towards our infant mortality statistics.   Each country does its own reporting."

The data i am refering is given by WHO and there definition is "a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat."

"UK controls costs by turning people down, right?" link please lol

"less infant mortality rate and larger life expectancies doesnt mean better healthcare. if i was in need of life threatening surgery, the best in the world is inside my country's border."

1- lol inside of your country's border? i do not think that it is true...
2- if less infant mortatilty rate and larger life expectancies do not mean better healthcare what do they mean?

"
2- if less infant mortatilty rate and larger life expectancies do not mean better healthcare what do they mean?"

they mean nothing by themselves.

there are alot of ways a better infant death rate or better life expectancy to be achieved for example. if anything is going wrong during the pregnacy or during the birth, if they would immediatly abort the child, regardless of the parent's wish's; it would drastically reduce the infant death rate. if you controlled your population's diet and exercise, and put people on life support for as long as possible when they're near death, you would drastically increase life expectancy. does any of those make the country have better health care? i dont think so.

pffft u guys are impossible

Freelancer - less infant mortality rates means very little, at a guess - that is one issue that would not be denied in a universal health care setting.  That said, it's standard belief that anything the private sector can do, the government can take twice as much money, and twice as much time, to do half as well.  Ideally? Yeah, it'd be great - but this isn't an ideal world, so you do the best you can with what you have.

However, higher life expectancy?  Think about it.  The U.S. Burger and fries staple?  *Raging* obesity as a nation?  Smoking numbers?

Bad news - US has more cars (deaths), more obesity (death), and more smoking (death), per capita than all those countries... healthcare can only do so much for a nation that so happily enjoys killing ourselves.  You're point is fine - but the issue is that you don't want to delve down into something and prove it, you want to prove what you believe :-p

And gladiator - if we were in person, I would ask you about 5 broad questions about obama's policies - i bet you that you wouldn't get a one correct :-p 
Secondarily, gladiator, you hated kerry?  Interesting... since he and obama are dang near the same person :-P

> windowsME wrote:

> Freelancer - less infant mortality rates means very little, at a guess - that is one issue that would not be denied in a universal health care setting.  That said, it's standard belief that anything the private sector can do, the government can take twice as much money, and twice as much time, to do half as well.  Ideally? Yeah, it'd be great - but this isn't an ideal world, so you do the best you can with what you have.

However, higher life expectancy?  Think about it.  The U.S. Burger and fries staple?  *Raging* obesity as a nation?  Smoking numbers?

Bad news - US has more cars (deaths), more obesity (death), and more smoking (death), per capita than all those countries... healthcare can only do so much for a nation that so happily enjoys killing ourselves.  You're point is fine - but the issue is that you don't want to delve down into something and prove it, you want to prove what you believe :-p

And gladiator - if we were in person, I would ask you about 5 broad questions about obama's policies - i bet you that you wouldn't get a one correct :-p 
Secondarily, gladiator, you hated kerry?  Interesting... since he and obama are dang near the same person :-P

im just lazy and dont feel like doing the research to compare the car deaths in the US to other countries for example. those numbers obviously prove very little because of the so many factors that influence infancy death rates and life expectancy, and i shouldnt have to look up multiple ones for these idiots to realize it.

and barak obama isnt the same as kerry, barak is black, younger, and a better public speaker and thats all the reasons why he is more popular.

"And gladiator - if we were in person, I would ask you about 5 broad questions about obama's policies - i bet you that you wouldn't get a one correct :-p 
Secondarily, gladiator, you hated kerry?  Interesting... since he and obama are dang near the same person :-P"

shoot away..
and well maybe hate is a bit too strong, but i didn't like him, i go for more than just the policies, it has to be also about who i think can and will deliver, and also obama is the first candidate in a long time who handles things differently, and that's shown through campaign decisions, speeches, and beliefs

and avo, frankly if obama wasn't black he would have a tad bit more supporters,

> Gladiator wrote:

>
and avo, frankly if obama wasn't black he would have a tad bit more supporters,

if Obama wasnt black, none of us would of heard of him, even me when i've lived in Chicago.