Took the Test. Fred, Mitt and Tom were my most likely. With two of them gone it only leaves Mitt. Not quite as good as Ron but close enough.

ProudUSC: She's the second best bet to match your own positions on major issues that you yourself deem are good for the country. If she's nominated(?) and voted against her, that's becoming unpatriotic, by putting your own interests before those of the country's. (Just teasing you, my friend).

For anyone else who wants to take the test, here is the link again:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346

It's been quite interesting to see everyone's results really, a mixture somewhat.

It's official, Maria Shriver endorsed Obama - a great divide between hers and California governor husband's backing McCain.

Women not voting for Hillary are shemales.

quote:

Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
ProudUSC: She's the second best bet to match your own positions on major issues that you yourself deem are good for the country. If she's nominated(?) and voted against her, that's becoming unpatriotic, by putting your own interests before those of the country's. (Just teasing you, my friend).

Sorry, RN, I didn't like Hillary as First Lady. I saw how she retreated in the background when her Health Care plan was dismissed. During her campaign, she has waffled on various issues and I don't trust her. If it becomes a contest between Hillary and McCain, I will have to choose McCain because I think he is much better suited to be our Commander in Chief.

I saw an advertisement for her campaign tonight, she mentions health care again. If I could vote, Healtcare would be one of my priorities.

I watched Sicko last night..very interesting doc/film. Having lived in 3 of those countries mentioned in it (including US) I have to agree that he is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
It's official, Maria Shriver endorsed Obama - a great divide between hers and California governor husband's backing McCain.

\
Not a great surprise given that Ms Shriver's family endorsed Obama, nor would it be or any great consequence to Arnold nor Maria whoever wins the Presidential election.

Sprint, I have a question. In the one part of the movie he was trying to make the case that the doctors over there do just as well as the doctors here. Trying to show its not the doctors who oppose any change to the current system. The one they showed driving an Audi and living in the decent place, is that typical? Or was he an exception. Even if typical most doctors here earn more than 200k which I think is what he claimed to earn.

Do you have any idea about what percentage of actual taxes paid over there actually goes to the universal medical plan? Is it a flat tax regardless of wage? Or is it a percentage or worse progressive based on income?

quote:

Originally posted by Sprint_girl07:
I watched Sicko last night..very interesting doc/film. Having lived in 3 of those countries mentioned in it (including US) I have to agree that he is correct.

The problem with Michael Moore's so called documentary is that from the very moment his intentions were very clear on what he wanted to show you. That violates the pure essence of what a documentary really is.

Make no mistake, there are very serious economic issues plaguing the US health care system. However, our system cannot be compared to any European, nor Asian health care system either. The problems we are facing is somewhat unique, not because of insurance companies, or pharmaceuticals, but because we are in an aging population that are living longer, but also having more health problems in that same time span.

Most Americans will not support long waiting lines for something that they consider is their right to obtain. Nor would they support the extreme higher taxes needed to support those single payer or universal health care. It will also destroy independent insurance agents and their livelihoods. How do you propose to send 400,000 insurance agents will now have to be reteined. These individuals are not someone who is living off welfare, but most are professionals with good incomes in the middle income range. They will not want nor expect a handout from the government that will ruin their career and their families.

It is more complicated than what any politician has described in their advertising for voters.

Davdah I will get back with those answers, as I want to check the percentage currently.

Hudson, we also have private insurance in the UK and rest of Europe. Some people get this either through their company or independently. BUPA is widely used for example.
People get it usually because they can have a choice whether to go NHS or private when they want a doctor or when admitted to hospital.
Waiting for say a hip replacement can reduce the amount of time to get one. My dad waited 3 months for his, not bad really on NHS. He didn't pay a penny, and was out walking again very soon afterwards.

Waiting times, wow, my experience so far in this country has been terrible regarding waiting times. The last time I was in ER, I was sent there because they suspected Pulmonary Embolisms. I had trouble breathing. I was alone until someone managed to come by which was hours later.
I waited in ER for 5 hrs before I was seen to be told ok sit back outside, you will be called soon to see a doctor. No lie. I didn't even have a drink, as I could not leave the ER to find one (nothing around it). I ended up dehydrated which made it worse for them to find a vein.
Eventually 7 hrs from when I entered the ER, I was given a bed, tests were done and all that.
Thankfully it was not PE.

I have a history or PE, and I was left to sit outside waiting. I could have had serious problems if it was PE.
In England the most time I have ever waited in my whole life is 1.5 hrs, and that was because it was really really busy.
When I had a PE or threaten PE, I am taken immediately to a bed to keep my legs off the floor.

The previous time to my last visit was also because they thought I had PE. Cut a long story short, first test showed 100% that I did not have clots, but they decided to take scans just in case.After several types of scans and tests, they said yes I have PE and was admitted. I kept asking them during my stay to please check my tests results as how can the diagnosis be definitely not to definitely yes just like that. After 4 days and being on Morphine, blood thinners, the doctor listened to me and did check. He came back said you are right we are sorry, you can leave now you have pleurisy. Just take advil. (turns out I went back to clinic to get steroids in the end for pain and cleared up in a week).

I am sorry but for a system where you pay for your treatment and supposedly a good one, I have had very bad experiences here. Waiting times,misdiagnosis, treatment in hospitals.
National health care now looking back is so much better. I complained when I had it, but once you see what you did have, you appreciate it so much more.
No one really understands the concept of national health care unless they have experienced both side of the spectrum, National Health care and private insurance/no insurance.

Ooh sorry it was a long post.

Davdah, here is the current rates at present I believe:

http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Work/Employment.htm

It also explains how its taken out.

Yes doctors are paid well and do have nice cars, nice houses and all that, but some doctors feel they should be paid more. The cost of living is higher so they would like to have an increase because of this, like anywhere else really.
My old doctor had flashy cars, a huge house and had a life of luxury, but he also worked a lot of hours.
One of our problems is short staff. Nurses are not well paid. Doctors need nurses, patients need nurses.
My sister is a Sister on a hospital ward, she loves her job, but she gets fraustrated because of short staff and too many patients.

Hi Sprint,

I have to agree with you regarding the long wait times in emergency rooms here in the States. I've had some pretty bad experiences too. A few years ago, I injured my wrist (on a weekend, of course, when no doctor will see you), so I went to the ER. From arrival, to departure I think I was there 4 1/2 hours! Ridiculous. I wonder if they are short staffed? Anyway, they treated me for a sprain (after taking many xrays) and sent me on my way. I knew the injury was more serious, so I followed up with a vist to an Orthopedist. It turns out my wrist was fractured and need to be immobilized in a cast. So not only was the ER wait time exhausting, but they misdiagnosed my injury. Pretty incompetent in my opinion.

Those tax rates are kind of steep. Especially if you fall in the range where you make around $1200 a week. I would guess that is the majority of people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080205/cm_usatoday/i...supposedtogolikethis

It wasn't supposed to go like this

Tue Feb 5, 12:16 AM ET

By Michael Medved


The only safe prediction about campaign 2008 is that no prediction is safe.

Experts once assumed, for instance, that today's "Tsunami Tuesday" primaries and caucuses would settle the nomination struggles in both parties. It's now obvious, however, that hand-to-hand combat over delegates could continue for weeks, if not months, at least among the Democrats.

The upset victory by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire — confounding nearly unanimous pollster predictions — represented only the most celebrated among many shocks and twists on the road to the White House. In a more general sense, the campaign has also exploded unquestioned assumptions while providing three startling lessons for political players and open-minded observers:

1. No, party elites — and talk radio — don't get to pick the nominee.

On the Democratic side, officeholders, fundraisers, lobbyists, activist organizations and other elements of the liberal establishment initially tilted so heavily toward Clinton that pundits assumed she'd waltz to the nomination. Then Barack Obama won his crushing victory in Iowa, followed by the landslide in South Carolina. Clinton could yet win the nomination, but voters have shown a stubborn reluctance to follow recommendations from their esteemed leaders — even disregarding a popular ex-president.

On the Republican side, the reigning Titans of Talk who reach millions of daily radio listeners waged relentless war against two break-the-mold interlopers, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, only to see them run strongly in the early primaries. I've stood virtually alone in resisting the feverish, furious, monochromatic hostility toward Mac and Huck, and yet those reviled candidates (widely denounced as "phony conservatives") together drew 63% of the vote in deeply conservative South Carolina. (Even among "very conservative" voters, McCain and Huckabee combined pulled a heavy majority.) The grand pooh-bahs of the conservative elite have harmed their own credibility more than they have damaged the candidates.

2. No, money doesn't matter most.

The theory that fundraising prowess determines electoral success looks unreliable and misguided after the first flurry of primary contests. Among Democrats, the two leaders (Clinton and Obama) managed to link fundraising prowess to vote-getting success. But in Republican contests, financially strapped candidates (McCain and Huckabee) regularly topped campaigns with impressive resources. In Iowa, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney outspent Huckabee by a ratio of at least 15-to-1 and finished nine points behind the underfunded upstart. Romney has spent by far the most money of any candidate in either party, but his lavish expenditures on negative advertising might have worked against him. In South Carolina, he heavily outspent all competitors but finished a feeble fourth. In Florida, Romney ran 4,475 TV ads compared with McCain's 470 — but the Arizonan prevailed by a decisive 5-point margin.

Meanwhile, cantankerous Ron Paul set records for Internet fundraising, and his supporters even launched the first-ever campaign blimp. But his oddball adventure has yielded four delegates, and he never competed seriously for first place anywhere. This year, abundant funding has been neither a guarantee, nor a requirement, for a competitive showing.

3. No, immigration reform is not an obsessive voter concern.

During the ferocious immigration debate last year, commentators declared that McCain had doomed his candidacy with his co-sponsorship of comprehensive reform. Conventional wisdom suggested that Republicans harbored unquenchable rage toward illegal aliens and would reward candidates who shared their fury. As primary season unfolded, though, the Republicans identifying illegals as the nation's No. 1 menace (Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter) generated no mass support and dropped out, while McCain staged his improbable comeback. At last, some Republican analysts have begun to realize that the party only hurt itself with its frenzied focus on immigration — especially when Democrats barely touched the issue.

Two recent major polls (by NBC/Wall Street Journal and New York Times/CBS News) showed "illegal immigration" near the bottom of the list of voters' top concerns. Activists on the "Minute Man" fringe and talk radio demagogues may continue to pound away at immigrants as a doomsday threat, but the candidates have started to move on — particularly as the primary calendar leads to states with significant Hispanic populations. The collapse of immigration fever, even among the GOP, suggests that there's little chance the issue will dominate the general election, beyond universal agreement on tightening border security.

With so many contests in so many corners of the country today (including big delegate hauls in California, Illinois and New York), we can reasonably expect more bombshells and upsets. Most of them will push our politics in the same direction as the three shocks above — toward the middle of the road, where ordinary people yearn for an end to hyperpartisan hysterics and prefer common sense and cooperation.

In past elections, campaigns assumed that primaries were won by appealing to the base — running right for Republicans, left for Democrats — and then moving toward the center only after nominations had been secured. This year, the front-loaded schedule and intriguing slate of candidates brought more everyday voters into the system earlier than ever, diluting the influence of activists, agitators, fundraisers and political pros. The haphazard nomination system might look odd, awkward, ill-conceived and clumsy, but it has already displayed the formidable virtue of upending glib prognostications and opening and enlivening the process.

Sprint girl-
same ER experiences. I am not going to tell the story here because of all the drones and trolls in here, I'd rather do it in a PM, but anyway, I often wondered while in the ER if they even care.
I was once in the ER with a friend who injured himself heavily and because he had no insurance, I had to literally make fuss and force the doctor to treat his wound and give him stitches after about 5-7 hours of waiting with an open uncleaned wound.

WOW. I know.

The ER is set up for just that. Emergency situations. The problem is many use it as a primary care facility. If you have 200 people showing up because they have a cold who can't be turned away how can you expect a speedy response?

Guess who uses it the most as primary care?

For anyone interested, here is another site to match you with your candidate of choice:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/selec.../poll.php?race_id=13