PDA

View Full Version : Trouble in paradise (UK)



SteveW
05-05-2011, 07:38 PM
Saw this today when web browsing for another article. I was under the impression that everyone in Great Britain liked the National Health Service. Apparently, though, I was wrong, and they appear to be having some difficulty recruiting enough MDs to run their medical services.

************************************************** ****************


Daily Mail (London), March 22, 2011

The level of English among some foreign doctors is ‘absolutely awful’, hospital bosses have said.

Some cannot even speak well enough to communicate with patients, they warned.

Bosses at Queen’s Hospital in Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, revealed the poor level of English in their doctors from overseas after complaints from both staff and patients.

Chief executive of the Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Helen Ashley said many of the problems centred on them being unable to understand English sufficiently.

The hospital is struggling to employ middle grade, registrar-level doctors, and has on occasion to employ a locum doctor to cover a shift, Ms Ashley said.

While the application process for consultants involved their English and communication skills being tested with simulation of a meeting with a patient, Ms Ashley said she could not account for the English skills of locums, who work at the hospital on a temporary basis.

Helen Ashley said the hospital has been forced to rely on locums whose English isn’t always up to standard

She added doctors from India and Pakistan had similar training to English doctors but due to changes to the NHS recruitment process and the drop in the value of the pound, many now prefer to go to work in countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

The chairman of the Burton Hospitals Trust, Jim Morrison, said: ‘I don’t want to sound racist, but some of the worst-speaking doctors that I have come across have been from Europe.

‘They are free to travel in Europe and occasionally their communication of English can be absolutely awful.’

Local people in the town have also complained about the issue.

Chairman of East Staffordshire Borough Council’s health sub-committee, Trevor Hathaway, told a meeting at Burton Town Hall: ‘A couple of weeks ago, a relative of mine met a consultant and he couldn’t understand a word he was saying.

‘Not only that, the nurse had to tell him what to write on the paperwork.’

Ms Ashley added: ‘That’s not the first time I have heard that, or seen it in a complaint letter.

‘We had one doctor there were two or three complaints about his language skills.

‘He was hard to understand.’

Ian Gills
05-06-2011, 06:55 PM
American doctors are pretty hard to understand because they don't speak Queen's english either.

I am amazed at how many doctors and nurses you have here that were born abroad. Many of them trained in England and worked in English hospitals before coming to the US. There are many many nurses and doctors working in American hospitals who were born in Iran, China, India and elsewhere.

And virtually all think the British way is a better way.

The word on the street in American hospitals is that health care here has become all about the money and not about the patient.

And I would agree.

But that's your system. So live with it. Get ill and go to God. Because nobody here is going to help you.

That's called the American dream. Sink or swim. And dog eat dog. Unless you have God. In which case the congregation will help you.

So believe or die.

Just like other countries we know.

40 to kill one man. And only one person shot at them. Hardly an elite team. More like a field trip! The tea party should be up in arms at such a waste of taxpayers' money. But no. They'd rather target the poor American's healthcare than military waste.

SteveW
05-06-2011, 07:04 PM
Ian, you are a hoot!

Never know what you're going to say next.

By the way, we actually test our incoming candidates for medical training for English proficiency. I understand in the British system the EU won't let you do this -

absolutely amazing!

Hope they can sleep at night.

Cookie
05-06-2011, 07:41 PM
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada
Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 12:55 PM
Wesley J. Smith
One of the excellent aspects of the current American health care system is that most people can get immediate help if they become very ill. Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–months that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying.

I decided to do a little research on cancer survival rates, and it turns out USA is # 1. From the fact sheet put out in 07 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology :

•American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.] •American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
•Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
•For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

But what about Canada, Wesley? Canada is the ideal of single payer health care:

Canada’s system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O’Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada:

•For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
•For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Early diagnosis is the key, which gets us to the crucial screening issue:

It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government.

* In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
* The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.

Cookie
05-06-2011, 07:48 PM
I don't understand why it took so much security to protect 2 people on their wedding day Ian, to the tune of a 33 million dollars? Instead of spending that kind of money, they could have had a quiet event just meant for the 2 of them, and put that kind of money to better use. That would had fed a lot of people.

Jerome2877
05-06-2011, 08:13 PM
In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article[11] by the Norwegian cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005.[12][13] Several articles in other scientific journals were withdrawn following the withdrawal in The Lancet. Within a week, the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding its published research papers by the same author and in November 2006, the journal withdrew two oral cancer studies led by the Norwegian researcher.[14]

Cookie
05-07-2011, 05:10 AM
The Norwegian people have a lessor survivial rate than previously, thought.

Jerome2877
05-07-2011, 05:47 PM
The problem like I have said before is your healthcare is for people who can afford the right to live in the U.S. We all have that right in Canada and I am proud of this!

Cookie
05-07-2011, 07:00 PM
It never ceases to amaze me just how little people realize and know of my country. I am very proud of the USA! We are truly the best country to live in, to be born in, and to get sick in. God bless America.

Ian Gills
05-08-2011, 11:37 AM
Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–months that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying.

This is just false.

The fact of the matter is you will live as long, if not longer, in Canada and the UK.

The only difference is we do not pay as much for our healthcare because the State (as the major buyer) can push down prices.

Why do Americans fail to realize that they are just suckers?

Save yourselves some money and change the system.

Or continue to believe big business who want you to pay more.

Cookie
05-08-2011, 11:47 AM
Time is of the essence in treating most diseases, especially the big c. Now, Ian, you can believe what you care to believe, but, because of my fate, I am heavily involved in this realm, and, trust me on this, your health care system really does suck for one huge reason, Ian: Time. Time is NOT on the side of your patients. That is the truth. You do not like Americans, and I could care less, I have no reason to lie.

Besides, how would you know? You do not live there, and when you get cancer, make sure you move back there for your tx's as not to burden ours.

Cookie
05-08-2011, 12:01 PM
Plus, the recent seminar I attended was discussing about Canada and the UK cutting back on their healthcare because they cannot afford it.

Plus, their was discussion on this, for your information, and this is with a country who sometimes, do not have bandages.

The Associated Press October 22, 2010, 10:55AM ET text size: TTCuba gives details on new tax system
By PAUL HAVEN


Cuba has laid out details of a sweeping tax system for the newly self-employed -- a crucial step in the socialist state's plan to convert hundreds of thousands of state workers into self-employed businesspeople.

The tax code described in a two-page spread in the Communist Party newspaper Granma will have many Cubans paying more than a third of their income to the state, while those who create businesses and hire their own employees will pay more.

Cuba announced last month that it was laying off half a million state workers -- nearly 10 percent of the island's work force -- while opening up more avenues for self employment.

At times, the article reads like a children's lesson for a population with little experience at entrepreneurship -- and almost none with the concept of taxes. It also offers a detailed peek at a mix of levies that would be complicated even for an accountant.

Throughout, there is an attempt to soften the blow by explaining that no government can provide services without revenue.

"Perhaps because Cubans are used to receiving medical care without taking a penny out of our pocket, or studying for free at any educational center we want, few stop to ask where the money the state uses for this comes from," the article reads.

Those selling goods and services will pay a 10 percent income tax monthly, as well as another 25 percent into a social security account, from which they will eventually draw a pension.

Those who hire employees also will also have to pay a 25 percent payroll tax. The article says taxes will rise for successful businesses with many employees, but does not give details.

"The tax has a regulatory character in order to avoid a concentration of wealth or the indiscriminate use of the labor force," the article says. "The more people hired, the higher the tax burden."

Anyone making more than 50,000 Cuban pesos ($2,400) a year will have to open a bank account and keep detailed books -- perhaps creating a market for the private accountants who will be allowed under the economic reforms. Those who earn less need only maintain a list of income and costs. Most Cuban state workers make about $20 a month.

The article says people in some forms of self-employment will be exempt from the 10 percent tax and instead will pay a fixed amount each month, regardless of what they make. It does not say which jobs will be eligible for this approach, however, nor say how much tax workers will pay. These workers will also be obligated to pay the social security tax.

The reforms are an effort to breathe life into a dormant socialist economy that can no longer afford to provide free or nearly free health care, education and basic food to its population. They are the most significant adopted by the communist government since at least the early 1990s.

The new system borrows many aspects of capitalism, while keeping in place Cuba's state-dominated control of the economy. Citizens will be allowed to apply for licenses to work for themselves in just 178 areas, from car maintenance to rabbit farming, accounting to circus clown.

Cookie
05-08-2011, 12:04 PM
Ian, I suggest you go apply for one of those licenses, ie., clown.

SteveW
05-08-2011, 02:09 PM
Cookie, you nailed it!

Got this from BBC News:

************************************************** **********************
There is a huge variation in cancer survival rates across the world, a global study shows.
The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported.
The UK fared pretty poorly, trailing most of its western European neighbours - although the data is from the 1990s since when survival rates have risen.
Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.
Researchers said higher spending often meant quicker access to tests and treatment.
************************************************** ************

Jerome2877
05-08-2011, 05:16 PM
Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.
Researchers said higher spending often meant quicker access to tests and treatment

Sure for people that are covered! What about those who can't afford it? They are certainly not part of these studies are they? Why? Because they don't have the right to live so no treatment for you and we won't count that death because we didn't treat them!

DonL
05-08-2011, 05:17 PM
Hello All,

The Only Cure for Cancer, Is Death. I don't care where You Live.

My Mother Died from Cancer. I do miss her on this day most, and every day.

She is in a much better place than I am.


I will Love our reunion... Some Day...


DonL

Cookie
05-08-2011, 05:47 PM
I am sorry to hear that Don. Mine died of breast cancer, she was 55, she had insurance. My dad died of lung cancer he was 62, he had insurance. I lost an uncle to Leukemia, and another 6 uncles to lung cancer, all insured. My last aunt is battling breast cancer. One died in her 20's of a brain tumor. So, when I was struck at age 44 on my birthday yet I was told this, I got mad. Real mad. I kind of thought I would get it, :) wouldn't you? with THAT family history? But, I thought I was safe til 50, not so. I initially thought, I can't beat this, then, I thought I have a cause to. To show my kids, you can! I have battled it more times than not, but, I am determined not to let negative thoughts interfere I have something to live for. I am living with cancer. Don, mine IS incurable, but, with or without insurance, I fight it. I fight it for all those who didn't make it. I battle for new drugs, newer treatments, treatments and money available for everyone, I am sometimes, their experiment. Yet, in 98, when I was told I have 5 years, I am here now, how many years? I have finished educating my kids, myself, I have fixed my house, myself, I have worked and provided, I have finished almost 6 years on drugs, drugs like my onc said, "would bring a big man down to his knees, let alone a 118 pound woman, 5'3 without stilettos." I have been there on numerous occassions for men in the hospital who was laying there crying they were afraid, I held their hand and made them laugh, I said, " look at me!" adding, " if i can do it you can too!" I have tried to make others understand, cancer, is not just of the body, but, of the mind and spirit and all 3 have to be treated. Ian, you need to believe in something. Or your spirit is a waste. Your mind is a waste. And, your body is just that, a body. It should have a spirit, too...and a mind to recognize the power in believing in something greater than I. Yesterday, I held my grandson. Who would had ever thought.

My birthday is a big thing in my life. I tell everyone, I want cakes, (s) cards (s) AND, I want to shake them and $ fall out, LOL; I want balloons, and cray paper streamers, and nicely, wrapped presents! Many. :) I do not see getting another year older than anything but getting better! Wiser, prettier, sexier, funnier, and more in tune in life. Each year, I am more grateful, appreciative for all the things which matter in life. Who makes me, me.

I am without a doubt very glad to be alive. And, I challenge myself all the time. I am actually in the G. Book of world's records.

I live to show others, that you can beat whatever, you want in life, with the attitude, mind & spirit.

I will go down someday, saying, either to myself, or to another, fight! Live! Love! and Laugh! I will someday, go with a smile on my face and red stilettos. :)

SteveW
05-08-2011, 06:08 PM
Jerome 2877 said:
Sure for people that are covered! What about those who can't afford it? They are certainly not part of these studies are they? Why? Because they don't have the right to live so no treatment for you and we won't count that death because we didn't treat them
************************************************** ***

No question that the US system has flaws. There are certainly many uninsured people and that's a tragedy.

Having said that, everyone who needs emergent care can get it at any emergency room. We also have an extensive system called Medicaid, and the truly indigent can access very good care, excellent prescription drug coverage, etc.

Doesn't make up for the folks in the middle, the recently unemployed who don't have the money to pay for private health insurance, but don't qualify for Medicaid. The system needs fixing, but I do not believe that a government-run system is the way to go. Having worked in several government-run health systems, I can tell you that there are MANY problems with having the government make decisions about who gets care, under what circumstances, what kind of care, who delivers the care, etc.

No matter what system you propose, rationing happens. Right now in the US, rationing is done based on whether you have insurance or not. In government-run systems, they still ration care but use different models and different terms. In England, they ration care by delaying entrance into the system.

Ian Gills
05-08-2011, 06:16 PM
They don't ration care in England.

They just spend more which they can do because the English are not afraid to pay taxes.

We tax the rich.

You don't.

Because you are scared to. Which is ridiculous.

Cookie
05-08-2011, 06:28 PM
Ian, from what I hear your country is going to be changing your healthcare, if you don't believe me, check into it yourself and see. Come back and then, tell me.

You don't understand Ian about ours. As Steve said, you can walk into an emergency room and have surgery, heart surgery even, without insurance. I know someone who did. He nearly died. But, he didn't.

There are so many options for people. Yes, it is better to have insurance, from an employer and a direct pay but, that in itself is not perfect either. There are many types to pick from. Where co's are different, etc. So, it is something you ask about which fits you, because all insurance is not a one-size fit all like some potatoe sack dress Ian.

For those who don't work, you have choices, too. You can get state welfare. My aunt was on it. You can get medcaid, or medicare if you are disabled.

Your stats in your country Ian is not good. I sincerely hope you believe me on this, I know you got family there. Ian, the truth is, in the US, with our knowledge people with or without insurance, have a better chance of survivial with big diseases or health problems, like heart, etc.

I don't know why you think what you do, i.e. we are afraid to tax the rich! Goofy stuff like you write at times, that to me and others, makes no sense Ian. I don't understand why they wore they stupid hats at that wedding, lol, but, it is not to me to judge. They like them that is all that matters.

I wonder Ian, if I came to the UK or even to Canada what kind of health care I would get? I am a big ticket item guys. I got 3 brain tumors, and NHL, a hemolytic anemia, my hearing is gone in one ear, nearly, gone in the other, and I can't use my right arm much. So, tell me, would they pay for me? I am on Rituxan. Look up that price guys. Now, times my health problems by many many many people, and tell me, how long Ian would I have to wait to be tx'd? If I am not tx'd in 3 months, I can die. Literally. It turns aggressive. It already has invaded my lungs, I might have possible neoplasms in my lungs. To be honest, they have been there about 3 years, and don't do much. They don't grow, they don't shrink, they are just there, and I don't worry about them. So far as my hearing, that is getting better. I had surgery on my ear, and I got some back. Hearing aid is next. Which I really don't want cause then, I will have to hear my boss, lol. I like playing deaf. My arm is my arm, it is a pain and has been like this since 98. I sometimes, get lazy and use a sling. I can do anything with my left. SO, life is better each day.... but, my question is really, about the time of the essence thing Ian. If I need to be treated, how quickly would I get it? Even those without insurance, even those on state insurance, would get treated quickly enough to be of benefit for survival.

How long Ian, would I have to wait?

If you don't know the answer, Ian, I do.

SteveW
05-08-2011, 06:44 PM
Cookie - well said! I think you are absolutely right. Comedians say, "Timing is everything!" Same is true in health care. A way to save cost (as is obviously being done in the UK) is to simply drag your feet in getting people in to see the proper specialist. Sure, you can see your GP within a couple days, but he/she is not the one going to prescribe your Rituxan.

It is really, really hypocritical of the NHS, and its proponents, to act like they are so generous compared to the US. Sure, everyone is covered - but you do get to wait in, what do the British call them? "Queues?" You really do not want to have a rare form of cancer, especially if it is rapidly growing, in England. Like Cookie says, you'll die waiting.

The British are very patient when waiting in their queues.

Cookie
05-08-2011, 06:53 PM
I have to laugh, cause "you" know, I know ... Knowledge is power, and this, I can honestly, say, "I know it all." (without being a smart alec) :) The doctors laugh Ian, they ask me what I think they should do. lol. AND, I tell them.

Steve, you are funny. I watch Seinfield all the time, and laugh at them. I love Kramer. I was laughing at a friend, because she was down to one kid, one cat, now she got all the kids home again, 4 kids, 1 cat, 2 kittens a dog, LOL, she was looking forward to the empty nest sydrome. That is funny.

You know, how much money they save Steve because people do not get there in time? Alot... therefore, if you think about it, they seriously do not get diagnosed either, so, those stats are tainted. This is a fact.

yes, you die waiting. That is unthinkable.

Ian Gills
05-09-2011, 12:01 PM
Look, the bottom line is show me where all the dead and sick British and Canadians are that are being denied access to healthcare? You can't because they do not exist.

I can show you where all the sick and dying poor, uninsured Americans are. They are waiting in Hospital Emergency Rooms for tens of hours for their "free" treatment. Which isn't free at all because all they do in America for the unisured is "diagnose" and "stabilize" i.e. not cure.

See how long you get a hospital bed for in America if you turn up uninsured versus anyone in the UK or anyone insured in the US.

The awkward truth is that the UK and Canada can afford to provide universal healthcare because it is much cheaper in these countries. Yep, we pay much less for the same drugs than you do. Why? Because when there is only one buyer (i.e. the Government) you tend to get a heck of a deal.

American healthcare is just so unnecessarily expensive and that will be your downfall. Unless the sick and poor get to you first.

Change the system.

So, yes they would treat you Cookie. Because all of the stuff you need is just so much cheaper there. And the rich would pay for it too through higher taxes!

Terry
05-09-2011, 12:02 PM
I just watched "The King's Speech" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_Speech) last night. I enjoyed the movie.

Cookie
05-09-2011, 12:03 PM
Ian, keep an eye on your healthcare it is going to change. That is a fact.

Ps. Actually, Ian, I went the distance to find out exactly "when" someone like me would be treated in your country; I did this, because I wanted to enter that data into the seminar, well, Ian, I would had been tx' somewhere in the ballpark of 8 months.

That is not acceptable.

Sheez, I almost forgot. They would not use Rituxan. The "only" drug effective on me.

:)

SteveW
05-09-2011, 04:55 PM
Anyone who says health care is not rationed in a particular system is just plain wrong, or at least naive. Health care is expensive. No way around it. In the US, admittedly some folks are not currently well served because they don't have insurance.

In the England, everyone is covered, but they DO WAIT. Cookie once again nailed it. A very effective way to control costs is to DELAY treatment. If they delay it enough, problem goes away.

Ian Gills
05-09-2011, 05:28 PM
I just watched "The King's Speech" last night. I enjoyed the movie.


Glad you enjoyed it. Speech impediments are treated free of charge under the English health system.

Americans could still have a King if they wanted to. We would take you back.

You liked the Royal wedding as well, I betcha.

See.....kings are good.

Cookie
05-09-2011, 07:03 PM
Easter Seals will also treat speech problems for free, or on a pay-scale, as well as many other places.

I think, the 33 Million paid for security of that wedding was a bit much. Imagine, what all good for your country that kind of money could had done, or sent overseas to help an other country in strife.

And, I betcha, if given a choice, which they didn't have, they wouldn't had picked something so pretentious.

Jerome2877
05-09-2011, 09:23 PM
Seriously! How about the trillions of dollers the US has spent in Iraq and Afganistan! That could pay for everyone to have healthcare. Maybe they could HAD spent some on teaching proper grammer in your schools!

Cookie
05-10-2011, 07:01 AM
There are many places everyone can attend seminars to learn about healthcare even in their own countries, I would suggest going. A one-size fit all healthcare for everyone is not effective; for many, whose country has it, this won't be seen personally, until, met with dire circumstances then, it may be too late. This is an honest fact. Honestly, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

LOTW
05-10-2011, 07:11 AM
Easter Seals will also treat speech problems for free, or on a pay-scale, as well as many other places.

I think, the 33 Million paid for security of that wedding was a bit much. Imagine, what all good for your country that kind of money could had done, or sent overseas to help an other country in strife.

And, I betcha, if given a choice, which they didn't have, they wouldn't had picked something so pretentious.

If any person reading this is in need of a speech pathologist for children, even preschoolers, they should be able to obtain the same through their local school system as part of federal legislation known as Free Access to Public Education. The child is eligible even if enrolled in private school. Contact your local school district and if you get nowhere, your local area education agency. In our experience, this is a situation where the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so get accurately informed about your child's condition before you contact the school and do not necessarily accept at face value the first proposal for services made by the school. You may be asked to sign an Individual Education Plan, or IEP. Make sure, before you agree to such a plan, that it contains a high level of service. You can always agree to reduce the service level after it is signed, but it is very difficult to increase the service level after a lower level has been agreed to.

Terry is right about The Kings Speech, it is a good movie.

I am in favor of expanding Medicare to lower age levels. We need cost control in health care and this is the only way I can see to get it. Also, it is cheaper to insure 55 year olds than 65 year olds, and the actuarial information I have seen is that a 55 year old could be insured under Medicare for less than he/she could in a private plan. Therefore, the 55 year olds could help reduce the Medicare premiums for 65+ Medicare patients and at the same time lower the cost of private insurance as 55 year olds are more expensive to insure than 45 year olds.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 07:28 AM
Within the public school system in the lower grade level I educated special needs which included fine motor skills, and, those with developmental reading disorders (DRD), dyslexia, etc, ( as even with my own son), and the cost? Free, within the public school system. It never ceases to amaze me to what extent other countries fall short in the understanding of the US. Yet, so many are referred to the US for tx'd.

Kids with disabilities can collect Medicare and, SSD & SSI.

DonL
05-10-2011, 07:28 AM
Hello all,

The Local level of help is going down in our state.

Many programs are being eliminated or cut big time.

I think that Raising Taxes for the Rich would be a good Idea, Because they can afford it.
It will probably never happen, Because the Politicians on Capital hill and Local Government don't want to pay more Taxes.

Instead we pay too make them Rich so they can set around and argue about how they can Screw us Little People More.

Have a Great Day.


DonL

Cookie
05-10-2011, 07:37 AM
I think at times, people abuse the programs, and the money wears out. Some people milk the system instead of contributing to it, and I question if taxing what we call the rich people is truly, the answer?

DonL
05-10-2011, 08:25 AM
Cookie, I am talking about MONEY Rich people. Anything over 1 million a year and working for our Government, would be a good place to start. After all, Old School, It was a Privilege to be a Civil Servant, And people worked for free, Just as You do now.

You Can be rich in many ways. Having Only Money does not make a Person Rich.

You can be rich in Love, without any Money. Just one example. Rich in Joy is another.

I like to sleep at night, and I don't no how people can sleep at night, knowing they screwed someone.

And You are correct of people milking the system, They are free-loaders.
Many Politicians are free-loaders, They take as much from You, as You will let them. You are being Milked.

I am rich because I can sleep at night...


DonL


"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson

LOTW
05-10-2011, 10:07 AM
Many Politicians are free-loaders, They take as much from You, as You will let them. You are being Milked.



Very well said, Donl

Cookie
05-10-2011, 10:11 AM
I am rich because I live in a country where I can make as much money as I want and to pursue the American dream!

I am not rich with money, my overdrafted bank acct will tell that story, but, if I wanted to work and earn a million a year I can do that without being penalized. Look at some other countries who cannot. What is their dream? More times than not, to come and live in the USA. Am I wrong?

Given a country our size their are going to be imperfections and things which needs reform, but, make sure you don't stray in doing so, from what it is that makes our country great and the foundation of it all.

DonL
05-10-2011, 10:43 AM
I don't think that the American dream is what it used to be.

My American dream, Would be to, keep What I worked all of my Life to obtain and paid for.

My property tax alone tells me that I own nothing, I rent it from the State. Even tho it is paid for.

Then you ask;
"What is their dream? More times than not, to come and live in the USA. Am I wrong?"

No you are not wrong, But their dream is mostly "To stay alive and be protected from harm."

I have no problem taking car of people in our world, I help when I can.
But when WE pay 10,000 Dollars to rescue a Dog in some other county, that they would normally Eat,
Then have to take them Food, I have a big problem. (Some Country's don't eat beef, Should we quit eating it?)

I do not stick my nose in someones business. If they ask I will help, If I can. And I do not eat dog. but I eat beef.

We need to take care of our own. Not try to Convert everyone, because of the "American dream", Its not what it use to be.


I am Sorry but I speak what I have learned, while I pursued the American dream. I have not seen it yet. (I was born here)


Have a Great Day.


DonL

Cookie
05-10-2011, 11:24 AM
Don, I agree. But, their are so many rich people who got rich through hard work, working their way through school and through life, are they any different than you and I? Shouldn't they keep what they squarely and fairly earned too?

The American dream is still the way it always was, people just see a preconceived notion sometimes. Ask a WW2 Veteran about what he thinks the American dream is. He literally laid his life down on the line for that dream, which sometimes, people nowdays take for granted. I don't.

I applaud our country and its people, and its leaders, and I thank God everyday for the soil I was born on and the dream of which is mine that others made possible through the years.

DonL
05-10-2011, 11:46 AM
I agree Cookie,


Don, I agree. But, their are so many rich people who got rich through hard work, working their way through school and through life, are they any different than you and I? Shouldn't they keep what they squarely and fairly earned too?.

But I do not Agree with the fact that Our Children have to pay a 50% tax for what they inherent when we die and leave them something.

We are Taxed to Death, Then Taxes after we are Dead.

That is why people leave their inheritances to their pets, Because they don't pay taxes.
Then the kids are just care takers, of Your pet.

I have Never been Money Rich, so to speak. But about 50% of what I have made is spent in taxes.

If that is the American dream than I guess I am living it.

If it was not for the hard workers than we would not have any thing.

Some People are rich, and never work a day in their lives, Yet we give them everything.

I just do not get it. I thank God for what I have, and God never wanted my money.


DonL

Cookie
05-10-2011, 12:24 PM
Let me explain this way Don. Sometimes, one sees only what they want to see.

I can feel very sorry for myself when I think of all my health problems. Then, I will think of people who died from what I got. “I cried because I had no shoes, then I met a man who had no feet," this erupts from the center of my soul.

I think of the other countries whereas, everyday is a struggle for survivial, looking for food, water, shelter, forget even medical care, and, then when I step back and look at mine, I feel blessed.

I know I can't change the world, I know I can't change even anything in my country, but, I can try to be the best person I can be. If there is a wrong I try to right it, fight it, make it better.

If you own a house and it becomes a home, you are a rich man. If you can leave your kids anything in monetary gains, a house, and the memories of a happy childhood, they too, are rich.

There is a thin line between rich and greed. I am happy with knowing I own my home, I am happy to work to pay for it, and when I die, I am happy to leave it to my kids. I am happy to pay my own way and my fair share.

I feel honored to be able to do this.

If you talk to some people they think, we should have more taxes, less churches and less God in anything or everything. They do not understand America, in God we trust

I know a man who suffers without any eyes and without hands. They were blown off by a mine in a war. Tell him their isn't an American dream or the dream isn't good enough or meets with your satisfaction. Visit a Vet hospital.

Ian Gills
05-10-2011, 12:47 PM
They fought for your freedom not for the dream.

Freedom doesn't put food on your table or a roof over your head.

Neither does God (he dishes out inner peace).

A job does and, in hard times like these or for the less fortunate, Government and taxes.

The deficit is not a spending problem. It is a tax problem...namely the rich do not pay their fair share.

Now, where are those vets?

Cookie
05-10-2011, 02:02 PM
Ian, the Vets? Are you serious? Freedom doesn't put food on my table. Tell that to the people whose country get rationed. We all know you don't like God no more than Americans so that is your choice maybe, that is why you need something to believe in so much more than yourself. When you say the rich doesn't dish out their fair amount, what is fair to you Ian? What would make your boat float? And, the American Dream? It is our freedoms Ian. Maybe, when you continue working at your job here in the US long enough, you will realize that. But, maybe not... you are here for the job. The money.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 02:07 PM
The GOAL is set below . View the video and pass it on . While this is a Marine Base , it is appropriate to all services.



The goal is 10,000,000 views

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good."


Please watch and forward: The goal is 10,000,000 views. Watch for the Marine who bends down to shake a little girl's hand. See what she does.
Please watch to the end of the program so it counts as a viewing and then FORWARD!

http://media.causes.com/576542?p_id=92681239

Cookie
05-10-2011, 02:11 PM
Ian, read and weep, I did.
http://www.homesforourtroops.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SpcJamesFair

Ian Gills
05-10-2011, 04:43 PM
I'm actually rather disgusted Cookie that it takes a charity to do that for that brave solider.

The Government should provide those priviledges for all injured soliders, not just the chosen few on the whim of charitable Americans.

But that is your freedom. The freedom not to care, not to contribute and free ride.

That is why you need big taxes and big Government to make everyone contribute to society, regardless of religion, race or background.

And what is fair for the rich? That they pay proportionally more in tax than the poor. That means no tax breaks for them, for a start.

Let them complain that they will move their jobs abroad. And then talk to their wives to see if they will really leave their plush lives in America.

Take it from me. The rich and their families will pay more tax and there will be no impact on jobs. But poor Americans will benefit greatly.

And then we will have the Dream. All critically injured soldiers will get the house they are entitled to. And poor, sick Americans will get the medical treatment they deserve.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 04:45 PM
So, I take it Ian, that your King builds all your disabled Vets a home, a NICE home like that? WOW!

Cookie
05-10-2011, 04:47 PM
What's your Vet hospitals like Ian? How often do you volunteer? Oh, I mean, not volunteer, um, do they pay your volunteers? LOL...

Ian Gills
05-10-2011, 04:53 PM
There are very generous Government benefits for members of the British armed forces seriously wounded in war. Those eligible for a war pension can earn the same as someone in a well paying job through incapacity benefit. My father-in-law (ex-navy) is a case in point. He had to fight to get those benefits though.

And there is no need to volunteer when there are paid professionals to do that job for you.

That way you can focus on your job, earn more and pay more in taxes! A happy circle.

Why should I put out fires at the weekend when my taxes pay for someone younger, fitter and better trained than me to do that?

You guys will do anything to save a dime in taxes!

Cookie
05-10-2011, 04:56 PM
Can you show me some of the houses your King built for the soldiers? I would be interested in seeing them.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 05:01 PM
We have VA benefits as well. Our soldiers also get the pensions, as well as their spouses and children. When they die, their are even, Spousal Survival Benefits, with or without kids. I am able to collect my husbands, since he was active duty. The VA takes care of their own.

Better than yours.

Plus, we have generous people who give of their time and skills. I volunteer because I want to, not out of a need which they need.

I volunteer because I need to... Maybe, you should too, Ian. Maybe, you need to give something of yourself to someone else, for absolutely no gain.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 05:37 PM
Where's the house picture?

Ian Gills
05-10-2011, 05:53 PM
I volunteer because I need to... Maybe, you should too, Ian. Maybe, you need to give something of yourself to someone else, for absolutely no gain.

I give my taxes to others for no personal gain.

That is my contribution to society.

Why do Americans tolerate the notion that you only give if you want to?

We should all give because we have to!

I pay taxes. And we should all pay more taxes to a Big Government.

Here are the houses:

http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/video/cd_new_demo/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/print.htm

We can't leave it to volunteers, church nor charity.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 06:14 PM
I will take my volunteer built house with the voice-activated Toto any day over, your govn built whatever, it is, kind of house. Thank you. :)

By the way, maybe, some volunteers could had built better houses for the King.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 07:28 PM
Ian, did you know that out of all the tax payers in the country the top 2 or 3% pay 41% of all the taxes paid. You say, "they should pay more," tell me, how much more they should pay. You said, "proportionate to their earnings," so, how much of the total tax bill should they pay.

Cookie
05-10-2011, 07:49 PM
And, that is a fact. :) Feb.2, 2010
http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/how-america-pays-taxes-vs-other-wealthy-countries

A popular discussion topic in most countries is the distribution of income taxes – that is, who pays the most. While much is said and written about who should pay more or less, surprisingly little attention is given to who actually pays more or less. A look at the data on tax distribution in the United States, for instance, reveals that high income individuals pay an enormously disproportionate amount of total income taxes in the country. The Tax Foundation’s Fiscal Facts report shows that the top 1% of income earners (1,410,710 people) pay 40.42% of all income taxes in the United States. The top 2.5% (5,642,839 people) pay 20.20% of total income taxes, while the top 5% (a combined 7,053,549 people) pay 60%. The top 10% as a whole pays 71.22%, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers account for only 2.89% of all income taxes. Indeed, the Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodges cited ,”…an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations.”

While most western European nations have similarly progressive taxation structures, the “super-rich” are not always saddled with so much of the burden. ThisIsMoney (the UK’s Financial Website of the Year) reported in June 2007 that, “…only a fraction of Britain’s super-rich are paying income tax.” While “…at least 400 UK-based individuals earn, or are capable of making, £10m a year”, it was determined that “…only 65 paid income tax, according to the latest figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” The tax structure in Canada mirrors that of the United States, with The Canadian Encyclopedia stating that, “…Canada’s most affluent citizens already pay the majority of the nation’s tax bill, and our reliance on revenue from the wealthiest citizens is growing.” This is confirmed by the fact that although, “…the wealthiest 10 percent of tax filers earned 35.7 percent of the total income” between 1990 and 2002, “…1976 and 2004, the after-tax income gap between the richest and poorest families barely budged from 8.1 to 9.9, proving Canada has nearly perfected its Robin Hood routine.”

Redwood
05-11-2011, 07:43 AM
Here are the houses:

http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/video/cd_new_demo/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/print.htm

We can't leave it to volunteers, church nor charity.

We call those slums here....

13013

Ian Gills
05-11-2011, 12:25 PM
The fact of the matter is we need to be taxing more from the likes of Terry (who owns his own baseball team) to give to the poor like Redwood and Master Plumber Mark.


the top 2 or 3% pay 41% of all the taxes paid

Well, they would do because they own 90% of the country's wealth. But this is not enough.

A poor person should pay no or little tax on his income.

A rich person should pay 60%.

That seems fair. Else the poor start robbin' or using their vote.

ballvalve
05-11-2011, 12:29 PM
Easy for the Brits to help their 26 crippled vets in the past 25 years, because the biggest injuries are from changing tires on US made and flown helicopters and jets that take all the incoming fire power.

The Brits are slugging Guiness and quaffing pasties while the Americans sling the guns.

And how can you count on a Brit soldier that came from a society where pistols and long guns are treated harsher than Heroin?

A society without a culture of gun ownership is not equipped to fight wars.

http://www.turners.com/engage/displayads.php

When London has stores like this, maybe the Brits can re-join the fighting world.

In the meantime, its strictly tall wedding cakes and long trains on gowns as their forte'

Cookie
05-11-2011, 12:40 PM
Yeah, especially when your own isn't paying there's!

While most western European nations have similarly progressive taxation structures, the “super-rich” are not always saddled with so much of the burden. ThisIsMoney (the UK’s Financial Website of the Year) reported in June 2007 that, “…only a fraction of Britain’s super-rich are paying income tax.” While “…at least 400 UK-based individuals earn, or are capable of making, £10m a year”, it was determined that “…only 65 paid income tax, according to the latest figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” The tax structure in Canada mirrors that of the United States, with The Canadian Encyclopedia stating that, “…Canada’s most affluent citizens already pay the majority of the nation’s tax bill, and our reliance on revenue from the wealthiest citizens is growing.” This is confirmed by the fact that although, “…the wealthiest 10 percent of tax filers earned 35.7 percent of the total income” between 1990 and 2002, “…1976 and 2004, the after-tax income gap between the richest and poorest families barely budged from 8.1 to 9.9, proving Canada has nearly perfected its Robin Hood routine.”




The fact of the matter is we need to be taxing more from the likes of Terry (who owns his own baseball team) to give to the poor like Redwood and Master Plumber Mark.



Well, they would do because they own 90% of the country's wealth. But this is not enough.

A poor person should pay no or little tax on his income.

A rich person should pay 60%.

That seems fair. Else the poor start robbin' or using their vote.

Redwood
05-11-2011, 03:00 PM
How much does the Queen pay in taxes?

Oh thats right she's on the dole!

Ian Gills
05-11-2011, 06:02 PM
I just think it's about time Americans started paying less to the church and charity and more in taxes.

It was religious extremists, separatists and non-conformers that founded this country, running away from common sense.

By now one would hope you have all calmed down.

ballvalve
05-12-2011, 12:16 PM
How much does the Queen pay in taxes?

Oh thats right she's on the dole!

The queen and all those familial crooked pinkie space takers are dolts on the dole.

Ian Gills
05-12-2011, 05:18 PM
Our Royal family earn the country a great deal in tourism.

You guys like going to see them for a start.

It's no different from not taxing churches. Like you seem to do here.

Why don't you tax churches?

Cookie
05-13-2011, 07:42 AM
Chrisitianity is not the only religion in the US, so how do you feel about the other religions, i.e. Muslim?

Should we be taxing those too?

ballvalve
05-13-2011, 10:01 AM
Our Royal family earn the country a great deal in tourism.

You guys like going to see them for a start.

It's no different from not taxing churches. Like you seem to do here.

Why don't you tax churches?

A couple of Pandas would cost less to feed and dont need Rolls Royces to pollute the air. Green tourism. Nicer personalities too.

Good idea to tax churches, however. One of your few. Especially the morons infesting television channels.

Ian Gills
05-13-2011, 03:47 PM
Yes, but all your pandas belong to China.

Our Royal family is ours.

I'm all for taxing the mormons and the catholics too.

All that gold in all those churches.

Worshiping idols?

Let's tax the idols.

ballvalve
05-14-2011, 04:24 PM
Yes, but all your pandas belong to China.

Our Royal family is ours.

So let the royalty eat bamboo and set them in a cage outside the castle once a week so the tourists can actually have a good look at them.

Charge 40 bucks a look and pass it on to charity. Think of the carbon savings with all of them out of their planes, boats and Roll's one day a week.

And some methane savings from not overworking the polo ponies.

You can't tax the Mormons and get a return because of the child tax credits - they make a profit on average from "US" .... and the Catholics are going bust without any priests except a few Slovak and Polish imports.

Tax those oily faced sin preacher predators on TV.

All that gold in the churches is in europe. Here its just gilt - over plaster or iron.