Quantcast

The UK Socialist Medicine, NHS, kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year. Worth it?

ComeOnNow 2012/07/01 18:12:21
Yes, kill the elderly so I don't have to pay for my own insurance
No, we need to have personal responsibility, and killing off others is unacceptable.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Are democrats willing to murder to avoid actually working and taking responsibility?

Obama's health care law is nothing more than punishing the responsible to reward the irresponsible. In practice, Socialized medicine destroys the quality of heath care for all. Here iin the US, anyone can have health insurance, many entry level jobs even provide it. People CHOOSE to not have it, so why should we punish others.

Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year:



  • Professor says
    doctors use 'death pathway' to euthanasia of the elderly
  • Treatment on
    average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
  • Around 29 per
    cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial 'care pathway'
  • Pensioner
    admitted to hospital given treatment by doctor on weekend shift



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-c...

Cancer Survival by Country
Coleman and colleagues drew on data from nearly 2 million cancer patients, ages 15 to 99, whose medical information was entered into 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries. The patients had been diagnosed with one of four cancers: breast, colon, rectum, or prostate cancers during the years 1990-1994. They were followed up to 1999, with the researchers comparing five-year survival rates.

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer

The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer.

The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent. However, survival rates within the U.S. can vary.

Older people are refused organ transplants and kidney dialysis in socialized countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm


Socialized medicine is killing people. People that are covered now and would get excellent care, will be killed.

You may be deemed to old for health care and the government may choose to put you down.


Basically socialized medicine kills about 40% of all people that get cancer over our medical system.

That is just the ones they report. i wonder f they even report the ones that they simply refuse to even treat because of age or costs.

basically like any other time that the government gets involved it punishes those that are responsible for those that are irresponsible.

If you look around the world at their socialized system you would be loosing health care. It would take you longer to see specialists, if you were to be stricken by cancer the government would decide weather or not you would be eligible for treatments.

Right now, anyone in this country can have top notch health care. It simply has to be their priority. I got a job at 18 that provided health insurance. I was a teller at a bank. It was far from my ideal job at that time, but I needed health insurance and I made it a priority.
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Bob DiN 2012/07/02 09:56:39
    No, we need to have personal responsibility, and killing off others is unacce...
    Bob DiN
    Socialized health care has been a horror in any country. Read "Shattered Lives" it documents 100 horror cases of government run health care.
  • Kat ♪ ~ ♪ 2012/07/02 00:03:18
    No, we need to have personal responsibility, and killing off others is unacce...
    Kat ♪ ~ ♪
    +1
    They'll do it. Socialists want to give the health benefits to productive people that can pay to keep the system running, elderly and sick are a burden to them and they will die. They will go down for something treatable and be turned away, a simple infection a Z-pack could cure will cause painful death.
  • Kane Fernau 2012/07/01 21:43:44
    No, we need to have personal responsibility, and killing off others is unacce...
    Kane Fernau
    +2
    Nationalized healthcare, now we are like Cuba.
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/02 00:00:17
    ehrhornp
    Yes we do so much better in healthcare than Cuba. I believe we are just above them which shows that our system is seriously broken. We can barely beat a poor country and are beaten by many others is not good for the supposedly richest country in the world.
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/02 01:01:29
    Kane Fernau
    +1
    Before Obamacare we had the best healthcare in the world.
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/02 01:56:46
    ehrhornp
    lol, what fantasy world do you live in? We are number one in cost but little else:

    http://www.healthpaconline.ne...

    Oh, and we are number one in bankruptcies due to medical costs. Real proud of this achievement?
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/02 02:18:44
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/02 03:59:21
    ehrhornp
    As I have said we lead the world in costs and the number of bankruptcies caused by medical problems. Be proud, be very proud. I am not. I think it is disgusting to be the supposedly richest country in the world and people go bankrupt trying to get healthy.

    60% of our disposable federal budget goes to our military industrial complex. So what's your point? I would rather have health care for all than killing people around the world.

    We can't afford a stupid military and prison industrial complex. We are following the old Soviet Union down the path to hell.
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/02 15:36:20
    Kane Fernau
    You need some educating. Countries with socialized medicine take the money in the form of taxes and they still can't afford it. You might like life in Cuba. Our poorest have a much better quality of life compared to Cuba. Your numbers are all propaganda. Socialized medicine puts us closer to the Soviet Union than have a strong military. Socialism is just another flavor of
    totalitarian statism, along with fascism, communism, Naziism,
    Progressivism and all the other variations of the same preposterous idea
    that has plagued humanity for the past 100 years.

    That idea is
    that society ought to be ordered by a group of elite "planners" who
    operate to implement their schemes through densely concentrated
    government power.

    Thus, a socialist is someone who is opposed to the very concept of human liberty.

    A
    socialist is someone who thinks of himself as a "scientific" thinker, yet
    refuses to recognize the easily observable fact that during the last
    100 years, every variation of statism has failed miserably, bringing
    economic collapse, hardship and death to every society that has tried
    it.

    Even the impending collapse of Europe, and the economic peril
    facing the United States, is not sufficient to inspire a glimmer of
    self-doubt, a smidgen of question, in the mind of a socialist regarding
    the viability of ...





    You need some educating. Countries with socialized medicine take the money in the form of taxes and they still can't afford it. You might like life in Cuba. Our poorest have a much better quality of life compared to Cuba. Your numbers are all propaganda. Socialized medicine puts us closer to the Soviet Union than have a strong military. Socialism is just another flavor of
    totalitarian statism, along with fascism, communism, Naziism,
    Progressivism and all the other variations of the same preposterous idea
    that has plagued humanity for the past 100 years.

    That idea is
    that society ought to be ordered by a group of elite "planners" who
    operate to implement their schemes through densely concentrated
    government power.

    Thus, a socialist is someone who is opposed to the very concept of human liberty.

    A
    socialist is someone who thinks of himself as a "scientific" thinker, yet
    refuses to recognize the easily observable fact that during the last
    100 years, every variation of statism has failed miserably, bringing
    economic collapse, hardship and death to every society that has tried
    it.

    Even the impending collapse of Europe, and the economic peril
    facing the United States, is not sufficient to inspire a glimmer of
    self-doubt, a smidgen of question, in the mind of a socialist regarding
    the viability of statism.

    A socialist is someone who imagines
    that there exists a big bottomless pot of money that belongs to nobody
    in particular, and that the highest manifestation of statesmanship is
    just to hand it out.
    A socialist is someone who opposes human slavery only to the extent that the slaves are privately owned.
    (more)
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/02 15:46:50
    ehrhornp
    You are the one that needs educating. The fact that a dirt poor commie nation has healthcare just below the US should tell you something. We have the most expensive health care system in the industrialized world and yet we can barely beat a poor pinko commie country when it comes to health care.

    I am not saying the quality of life in Cuba is great, only that America sucks when it comes to healthcare.

    It is not just socialists, if at all, who imagines a big bottomless pit of money that belongs to nobody in particular. We have this big time. It is called the military and prison industrial complexes.
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/02 16:09:01
    ComeOnNow
    +2
    You have to ask yourself. If this rating was accurate, Why would the Prime Minister of France (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list), by flying right past France (Rankes #1 on the list) and by 7 other countries ranked higher than the Us.
    Does that make any sense? Um No.
    Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Sen Dodd fly elsewhere to get their cancer treatment.
    Maybe Dodd could go to the UK (Ranker 18th) to get the treatment from prostate cancer that has a survival rate there of 77% when here in the US the 5 year survival rate is virtually 100%.

    Because the report has nothing to do with the actual quality of health care.

    Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1
    But to understand how WHO d...















    You have to ask yourself. If this rating was accurate, Why would the Prime Minister of France (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list), by flying right past France (Rankes #1 on the list) and by 7 other countries ranked higher than the Us.
    Does that make any sense? Um No.
    Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Sen Dodd fly elsewhere to get their cancer treatment.
    Maybe Dodd could go to the UK (Ranker 18th) to get the treatment from prostate cancer that has a survival rate there of 77% when here in the US the 5 year survival rate is virtually 100%.

    Because the report has nothing to do with the actual quality of health care.

    Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1
    But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:
    1. Health Level: 25 percent
    2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
    3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
    4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
    5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
    “Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2
    “Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.
    The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.
    “Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.
    In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what th
    1 week ago
    Additional Details
    to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.
    Susan Delacourt, “Stronach travels to U.S. for cancer treatment.” The Star, September 14, 2007.
    Sally C. Pipes, “The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care”. Pacific Research Institute, pp 132-133, 2008.
    http://www.healthandsharing.c...
    (more)
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/02 16:21:17
    ehrhornp
    I am not saying the US has terrible health care. In fact we may have among the best in the world, provided you have money to pay for it. Understand? We may have the best health care in the world money can buy but most cannot afford it. 15% of Americans, the uninsured definitely will no get this care. Don't think much of the remaining 85% would also get it. The best care often is dependent upon new procedures which often times are not approved by insurance companies.
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/02 18:00:27
    ComeOnNow
    Insurance companies cover them more than the government an I can always switch health insurance companies.
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/02 18:48:55
    ehrhornp
    Provided you are not one of the 15% or have a pre existing condition. Although this last one is suppose to be solved by Obama care but your hero Mitt will do away with it.
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/03 01:55:22
    ComeOnNow
    Employer plans cover those with preexisting conditions. If they genuinely can not work because of it, then we should likely do something, but that hardly justifies destroying the entire health care system.
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/03 02:46:49
    ehrhornp
    What about individual plans? What about small business plans? say under 5 employees? These will exclude preexisting conditions.
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/03 11:01:58
    ComeOnNow
    The republicans have been trying for years to allow small businesses to pool resources for a discount on insurance but the democrats won't allow it because they are in bed with big insurance
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/03 15:04:40
    ehrhornp
    lol, both republicans and democrats are bought by the insurance industry. We are an equal opportunity buyer. lol
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/03 16:57:10
    ComeOnNow
    Agreed
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/03 02:56:32
    ehrhornp
    http://healthinsurance.about....

    Specifically:

    One of the hallmarks of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March 2010 is the elimination of pre-existing condition requirements imposed by health plans.

    Effective September 2010, children (below age 19) with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents' health plan and insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child, but exclude treatments for that child's pre-existing condition.

    Starting in 2014, this provision will apply to adults as well. Until 2014, the information below remains valid for anyone over age 19.

    An important feature of HIPAA is known as “creditable coverage.”
    Creditable coverage is health insurance coverage you had before you enrolled in your new health plan, as long as it was not interrupted by a period of 63 or more days. The amount of time you had “creditable” health insurance coverage can be used to offset a pre-existing condition exclusion period in your new health plan.

    The bottom line: If you had at least a full year of health coverage at your previous job and you enrolled in your new health plan without a break of 63 days or more, your new health plan cannot subject you to the pre-existing condition exclusion.

    For example: Greg L. decided to chang...

    http://healthinsurance.about....

    Specifically:

    One of the hallmarks of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March 2010 is the elimination of pre-existing condition requirements imposed by health plans.

    Effective September 2010, children (below age 19) with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents' health plan and insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child, but exclude treatments for that child's pre-existing condition.

    Starting in 2014, this provision will apply to adults as well. Until 2014, the information below remains valid for anyone over age 19.

    An important feature of HIPAA is known as “creditable coverage.”
    Creditable coverage is health insurance coverage you had before you enrolled in your new health plan, as long as it was not interrupted by a period of 63 or more days. The amount of time you had “creditable” health insurance coverage can be used to offset a pre-existing condition exclusion period in your new health plan.

    The bottom line: If you had at least a full year of health coverage at your previous job and you enrolled in your new health plan without a break of 63 days or more, your new health plan cannot subject you to the pre-existing condition exclusion.

    For example: Greg L. decided to change jobs for better promotion opportunities. He worked with a recruiter and found a new job, which he started four weeks after resigning from his previous position. His new job offered similar health insurance and he enrolled in a family point-of-service plan. Although Greg is in good health, his wife has type 2 diabetes and one of his children has asthma.

    Greg had worked for his previous company for two years and had no health insurance coverage for four weeks (less than 63 days). In spite of pre-existing health conditions in his family, Greg’s health plan was not able to impose a pre-existing condition exclusion period.
    (more)
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/02 18:36:30
    Kane Fernau
    You must be pretty bad off if you need a nanny to take care of you. http://www.weeklystandard.com...
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/02 18:51:43
    ehrhornp
    I don't need any entitlements but I know 15% of the population could use some help when it comes to medical insurance. Fortunately you are not a Christian and need to love your neighbor as oneself.
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/02 20:40:21
    Kane Fernau
    I am a Christian and God helps those that help themselves.The 15% that had no insurance now has to pay a tax
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/03 00:08:35 (edited)
    ehrhornp
    Could have fooled me. lol
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/03 01:53:03
    Kane Fernau
    i wasn't trying to fool you. Judge not lest Ye be judged.
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/03 02:48:39
    ehrhornp
    True but Christians are suppose to love their neighbors as themselves. You obviously don't.

    So the 15% has to pay a tax? Big deal. They don't have to pay it. There is no enforcement provision in the law.
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/03 02:55:41
    Kane Fernau
    Hahaha, you're grasping at straws. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/... Love thy neighbor doesn't mean you owe them something.
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/03 14:34:33 (edited)
    ehrhornp
    Rachel pointed out that in the health bill law it specifically prohibits the various enforcement procedures from being used. She pointed them out in the health care law.
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/03 14:55:48
    Kane Fernau
    Who is Rachel?
  • ehrhornp Kane Fe... 2012/07/03 15:05:28
    ehrhornp
    Rachel Maddow, a host on MSNBC
  • Kane Fe... ehrhornp 2012/07/03 15:28:48
    Kane Fernau
    She's an idiot!
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/03 16:59:59
    ComeOnNow
    Don't pretend democrats are anything more than thieves looking for a hand out. We know better. Obama can't even make a speech without promising free stuff, stolen from others, to his thief minions.
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/02 13:08:13
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    That is nonsense. W have the best healthcare in the world. It is accessible to anyone. Leaders from those countries that "rank better" fly here past every other country that "ranks better" to get any serious procedure done. Obama care is nothing but yet another democrat scham that punishes the responsible for those that CHOOSE to live recklessly.
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/02 15:52:17
    ehrhornp
    I just love the depth of knowledge of people who think they know but they don's. How many times does it have to be stated that Obama care is a republican invention? Democrats have proposed single payor systems, not a system designed so that the medical industry can continue to make big bucks.

    You left out one important qualification in your opening sentence, We have the best healthcare money can buy. If you don't have money, forget it. 15% of Americans do not have access to it. Only access is through emergency rooms and stats have shown that such people are more likely to die an early death.
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/05 02:53:50
    ComeOnNow
    So, it is the actually working and taking personal responsibility that you have an issue with and are fine with having a vastly inefficient government that does nothing better than profit driven industry because you do not care because you do not intend on actually paying for anything. No wonder you are a democrat.
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/05 20:59:10
    ehrhornp
    It is not working when 15% of the population has no insurance and the cost of the people who do have it is close to double what other industrialized countries pay.

    Our health care system is an embarrassment. Have you ever seen a Health fair? To think the most advanced, the richest nation on earth needs to hold these is prima facia evidence that our system is broken.

    Our medical system only works if you have lots of money, tons of money. Lots of people with insurance find that their coverage won't cover something so they are in effect no better than someone having no insurance.

    So government is inefficient? Are you willing to acknowledge that our military is very inefficient? How about our prison system? If you agree that these systems are inefficient well we do have a lot in common. If on the other hand you are like so many phony conservatives and say the military is special, well...
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/06 10:54:33
    ComeOnNow
    That is a lie. I had health insurance at 18 as a freaking bank teller. Anyone can have access to the best health care in the world. It is simply not their priority. They want to push the costs on us as thy all have cell phones, big televisions, cars, etc. destroying our health care and putting it in the hands of those bankrupting the post office is not the answer. Maybe we should treat medical bills like student loans and force repayment. When there are actual consequences, more people will take advantage of it.
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/06 16:11:08
    ehrhornp
    Not all people are like you obviously. If they were, there would be no need for health fairs. Go to one the next time one is held close to where you live. Then you can ask them why they decided to buy cell phones, cars, televisions instead of health insurance. I think you will get answers that just might surprise you.

    By the way you didn't say what my lie was and you didn't answer my questions.
  • ComeOnNow ehrhornp 2012/07/07 11:34:05
    ComeOnNow
    The thing is, anyone can be like me. I am not special. It is a matter of priority. We have a portion of the population that spends hundreds a month on cell phones, video games, big screen televisions, cars, bigger homes than they can afford, etc buy think tht others should pay for their health care. They take jobs that may be more fun or pay a little better but do not provide health care. Why should everyone else be punished because of that.

    I do not see how it I relevant to the conversation but EVERYTHInG the government does is riddled with corruption, waste and inefficiency, particularly the military. Most idiotic democrats will criticize the military for being inefficient, but then demand a huge government that is in control of everything. I grew up in a dirt poor neighborhood. Unlike democrats, I do not see the poor as worthless. I see them as unmotivated and having a bad attitude. Tho is made worse, not better by the democrats who give them excuses, just enough han outs to not even try to make their lives better, and constantly tell them they they better not even try because the deck is stacked against them. I have seen many many very bright and very outgoing people that had every key to success except they never bothered to try. I had someone tell me, why bothe to go to...
    The thing is, anyone can be like me. I am not special. It is a matter of priority. We have a portion of the population that spends hundreds a month on cell phones, video games, big screen televisions, cars, bigger homes than they can afford, etc buy think tht others should pay for their health care. They take jobs that may be more fun or pay a little better but do not provide health care. Why should everyone else be punished because of that.

    I do not see how it I relevant to the conversation but EVERYTHInG the government does is riddled with corruption, waste and inefficiency, particularly the military. Most idiotic democrats will criticize the military for being inefficient, but then demand a huge government that is in control of everything. I grew up in a dirt poor neighborhood. Unlike democrats, I do not see the poor as worthless. I see them as unmotivated and having a bad attitude. Tho is made worse, not better by the democrats who give them excuses, just enough han outs to not even try to make their lives better, and constantly tell them they they better not even try because the deck is stacked against them. I have seen many many very bright and very outgoing people that had every key to success except they never bothered to try. I had someone tell me, why bothe to go to college when you can live off the government and kick it all day. I have a neighbor that has a house comparable to mine and says she is unemployable and on full disability, yet works all damn day under the table. The government does not expect accountability at all.
    (more)
  • ehrhornp ComeOnNow 2012/07/07 16:54:10
    ehrhornp
    Yet who was it that gave us Home Land security after ignoring a daily briefing memo? Umm

    I don't know about you but I sure was proud when we landed a man on the moon and blew a hole in a comet.

    I do not see the poor as worthless. I see the poor as not having the same opportunities as me nor the same education. Unfortunately people in order to survive are going to need more and more education. At one time a person could get by with just a HS education. Today it would be difficult if you don't have at least a college degree. Reason for this is simple. A lot of jobs that require little skill have been done away with.

    so a lot of these people just haven't been able to keep up with the times. This does not make them lazy bums.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/19 21:42:56

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals