Who is more intolerant of political opponents the "left" or "the right"

[Tommy Tainant]

The Affordable Care Act is not Left in the strict sense as I understand it except is the broadest sense that the government wants to make sure everyone get health care but doesn't everyone? You see, a left or socialist health system would not look at all like ACA because the American system is all about insurance coverage from private insurance corporations. True socialist health care is when the actual care is provided by the state with state-employed doctors in state-owned hospitals. By contrast the ACA is positively capitalist and the insurance corporations must love it.
Similarly, the American food stamp program gives vouchers to the poor but they are redeemed in private stores. The shop owners must love this. In a socialist or Left program the state would actually provide the food from state-owned warehouses. The American system is wrongly termed Left only because the government does not want to see the poor begging on the streets and dying but who does?

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Everybody does.

Ive tried to explain this before,either people did not want to try and understand or I am just not good at conveying my point here.
Places like where you are for example have had socialist, or however you want to refer to it, healthcare pretty much forever.
we have not. and this is where the huge problem comes that makes it prohibitive to people in my income bracket.
You most likely have had this type of shared expense care since you were a child, when you went to work the amount taken regardless of the cost was a known expense. If you made a dollar you knew that among the other taxes you would be paying X amount toward the health care right? so when it came time for you to sign on the line and buy that house, or the car, or even how much you would set aside each month for food and living expenses, that amount for health care was already there. you were able to plan for it.
Now consider if like me, you have been paying around 500 a month for your families health care that had no out of pocket, 10 dollar doctor visits, 7 dollar prescriptions free for the ER or specialists that you were referred to.
You work, buy the house the car vacations savings etc.. and everything is good, you balance your checkbook every month. Now all of a sudden with almost no warning you get hit with this health care that is now going to cost you an extra 300 to 400 a month in premiums, and you now have a 12,800 a year out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. What was a 6000 a year bill yesterday has suddenly become 10 to 28,000 dollar expense today. You have not planned for it because it was not something that was a consideration your entire life. How do you do it? do you sell the car? the house? not send your child to college as planned? remember, the insurance is forced so when you have to find that extra1500 a month what do you suddenly today start going without.
What if you worked your entire life, youve been responsible and have worked with planners to make sure you had enough to live on when that retirement day came. Maybe you are planning to retire next year but all of a sudden you realize that you planned too well and even your retirement income leaves you without subsidies for the insurance. Guess what? you might not be able to retire, you might have just been forced into working till you drop dead at work.
See, this is a huge difference between your country that has had this type of coverage forever, and a country like the U.S that has not. our politicians are in an income bracket that allows them to spend the extra money without noticing too much. They fail to realize that the average citizen does not enjoy the same financial freedom.
For most in this country, the ACA once in full play, or even single payer, is going to create extreme financial hardship.
You cant expect someone that planned for retirement under one set of rules to be able to shift tracks and suddenly find out they are 20k short from eating if they retire, same for the guy still working, e cant do it either without losing something or going totally broke.

I will be honest and state that those figures are jaw dropping. It looks like a real mess and you have my sympathy.

The NHS was introduced after the war by a great Welshman, Nye Bevan. It replaced a patchwork of charities,private insurance and mutual societies which were well meaning but inefficient and out of the reach of many.

This is a good read if you want a picture of life before the NHS. I have heard similar tales from family members.

“Hunger, filth, fear and death”: remembering life before the NHS

This Telegraph article is an easy to understand calculator on the costs to the individual. In truth I have never given the cost a moments thought. I know it is wrapped up in my tax bill but what I pay and what I get are weighted heavily in my favour.

Revealed: how much you pay towards benefit bill

So by the figures given a man on £30k a year pays £1200 towards the NHS. That covers himself and all his family. £30k would be considered a decent wage in the uk and is above average I think.

And thats it. There are no exemptions or exclusions. When our guy is too old to work he is still covered as the next generations taxes pay for it.

Sick people can concentrate on getting better rather than worrying about actually paying for their care.

We do have private provision in the UK. But it is not a universal service. I had it for many years with my employer and only used it twice. Once when my employer wanted me to have an operation at a specific time and date for work reasons. And the other was when my wife wanted to see Madonnas gynaecologist for a specific condition.

Looking at your 6k a year original cost for a second. The Telegraph chart reckons that you would need to earn 125,000 dollars a year to have to put in that much.

For somebody on low income , say 15k or 18000 dollars the cost is just £360 p/a. These might be people on zero hours contracts or ,primarily women, working part time. They get the same level of care as the guy earning 125k.

The truth is that there are probably aspects of the American system that we can learn from and vice versa.

I also think we should be spending more on the NHS as the government have cut funding,in real terms, for the past few years.

But it would still make it a good deal compared to the American model.
There are efficiencies in doing things on this scale.

Drugs costs being a prime example.
The U.S. Pays a Lot More for Top Drugs Than Other Countries

And of course there are no corporations that need to make a profit.

But there are cultural differences which make it unacceptable to many Americans.

NB - The Telegraph is a right wing source.

The NHS cannot be sustained......it is going to collapse and the healthcare is poor quality.....

The link in my thread suggests that it is a great deal and provides great service at a fraction of the cost of your rip off system.

It is collapsing and can't be sustained.......

Just repeating it doesnt make it so. Perhaps you need to worry about your own fucked up system rather than wanking off over something you have little understanding of.

 

[Tilly]

Re Tommy tainteds nonsense about the UKs National Health Service:

Truth: The UK NHS is collapsing under the weight of immigrants and healthcare tourists. It is chock full of incompetence, and staff who seem to prefer to grunt rather than speak coherently.
It has more clipboard-hugging managers than beds, and even it's teaching hospitals are placed under special measures for substandard care and poor management on a regular basis.
It has the poorest cancer survival rates in Europe, and neonatal care is at breaking point. It was recently judged by the OECD to rate below Turkey, Chile and Poland and to be numbered among the worst health care systems in the developed world.
It may once have been the best health service in the world. But those days are long long gone.

 

[Tilly]

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

OK, with what?

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of 'refugees'.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Re Tommy tainteds nonsense about the UKs National Health Service:

Truth: The UK NHS is collapsing under the weight of immigrants and healthcare tourists. It is chock full of incompetence, and staff who seem to prefer to grunt rather than speak coherently.
It has more clipboard-hugging managers than beds, and even it's teaching hospitals are placed under special measures for substandard care and poor management on a regular basis.
It has the poorest cancer survival rates in Europe, and neonatal care is at breaking point. It was recently judged by the OECD to rate below Turkey, Chile and Poland and to be numbered among the worst health care systems in the developed world.
It may once have been the best health service in the world. But those days are long long gone.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
More propaganda from a fascist puppet. Here is a proper link.
World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

 

[Tilly]

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America unless you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then finds themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about taking personal responsibility for your own sex life???

 

[emilynghiem]

The complete ambiguity of natural law phases Emily not at all. Morals are community norms, the validity of which are demonstrated by the survival of the community. Of course norms are as varied as communities, which means 'natural law' is not 'natural' but subjective.

Natural Law
Natural Law | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

According to natural law legal theory, the authority of legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.​

Dear cnm I believe that forming a consensus will ensure we aren't imposing relative morals when we agree on natural laws. By definition, whatever is universal would be in line with people's natural existing beliefs.

I think you are talking about a forced coerced "consensus" but that's not what I mean.

I mean to include what people already define as their beliefs and work out mutual agreements that respect those beliefs.

Do you believe in individual free choice ?

Most people have a term for this in their value system such as civil liberty, freedom of choice, religious freedom, consent, free will, self determination.

What do you call this value, do you agree it is universal that all people experience or express it?

Do you agree that the point is to balance freedom of individuals with peaceful law and order of the larger collective society?

What do you call these terms?

Thanks cnm skepticism is healthy and explaining your objections is part of democratic discourse. So this is welcome and necessary in my book. Thanks for your replies and please explain further. This helps toward building common understanding needed for there to be consensus on laws. Thank you!

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Yes, most definitely they are. RWers usually believe in the market place of ideas, while llibs seem to prefer indoctrination and want to shut down wrong think.

Totally disagree. Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. Thus the name. It is dems who want gays to marry. Who think immigrants should be allowed in no matter their race or religion. I could go on....

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

OK, with what?

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

 

[owebo]

[
Yes, most definitely they are. RWers usually believe in the market place of ideas, while llibs seem to prefer indoctrination and want to shut down wrong think.

Totally disagree. Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. Thus the name. It is dems who want gays to marry. Who think immigrants should be allowed in no matter their race or religion. I could go on....

You seem mad enough to kill us.....are you doing showers this time?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

 

[Norman]

[
Yes, most definitely they are. RWers usually believe in the market place of ideas, while llibs seem to prefer indoctrination and want to shut down wrong think.

Totally disagree. Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. Thus the name. It is dems who want gays to marry. Who think immigrants should be allowed in no matter their race or religion. I could go on....

I don't understand what conserving the status quo has to do with the issue. The left doesn't seem to believe in free speech, opposing opinions or even facts won't be tolerated. This is much, much less of an issue in the RW circles, where only incompetence and being dumb is not tolerated for long. Two qualities which are warmly welcomed by the lwers as to be "inclusive".

 

[Tilly]

Everybody does.

OK, with what?

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know. Mandelson ring any bells, TARD?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OK, with what?

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know.

The NHS was protected by labour. It is under threat from tory cuts because they would prefer to stop poor people getting healthcare. Why ? Because being poor is a crime in your book.

 

[Tilly]

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I realise you are easily confused, but this subject is in regards to what is characterised as 'essential' health care under Americas system. People have different opinions on what is essential, in case you haven't noticed. A lot of people are not happy that they have to pay for other people's contraceptive pill, particularly when free condoms are easily available and are also cheap, and also protect people from STDs. Up to speed yet, boyo?

 

[Andylusion]

Where did I attack conservatives?
I'm talking about teaching and enforcing Constitutional laws for everyone which conservatives do naturally!

I'm saying that requiring Constitutional education and training for all citizens would prevent any such abuses, not just among Muslims but by both parties as well. So any issue we have with Democrats abusing party to push political beliefs on others unconstitutionally through govt would be stopped also!

Without targeting any group, but holding all to uphold the same Constitutional standards!

How is that attacking conservatives, if anything I'm accused of favoring conservatives not attacking them!!

2aguy

Here...quoted from your post.....

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

this is an attack on Conservatives/libertarians and Tea Party members and it is a wrong headed attack...considering that as you just posted, we actually support and defend the Bill of Rights.....vs. the left who see the Bill of Rights as an inconvenience....

I was saying the RIGHTWING do better than the Leftwing at taking corrections !

Sorry 2aguy I can see how that was read wrong.

And BTW the Muslims who are law-abiding and consistent with Christianity tend to be in line with Conservatives on many issues too. But in this passage I meant the Christians and Constituitionalists on the right accept corrections better because of respect for Constituitionalist principles.

Still not explaining your statement about discriminating against muslims.....

Look at examples of conservatives in TN trying to block Mosques which violates religious freedom. 2aguy

When Herman Caine made a statement against Muslims, a group came to speak with him, he apologized and accepted the correction. A lot of Muslims align with conservatives and Republicans so it wasn't fair to misportay or misstate otherwise

In general you can't punish innocent Muslims for the crimes and warfare of others, similar to threats to regulate guns for all citizens instead of just isolating criminals with unlawful intent.

So blanket statements that blame or associate ALL Muslims as enabling terrorism is where SOME not all conservatives go too far.

I've even stopped my own boyfriend from this notion of putting Walid Shoebats interpretation of Islam before how Mustafa a Carroll teaches it who has Christian family and works with Christians and other religious leaders without issue.

Lots of conservative friends I know have misperceptions that Islam is a cult and I only heard recently from one conservative talk show host who said the same thing I was saying to do:
Distinguish between
* Muslims
* Islamists
* jihadists
So yes I do give credit to conservatives who are better at correcting these problems. I've had to explain to many Christians Conservative friends that Islam practiced correctly includes Christianity so it's compatible, and only when people reject either Christianity and/or constitutional/natural laws then does the religious abuse go unchecked.

Herman Caine, the TN far right conservatives trying to block Mosques, and talk show hosts like my own boyfriend who would only air Walid Shoebat and exclude Mustafaa Carroll are examples of conservatives discriminating on the Muslim issues although they are better at correcting when they go too far.

You are mistaken about islam......Christians are not equal under islam...they are a protected class...but have dhimmi status.....and isolated incidents mean nothing ....... you are implying systemic discrimination from conservatives and that just isn't happening...anywhere.....

A protected class under Islam?

Sure thing. No problem. Let's make blacks in the US a protected class, according to Islamic standards.

First, segregate them into isolated areas.... you know... for their protection.

Then let's levy on them a special "black tax" that unless they pay the black tax, then we kill them.

And how much is this tax? Well it's between $42 to $650. That sounds rather reasonable.... until you remember, we're talking about the middle east.

The average wage in the middle east is $200 a month. Iraq-$214, Iran-$215, Jordan-$268.

So we're talking between 1 week, and 3 months worth of wages.

So the tax should be about $2,000 to $10,000 here in the US.

Now keep in mind, this isn't a 'replacement' tax. This is just an additional tax. They still have to pay all the same taxes that middle east people do. This is just an additional burden on top of normal taxes.

So let's do that here. Let's make our minorities a "protected" class of people.

Now I get it, that most... not all, but most Islamic based countries are gradually moving away from this view. Egypt for example started military action against IS, because Christians from Egypt were killed by IS. That would have never happened 50 or 100 years ago, or any time in the distant past.

But please.... spare me this "protected class" BS. Islamic 'protected class' was at best a more lethal version of Mafia protection money.

 

[Clementine]

I consider myself a very tolerant individual.

I would never deny a job to a person because I learned he or she was a liberal or a Democrat.

I know, however, that liberals and Democrats often use their power to discriminate against conservatives and Republicans in their hiring decisions.

Some people did a little test to see how tolerant liberals are.

"Life is very simple for Conservatives, the normal, sane Americans to whom I tend to gravitate. We know right from wrong, and readily accept the consequences; yes even when they are wrong. Such is not the case for Liberals.

When I’m on FOX News arguing with Liberals, I am generally amused. First, what amuses me most is that FOX News actually finds people as dumb as the Liberals I face. People with big degrees and cool sounding titles, who speak very articulately. Yet, they should be butts of all blonde jokes.

Next, as I listen to Liberals present their arguments, I ask myself very simple things. I say for example, what if Obama was not black? Or what if that person shot by that cop was white?

The fact is, Liberals cannot decide on an incident, until they know a lot more detail.

For example, for something relatively simple like, “Cop shot armed masked intruder of local business.” For most Conservatives, “case closed.” But Liberals want to know the race, gender, and circumstances. Maybe the armed intruder didn’t have a father?

A Twitter user conducted an interesting experiment by substituting black and white in the same message, and got interesting results. Information Liberation reported the following:

A Twitter user conducted an interesting experiment to sniff out double standards in the site’s censorship policy concerning race.

The person wrote the same comment on two different accounts with only two words changed, then reported each for abusive behavior.

The first comment read: “I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you.”

The second: “I fucking hate black people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Clinton. Fuck you.”

The first was found not to be in “violation of Twitter’s Rules regarding abusive behavior,” while the second resulted in the user’s account being banned.
Visit the page to see the actual Twitter messages.

These types of experiments were done before on Facebook, where a group posted identical messages that were anti-Jew and anti-Muslim. The site posting anti-Muslim messages was removed, while the anti-Jew site was allowed to stay.

Liberals don’t know tolerance. Liberals are the most self-indulgent people on the planet. Thus, the only things they care about affect them. If they pretend to care about something that doesn’t affect them, it’s only to further their ulterior indulgence.

So play the game, and substitute black with white. Try Republican with Democrats or man with woman. Then replace gay with straight, and you will quickly see the double-standard."

Replace Black With White to Test Liberal Tolerance

 

[Andylusion]

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know.

The NHS was protected by labour. It is under threat from tory cuts because they would prefer to stop poor people getting healthcare. Why ? Because being poor is a crime in your book.

That's the rational of an intellectually dishonest person. Your country doesn't have endless amount of money. The Tories are being fiscally responsible in trying to cut out of control spending.

When Labour wins, your government starts acting like Greece in the 2000s, blowing money all over the place. If you continue down that path, you'll end up like every other country that was fiscally irresponsible. A disaster.

 

[Tilly]

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know.

The NHS was protected by labour. It is under threat from tory cuts because they would prefer to stop poor people getting healthcare. Why ? Because being poor is a crime in your book.

Labour destroyed the NHS by flooding the country with immigrants and through wasting huge huge amounts of money on PFI with cronyism thrown in and foundation trust status just for starters. Labour turned the NHS into a health care system that wouldn't be out of place in a third world nation.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know.

The NHS was protected by labour. It is under threat from tory cuts because they would prefer to stop poor people getting healthcare. Why ? Because being poor is a crime in your book.

That's the rational of an intellectually dishonest person. Your country doesn't have endless amount of money. The Tories are being fiscally responsible in trying to cut out of control spending.

When Labour wins, your government starts acting like Greece in the 2000s, blowing money all over the place. If you continue down that path, you'll end up like every other country that was fiscally irresponsible. A disaster.

Check out the figures.They dont bear out your twisted analysis.Why does a publicly funded health service threaten you so much ?