Quote from 5haz :

then there are those scum who are wealthy through inheritance (and are just as bad as any benefit cheat).

I agree with this to a degree. There happens to be a Lord of an area I will not name, but for sake of argument, I shall call him LoWe. LoWe owns some very valuable property in the UK all of which was given to him for free through inheritance because as with all Lords born into it (and not brought it from Labour) at some point a King fancied a bit of a married woman and should her husband turn a blind eye would get much land.

Many years later that land is now highly valuable and makes LoWe worth hundreds if not billions of pounds and yet he only has to pay the same tax as someone on 20k a year because he can afford to employee an accountant who can fiddle the numbers enough.

That is unfair and should be stopped, but it hurts everyone in power so never will be.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Regarding Lib Dems and the anti-hate speech thing, as I said earlier there is no party that represents Anyones views 100%. If I had my way we'd have a true democracy in Britain, a system of rolling elections and true proportional representation. Lib Dems are calling for the closet thing to it, Labour and Conservatives have already laid the framework for this conversation not being possible at the next election.

Personally I'm not bothered by your mention of thy legislature, the whole concept of prejudice is absent from me, it's about as much as I can do to muster up some frustration at the Large number of elements in the christian right for hating me, but I don't even hate them: I'd rather just teach them. If a law is needed, so be it. Personally I'm not that botered as long as I can get married and visit my wife in hospital when she's I'll. Oh wait, I can't.

For you to live like that does not require legislation though. I find the whole concept of marriage pointless and only there because some guys writing a book thought it was a good idea. But I shouldn't then have the right to demand no one gets married because I don't like it. Personally I am not a fan when the homosexual couples at uni used "breeders"* as a slur, but I just see it as proof that bigotry and hate runs both ways.

In the same view I have no problem with same sex couples having all of the same rights as opposite sex couples. That doesn't require a law to make me think that, it is just the way I roll. By removing the state from our personal lives all together a lot of the bigotry will vanish (given time, it isn't going to happen over night) as most of it just stems from laws/culture being formed around a badly written old book.


* Context: We were organising a night out and a few of the people I lived with were in same sex relationships so they naturally invited partners and friends. While sitting around waiting for people to turn up a group of said same sex couples were going on rants about how it is breeders fault the country is in a poor state, so much crime, etc. it is just nature for people to hate everyone that isn't in their little tribe. You can't expect the gov't to protect your feelings so you don't get hurt.

Wait a mint people. It's not fair that you are born in the UK and not some poverty stricken country. This countries wealth was brought about by slavery so that means you are all a bunch of hypocrites!

You're inheriting the same 'immoral' wealth as the people you hate so much! So get off your moral high horses please people.

Not sure which way I'll be voting on 6th.

In principle, I'm a mix of conservative & libertarian. People should be left free to achieve their best and be rewarded for it. Other than the obvious aspects of keeping law & order etc, the state has no business meddling in people's lives. I despise the way the state today has wheedled it's way into every aspect of life, from parenting, morals, social engineering, ridiculous "green" policies, surveillance, etc. The current govt despises the people it is supposed to represent, and considers them the enemy. What gets me even more annoyed (and to be frank, scared) is the proportion of the population that is quite happy to be hand held and told what to do "for their own benefit/safety/etc" - it's quite depressing just how many people simply want to live way beyond their means, in a mountain of debt, living from paycheque to paycheque, thinking only about how pissed they can get at the weekend, and hoping they can recover in time to watch the X Factor with a tikka masala in front of them.

Bit like the government then, really.

Government to me should be small, efficient, wholly accessible and openly democratic. The public sector should pay as little as possible in the interests of taxpayer efficiency, and benefiting the private sector that funds the public sector.

So in theory, I should vote Tory. Except for one small problem. Some of them are a bunch of crooks and David "Dave" Cameron is just too fake and stage managed for me to believe him. He gave a good performance in the final tv debate, but it was all rehearsed. There was no determination, no passion, no anger in his voice when he was hitting Gordon Brown across the face with all of Labour's abject failures in the past 13 years. It's just political games and pointscoring to them.

I like some of the LibDem proposals regarding freedom and civil liberties (no DEB, no ID cards etc), but I can't vote for them because they want even more to do with Europe (I want less, much less - get as far away from Greece as possible!), and they want to get rid of Trident which is just sheer lunacy.

I can't vote for Labour because I'm not stupid.

Who's left? UKIP?

Quote :

then there are those scum who are wealthy through inheritance (and are just as bad as any benefit cheat). Then there are also those who work hard but hit a glass cieling, it is not fair for these people, their opportunities are limited by money.

I disagree that inherriting money makes you a bad person. How doe that make you like a benefit cheat? What you are preaching is called "reverse snobbery", and I've come up against it myself and find it quite abhorrent.

For those that don't know, before my families meteoric financial collapse, I was extremely ****ing wealthy. I was set to inherriting a sizeable fortune.

Because my family lost that wealth and I grew up on lentils am I now a better person?

I would argue that I have a wider life experience now, that I'm able to see a wider range of perspectives, but I don't think it casts any judgment on the values that are important to me at all, and in no way reflects upon me as a person.

The income imballance is one I'm familiar with. In my last job I earned 40% of my coworker and delivered more. But hey, I'm lucky I even have a job. Do you know how often I've heard people say "a woman in tech? Wow that's a suprise don't see that often" followed by some week ass excuse that they're not sexist but they support what I'm doing...

Quote from STROBE :

Not sure which way I'll be voting on 6th.

In principle, I'm a mix of conservative & libertarian. People should be left free to achieve their best and be rewarded for it. Other than the obvious aspects of keeping law & order etc, the state has no business meddling in people's lives. I despise the way the state today has wheedled it's way into every aspect of life, from parenting, morals, social engineering, ridiculous "green" policies, surveillance, etc. The current govt despises the people it is supposed to represent, and considers them the enemy. What gets me even more annoyed (and to be frank, scared) is the proportion of the population that is quite happy to be hand held and told what to do "for their own benefit/safety/etc" - it's quite depressing just how many people simply want to live way beyond their means, in a mountain of debt, living from paycheque to paycheque, thinking only about how pissed they can get at the weekend, and hoping they can recover in time to watch the X Factor with a tikka masala in front of them.

Bit like the government then, really.

Government to me should be small, efficient, wholly accessible and openly democratic. The public sector should pay as little as possible in the interests of taxpayer efficiency, and benefiting the private sector that funds the public sector.

So in theory, I should vote Tory. Except for one small problem. Some of them are a bunch of crooks and David "Dave" Cameron is just too fake and stage managed for me to believe him. He gave a good performance in the final tv debate, but it was all rehearsed. There was no determination, no passion, no anger in his voice when he was hitting Gordon Brown across the face with all of Labour's abject failures in the past 13 years. It's just political games and pointscoring to them.

I like some of the LibDem proposals regarding freedom and civil liberties (no DEB, no ID cards etc), but I can't vote for them because they want even more to do with Europe (I want less, much less - get as far away from Greece as possible!), and they want to get rid of Trident which is just sheer lunacy.

I can't vote for Labour because I'm not stupid.

Who's left? UKIP?

Here here!!! Cammers needs some Maggie fire for sure. his big socieity bollox does my head in

But if you vote for UKIP (even as a stand), you let those parties which you detest closer into your seat. If you do not wish LibDems run the country - you dont get a choice of who to vote for.

Quote from Intrepid :

Wait a mint people. It's not fair that you are born in the UK and not some poverty stricken country. This countries wealth was brought about by slavery so that means you are all a bunch of hypocrites!

You're inheriting the same 'immoral' wealth as the people you hate so much! So get off your moral high horses please people.

I see no crime in inheritance, I do in tax dodging to the degree that many who have the money to get away with it do.

Quote from Intrepid :

5Haz what planet are you on. You can't CREATE that system. Re-allocation of wealth always leads to what we are living in now! It fails every single time. Also you seem to be ignorant to the opportunities out there now for people. But people get on their socialist high horse talking about 'fairness'. it's like saying RedBull should run with ballast and Virgin be given an engine boost... 'coz it's fair'. Is utter tosh.

Don't think of it as reallocation of 'wealth', think of it as reallocation of opportunity. There are plenty of people who want to work hard all the way to the top but traditionally they're stuck in their class at the bottom, if they want to work hard and make money and they've got the brain power, then why should anyone stop them.

There are plenty of opportunities out there at the moment, but many of them will close up if the Conservatives get a majority.

I agree that forced redistribution of wealth is a bad idea, but if everybody is given at least the chance to get to the top if they get up ioff their arses and put some effort into it, then eventually wealth will probrably redistribute by itself (a frightening prospect for the more miserly rich types).

Formula 1 is not quite the same as real life, as in Formula 1 is a competetive sport, its an optional thing, not everybody has to be invloved in F1, if you don't have the money to race then tough. But everyobody has to live some sort of a life, you can't just walk away from living if you find you're too poor to get anywhere. (Suicide isn't a good idea).

Anyway, success ballast has been used effectively in some motorsport championships, not in F1 though because in F1 technical deveklopment is supposed to get you ahead as well as driving skill, F1 can't be compared to life outside racing.

Quote from Intrepid :

And wait a second it's bad for someone to inherit wealth yet it's NOT bad for someone to get their d1ck wet to have a family and expect free money?

Never said it was a good thing, then again people still need to have kids, this country along with many other well developed countries has a bit of a problem in that the birth rate is dropping and the average population age is growing, one day we'll have a nation of old people with not enough working age people to support them.

Remember also that sometimes a family who are reasonably sufficient may suddenly become dependant, due to injury, redundancy so on so forth, thats what benefits were really for when they were introduced.

Quote from Intrepid :

Sorry but if someone wants to give their children money it is NONE of your... or MY business! If someone works hard all their life it is up to THEM how they allocate their wealth. Not some pen pusher trying to win votes. Either way you take that opportunity away from a wealthy person to pass ont heir money they'll leave the country and you'll get NO taxes then.

Fine, just whoever is lucky enough to recieve that wealth has no right to be preaching about hard work and earned cash to anyone. I'm not suggesting wealthy people should have massive sums of their wealth taken away, I'm suggesting it should be easier for less well off people to work their way up in life, the end result may mean that more people end up with more of the cash, which I'm sure some greedy people wont like, but it will have happened natrually, not in a forced way.

Quote from Intrepid :

I guess everyone in the country in poverty is fairer though

Hopefully somewhere in between poverty and insane wealth. Everyone in poverty is what happens when wealth is forcefully redistributed, and having a corrupt government that hoardes wealth for itself, and bad economic policy which means that the overall wealth of the country itself isn't that great anyway.

You need to distingush the difference between some tweaks to the current system to make it a bit fairer and full blown communism. Its a favourite defense of some who support the right wing to cry 'socialists!' at anything that means they might have to share the cake out a bit more equally. Just as its a favourite defense of many left wing supporters to shout "nazis!" at anyone who takes a more nationalist view of things.

Quote from 5haz :

Don't think of it as reallocation of 'wealth', think of it as reallocation of opportunity. There are plenty of people who want to work hard all the way to the top but traditionally they're stuck in their class at the bottom, if they want to work hard and make money and they've got the brain power, then why should anyone stop them.

That's something a politician would say.

Nothing is stopping them. What stops people is growing dependence on the state. It's been proven time and time again. You increase dependence on the state people work less and are less productive. And to make matters worse the taxes the rich have to pay mean the rich work less (tax receipts go down and budget deficit ever increases) or either move.

The failure with Labour's (and the rests) philosophy is it's the states duty to create opportunity but it only does to by infringing on other people's opportunity. The broken window fallacy explains it all. Poor people can make it, but it's the constant propaganda that says "you can't make it alone.. you need the state to help you" is what forces people to live a life of lost opportunity.

Every time someone pushed your philosophy the state inevitably grows and grows until it goes bankrupt. It happened with Labour in the 70s and has happened AGAIN with Labour in the 00s. It's an admirable philosophy but it's so detrimental and dangerous in the long run

People need to wake up now and realise themselves, independently, that they can make it and don't need the wealth of other people's hard work and labour.

Throughout history, Shaz, 99% of Britains wealth has been owned by 1% of the population. Were quite lucky in that our elite caste is not entirely hereditary.

If you really want to redistibute the wealth, dont target rich people. Trget the one area of hereditory wealth that has never changed, the largest land owner in the country, the church.

Taking charity status away from the largest business corporation in the country would have a dramatic effect on everyone, and go a long way to a fairer and more prosperous future for us all.

A nation which is a majority atheist state does not need such a powerful political body and disproportionate representation as we have at the moment.

Sadly no party is suggesting it.

Forcefully moving money around won't work, what the state needs to do is to help create a system based where the opportunities people have are based on skills rather than on wealth. There needs to be less of a link between the wealth of your upbringing and how far you get in life.

Therefore only those willing to work will be successful, whether they are from a working class background or an upper class background, and those who sit on their arse all day (whether they are rich through inheritance or benefit cheats) aren't. Now thats fair.

And that does involve the cutting back of benefits down to only those who really do need them. (people who are struggling to pay their way due to circumstances beyond their control). While the opportunities to gain skills through work and education should be kept open for everyone willing to work as much as possible, perhaps with some of the money saved by cutting unecessary benefits. Some cuts will have to be made everywhere overall but public spending should be moved around so that its given to people who work for it, rather than it dissapearing almost completely.

And no you cannot always get far in life by yourself, perhaps if you're middle/upper class, but if you're poor then you won't get far by yourself, traditionally you need money to get the skills, but to get the money you need the skills, a catch 22 situation.

It would be evil to cut the welfare state back to nothing, it just needs a lot of changing to make it fairer for people of all classes and backgrounds, and sustainable.

And yes Becky, religion is an old fashioned sponge of money, but it wont be long before its dead, at least in this part of the world.

Its clear to see how things have changed, looking at how many people in even the previous few generations have the fear of god in them compared to the more recent generations, the number of atheists has grown massively. Who needs a priest to tell you what to do with yourself if you have common sense?

Quote from 5haz :

And that does involve the cutting back of benefits to those who really do need them. While the opportunities to gain skills through work and education should be kept open for everyone willing to work as much as possible, perhaps with some of the money saved by getting people who don't need benefits off the benefits. Some cuts will have to be made everywhere overall but public spending should be moved around so that its given to people who work for it, rather than it dissapearing almost completely.

Firstly people who inherit money are not the same as benefit thief. An individual making the decision to transfer their wealth to a person of their choice is vastly different to someone accessing funds funded via taxation of the public. If someone works hard it is up to them where the wealth they worked for goes.

If you remove that mechanism you remove the right to wealth and personal ownership and then you are pretty close to tyranny. by saying the money you earn belongs to the state then you remove the motivation to work and thus less jobs are created and everybody is worse off.

To say everyone has to start from the same level is just false and misleading. We are all different and yes to a certain extent unequal. But I wouldn't for one moment expect to be bailed out. My family history has it's roots in the romany gypsy community so I know more than most about deep poverty and persecution. However I strongly believe in personal responsibility & personal liberty ... and that's I think where we differ.

Quote from Intrepid :

Firstly people who inherit money are not the same as benefit thief. An individual making the decision to transfer their wealth to a person of their choice is vastly different to someone accessing funds funded via taxation of the public. If someone works hard it is up to them where the wealth they worked for goes.

They are the same in that they did not earn their money, they got it free, benefit cheats get their free money from the state, while many of the super rich get their free money from their parents, who got their free money from their parents.

Quote from Intrepid :

If you remove that mechanism you remove the right to wealth and personal ownership you are pretty close to tyranny. by saying the money you earn belongs to the state then you remove the motivation to work and thus less jobs are created and everybody is worse off.

Don't remember saying anywhere that people should not have the right to inherit money, just pointing out that they haven't exactly worked hard either. This makes them hypocrites of they try to act holier than thou.

Quote from Intrepid :

To say everyone has to start from the same level is just false and misleading. We are all different and yes to a certain extent unequal. But I wouldn't for one moment expect to be bailed out. My family history has it's roots in the romany gypsy community so I know more than most about deep poverty and persecution. However I strongly believe in personal responsibility & personal liberty... and that's I think where we differ.

Nobody has to start from the same level, everbody should have the right to end at the same level, but only if they put some effort in. At present there are barriers in the way of this.

Your replies aren't even relevant to what I'm saying, sometimes I wonder if there is a book of standard right wing phrases out there somewhere that people read and then use standard phrases out of context.

There is a difference between what I'm talking about and Stalinism, honestly.

Quote from 5haz :

There is a difference between what I'm talking about and Stalinism, honestly.

5Haz you're talking about social engineering either way - what people do or not deserve according to your own skewed logic. You want to dictate to individuals what they should or should have. If your think society is about implementing your will own the people then fine instead of people implement their own will on themselves. Personally I believe in liberty and personal responsibility.

Oh well, at least theres nothing left to privatise in the Cons get back into power.....

Quote from danowat :

Oh well, at least theres nothing left to privatise in the Cons get back into power.....

... the NHS

Save £100,000,000,000 a year as well as the money made from the sale which which be hundreds of billions. Then it would be - deficit problem? WHAT deficit problem?

However 90% of the population aren't independent enough to absorb such a thing. A shame really because it would wipe out quite a large chunk of national debt avoiding a potential sterling crisis & debt agency downgrading which is going to hit us very very very hard. At the very least the NHS needs to eb reformed radically. I am already hearing they may introduce GP charges to check ups and what not so no longer will it be truly free healthcare.

Quite funny really because I got a labour leaflet through my door quoting some conservatives and their objections to the NHS. I'm like - mint GREAT idea!

Our willingness to pick up and treat our wounded is what seperates us from animals. You'll never convince me that private healthcare is a good idea, it has been proven time and time again all over the world that private healthcare does not work. It is "cheaper" in the sense that you can let some people die without having to pay for their treament.

The only thing wrong with the NHS is the same as what is wrong with every other area government have dabbled in. Too many middle managers inventing statistics to say what good job they're all doing. Get rid of all the clerks trying to improve efficiency and you'll improve efficiency, other than that what's wrong with it?

The NHS is a fine institution and one I'm proud of. I wouldn't be here without it.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I wouldn't be here without it.

Nor would most of the UK. There is a reason infancy death is at such a low in the UK (much lower than the US) and it is down to free universal heath care.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Our willingness to pick up and treat our wounded is what seperates us from animals. You'll never convince me that private healthcare is a good idea, it has been proven time and time again all over the world that private healthcare does not work.

Where has it been proven? It's a complete falsehood to claim their has been private healthcare free from Governmental interference (which has wrecked the US system for so many years with various new laws and regulations)

And let's be brutally honest here Becky. The NHS is paid for via taxation. now last time I check no one voluntarily pays tax. So the NHS is nothing more than a politically tool to ensure public dependence on the state.

Private healthcare (when free from competing with a state monopoly or government interference) has many positives. The standard of care is massively improved and prices come down. Of course, unlike you, I believe in the philanthropic nature of people to donate and be charitable rather than them being forced to pay via taxation. That is true belief in 'the people' unlike your skewed belief of 'the people'. For example the other day I brought this homeless chick a meal and drink on a cold night. I didn't need someone to come along and force me! It's a part of human nature to help the fellow man/woman.

With the benefits like improved service, standards and lower prices true private healthcare means the poor will benefit just as much from privately run charitable institutions & and the cheaper end of the private healthcare scale. Just like the car industry competition between businesses accelerates advancement and affordability. Even the cheapest second hand cars are fantastically good! Well that was until the god awful car scrappage scheme distorted and wrecked the market!

With healthcare now though only the super rich has access to top rate private healthcare (The NHS has made affordable for the many private healthcare impossible) and the rest of us have to deal with the NHS. it is an admirable organisation I will concede but one which has an under-below of control and manipulation of the people that sits very uncomfortably with me

And let's be careful with language. One man's 'because of' is another man's 'despite of'. However we all must agree the NHS does need massive reforms.

Quote from Intrepid :

5Haz you're talking about social engineering either way - what people do or not deserve according to your own skewed logic. You want to dictate to individuals what they should or should have. If your think society is about implementing your will own the people then fine instead of people implement their own will on themselves. Personally I believe in liberty and personal responsibility.

Its more a case of ensuring people are judged in life on their ability rather than the size of their wallet, making people more free from the constraints of money, which keeps the poor poor and the rich rich because to make more money you have to have money. Gosh that really sounds like the work of a despot.

Anyway, we live in a nation of people who don't know what they want, perhaps they need to be dictated to. More seriously, you have to win peoples hearts and minds not force them, and thats very difficult but not impossible.

Again, just another textbook counter argument used out of context.

Quote from Intrepid :

So the NHS is nothing more than a politically tool to ensure public dependence on the state.

Haha, they're also quite good at fixing you up when you're sick too. :doh:

Why are people obsessed with finding a conspiracy in absolutely everything? Sometimes organisations and people do things for good reasons and out of kindness and sometimes they can be trusted too.

The NHS's main purpose is healthcare for ****s sake, of course people are dependant on healthcare from time to time, or are you next going to tell us that all illness is caused by the government to make us all dependant on the state blah blah. :doh:

Everybody seems to think they are detectives, in on something new and scandalous, when their investigation goes about as far as a heavily biased blog or forum post with a deliberate lack of sources. :doh:

I laugh when people translate the most harmless, well meaning organisations and policies in "Oh my god! This violates my human rights!"

Its a very handy way of spotting where the lack of intelligence/proper arguments are.

We disagree on almost every point in the political spectrum Intrepid (although I note with suprise we almost agreed on something a page back), but please don't pressume upon my viewpoint and expand upon it, allow me to do that.

The reason I think public healthcare is good, other than the world ranking of best healthcare systems being topped by all the countries with soial healthcare, is because I see contributions to the state as sharing. It's not at all about being forced to do anything, the concept of being taxed sits well with me. I don't even particularly want lower taxes. What I want is ny tax money to be spent on things that genuinely improve our society and that are more efficiently done by pooling our resources - like the NHS.

Charitable hospitals almost always have caveats, in America most charity hospitals are run by churches, many of them semi-politicised and active in lobbying. Churches add their own agenda, such as not helping gay people. Also many of them are focused (part of the edgecraft of raising money, much of which is filtered away from care an into church coffers) - so one area might have good chaitable care for lukemoa, or for children.

I really don't think replacing the NHS with charity churhes is going to work.

In practice privatisation of healthcare has proven to deliver worse results for health than communism delivers equality. Some people get very good care under privatisation.

In the words of an American doctor friend of mine, "we treat foreigners first in A&E: they're always insured."

Quote from Becky Rose :

We disagree on almost every point in the political spectrum Intrepid (although I note with suprise we almost agreed on something a page back), but please don't pressume upon my viewpoint and expand upon it, allow me to do that.

The reason I think public healthcare is good, other than the world ranking of best healthcare systems being topped by all the countries with soial healthcare, is because I see contributions to the state as sharing. It's not at all about being forced to do anything, the concept of being taxed sits well with me. I don't even particularly want lower taxes. What I want is ny tax money to be spent on things that genuinely improve our society and that are more efficiently done by pooling our resources - like the NHS.

Charitable hospitals almost always have caveats, in America most charity hospitals are run by churches, many of them semi-politicised and active in lobbying. Churches add their own agenda, such as not helping gay people. Also many of them are focused (part of the edgecraft of raising money, much of which is filtered away from care an into church coffers) - so one area might have good chaitable care for lukemoa, or for children.

I really don't think replacing the NHS with charity churhes is going to work.

In practice privatisation of healthcare has proven to deliver worse results for health than communism delivers equality. Some people get very good care under privatisation.

In the words of an American doctor friend of mine, "we treat foreigners first in A&E: they're always insured."

Sighting the US as an example of private healthcare is a falsehood. There is so much governmental agendas inter-weaved with the larger healthcare companies means it really isn't truly private. It's a weird mesh of the two. I can't find any country with true private healthcare that doesn't compete with a state monopoly. Please give an example

America has some degree of social healthcare, because the system didn't work they had too, however saying medicare is even remotely like the NHS is a ... Falsehood.

The American system is based on a corporate framework, and what I said above is true, and I think validly enforces my point. I don't think my argument that private healthcare is harmed in any way by America having had to introduce a social safety net in Medicare, it merely highlights how a truly privatised doesn't work. Medicare does not go far enough and Americas healthcare lags behind Britain substantially, even though they have more advanced technology and better funding.

For truly private healthcare you have to look at Africa, which relies on charity hospitals and privatised shamen. Thankfully, no developed world country has been stupid enough to tak healthcare as right wing as you would like.

Quote from Intrepid :

Sighting the US as an example of private healthcare is a falsehood. There is so much governmental agendas inter-weaved with the larger healthcare companies means it really isn't truly private. It's a weird mesh of the two. I can't find any country with true private healthcare that doesn't compete with a state monopoly. Please give an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared - Makes grim reading. The cross comparison isn't much better. And when you consider the US is the only developed nation which doesn't have universal coverage, pay more and receive less, you can see that Nixon has seriously ruined that system. Really it needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.