Universal health care in the U.S.

Universal health care for those in the US illegally   70 votes

  1. 1. Should those who are in the US illegally be covered under a universal health care program?

    • Yes, comprehensive coverage should be paid for those in the US illegally at taxpayer expense
      18
    • Yes, but only for visits to an emergency room or free clinic
      26
    • No, those in the US illegally should be required to purchase private health insurance out of their own pocket
      26

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

344 posts in this topic

 

As for the living standards in China, I can't disagree with you. However, there is no capitalism in China. And by "envy of the world", I meant the skyrocketing growth rates that they have at present. I also find it rather interesting how everyone seems to be turning a blind eye to China's human rights excesses if it means a buck or two.

 

As for the power of Russia, it would be interesting to see what would happen if they cut off their energy supplies. Then I would like to see you debate whether they're powerful or not. As for them receiving supplies from the US, that is exactly what gave the US its boost. Russia got burnt to the ground and had to rebuild after the war. The US supplied everyone else because they didn't get bombed - no Pearl Harbour does not count - and collected all the profits.

Energy is two-thirds of Russia's exports. Think they can afford to stop energy exports? Think that would help them politically? Think they would have an easy time funding their consumption without

 

Not sure how the US "profited" by supplying the Soviets with trucks and other war materiel. It's not like the Soviets paid for them.

 

I sure hope you don't claim that state-owned enterprises are responsible for all of China's growth. The country does, after all, receive the most FDI in the world.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia has pretty much every natural resource you can think of. As for their threats to cut off energy supplies, perhaps you should tell the German government as well as the rest of eastern Europe that they have nothing to worry about.

 

As for your claims regarding the Russians receiving aid from the US and not paying for it, do you have any links backing that up?

 

And as for the FDI, that means absolutely nothing. It's what you do with it that counts. Africa is a good example of a region that has received lots of FDI and done nothing with it. China, on the other hand, is doing such a good job with it that the US are getting hysterical about it, just like they did with the Japanese. In fact, the Chinese economy has been keeping the world economy out of the doldrums with their unquenched desire for raw materials. What do you say to PetroChina, the Bank of China and the Chinese Investment Corporation? Who do you think owns the shares?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Russia has pretty much every natural resource you can think of. As for their threats to cut off energy supplies, perhaps you should tell the German government as well as the rest of eastern Europe that they have nothing to worry about.

You're talking about European politicians who are hardly explempars of "profiles in courage". As for Russia, I can't think of any country that can afford to give up two-thirds of its exports, plus do you think the Russians would want the rest of the world's energy exporters to enjoy the windfall of higher Russian-induced energy prices while Gazprom sits on the sidelines? BTW, what does the WTO say about such an embargo?

 

 

As for your claims regarding the Russians receiving aid from the US and not paying for it, do you have any links backing that up?

Here is a suggested startinng point for your own research:

 

 

http://www.historynet.com/reviews/books/3034921.html

Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory.

Note the book's use of Soviet sources as well as US ones. I won't ask you to provide any links that state that the Soviets did not receive aid from the US during WWII. If you have any knowledgeable American friends or acquaintances, they will probably be familiar with this program.

 

 

And as for the FDI, that means absolutely nothing. It's what you do with it that counts. Africa is a good example of a region that has received lots of FDI and done nothing with it.

 

 

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=121621

However, he says 2005 FDI inflows into Africa still accounted for only 9,6% and 3,4% of developing economies and global FDI inflows respectively.

 

The bulk of FDI went to Asia in 2005.

 

 

China, on the other hand, is doing such a good job with it that the US are getting hysterical about it, just like they did with the Japanese. In fact, the Chinese economy has been keeping the world economy out of the doldrums with their unquenched desire for raw materials. What do you say to PetroChina, the Bank of China and the Chinese Investment Corporation? Who do you think owns the shares?

Incidentally, Japan has long been notorious for not relying on FDI.

Bank of China is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and others, which you must agree is capitalist. It also has operations on every continent, thus it is engaging in commercial activity instead of just providing financing on non-commercial terms for state-owned enterprises in China, which is what you imply. 26% of the shares have been floated.

 

As for PetroChina,

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PetroChina#Recognition

The Company won a series of awards in the competition organised by FinanceAsia, an influential magazine in Asia Pacific capital markets. The Company won the following awards:

Best Dividend Payout Policy, 1st

Best Corporate Governance, 5th

Best Investor Relations, 5th

AsiaMoney’s 2004 “Annual Best-Managed Large Companies Poll

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now