Sign in to follow this
Followers
0
Can Sikhi be separated from the land of Punjab?
By
MisterrSingh, in WHAT'S HAPPENING?
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
The reason why if it is done by state is that if you start on a smaller scale with some flyover state like North Dakota or Arkansas and it is seen as successful and better than the current system, then other states will follow suit. The elites can probably handle one or two problems but if all the states to implement a comprehensive health system simultaneously then the elites will find it difficult to handle. Plus if it becomes a bottom up grass roots movement then you might stand a better chance. -
By californiasardar1 · Posted
Divide and conquer, of course. Left-leaning coalitions are easy to defeat because they are made up of many different groups, and it is very easy to make it seem like one group is being favoured over another. Whatever issues Sikhs in the UK might have with another group, I think Corbyn (and even more so McDonnell) would have been great allies for the Sikhs. It's a shame. I get the impression that a majority of Sikhs vote Labour (although there are some who love the Tories ... they are the kind of odd people who feel proud that they can claim that their ancestors were from former British colonies). Do a majority of Hindus support the Tories? I don't understand why the British voters were not more receptive to Corbyn's proposals. They sounded pretty good to me: fund the NHS properly, nationalize the railways, etc. I agree that he was clearly a threat to the status quo. Note how it came out later that high-ranking Labour officials were relieved when Labour narrowly lost the 2017 election! I think something similar would have happened in the US if Bernie Sanders had gotten the Democratic party nomination to run for President. Most Dem politicians and most "progressive" business leaders (e.g. Bill Gates) would have privately (or even publicaly) preferred Trump to Sanders. -
By californiasardar1 · Posted
You won't get an argument from me defending insurance companies and the American healthcare model. As I said in my post, the wealthy and powerful (e.g. insurance companies) do everything they can to prevent social safety net programs from being established and/or expanding. They own most of the politicians, and they are very adept at scaring voters by spreading misinformation and framing things in misleading ways. For example, some more left-wing democrats proposed abolishing private health insurance and moving to a more efficient, universal healthcare system. The talking point became that these democrats were "trying to take away your health insurance." Technically it is true, they wanted to take it away and replace it with something better. You can see how misleading it is, but one-liners like that go a long way in politics. It's not the size of the America that makes an NHS-style system impossible. If such a thing were proposed at state levels, the same media campaign against it would take place in those states. -
Wonderful replies here by the sangat 🙏🏾. A small point to note; if you walk side by side, one of you will stand closer to the Guru and have to walk a slightly shorter distance, while the other will have to stand a little further away from the Guru and walk a slightly longer distance. Who will it be? And how do you decide who gets to stand closer to the Guru? This is what happens when you start splitting hairs. As sangat have mentioned, if you don't like the Anand Karaj, you are more than welcome to get "married" in any other way you see fit... -
From what I understand is that the insurance companies hold too much sway. In an average US salary, how much percentage of income goes into the medical insurance. What is the point of paying into insurance when it comes to using it, the insurance companies do everything they can not to pay. In the UK, our NHS money is funded from our National Insurance contributions and I think we probably pay less into our healthcare than people do in the US, so what is your insurance contributions paying into? NI is a tax but at least it's an upfront tax, not this sly stealthy cr*p where it looks like you pay less tax but your money is taken elsewhere. The US maybe a vast place, but if it was done a state by state level where some states are between 5 million to 10 million people, I think it is quite do-able.
-
