well when people are being put on the streets to die due to poor coverage your ideas well smack of a callous disregard for people's lives in favor of corporate profits. We have people like you keep saying UHC would be bad for the people no it wouldn't it would be bad for insurance companies that hurt people it would be good for the people. corporations don't matter more than people. money isn't worth more than blood.
Exploding debt threatens America
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
well when people are being put on the streets to die due to poor coverage your ideas well smack of a callous disregard for people's lives in favor of corporate profits. We have people like you keep saying UHC would be bad for the people no it wouldn't it would be bad for insurance companies that hurt people it would be good for the people. corporations don't matter more than people. money isn't worth more than blood.
Do you have any numbers to back you your (Republican) claim that Obama is using funny numbers?
Oh, well someone has been misinforming Republican Senator McConnell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/conservatives-public-heal_b_212453.html
Obama is not proposing using the Medicare compensation system. Just to keep you back on track, the government and private plans would be using the same playbook, the same rules, under the Obama plan. So there is not advantage to government other than efficiency.
Carl Rove made the same comment the other day in the WSJ (part of the FOX empire). Rove was quoting a paper issued by a subsidary of United Health Group, a healthcare insurer.
"Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington." June 11 WSJ Karl Rove.
As for my ideas, theories as you call them are all based on solid economics and on a background in healthcare and business as opposed to the view of an individual who has only been a healthcare provider.
Last edited:
Everybody complains about whatever system they have. Very few Canadians who have experience with both would trade systems with the US, even up. Most Canadians would not trade even if their costs remained the same, so they were getting the US system for the Canadian price - let alone paying double.mysteries said:
The French complain because the government-paid maternity leave is not long enough. I have seen interviewed a young Swedish woman about to start a family who admired the US assignment of responsibility to the individual, when asked whether she also admired the lack of maternity services, say "you mean you have to take unpaid maternity leave?".
The wait times in Canada are shorter than the wait times in the US, for most people. The same in France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, etc. The wait time for the third or more of US citizens without coverage or money for whatever ails them is of course indefinite.
I work with three men who all have health insurance, all have jobs, and all have chronic and moderately disabling injuries they cannot afford to have treated - they were or are pre-existing conditions, and their coverage is limited. All of them are going to hit a wall, eventually, when they have to get treated or give up on normal life - at much greater expense and drain on the common resources, and probably (depending on the timing) great handicap to themselves and their families - and continuing loss to the economy meanwhile, of course.
It's a moronic, wasteful, tragically silly setup. It's typical of rich people to fritter money and health and time away like that, but the US isn't as rich as it used to be - bad habits and status goofiness should be given up when one's income drops, or necessity needs paying for.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
People put on the street to die? proof please.
Now lets look at Great Britian;
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4157
Explains Bartolomew: "That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare." The reason isn't that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It's more simple than that. "In America, you are more likely to be treated," writes Bartholomew, "and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment."
On the availability of equipment, explains Bartholomew, Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners. With lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones, the United States has more than seven times the availability per million of population than Britain.
(Where are people thrown out on the Street to die?)
Not America,
(And Canada)
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
The funny thing is that when I look for your vaunted sources from your supposed previous post I can't find it.
At best you cherry pick information, out of context, and fail to read the full article which contains the rest of the information that doesn't support your contention and debate.
That is like the pot calling the kettle black Buffalo Roam. You do the same thing along with the likes of Rove, limbaugh, levine and others like to cherry pick and take things out of context and invent strawmen. In fact the so called Republicans would have nothing to run against were it not for their strawmen.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
they are talk show hosts. who decides who has the right to speak? do you? NO.
This has nothing to do with the right to speak. This has everything to do with honesty. The so called conservatives like to cherry pick (tell incomplete truths) and set up strawmen. If sift out the cherry picking and the strawmen from the so called Republican/conservative repertoire they have nothing of substance to propell their positions forward. The talk show hosts are the most visible offenders, but certianly not the only ones.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
joe, This has nothing to do with the right to speak. This has everything to do with honesty. The liberals like to cherry pick (tell incomplete truths) and set up strawmen, sift out the cherry picking and the strawmen from the so called Democrat/Liberal repertoire they have nothing of substance to propell their positions forward. The liberal talk show hosts are the most visible offenders, but certianly not the only ones, just look at the Democrats in Congress, and the White House, yes the play book is now;
Don't Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste!
Even if they have to manufacture them,
Show me how honest you, levine, limbaugh, hannity are. Show me some honest and complete statements. And show me some dishonest or incomplete statements from Oberman. Until then, your statments are just another in a long stream of fluff and chaff.
Show me something other than mimickery.
Show me something other than mimickery.
"incomplete truths" is just not telling your side so it seems to me as though tis is about the right to speak. the important thing to remember is twofold:
1. there is a first amendment
2. these people have an audience
personally i dont just believe anything out of hand from the radio or t.v and think of it as entertainment and admittedly i often disagree with the conservative hosts on many issues.
the fact is that the conservatives on the radio are much better than the liberals, even if you are not conservative you can see this.
1. there is a first amendment
2. these people have an audience
personally i dont just believe anything out of hand from the radio or t.v and think of it as entertainment and admittedly i often disagree with the conservative hosts on many issues.
the fact is that the conservatives on the radio are much better than the liberals, even if you are not conservative you can see this.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Yes, joe, the liberals are so truthful,
Well this took a whole 6 seconds, now how about cherry picking and spin;
http://newsbusters.org/node/7551
Lies, Damned Lies, and Olbermann
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
September 11, 2006 - 20:23 ET
Have a look at the poll that Keith Olbermann flashed during this evening's Countdown.
Try to put aside your politics for a moment to describe - in all objectivity - the most striking aspect of the poll results. I'd say it's the fact that by a margin of almost 2:1, Americans feel more safe rather than less safe since 9/11. Pretty good accomplishment by the Bush administration, you might say.
So how did Keith Olbermann characterize the results? "55% combined think we are either as safe or less safe" since 9/11.
Olbermann might just as accurately have said that "74% of Americans feel more safe or as safe since 9/11" or even "less than ¼ of Americans feel less safe." But he obviously didn't agree to set aside politics in the way I asked you to do.
Like they say about statistics, there are lies, damn lies . . . and Olbermann.
Mark Finkelstein lives in the liberal haven of Ithaca, NY. View webcasts of Mark's award-winning TV show 'Right Angle' here. Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
I found nothing unfair or the polling or how Oberman presented the information. The information was complete. This is like looking at the glass half full or half empty. It is not a case of deception.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
But the Glass was 3/4 full, OMG, and you want to accuse me of drinking the Kool Aid....:roflmao:
You choose to see it 3/4 full and that is how I would view it. But all of the information is presented honestly. Each viewer can make his/her own decision. People can honestly look at the same evidence and perceive it differently. That very different from altering and withholding fact.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
I knew you would eventually see the light Buffalo Roam. 
unexplained_mysterie
Registered Member
Its not a Republican claim most of his forcasts have been well off. even the CBO says it doesn't add up. David Walker, the former chief of the Government Accountability Office also said it doesn't add up
"I don’t know why he made it. Politicians are good at making these type of promises during campaigns. Anybody that passed basic math would have known that you cannot end up dealing with our structural problems in our deficits without having more revenues."
Source
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that President Obama’s budget and deficit projections are too low. The president’s budget will incur $9.3 trillion in federal deficits between 2010 and 2019 --$2.3 trillion higher than Obama had originally claimed.
The CBO’s latest analysis, released Friday, showed that the president’s proposed budget will increase the deficit to $1.8 trillion in 2009; $1.4 trillion in 2010; and $970 billion in 2011 -- falling to $658 billion in 2012 before rising again to $1.2 trillion in 2019.
The total deficit from 2010 to 2019 was pegged at $9.3 trillion."
Source
Unless you can prove David Walker and the CBO wrong then Obama is using fuzzy math.
Why is it that when ever I ask you to name your source, you eith ask me to name mine, you say you already did or you change the question?