Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Repb's - 20, Dems -50
Health Care Bill Debate
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Repb's - 20, Dems -50
Why is it that he opposes importing drugs from Canada and Europe? These countries are more technologically advanced than the US, and I have never heard anything negative about European or Canadian drug regulations. Besides, if we wanted more "new cures," we would spend more of our federal budget on the sciences. The "cures" the pharmaceutical industry comes out with tend to make people dead and fail to live up to the hype. I thought most of the real advances these days came from Europe and our universities. Our universities can't discover new cures, though, if we are not giving them funding. Our major universities are still among the best in the world, the jewels of our country and the only redeeming aspect of our education system, and they do better when they have money.
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Now how about real life, and not some cartoon?
Like this case in the UK?
Or how about this case in Canada;
Yes, Universal Government Health Care, and you expect it to be any different here in the U.S. if it is rammed down our throats?
Like this case in the UK?
22yo dies after being denied liver transplant
The sad case of a young sick British man has raised new questions about the fairness of the rules for organ transplants.
Gary Reinbach, 22, an alcoholic, died yesterday after authorities in the UK refused to give him an emergency liver transplant.
Doctors there said he could not jump the queue and had not served the mandatory six-month period of being sober before having the operation.
Gary Reinbach, 22, an alcoholic, died yesterday after authorities in the UK refused to give him an emergency liver transplant.
Doctors there said he could not jump the queue and had not served the mandatory six-month period of being sober before having the operation.
Or how about this case in Canada;
Man must pay for liver transplant in England: court
A retired teacher who spent $450,000 for a life-saving liver transplant in England after being denied it here must pay for the treatment himself, an Ontario court has ruled.
Adolfo Flora, 57, was diagnosed with liver cancer in 1999 after contracting hepatitis C from a blood transfusion, the Toronto Star reported. He was expected to die within six months without a new liver, but two specialists at Ontario transplant centres said he was not a suitable candidate.
Instead, Flora turned to Britain, where he had a liver transplant in March 2000. The Ontario Health Insurance Plan turned down his request to be reimbursed for the surgery.
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman defended that decision on Friday.
"Of course we want to be in a position where we support every individual to the fullest," Smitherman said.
"But I think that to sustain a public health care system, we have to be very honest in saying that it will never be possible to pay for every treatment or to pay for every hope or promise that is available everywhere in the world."
Adolfo Flora, 57, was diagnosed with liver cancer in 1999 after contracting hepatitis C from a blood transfusion, the Toronto Star reported. He was expected to die within six months without a new liver, but two specialists at Ontario transplant centres said he was not a suitable candidate.
Instead, Flora turned to Britain, where he had a liver transplant in March 2000. The Ontario Health Insurance Plan turned down his request to be reimbursed for the surgery.
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman defended that decision on Friday.
"Of course we want to be in a position where we support every individual to the fullest," Smitherman said.
"But I think that to sustain a public health care system, we have to be very honest in saying that it will never be possible to pay for every treatment or to pay for every hope or promise that is available everywhere in the world."
Yes, Universal Government Health Care, and you expect it to be any different here in the U.S. if it is rammed down our throats?
No system anywhere can afford to pay for all possible treatments for everyone. No one maintains that there is a perfect system anywhere. But we have de facto rationing here now. Changing our present system could net far more lives saved, and serious illnesses averted for the same amount of money we are spending now.
Family sues insurer who denied teen transplant
17-year-old girl died hours after Cigna finally agreed to pay for new liver
Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment
....But instead of having doctors working to remove her brain tumors on the day the surgery was scheduled, she sat in a San Francisco hotel room. Why? Because at the last minute, her insurance company, Blue Shield, decided it wasn't going to pay for the treatment her doctors at UCSF Medical Center had recommended.
And it goes on and on.
Family sues insurer who denied teen transplant
17-year-old girl died hours after Cigna finally agreed to pay for new liver
Insurance Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment
....But instead of having doctors working to remove her brain tumors on the day the surgery was scheduled, she sat in a San Francisco hotel room. Why? Because at the last minute, her insurance company, Blue Shield, decided it wasn't going to pay for the treatment her doctors at UCSF Medical Center had recommended.
And it goes on and on.
the situation is actually quite fascinating
the drugs are actually ours. while we may not be able to negotiate for lower prices, the canadian govt can and does. they get their shit on the cheap.
so ahhh.... america exports to canada, they export back to us. a process called re-importation
ja
funny stuff.
in anycase i read we import to the tune of a billion bucks or so already. i guess obama wants more
Gov bucks federal ban on Canadian drugs
Prescription Drug Reimportation
a decent lowdown on the whole import issue can be found here
we also have the alleged deals that obama has cut....
The Obama factor will also affect the healthcare industry. Insurance companies will initially prosper because the deal they cut will increase earnings. They have promised to insure people with pre-existing conditions in return for a government mandate forcing healthy, young citizens to carry insurance. Give the industry 20m young people who will pay premiums but not need care, and it willingly takes on a few who are already sick. But then will come downward pressure on rates, and a migration from the private to subsidised public-sector insurance.
One last industry — pharmaceuticals. The big drug companies have promised to reduce prices of drugs to pensioners by $80 billion over the next decade. In return, the president has promised to remove from any bill consumers’ rights to re-import drugs from Canada (American patients can now buy them at low, government-set prices, and import them to the US). And Congress has agreed to extend by seven years the current five-year exclusivity period during which branded drugs are protected from generic competition. (link)
"alleged" in the sense i have not bothered to verify........
not so
it appears the rhetorical device is here to stay
see below
yeehaw!
fuck the commie bastards! we dont need no stinking cheap shit
how much?
10 bucks
i'll give you 20
uhh ok
right, boy?
When a politician holds a "town hall meeting", who is he meeting with? Generally, one would say he's meetng with his constituency. Now if it happens that the majority of those who show up disagree with the politician, it's convenient to pretend that all those people were shipped in by the famous "vast right wing conspiracy", or "astroturf", if you prefer. But that doesn't make it true.
I'm not sure which (if any) poll you're referencing (you provided no link), but most polls show support for ObamaCare to be dropping like a rock:
August 5, 2009 - Scrap Health Care Reform If It Adds To Deficit, U.S. Voters Tell Quinnipiac University National Poll; Voters Disapprove Of Obama's Handling Of Health Care
American voters, by a 55 - 35 percent margin, are more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than it will not act to overhaul the health care system, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. By a similar 57 - 37 percent margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds "significantly" to the deficit.
By a 72 - 21 percent margin, voters do not believe that President Barack Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health care system without adding to the deficit, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll finds.
American voters disapprove 52 - 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 - 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 - 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 - 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.
Voters are split 39 - 41 percent on whether the President's health care plan will improve or hurt the quality of health care in the nation, with 14 percent saying it won't make a difference.
Only 21 percent of voters say the plan will improve the quality of care they receive, while 36 percent say it will hurt their quality of care and 39 percent say it will make no difference. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357
American voters, by a 55 - 35 percent margin, are more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than it will not act to overhaul the health care system, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. By a similar 57 - 37 percent margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds "significantly" to the deficit.
By a 72 - 21 percent margin, voters do not believe that President Barack Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health care system without adding to the deficit, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll finds.
American voters disapprove 52 - 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 - 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 - 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 - 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.
Voters are split 39 - 41 percent on whether the President's health care plan will improve or hurt the quality of health care in the nation, with 14 percent saying it won't make a difference.
Only 21 percent of voters say the plan will improve the quality of care they receive, while 36 percent say it will hurt their quality of care and 39 percent say it will make no difference. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357
Read the above quoted material. Those in support of ObamaCare are not in the majority.
I'm not sure where I criticized Obama for the act of defending his plan. Can you provide a quote where I did that? I certainly disagree with the man on most issues; but I'd never question his right to speak and defend his policies.
We have thousands of Americans showing up in protests across the country. How many people need to show up at a given rally before the Left will admit that a few of those people are regular Joes? McCain did receive 45% of the vote, you know. Yet the Left acts as if the country has suddenly become 99% Democrat and any protests must be a sham. Keep believing that, and you may just find yourself shocked when 2010 rolls around.
Thank God for you "Blue Dogs". One of the major problems many Americans have with Obama is his constant rush to pass things before anyone even has a chance to read them, let alone debate the merits of any specific sections of the bill. Every bill is an emergency. Every bill must be passed NOW. NO TIME TO READ IT. NO TIME TO LET THE PUBLIC HAVE A SAY. JUST PASS IT. TRUST US.
Those are the tactics of used car salesmen, not leaders.
ja
dumbfuck republicans with their caps and large fonts
this is here is gallup's take on this so called "Grass Roots Fury"
1. Most Americans do not believe that the U.S. healthcare system is in a state of crisis. The economy outweighs healthcare as the most pressing problem facing the country and in Americans' personal lives.
2. Americans are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them personally. This is, in part, because most Americans are satisfied with their current medical care and access to healthcare. Seniors in particular are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them.
3. Americans agree that healthcare costs are a major problem for the country. Americans do not, however, believe that healthcare reform would lessen costs -- neither for the system as a whole nor for individuals.
4. The push for healthcare reform is occurring in an environment characterized by high levels of concern about fiscal responsibility, government spending, and the growing federal deficit. Americans are being asked to approve major new healthcare expenditures at a time when they are not yet convinced that the last massive outlay of government money -- the stimulus -- has made an impact.
5. Americans have relatively little confidence in Congress and thus, by inference, little confidence that Congress can effectively and efficiently reform the country's massive healthcare system.
6. Americans continue to have more confidence in President Obama on healthcare issues than in either the Democrats or Republicans in Congress. Obama's political capital, however, is waning. This leads to a circularity in which Obama's hard push for healthcare reform may hurt his approval ratings, and his falling approval ratings may hurt his credibility on healthcare reform. One inevitable byproduct of Obama's strong push on reform is the politicalization of healthcare. Most Democrats support it, Republicans oppose it, and independents are in the middle.
7. Americans have mixed or ambivalent views of the role government should have in healthcare. They favor some government involvement, but not a government-run healthcare system.
8. On a case-by-case basis, Americans favor many specific proposals that have been put forth as ways of reforming healthcare.
9. Despite positive views of many specific reform proposals, Americans appear ambivalent at this juncture on the overall merits of passing a broad healthcare plan.
10. All in all, while the majority of Americans ultimately favor passage of healthcare reform, many are willing to wait until next year to see it happen.
Bottom Line
Taken together, these findings underscore the conclusion that Americans' views on the push for healthcare reform are in a state of flux, perhaps mirroring the back and forth debate in Congress on this contentious issue. Two keys for the average American appear to be cost and urgency. The data suggest a continuing need to convince Americans of the return on investment of any proposed major investment in healthcare reform. Americans also appear dubious about the benefits of what they perceive to be less-than-fully-informed representatives in Washington rushing into a new healthcare reform law when the need for such legislation is not the highest on the public's agenda.
the return on investment is something i would like to know too
with the lobbyists cozily ensconced in the white house i am wary of any legislation that comes out there. fuck the compromise. make a goddamn stand. deliver on your fucking promises!
as for "urgency"...... what is this? one issue at a time? ever heard of multi tasking?
gallup expands on the 10 points here
dumbfuck republicans with their caps and large fonts
this is here is gallup's take on this so called "Grass Roots Fury"
1. Most Americans do not believe that the U.S. healthcare system is in a state of crisis. The economy outweighs healthcare as the most pressing problem facing the country and in Americans' personal lives.
2. Americans are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them personally. This is, in part, because most Americans are satisfied with their current medical care and access to healthcare. Seniors in particular are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them.
3. Americans agree that healthcare costs are a major problem for the country. Americans do not, however, believe that healthcare reform would lessen costs -- neither for the system as a whole nor for individuals.
4. The push for healthcare reform is occurring in an environment characterized by high levels of concern about fiscal responsibility, government spending, and the growing federal deficit. Americans are being asked to approve major new healthcare expenditures at a time when they are not yet convinced that the last massive outlay of government money -- the stimulus -- has made an impact.
5. Americans have relatively little confidence in Congress and thus, by inference, little confidence that Congress can effectively and efficiently reform the country's massive healthcare system.
6. Americans continue to have more confidence in President Obama on healthcare issues than in either the Democrats or Republicans in Congress. Obama's political capital, however, is waning. This leads to a circularity in which Obama's hard push for healthcare reform may hurt his approval ratings, and his falling approval ratings may hurt his credibility on healthcare reform. One inevitable byproduct of Obama's strong push on reform is the politicalization of healthcare. Most Democrats support it, Republicans oppose it, and independents are in the middle.
7. Americans have mixed or ambivalent views of the role government should have in healthcare. They favor some government involvement, but not a government-run healthcare system.
8. On a case-by-case basis, Americans favor many specific proposals that have been put forth as ways of reforming healthcare.
9. Despite positive views of many specific reform proposals, Americans appear ambivalent at this juncture on the overall merits of passing a broad healthcare plan.
10. All in all, while the majority of Americans ultimately favor passage of healthcare reform, many are willing to wait until next year to see it happen.
Bottom Line
Taken together, these findings underscore the conclusion that Americans' views on the push for healthcare reform are in a state of flux, perhaps mirroring the back and forth debate in Congress on this contentious issue. Two keys for the average American appear to be cost and urgency. The data suggest a continuing need to convince Americans of the return on investment of any proposed major investment in healthcare reform. Americans also appear dubious about the benefits of what they perceive to be less-than-fully-informed representatives in Washington rushing into a new healthcare reform law when the need for such legislation is not the highest on the public's agenda.
the return on investment is something i would like to know too
with the lobbyists cozily ensconced in the white house i am wary of any legislation that comes out there. fuck the compromise. make a goddamn stand. deliver on your fucking promises!
as for "urgency"...... what is this? one issue at a time? ever heard of multi tasking?
gallup expands on the 10 points here
A disruptive demonstration by Americans for Prosperity, which is a well funded organization, does not count as a "constituency," MadAnthonyWayne. Furthermore, they had no intention of attending the meeting. They intended to disrupt it. Like you, they were engaging in the politics of intimidation and personal destruction.
Americans For Prosperity actually is a Right Wing Conspiracy, MadAnthonyWayne. Thank you for letting me know that I have you under my paw, though, prey.
The GOP has been using this reference to Thatcher-era paranoia to discredit accusations against their morality for years, and the accusations in question have almost invariably been justified. If you hear something like this, you just caught a Republican with his pants down, and he is trying to cover his butt. Although these antics are highly amusing in the case of our friend, MadAnthonyWayne, do not let this make you lazy: this kind of attack can throw off your focus if you are not careful. Stay focused, and stay on-task.
I am having too much fun with you to be paranoid, Anthony.
Calling a demonstration by a busload of activists "grassroots" actually is "astroturf." Psst: you are lying!
Cherry-picking. Cute.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=healthcare+poll&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&fp=G6D2vLUrYPk
Follow the link, and follow the Google Search results. The results on the first page largely show that often extremely large majorities of Americans support Obama's healthcare package, particularly when they are given "somewhat" as an option.
Please introduce me to the GOP blog that you got yours from. I strongly doubt you have sufficient imagination to do all that cherry-picking for yourself, so you may as well come out with it.
You were. You were attempting to claim that Obama was cramming the plan down people's throats because...he was defending his plan to the public? Trying to explain his plan? Trying to persuade ordinary Americans to believe that his plan will help them?
As far as you are concerned, it has.
Quit your whining. It's not my fault your party had its balls handed to them last year. The GOP lost because of exactly the kind of behavior that we are seeing from you here. The GOP spent far too long getting its way through intimidation tactics and rhetorical manipulation. During that time period, I was young, and I may have found an individual like yourself to be challenging. At this point, you are really just a chance for me to sharpen my claws and create an object lesson for the kittens.
Last edited:
Bad for business
You have a point, there. After all, that's how we ended up in Iraq.
I think, though, the problem with your complaint this time is that, while failing to read a bill into the record is problematic to say the least, one would think members of Congress are actually aware of what they've been working on. Of course, it's entirely possible that they've let lobbyists write the legislation, in which case it doesn't really matter.
I think any realistic person recognizes two basic facts about the current health care debate:
Beyond that, neither the politicians nor the people at large have yet adjusted to the information overload that is the internet era. 24/7 news networks, the blogosphere, a thousand newspapers at your fingertips. At the very time we need to proceed carefully, everyone is feeling the pressure of an artificially-inflated urgency.
It would be like taking a test in high school, trying to work through an especially complex problem, while your teacher stood over your shoulder shouting, "Keep going! Time's a-wasting! You're not gonna make it! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!"
I remember this one time, driving back from Florence to Eugene along 126, when this Cadillac El Dorado—a veritable frigate on wheels—came around the bend and lost traction in the snow as it entered the bridge. I've never been quite sure how we got through that, except to say that my Beetle lost traction at exactly the right moment, sliding through a narrowing gap between the Caddy's front quarter and the guard rail, and then grabbed the road again at exactly the right moment, rocketing through and away. Of course, part of the reason I can't tell you what, exactly, I did to get through that is my girlfriend, who screamed in my ear the whole time. Fuck, I hate that.
I would imagine the politicians feel the same way. And with these party-coordinated town-hall protests, I have this memory of Diamond Joe Quimby: "Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?"
Fixing the health care system in the United States is important. The problem is that the people who want reform want it now, and those who don't are willing—as you demonstrate so clearly—to say anything to ward it off.
So perhaps you're satisfied with a health care system oriented around profit instead of health. You might find it perfectly justifiable to cancel coverage after the fact. After all, it's bad for business if an insurance company actually has to pay out on claims. And perhaps the America you love so much is one in which an insurance company abandons its policyholder exactly at the moment of need. Which would make sense, since "grass roots" to you seems to mean integral Republican Party operations.
Remember, sir, that you are on the side of stupidity and greed. You are of the movement that makes the simplest, most idiotic appeals to emotion. In the face of any complex problem, you simply wail, "They're coming for your wallet!" or, "They're trying to hurt your children!" I admit that it's a challenge to overcome such mean-spirited, disingenuous rhetoric. After all, the simple is easy because it is simple. But, hey, you're just reaping the benefits of having shortchanged the educational system in the United States. It's all working out so well for you, isn't it?
Gambling on the idea that people are too stupid to know any better might well pay off this time, as it has in the past. But such victories don't make you a decent human being. And, more than anything, that's the problem with people like you.
But it's okay. We understand. A conscience is bad for business.
Madanthonywayne said:
You have a point, there. After all, that's how we ended up in Iraq.
I think, though, the problem with your complaint this time is that, while failing to read a bill into the record is problematic to say the least, one would think members of Congress are actually aware of what they've been working on. Of course, it's entirely possible that they've let lobbyists write the legislation, in which case it doesn't really matter.
I think any realistic person recognizes two basic facts about the current health care debate:
(1) The odds of getting it right on the first go are extremely poor.
(2) Whenever Congress rushes, disaster looms.
(2) Whenever Congress rushes, disaster looms.
Beyond that, neither the politicians nor the people at large have yet adjusted to the information overload that is the internet era. 24/7 news networks, the blogosphere, a thousand newspapers at your fingertips. At the very time we need to proceed carefully, everyone is feeling the pressure of an artificially-inflated urgency.
It would be like taking a test in high school, trying to work through an especially complex problem, while your teacher stood over your shoulder shouting, "Keep going! Time's a-wasting! You're not gonna make it! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!"
I remember this one time, driving back from Florence to Eugene along 126, when this Cadillac El Dorado—a veritable frigate on wheels—came around the bend and lost traction in the snow as it entered the bridge. I've never been quite sure how we got through that, except to say that my Beetle lost traction at exactly the right moment, sliding through a narrowing gap between the Caddy's front quarter and the guard rail, and then grabbed the road again at exactly the right moment, rocketing through and away. Of course, part of the reason I can't tell you what, exactly, I did to get through that is my girlfriend, who screamed in my ear the whole time. Fuck, I hate that.
I would imagine the politicians feel the same way. And with these party-coordinated town-hall protests, I have this memory of Diamond Joe Quimby: "Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?"
Fixing the health care system in the United States is important. The problem is that the people who want reform want it now, and those who don't are willing—as you demonstrate so clearly—to say anything to ward it off.
So perhaps you're satisfied with a health care system oriented around profit instead of health. You might find it perfectly justifiable to cancel coverage after the fact. After all, it's bad for business if an insurance company actually has to pay out on claims. And perhaps the America you love so much is one in which an insurance company abandons its policyholder exactly at the moment of need. Which would make sense, since "grass roots" to you seems to mean integral Republican Party operations.
Remember, sir, that you are on the side of stupidity and greed. You are of the movement that makes the simplest, most idiotic appeals to emotion. In the face of any complex problem, you simply wail, "They're coming for your wallet!" or, "They're trying to hurt your children!" I admit that it's a challenge to overcome such mean-spirited, disingenuous rhetoric. After all, the simple is easy because it is simple. But, hey, you're just reaping the benefits of having shortchanged the educational system in the United States. It's all working out so well for you, isn't it?
Gambling on the idea that people are too stupid to know any better might well pay off this time, as it has in the past. But such victories don't make you a decent human being. And, more than anything, that's the problem with people like you.
But it's okay. We understand. A conscience is bad for business.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Tiassa. Is there a risk that the left, or the democrats ,as it were will become as vicious and as disgusting as the Republicans ?
To me, they would be entirely justified. But then it would really be a clone party system.
To me, they would be entirely justified. But then it would really be a clone party system.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
So.. About those weapons of mass destruction.. They come with a "Lost and found" warranty right ?.. I mean, you were so sure that they were there..
If the tactics of healthcare reform are those of used car salesmen, what were those that were used to start the war on Iraq ?
the real question here is weather people are basing their lack of support on the facts of right wing and anti-obama misrepresentations
you mean the same uk moving toward a system closer to the US's?
Well ....
Always. They're politicians.
And there is no left in mainstream American politics.
The problem is that even though they're not leftists, the Democrats just aren't any good at mudslinging. That's not to say they don't try. But come on, the last Democrat to fight effectively on that front was Bill Clinton. Jesus, couldn't John Kerry at least have come out and called Larry Thurlow a liar? I mean, Robert Gibbs took a question about the birther controversy last week, and the Democratic version of a smackdown is approximately akin to a condescending pat on the backside. Instead of hedging on the idea of even talking about it, and then talking about it, couldn't he have said, "Come on. You're the White House Press Corps. I'm the Spokesman. Don't waste my time with that stupid shit." Or the bit about the coordinated health care protests. He feebly reminded that these were organized and pushed by a Republican PR firm. Most Americans wouldn't recognize the name for what it is. Couldn't he have said, "The only reason we're concerned is because, for some inexplicable reason, every time the Republicans decide the people are stupid enough to eat shit, they actually eat it."
It's not that they wouldn't be justified. But, to the one, if you proclaim a better way, you have to show it. The Republicans have appeals to emotion. All they have to say is, "You, too, can be rich, and the Democrats will make you poor!' and people believe them. The Democrats? They put on a more elaborate pretense, one that is very hard to live up to. But why do their golden boys always have to get dirty with skanks? I mean, we had Bill Clinton, and he somehow survived it. But he also damaged the party so badly in the public's eyes that they elected George W. Bush. And we had John Edwards, but fuck. I mean, really. Fuck!
But the only reason it's not a clone system—at least, in the context you raise—is that, as Bill Maher put it, "Over the last 30-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital."
When a campaign argument is that being educated makes you too snobby for public service ...?
(And it is a clone system in a different context. For decades we've complained about entrenched political machines. But given a chance, voters more often than not either re-elect the same people they complain about, or elect their clones.)
Just get me through August 22, and have Obama do the right thing with that. And then I'll know whether it's worth figuring out what the hell he's up to, or start arguing with myself over whether it's worth sticking around until I'm fifty to see if this country can save itself.
____________________
Notes:
Maher, Bill. "New Rules". Real Time With Bill Maher. HBO, New York. June 19, 2009. HBO.com. August 6, 2009. http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/20090619.html
Challenger78 said:
Always. They're politicians.
And there is no left in mainstream American politics.
This year, we're hearing that a public option for health care is unlikely because it doesn't have the support of enough Democrats. Even Ted Kennedy's plan-- Ted Kennedy, yeah -- leaves 37 million uninsured. This is because we don't have a left and a right part in this country anymore. We have a center-right party and a crazy party.
And, over the last 30-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.
So, what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture and the pharmaceutical lobby; that's the Democrats.
And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earth-ers and Civil War re-enactors who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans. And who actually worry that Obama is a socialist.
And, over the last 30-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.
So, what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture and the pharmaceutical lobby; that's the Democrats.
And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earth-ers and Civil War re-enactors who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans. And who actually worry that Obama is a socialist.
The problem is that even though they're not leftists, the Democrats just aren't any good at mudslinging. That's not to say they don't try. But come on, the last Democrat to fight effectively on that front was Bill Clinton. Jesus, couldn't John Kerry at least have come out and called Larry Thurlow a liar? I mean, Robert Gibbs took a question about the birther controversy last week, and the Democratic version of a smackdown is approximately akin to a condescending pat on the backside. Instead of hedging on the idea of even talking about it, and then talking about it, couldn't he have said, "Come on. You're the White House Press Corps. I'm the Spokesman. Don't waste my time with that stupid shit." Or the bit about the coordinated health care protests. He feebly reminded that these were organized and pushed by a Republican PR firm. Most Americans wouldn't recognize the name for what it is. Couldn't he have said, "The only reason we're concerned is because, for some inexplicable reason, every time the Republicans decide the people are stupid enough to eat shit, they actually eat it."
It's not that they wouldn't be justified. But, to the one, if you proclaim a better way, you have to show it. The Republicans have appeals to emotion. All they have to say is, "You, too, can be rich, and the Democrats will make you poor!' and people believe them. The Democrats? They put on a more elaborate pretense, one that is very hard to live up to. But why do their golden boys always have to get dirty with skanks? I mean, we had Bill Clinton, and he somehow survived it. But he also damaged the party so badly in the public's eyes that they elected George W. Bush. And we had John Edwards, but fuck. I mean, really. Fuck!
But the only reason it's not a clone system—at least, in the context you raise—is that, as Bill Maher put it, "Over the last 30-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital."
When a campaign argument is that being educated makes you too snobby for public service ...?
(And it is a clone system in a different context. For decades we've complained about entrenched political machines. But given a chance, voters more often than not either re-elect the same people they complain about, or elect their clones.)
Just get me through August 22, and have Obama do the right thing with that. And then I'll know whether it's worth figuring out what the hell he's up to, or start arguing with myself over whether it's worth sticking around until I'm fifty to see if this country can save itself.
____________________
Notes:
Maher, Bill. "New Rules". Real Time With Bill Maher. HBO, New York. June 19, 2009. HBO.com. August 6, 2009. http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/20090619.html
So how is this different from what happens in the US today. Every day thousands of folks are denied care by insurance companies. The example you just cited is a common reason insurance companies use to deny healthcare treatments. If the man had healthcare insurance in the US, it is likely his US healthcare insurer would have denied payment as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Makes me feel naive for asking.
Ah. That explains why your left is like our right..
And they say Mcarthyism is dead. Why the hatred for even left leaning policies ?
Why not ?
There has to be a cause right ? People don't believe this shit without some extremely tenous link somewhere right? There is some faith in Evidence Right? The "beacon" of civilization must have some logic behind it.. .. please ?
Ah, The famous Horatio Alger myth strikes again.
I never got that either. Elitist generally means to surround oneself with the rich/powerful/upper class, and it is arguable Bush did that more than Obama.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Guess what it is no different, in the end someone has to have the money to pay for that transplant, and someone else decides if you will get that money, and that is where the lie of UHC is, only now it is the Government who decides.
Unless you can afford it on your own, and can move into the Private Sector Hospital system, which will develop for the Privilege Governmental Class, and the Horrible Rich, as has happened in England, Canada, Australia.......
If you have the money, you can buy what ever you need.
The difference is that if you are paying for Insurance, the Insurance Company is under Contractual obligation to provide said service, enforceable in Court of Law.
That is the beauty of Insurance, private or through your employer, it is a Contract for Services.
And a plus of Employer insurance programs is that they are open enrollment, and preexisting conditions are accepted.
That is what will be destroyed with the Government UHC, and you will still be left with these same sad stories;
22yo dies after being denied liver transplant
The sad case of a young sick British man has raised new questions about the fairness of the rules for organ transplants.
Gary Reinbach, 22, an alcoholic, died yesterday after authorities in the UK refused to give him an emergency liver transplant.
Doctors there said he could not jump the queue and had not served the mandatory six-month period of being sober before having the operation.