dixie

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But I AM advocating a system that provides basic healthcare and preventive medicine to our poor.

And we have this already! Every state in America has a health department and statewide health clinics, funded by state taxes, and partially funded by the feds. We did this years ago, when liberals whined enough about the poor not getting health care, dying in the streets, etc. Now, here you are, back again, pretending these facilities don't exist, or aren't adequate enough! What the fuck does it take for you people? If every poor person in America is given a house, a fully stocked refrigerator, a nanny, a butler, and a private nurse, will that be good enough for you? Maybe they need a chauffeur and limo too? I mean, far be it from us mean ol' conservatives to deny them basic rights!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And we have this already! Every state in America has a health department and statewide health clinics, funded by state taxes, and partially funded by the feds. We did this years ago, when liberals whined enough about the poor not getting health care, dying in the streets, etc. Now, here you are, back again, pretending these facilities don't exist, or aren't adequate enough! What the fuck does it take for you people? If every poor person in America is given a house, a fully stocked refrigerator, a nanny, a butler, and a private nurse, will that be good enough for you? Maybe they need a chauffeur and limo too? I mean, far be it from us mean ol' conservatives to deny them basic rights!

RETARDED

 

[SmarterthanYou]

RETARDED

YES!!!! You are fucking retarded. Where is anything dixie said false????

 

[uscitizen]

Well why don't we demand the Government pass a law to make them work until 9pm? We can just add the extra expense to the tax burden on the upper 1%, they can afford it, right? But wait... those people who work in the Banks and courthouses... when are they supposed to go grocery shopping? We need to pass a law to make groceries stay open until midnight! But wait... what about the people who work at grocery stores???? Okay, I've got it! We pass a law that says everyone has to work 24 hrs a day, and they have to pay all of their income into taxes to fund all the shit you can dream up! Will that make you happy? IDIOT!

Ohh Idjit supremo, we have lots of 24 hour grocery stores and such.

Laws are not needed for private retail stores, if the demand is there they will stay open.
Do we still have any laws telling retail stores that the cannot be open though ?
I remember when they were not allowed to open on sunday, then after 1pm on sunday, etc...
Those pinhead liberal churchgoers I suppose..

And the banks could just open later. It is hard as heck to even find a bank that is open on Saturday, even 1/2 day on Saturday.

And courthouses are there to serve us right ? Or is it the other way around.

Laws are not needed for private retail stores, if the demand is there they will stay open.

 

[uscitizen]

YES!!!! You are fucking retarded. Where is anything dixie said false????

I remain curious as to what blood kinship you are to Dixie?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ohh Idjit supremo, we have lots of 24 hour grocery stores and such.

Laws are not needed for private retail stores, if the demand is there they will stay open.
Do we still have any laws telling retail stores that the cannot be open though ?
I remember when they were not allowed to open on sunday, then after 1pm on sunday, etc...
Those pinhead liberal churchgoers I suppose..

And the banks could just open later. It is hard as heck to even find a bank that is open on Saturday, even 1/2 day on Saturday.

And courthouses are there to serve us right ? Or is it the other way around.

Laws are not needed for private retail stores, if the demand is there they will stay open.

usidiot, the point is, when you say "Banks and courthouses and such should work til 9 pm so that wworking people can do business with them" Most people interpret that to mean you would support some legislative initiative to mandate this. Particularly regarding courthouses, which are not private capitalist business like banks.

Banks, being in the business of making profits for their shareholders, should be allowed to set hours based on what is cost effective for them, and this should never be predetermined by idiots on an internet message board.

With courthouses, it would require tax payers to foot the bill for the extra hours, unless you think courthouse workers would do this out of the goodness of their hearts to help the poor working people. If that is the case, it is yet another liberal fantasy of how to spend money we don't have on shit we don't need.

I have to say, when you guys get some political power, you really do use your imagination! It's almost as if you sit around all day in your underwear, dreaming up the most foolish and ridiculous ways we can spend money we don't have! If we could harness the energy from just half of those brain farts, we could become completely independent of foreign energy!

 

[Cancel3]

What the fuck does it take for you people? If every poor person in America is given a house, a fully stocked refrigerator, a nanny, a butler, and a private nurse, will that be good enough for you? Maybe they need a chauffeur and limo too? I mean, far be it from us mean ol' conservatives to deny them basic rights!

Kinda going overboard here, aren't you? I think you want to make it sound as though the needs are being met and the liberals just want more and more.

If the needs are being met, why do so many poor not have medical care until it becomes serious enough to warrant emergency room treatment?

Does some public health exist ? Sure it does. Is it adequate? No, it is not. And spending on preventive healthcare will probably save us a tidy sum in the catastrophic medical care we end up providing.

 

[Cancel3]

Solitary, I am not disputing what NP's do, as I said, my sister is a NP. She is currently doing her clinicals. They are indeed a great asset to the medical community, and do indeed perform a lot of routine "doctor-like" services. However, they are NOT doctors! In most cases, they either consult directly with the patient's physician, or direct the patient to a physician if they don't have one. There is no instance that I am aware of, where clinics use NP's instead of doctors. The reason is, liability.

Dixie, you keep going on about the "NPs are not doctors". Well no shit sherlock. Tell me something we don't ALL know. And please tell me WHO said that NPs are to REPLACE doctors. You keep throwing arguments to points that no one has made.

Ok, your sister is a NP. Perhaps she can read the posts about what we have suggested and translate it for you so that you can understand what has been said.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you keep going on about the "NPs are not doctors". Well no shit sherlock. Tell me something we don't ALL know. And please tell me WHO said that NPs are to REPLACE doctors. You keep throwing arguments to points that no one has made.

Ok, your sister is a NP. Perhaps she can read the posts about what we have suggested and translate it for you so that you can understand what has been said.

"second, the use of nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants rather than full MDs would be more practical"

That was what I was responding to. It seems clear to me, Don was suggesting we 'more practically' staff these clinics with NP's instead of MD's. When I pointed out that you really CAN'T do this because of medical liabilities, you jumped in and started yammering about NP's being just as qualified as doctors, and in many cases, better and more preferred than doctors. You and don can have whatever opinion your idiot heads can think up, but the fact of the matter is, no clinic is ever going to operate with NP's instead of MD's. So, each one of these "federal health clinics" which will mirror the already present "state health clinics" will need to be staffed with at least one doctor, and if you plan to keep it open until 10 p.m., it will require two or more, especially if it will be open on weekends. Doctors being one of the highest paid professions, this can get very costly real quick.

Neither of you have given me a satisfactory answer as to how this will be paid for. To do something like this on a nationwide scale, it will cost trillions, and it's money we simply do not have. Not only that, but you haven't told me why these "federal" clinics would be any more adequate than the state clinics we already have in place. You keep mentioning "preventative care" but I've given several examples of how state clinics do this already, and you've not really given any indication of what a federal clinic could do better in this area.

All you've really done is let your bleeding hearts run wild with fantasy! As liberals often do, you've dreamed up some terrible problem and injustice, made it sound far worse than it is, and suggested that we must 'right this wrong' for the sake of humanity! You have absolutely no regard for the cost, or the redundancy of your idea, by God it's going to be demanded anyway!

We have private sector clinics all over America, every state has health departments in every major town. We have indigent care laws in every state, we have federally funded medicare and medicaid programs, covering all the poor and children, we even have a federally funded prescription drug program, but all of these things are still not good enough for you, it is now being demanded that we build and staff clinics nationwide, on the federal level. And you have the nerve to suggest I am the one going overboard???

 

[Epicurus]

God you two are long-winded.

How do you have this much free time?

 

[Cancel3]

"second, the use of nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants rather than full MDs would be more practical"

That was what I was responding to. It seems clear to me, Don was suggesting we 'more practically' staff these clinics with NP's instead of MD's. When I pointed out that you really CAN'T do this because of medical liabilities, you jumped in and started yammering about NP's being just as qualified as doctors, and in many cases, better and more preferred than doctors. You and don can have whatever opinion your idiot heads can think up, but the fact of the matter is, no clinic is ever going to operate with NP's instead of MD's. So, each one of these "federal health clinics" which will mirror the already present "state health clinics" will need to be staffed with at least one doctor, and if you plan to keep it open until 10 p.m., it will require two or more, especially if it will be open on weekends. Doctors being one of the highest paid professions, this can get very costly real quick.

Neither of you have given me a satisfactory answer as to how this will be paid for. To do something like this on a nationwide scale, it will cost trillions, and it's money we simply do not have. Not only that, but you haven't told me why these "federal" clinics would be any more adequate than the state clinics we already have in place. You keep mentioning "preventative care" but I've given several examples of how state clinics do this already, and you've not really given any indication of what a federal clinic could do better in this area.

All you've really done is let your bleeding hearts run wild with fantasy! As liberals often do, you've dreamed up some terrible problem and injustice, made it sound far worse than it is, and suggested that we must 'right this wrong' for the sake of humanity! You have absolutely no regard for the cost, or the redundancy of your idea, by God it's going to be demanded anyway!

We have private sector clinics all over America, every state has health departments in every major town. We have indigent care laws in every state, we have federally funded medicare and medicaid programs, covering all the poor and children, we even have a federally funded prescription drug program, but all of these things are still not good enough for you, it is now being demanded that we build and staff clinics nationwide, on the federal level. And you have the nerve to suggest I am the one going overboard???

Jeez Dixie, you have really sunk low trying to make your point. You quote a portion of a post and claim that you think Don is trying to say we would staff the clinics with NPs instead of Drs.

But I am sure you read the entire post:

"second, the use of nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants rather than full MDs would be more practical

two doctors, a family practice or general physician and a pediatric physician would be adequate for most localized clinics with referrals to specialized physicians at regional clinics (a certain number of local clinics would feed a regional clinic depending on population density)"


Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Don talked about the two medical doctors to be used to staff the local clinics with referrals to regional clinics for specialized physicians.

You are grasping at straws and lying. You obviously did NOT think that "Don was suggesting we 'more practically' staff these clinics with NP's instead of MD's." Don was obviously suggesting using NPs in addition to medical doctors.




And I have addressed funding numerous times. Cutting defense spending by enough to expand the existing health clinics to cover what needs to be there, was a simple, workable solution.

No one has suggested a redundant system. You are the one suggesting that the federal program MUST be separate from the state ones. And just as an FYI, the ONLY hospitals that are required to treat the indigent are those receiving FEDERAL dollars. The rest can transfer the patients out.

You are going ballistic over suggestions that we make sure our poor citizens have basic healthcare and preventive health care. You are going ballistic over my suggestion that our military budget can stand a trimming to fund it.

Yeah, thats compassionate conservatism at its best.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The idiotic argument over NP's or MD's or BOTH, is irrelevant anyway. We have now established that Don meant we should staff these "federal clinics" with two doctors, a pediatric specialist, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians assistants. And we will need to hire enough of them to cover at least two shifts, maybe three, as well as standby's because they will get sick and go on vacation. So each one of these clinics is going to require a fairly large staff of highly paid medical professionals.

You're going to sit here and pretend cutting "a few bombers" out of our military defense budget, will easily pay for this huge nationwide federal clinic program. I think you either, A. Don't understand the importance of maintaining funding for national defense, and/or B. Don't understand the enormous cost of what you are proposing.

Then, there is this...

No one has suggested a redundant system. You are the one suggesting that the federal program MUST be separate from the state ones. And just as an FYI, the ONLY hospitals that are required to treat the indigent are those receiving FEDERAL dollars. The rest can transfer the patients out.

Well guess what? The State Health Departments in every state, will receive an 8-10% increase in federal funding this year, over what they received last year, and next year, it will be 8-10% more than this year. They receive federal funding every year, and have done so since their inceptions, because that is how we ended up with State Public Health Clinics in every state to begin with, it is already a largely federal funded program, in conjunction with the state. The same thing is true with the Education system.

So now, this massive federal government bureaucratic wet dream you and Don were having about nationwide federal health clinics, has devolved into a plea for increased funding to the states for the already-present state health clinics. This is what we in the right-wing realm like to refer to as "spin" from the left.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh... I almost forgot to address this...

And just as an FYI, the ONLY hospitals that are required to treat the indigent are those receiving FEDERAL dollars. The rest can transfer the patients out.

Most every hospital receives federal dollars, but in addition, they are required by state law, to treat indigent patients in an emergency regardless of ability to pay. No hospital that I am aware of, can "transfer a patient out" without having some other medical facility to transfer them out to! They simply can't kick sick people out into the street.

 

[Cancel3]

The idiotic argument over NP's or MD's or BOTH, is irrelevant anyway. We have now established that Don meant we should staff these "federal clinics" with two doctors, a pediatric specialist, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians assistants. And we will need to hire enough of them to cover at least two shifts, maybe three, as well as standby's because they will get sick and go on vacation. So each one of these clinics is going to require a fairly large staff of highly paid medical professionals.

You're going to sit here and pretend cutting "a few bombers" out of our military defense budget, will easily pay for this huge nationwide federal clinic program. I think you either, A. Don't understand the importance of maintaining funding for national defense, and/or B. Don't understand the enormous cost of what you are proposing.

Then, there is this...



Well guess what? The State Health Departments in every state, will receive an 8-10% increase in federal funding this year, over what they received last year, and next year, it will be 8-10% more than this year. They receive federal funding every year, and have done so since their inceptions, because that is how we ended up with State Public Health Clinics in every state to begin with, it is already a largely federal funded program, in conjunction with the state. The same thing is true with the Education system.

So now, this massive federal government bureaucratic wet dream you and Don were having about nationwide federal health clinics, has devolved into a plea for increased funding to the states for the already-present state health clinics. This is what we in the right-wing realm like to refer to as "spin" from the left.

I'm not talkiing about cutting a few bombers. I am talking about cutting dozens of bombers, dozens of joint use fighter aircraft, and a submarine or two.

How about we take what we would spend on 10% of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? Take 10% of what we spend on these new aircraft for the Air Force, the Marines and the Navy. They get 90% of what they wanted and we get $8.4 billion for the health programs?

Ok, so first the problem was that the states have clinics and its not a federal problem, now you are going out of your way to try and show that we are spending more on public health? Well hell, if its worth 8% to 10% to a politician, it should be worth more to us.

 

[Cancel3]

You know Dixie, one of the things that really annoys the rational thinkers is the ease in which conservatives (of the currengt administration stripe) jump back and forth between what we need to do for our nation and what something cost.

Funny, when Bush wanted to invade Iraq, it was all about what we needed to insure our safety and for the good of our nation. Those who screamed about the cost of an unnecessary war were labeled "unamerican".

But let someone want to make sure american citizens stay healthy, that young mothers have healthy babies, and senior citizens don't have to choose between food or medical care, the same conservatives start screaming "how are you going to pay for it!".

Either you are concerned about money or you are concerned about the good of the country.

Pull the troops out of Iraq and start spending money on us.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not talkiing about cutting a few bombers. I am talking about cutting dozens of bombers, dozens of joint use fighter aircraft, and a submarine or two.

To fund the idea Don originally proposed, you would have to completely dismantle the military. Of course, I am sure that would be okay with you, after all, we have The One in charge of things come January, and the whole world is just going to be so in love with him, they wouldn't dream of doing us harm anymore.

How about we take what we would spend on 10% of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? Take 10% of what we spend on these new aircraft for the Air Force, the Marines and the Navy. They get 90% of what they wanted and we get $8.4 billion for the health programs?

How about we leave the military budget alone, and allow the states to do as they always have, and provide for the health needs of their own state? This way, they get 100% of what they need, and we get 100% of our national defense.

Ok, so first the problem was that the states have clinics and its not a federal problem, now you are going out of your way to try and show that we are spending more on public health? Well hell, if its worth 8% to 10% to a politician, it should be worth more to us.

I'm going out of my way to show you are a moron who doesn't apparently know what the fuck he's whining about. Federal tax dollars are allocated each year to state public health facilities, to supposedly help provide 'preventative care' for the 'poor' in our country. Each year, the amount allocated in the Federal budget is increased by 8-10% depending on the cost of living, and the health clinics get a little more than the year before.

You know Dixie, one of the things that really annoys the rational thinkers is the ease in which conservatives (of the currengt administration stripe) jump back and forth between what we need to do for our nation and what something cost.

There is no 'jumping back and forth' at all, as anyone with a brain can clearly see, those are two entirely different things. There are things we need to do for our nation, and it doesn't matter what it costs, we need to do it... then there are things that are ridiculous and redundant, which we don't really need to do for our country, and we can't afford to do them.

Funny, when Bush wanted to invade Iraq, it was all about what we needed to insure our safety and for the good of our nation. Those who screamed about the cost of an unnecessary war were labeled "unamerican".

Funny, I don't recall anyone questioning your patriotism for screaming about the cost. In fact, many conservatives also complained about the cost, and didn't like it. Many of them felt the Iraqi's should be paying for the war with oil revenues, but Bush thought it would lend credence to your side's assertions it was a "war for oil" and didn't allow that. Those who were deemed "unamerican" were the ones bashing our government and undermining our troops while they were in harms way.

But let someone want to make sure american citizens stay healthy, that young mothers have healthy babies, and senior citizens don't have to choose between food or medical care, the same conservatives start screaming "how are you going to pay for it!".

Either you are concerned about money or you are concerned about the good of the country.

Pull the troops out of Iraq and start spending money on us.

So this is all about payback for Iraq? Since Bush "wasted" so much money in Iraq, you feel compelled to waste as much on silly and foolish government entitlements we don't need? Is that it? Why didn't you just say so? It reminds me of the old embattled married couple, the hubby was spending money on golf and fishing trips, so his wife decided she would max out the credit cards on a shopping spree in retaliation. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, this wasn't good for the family finances. That's what we have here, you are bitter and sore at Bush for spending money on the military and Iraq, and your 'solution' to your anger, is to max out the credit cards. Maybe we need to take you to see Dr. Phil?

 

[Cancel3]

Pull the 10% of the F-35s and fund what I have been talking about. The military will be fine.

And if you think we don't need this, you have lost your mind. Preventive healthcare for the poor and working would stop our emergency rooms from being used at the family Dr. ERs are ALWAYS more expensive. And crowding them with colds, the flu, and routine healthcare procedures is ridiculous.

The federal government has a vested interest in a healthy population. Spend a few bucks (relatively) there and let the military get short by a fraction. No one is going to be able to invade us because we have 10% fewer fighter aircraft.

I am not out for revenge or payback, although we will have to repair damages done. I was commenting on your attitude.

Funny you are all about spending for the military, and apparently have no clue about what is needed for our poor.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Pull the 10% of the F-35s and fund what I have been talking about. The military will be fine.

And if you think we don't need this, you have lost your mind. Preventive healthcare for the poor and working would stop our emergency rooms from being used at the family Dr. ERs are ALWAYS more expensive. And crowding them with colds, the flu, and routine healthcare procedures is ridiculous.

The federal government has a vested interest in a healthy population. Spend a few bucks (relatively) there and let the military get short by a fraction. No one is going to be able to invade us because we have 10% fewer fighter aircraft.

I am not out for revenge or payback, although we will have to repair damages done. I was commenting on your attitude.

Funny you are all about spending for the military, and apparently have no clue about what is needed for our poor.

We don't need to cut military spending, if anything, we need to increase it. All the health care in the world, is not going to help dead Americans. I know you don't personally believe we are in any peril, but here's the deal... we can't afford for you to be wrong about that.

As I have pointed out numerous times, we are already providing preventative care to the poor and working poor. This is done at the state level, with assistance from the Federal government. We have already established a safety net for the indigent to be cared for in case of emergency. We are now paying for prescriptions for the elderly and poor. All of the things you say we need to be doing, we are already doing, and increasing the amount we spend doing this, every year. In fact, we can't even talk about cutting the rate of increase in funding, without democrats screaming "CUTS!"

You keep talking about "preventative care" but you have yet to be specific. Please tell me what "preventative care" is currently NOT being offered at the state level, by the Public Health Clinics already in existence? If there is something that has been overlooked, which is of vital importance, that we really need to focus our efforts on, perhaps there is some waste in the government-run health care system we can cut, and redirect that money to address those vital needs? I'm sure we can find something that is not really needed, when dealing with government programs.

Here's what I think your deal is... You are a liberal who's found your cash cow, public welfare of the poor. We can sit here all day long, dreaming up things we could do for the poor, ways we can help the poor, things the poor really need that other people have. I can think of hundreds and thousands of things we could spend tax money on, to give to the poor. So this gravy train for the poor really never ends. Whatever it is, you can tug at the heartstrings of Americans and plead your case... we simply MUST do this! We simply MUST provide that! Never has it dawned on you, our nation has survived for over 200 years, without federal health clinics! It's not the crisis you make it out to be at all, and my arguing against your idea, has already prompted your buddies to twist my statements and pervert my words into saying "Dixie doesn't care about the poor sick people!" That is just plain unfair and untrue. But it's the liberal way! Grab on to some emotive issue and bleat about the injustice and immorality of it, to guilt people into accepting your lunacy.

What you are advocating here, is already being done on the state level, and is already being funded substantially on the federal level. If anything, we need to be talking about REDUCING this funding, so as to help alleviate the massive national debt! But no... you will hear nothing of that... you want to go on pretending we aren't doing anything at all to address these problems and advocate cutting the military to throw more money at your latest liberal social cause.

 

[Cancel3]

We don't need to cut military spending, if anything, we need to increase it. All the health care in the world, is not going to help dead Americans. I know you don't personally believe we are in any peril, but here's the deal... we can't afford for you to be wrong about that.

As I have pointed out numerous times, we are already providing preventative care to the poor and working poor. This is done at the state level, with assistance from the Federal government. We have already established a safety net for the indigent to be cared for in case of emergency. We are now paying for prescriptions for the elderly and poor. All of the things you say we need to be doing, we are already doing, and increasing the amount we spend doing this, every year. In fact, we can't even talk about cutting the rate of increase in funding, without democrats screaming "CUTS!"

You keep talking about "preventative care" but you have yet to be specific. Please tell me what "preventative care" is currently NOT being offered at the state level, by the Public Health Clinics already in existence? If there is something that has been overlooked, which is of vital importance, that we really need to focus our efforts on, perhaps there is some waste in the government-run health care system we can cut, and redirect that money to address those vital needs? I'm sure we can find something that is not really needed, when dealing with government programs.

Here's what I think your deal is... You are a liberal who's found your cash cow, public welfare of the poor. We can sit here all day long, dreaming up things we could do for the poor, ways we can help the poor, things the poor really need that other people have. I can think of hundreds and thousands of things we could spend tax money on, to give to the poor. So this gravy train for the poor really never ends. Whatever it is, you can tug at the heartstrings of Americans and plead your case... we simply MUST do this! We simply MUST provide that! Never has it dawned on you, our nation has survived for over 200 years, without federal health clinics! It's not the crisis you make it out to be at all, and my arguing against your idea, has already prompted your buddies to twist my statements and pervert my words into saying "Dixie doesn't care about the poor sick people!" That is just plain unfair and untrue. But it's the liberal way! Grab on to some emotive issue and bleat about the injustice and immorality of it, to guilt people into accepting your lunacy.

What you are advocating here, is already being done on the state level, and is already being funded substantially on the federal level. If anything, we need to be talking about REDUCING this funding, so as to help alleviate the massive national debt! But no... you will hear nothing of that... you want to go on pretending we aren't doing anything at all to address these problems and advocate cutting the military to throw more money at your latest liberal social cause.

We are already doing it? Is that why the ERs are full of people with the flu and other shit that should be handled by a family Dr or could be handled by a clinic? Ask any ER Dr what the biggest problem he has and he'll bitch about the place being used for basic healthcare.


We can cut the military budget without harm coming to us. This "we can't afford for you to be wrong" is just bullshit. I am not wrong and our military is a bloated beauracracy.

And spare me the amateur analysis. You claim to have a degree in psychology and then you try make me sound like a typecast liberal enemy.

Argue the points and spare me what you THINK you know about me.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Sol, it's useless.