here's the memo of the Democrats plot against the Amercian people.

My number 1 objection is having a government database with my private information, the assumption that it will never be misused or abused in any way is preposterous.

My number 2 objection is the reality that the US is down some on mortality of infants and in some other categories because we are often willing to push for risky strategies to attempt to save people that may not have had that chance in other places. Such risks tend to be avoided by government programs, shoot some of them consistently speak of lower technology because of the programs (see France).

We have a very high infant mortality rate in the US for a nation that is so advanced with our medical technologies. In fact our advanced status is precisely why we have a high infant mortality rate. Statistically if we did not attempt life saving measures on preemies they would have died and been considered miscarriages not infant deaths.

I agree with you that these kinds of efforts, specialized hospitals etc. would be some of the first kinds of medical expenses to disapear from a government program.
 
A) I don't think they're talking about a "gov't insurance agency." I think they're talking about getting insurance companies out of the business of deciding against vital healthcare procedures.

B) They didn't say no co-pays, period. They also didn't say no deductibles; they said no excessive deductibles.

I don't know if you can have it all, but I do know that the right will immediately mischaracterize anything that is said on this topic.

certainly you can expect the left to dodge the issue by picking at semantics....you can pretend it isn't a "government insurance agency" but don't pretend that there isn't going to be something besides a private insurance company between you and your doctor....

and who is going to pay for this reduced copay, whether it be all of it or just the "excessive" part.....is it freeeee, for meeee?.....
 
I see memos on how to get ones message across to their representatives when their reps are purposefully attempting to avoid or ignore their constituents. How is this wrong?


Getting the message out and being disruptive are two separate things. Perhaps you haven't been following the news coverage of these town hall meetings but they're getting increasingly nasty (hanging effigies and the like) much like we saw with the McCain-Palin campaign rallies and it's due to the influence of FreedomWorks and the rest of the Tea Bag ninnies.
 
you post shit from think progress and expect us to believe that was something sent out by the tea bag protesters...give me a break..
I posted the ACTUAL memo from the Democrats...you post garbage..


So a link from Human Events = good. Link from Think Progress = garbage. Good to know.
 
certainly you can expect the left to dodge the issue by picking at semantics....you can pretend it isn't a "government insurance agency" but don't pretend that there isn't going to be something besides a private insurance company between you and your doctor....

and who is going to pay for this reduced copay, whether it be all of it or just the "excessive" part.....is it freeeee, for meeee?.....

"Playing games with semantics"

Yeah - just because you mischaracterized every single line that you selected in that memo.

And now, you realize it. Sorry about that.

Your arguments would be much more credible if you didn't distort everything out of the gate.
 
We have a very high infant mortality rate in the US for a nation that is so advanced with our medical technologies. In fact our advanced status is precisely why we have a high infant mortality rate. Statistically if we did not attempt life saving measures on preemies they would have died and been considered miscarriages not infant deaths.

I agree with you that these kinds of efforts, specialized hospitals etc. would be some of the first kinds of medical expenses to disapear from a government program.


Do you have any actual research to support the claims that you are making or are we playing make believe again?
 
We have a very high infant mortality rate in the US for a nation that is so advanced with our medical technologies. In fact our advanced status is precisely why we have a high infant mortality rate. Statistically if we did not attempt life saving measures on preemies they would have died and been considered miscarriages not infant deaths.

I agree with you that these kinds of efforts, specialized hospitals etc. would be some of the first kinds of medical expenses to disapear from a government program.

true enough....EU numbers on "still born" when added to infant mortality rates place them slightly higher than us in total deaths....we attempt, and save, many of those they take no action to save.....
 
Getting the message out and being disruptive are two separate things. Perhaps you haven't been following the news coverage of these town hall meetings but they're getting increasingly nasty (hanging effigies and the like) much like we saw with the McCain-Palin campaign rallies and it's due to the influence of FreedomWorks and the rest of the Tea Bag ninnies.

oh but all those code pinkos sitting in on hearings holding up signs and one actually running up to Sec. of State Coni Rice with fake blood on their hands, is a not disruptive..now the shoe is on the other foot, and we are being called...Disruptive...you joke right..
you damn right these town halls are getting angry, the American people are mad as hell, and they are not going to be silenced by the leftist tactics of calling them, terrorist, extremist, disruptive or what other choice names you all have for them...
 
Do you have any actual research to support the claims that you are making or are we playing make believe again?

yes....

Its virtually impossible to get real stillborn rates but its very significant to note that Sweden and Denmark which rank No.3 and N0. 14 respectively in the UN Infant Mortality Rate also has the highest stillbirth rate in Western Europe with over 7 per 100.( That’s 40% higher than even the worldwide rates!)

In Japan which ranks third int he UN IMR rankings there is a statistical anomaly regarding the incredibly high stillbirth rates ( especially the number of female infants reported dead in the first 24 hours ). In 2002 the Japanese still birth rate was an astonishing 31 per 1000 which rivals the 32 per 100o recorded in South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and is over SIX TIMES HIGHER than the worldwide average
The reported EU IMR rate is 5,72 per thousand and the US rate is 6.62 per thousand . Lets do some arithmetic here, sorry liberals I know I’ll lose you here, and see how that adds up. In the us there are a reported approximately 13% of babies born premature ( I have found no data on babies born at term but under EU measurements). If Japan ranked number three is reduced to a more realistic world wide average of 5 stillborn deaths per 1000 and we add the difference of 26 babies to the official UN IMR rate of 3.4 per 1000 then we get a total of 29.4 per 1000. Way higher than the 6.2 in the US and in the same neighborhood with Kazakhstan and Indonesia. If we apply the same method to Sweden and use average EU stillbirth rates then the IMR rate becomes 6.2 per thousand the same as the US.
http://www.conunderground.com/two-obama-healthcare-myths/
 
Getting the message out and being disruptive are two separate things. Perhaps you haven't been following the news coverage of these town hall meetings but they're getting increasingly nasty (hanging effigies and the like) much like we saw with the McCain-Palin campaign rallies and it's due to the influence of FreedomWorks and the rest of the Tea Bag ninnies.

hanging effigies.....
seems i remember a bunch of lefties doing that with bush and cheney effigies, go figure.

and when the reps ignore those that are in opposition, disruption is what occurs next. Those morons in office are not there to decide whats best for us, they are there to implement OUR will, not Obamas or the DNCs.
 
oh but all those code pinkos sitting in on hearings holding up signs and one actually running up to Sec. of State Coni Rice with fake blood on their hands, is a not disruptive..now the shoe is on the other foot, and we are being called...Disruptive...you joke right..
you damn right these town halls are getting angry, the American people are mad as hell, and they are not going to be silenced by the leftist tactics of calling them, terrorist, extremist, disruptive or what other choice names you all have for them...

don't forget racists, thats the popular one right now.
 
"Hold the insurance companies accountable. Remove them from between you and your doctor. No discrimination for pre-existing conditions. No dropping your coverage because you get sick. No more job or life decisions made based on loss of coverage. No need to change doctors or plans. No co-pays for preventive care. No excessive out-of-pocket expenses,deductibles, or co-pays. No yearly or lifetime cost caps on what insurance companies cover"

Jeez...that sounds just awful!

They really are against the American people....

This woman is truly barking, did she even read it before she posted it on here?
 
Do you have any actual research to support the claims that you are making or are we playing make believe again?
I don't really, I just listen to my doctor friends and hear their concerns about the systems and changes that may take place. I find some of them compelling and understand that they are anecdotal.

Do you have any evidence that they are false considerations? Can you show, for instance, that in France with the admitted lower level of technology they are even capable of taking some of the extraordinary steps we take to save infants born extremely premature? If you can, it would prove my concerns to be unfounded.

There are also some forms of information available like this site:

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

In this one it compares Cuba and the US... Here is an excerpt...

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of
emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive
in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

You can actually look for evidence of this and find it among the recorded weights of births, we find that the WHO recommends only recording infants 1000g or better in weight, while the US records births much lower than that as births, and could list those deaths as fetal deaths but does not. You will find that such discrepancies will exist between European nations and the US as well.
 
perfect example of many libs ""debates"" here, zero substance, just attacks

perfect example of many libs ""debates"" here, zero substance, just attacks

"Playing games with semantics"

Yeah - just because you mischaracterized every single line that you selected in that memo.

And now, you realize it. Sorry about that.

Your arguments would be much more credible if you didn't distort everything out of the gate.

This woman is truly barking, did she even read it before she posted it on here?

Seriously? Conunderground.com. Jesus Effing Keyrist.
 
A) I don't think they're talking about a "gov't insurance agency." I think they're talking about getting insurance companies out of the business of deciding against vital healthcare procedures.

B) They didn't say no co-pays, period. They also didn't say no deductibles; they said no excessive deductibles.

I don't know if you can have it all, but I do know that the right will immediately mischaracterize anything that is said on this topic.

And the anti-right will make any and every excuse in the book, to spin anything that is said on the topic.
 
Back
Top