"Rats vote for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for rapists, pedophiles

Southern Man said:
Correct. And by not mentioning them, gives them this entitlement. Does it bother you that sex offenders will be walking around with hard-ons that you paid for?
Click to expand...

If you researched you'd see Viagra requires one to be stimulated. An erection does not just pop up. Why don't people research?

We all know the Repubs are aching for another vote and it isn't going to happen and talking about hard-ons did you see Boehner's speech? I thought the guy was going to explode right there at the podium. Did you see the look on his face?

I didn't see what he did after the speech. Did he sit down or excuse himself from the legislature?
 
apple0154 said:
If you researched you'd see Viagra requires one to be stimulated. An erection does not just pop up. Why don't people research?

We all know the Repubs are aching for another vote and it isn't going to happen and talking about hard-ons did you see Boehner's speech? I thought the guy was going to explode right there at the podium. Did you see the look on his face?

I didn't see what he did after the speech. Did he sit down or excuse himself from the legislature?
Click to expand...

Nice try at deflection but why not answer my question?
 
Southern Man said:
Nice try at deflection but why not answer my question?
Click to expand...


Winter Born already answered the question in post #20.

Also, the Repubs had enough time to look over the bill. That one exception could have been dealt with a lot earlier. Just another stall tactic and it didn't work.

But that's been the game all along. Instead of looking at the bill and offering constructive criticism all they offered was, "No". They played the game too long and lost.
 
apple0154 said:
Winter Born already answered the question in post #20.

Also, the Repubs had enough time to look over the bill. That one exception could have been dealt with a lot earlier. Just another stall tactic and it didn't work.

But that's been the game all along. Instead of looking at the bill and offering constructive criticism all they offered was, "No". They played the game too long and lost.
Click to expand...
I routinely ignore his posts as he is a stalker. Having read it, I find no basis for his allegation. So instead of blaming the other party and calling on others to answer questions for you, perhaps you'd like to take personal responsibility and answer the question yourself.
 
Southern Man said:
I routinely ignore his posts as he is a stalker. Having read it, I find no basis for his allegation. So instead of blaming the other party and calling on others to answer questions for you, perhaps you'd like to take personal responsibility and answer the question yourself.
Click to expand...

I did answer it. The Repubs screwed around so long they lost any chance to improve the bill.

Obama started out a year ago trying to get co-operation. Rather than the Repubs working with the Dems to draft a bill they did everything to prevent a bill.

Obama told them straight up, "Don't come to the table with the same worn out, tired arguments" so the Repubs showed up with misinformation, lies and idiotic accusations like death panels instead of concentrating on things like the one in question.

The Repubs blew it. Rather than contribute they did all they could to obstruct it and it blew up in their face.

Obama told them, over and over, let's work together. They refused. Rather than participate and offer constructive criticism they were like children saying "No, no, no. I don't want to."

Now it's too late. You can thank the Repubs for that.
 
Southern Man said:
I routinely ignore his posts as he is a stalker. Having read it, I find no basis for his allegation. So instead of blaming the other party and calling on others to answer questions for you, perhaps you'd like to take personal responsibility and answer the question yourself.
Click to expand...

Are you still whining about me being a stalker? I post on threads that discuss topics of interest to me. It seems you and I find similar threads interesting. Nothing more. I have not started threads aimed specifically at you, like you have done.

You do not ignore me for the reasons stated. You try to ignore me because you cannot answer my posts.
 
apple0154 said:
I did answer it. The Repubs screwed around so long they lost any chance to improve the bill.

Obama started out a year ago trying to get co-operation. Rather than the Repubs working with the Dems to draft a bill they did everything to prevent a bill.

Obama told them straight up, "Don't come to the table with the same worn out, tired arguments" so the Repubs showed up with misinformation, lies and idiotic accusations like death panels instead of concentrating on things like the one in question.

The Repubs blew it. Rather than contribute they did all they could to obstruct it and it blew up in their face.

Obama told them, over and over, let's work together. They refused. Rather than participate and offer constructive criticism they were like children saying "No, no, no. I don't want to."

Now it's too late. You can thank the Repubs for that.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Republicans offered input many times with common-sense initiatives, such as tort reform. The 'Rats would have none of it, so rammed this thing down the taxpayers mouths. The GOP wisely gave the 'Rats plenty of rope to hang themselves. The voters will now ram it back up the 'Rat's asses in November, and again in 2012. Congress will again be in GOP control, and Obama will be a one-term failure. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, the Republicans offered input many times with common-sense initiatives, such as tort reform. The 'Rats would have none of it, so rammed this thing down the taxpayers mouths. The GOP wisely gave the 'Rats plenty of rope to hang themselves. The voters will now ram it back up the 'Rat's asses in November, and again in 2012. Congress will again be in GOP control, and Obama will be a one-term failure. :)
Click to expand...

:palm:
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, the Republicans offered input many times with common-sense initiatives, such as tort reform. The 'Rats would have none of it, so rammed this thing down the taxpayers mouths. The GOP wisely gave the 'Rats plenty of rope to hang themselves. The voters will now ram it back up the 'Rat's asses in November, and again in 2012. Congress will again be in GOP control, and Obama will be a one-term failure. :)
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea the small amount Tort contributes to the cost of medical care?

(Excerpt) After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine. (Emphasis added) (End)
http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

Tort reform. Another typical, tired, worn out Repub argument. The very thing Obama told them not to come to the table with.
 
apple0154 said:
Do you have any idea the small amount Tort contributes to the cost of medical care?

(Excerpt) After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine. (Emphasis added) (End)
http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

Tort reform. Another typical, tired, worn out Repub argument. The very thing Obama told them not to come to the table with.
Click to expand...
Wrong, since doctors have to practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued altogether.
Defensive medicine is defined as providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices. The quality of the literature on the true costs of defensive medicine and its impact on healthcare costs is poor; few good studies exist, and cost estimates vary widely.

The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.
Click to expand...
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp
 
LOL, Tom Coburn is the lowest form of life. This was just a procedural tactic to delay the passage of the health bill. Coburn was just especially creative in making a sensational amendment.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, the Republicans offered input many times with common-sense initiatives, such as tort reform. The 'Rats would have none of it, so rammed this thing down the taxpayers mouths. The GOP wisely gave the 'Rats plenty of rope to hang themselves. The voters will now ram it back up the 'Rat's asses in November, and again in 2012. Congress will again be in GOP control, and Obama will be a one-term failure. :)
Click to expand...

Obama is certainly going to win in 2012, and he'll bring gains in the house and senate with him.
 
Southern Man said:
And pigs will fly.
Click to expand...

The certainty that Obama's going to win in 2012 is essentially 100%. He's going to lose a few seats, but so did Reagan (1982 was a better year for Democrats than 2008), and Obama's done so much more for the country (Reagan left the country a lot worse off than when he picked it up, he was the worst president this nation has ever had to endure).
 
apple0154 said:
Do you have any idea the small amount Tort contributes to the cost of medical care?

(Excerpt) After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine. (Emphasis added) (End)
http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

Tort reform. Another typical, tired, worn out Repub argument. The very thing Obama told them not to come to the table with.
Click to expand...

$100,000 for obstetricians and neurosurgeons.
In 2002, it was $ 17,786 to $ 55,084 for obstetricians/gynecologists.
UP 50 %....

You think this was not passed on to patients in the form of costs and by insurers as higher premiums?

Are you really that stupid?
 
Republicans using racism as a strategy is baffling to me. Just a couple years ago deems couldn't get out of their own way. Now racism has blinded the grand old white dude party.
 
bravo said:
$100,000 for obstetricians and neurosurgeons.
In 2002, it was $ 17,786 to $ 55,084 for obstetricians/gynecologists.
UP 50 %....

You think this was not passed on to patients in the form of costs and by insurers as higher premiums?

Are you really that stupid?
Click to expand...

OK. I see there's a competition for the wackiest post. Yours definitely gets high marks.

I notice you didn't supply a link but let's just take it at face value. You're saying insurance premiums have increased from $50,000 to $100,000. That's a 100% increase, not 50%. A 50% increase would be $75,000. But we'll let that bit of ignorance slip by.

The average doctor in the US has 390 patients. http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/185-the-doctorspatients-map-of-the-world/

$50,000 divided among 390 patients means the average patient pays $128. Let's write that out. One hundred and twenty-eight dollars.

If one requires the services of a neurosurgeon I can assure you $128.00 is not going to be a factor to consider. That $128.00 over a year. If one makes two visits that's.....can you guess?..... $64.00/visit.

When people talk about the cost of medical care, the fees charged by doctors, when we hear of folks going bankrupt due to medical bills, I can assure you they are not talking about $128.00.

Bravo, do you think before you post? Do you think, at all?

This is just one more example of Republican health care reform. Let's save $128.00 and things will be fine.

Now do you understand why Obama gave up on bipartisan support? Do you expect lawmakers to spend their time debating a savings of $128.00?

What are you thinking? Are you thinking?
 
hmm...let's see....$128 a year for the neurosurgeon, another $128 for the anesthesiologist, probably an average of $50 each for the other six people in the operating room.....then we have all the other staff in the hospital....oh, and the hospital entity itself......and then there's my general practitioner.....and that lab where I have to drop specimens off.....omigorsh, I hope I don't have to see a specialist this year....

what do you think, apple.....is it conceivable that all those malpractice insurance "contributions" I make to the various people I deal with in the medical field could be adding a thousand dollars a year to the cost of my health care?......I think you like math.....reaching a thousand requires what, contact with around 8 medical professionals?.....maybe 16 if folks who aren't neurosurgeons pay significantly less?.....

so, a thousand a year......you know, between my deductible and my health insurance premiums, I'm at around $10k a year....so my insurance company is figuring that average medical expenses are going to be something less than $10k a year......does that mean 10% of the money they are figuring on goes for malpractice insurance?......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top