Sick of the GOP

[Granule]

It boggles the mind that a. People who purport to be intelligent still don't understand the workings of the filibuster. Especially today's extreme use of it by the republicans, and b. The absolute ignorance of the same ppl who don't understand the (lost) art of compromise in Congress. Obama and the dems watered down the bill to such an extent it barely resembles what he wanted.

What was watered down, professor? Harry Reid once stated something to the effect that you'd have to be a fool to not get a piece of your agenda added to this bill. The only "watering down" that took place, is lack of a complete & total government takeover of our health care system.

I'd wager a good 50% (progressives) of those polled as disliking Obamacare aren't disliking it because it exists, but rather because it truly lacks everything it needs to be effective, such as a single payor system.

I'd wager a good 99 percent of all liberals are at least open to the idea of advancing Communism in this country to 100% effect.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I'd wager a good 99 percent of all liberals are at least open to the idea of advancing Communism in this country to 100% effect.

Considering the people you have called liberal, you would lose that wager.

 

[Rune]

What was watered down, professor? Harry Reid once stated something to the effect that you'd have to be a fool to not get a piece of your agenda added to this bill. The only "watering down" that took place, is lack of a complete & total government takeover of our health care system.

What we needed and would have gotten under Hillary, was single payer, with a 6% administrative cost. No more socialist than social security or medicare and far from communist.
What we have is private insurance companies still raping the country for 30% of every citizen's health care dollar

 

[Granule]

Considering the people you have called liberal, you would lose that wager.

I'm not so sure.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I'm not so sure.

I am. While you can argue that some of what liberals want is socialistic, claiming that they would favor 100% communism is nonsense.

 

[Granule]

I am. While you can argue that some of what liberals want is socialistic, claiming that they would favor 100% communism is nonsense.

I said they would be open to the idea of Communism. My idiot friend questioned his Conservative principles, and found himself voting for Barack Obama in 2008. That's the thing about immoral political stances like communism: At first it sounds repugnant, but after listening to people like radical liberals constantly bash American capitalism, the weaker minded cave in and begin to succumb to the false charms of government care.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I said they would be open to the idea of Communism. My idiot friend questioned his Conservative principles, and found himself voting for Barack Obama in 2008. That's the thing about immoral political stances like communism: At first it sounds repugnant, but after listening to people like radical liberals constantly bash American capitalism, the weaker minded cave in and begin to succumb to the false charms of government care.

So you are saying that everyone you have labeled a liberal has a weak mind? lol

 

[apple0154]

No, obviously we want the person dismissing their chest pain as heartburn, and dropping dead of a heart attack at 50. And no, we want people to now not pay attention to possible cancer....Are you serious?

If that was the case citizens in countries with government medical would have a lower longevity rate but such is not the case. Longevity is equal to or greater than in the US.

No one dismisses symptoms. The point is a specialist is not needed every time someone has medical symptoms.

Again, government medical saves money and produces a longevity rate equal to or greater than the US regardless of what one may think of their procedures and policies.

 

[j-mac]

If that was the case citizens in countries with government medical would have a lower longevity rate but such is not the case. Longevity is equal to or greater than in the US.

There are a lot of factors involved. I don't think you can say any one particular thing is responsible.

No one dismisses symptoms.

You tried to with that article praising less then specialized care in situations where life threatening symptoms were present.

The point is a specialist is not needed every time someone has medical symptoms.

That's fine if that is the road you want to choose for yourself, but the problem is that you don't only want to choose for you, you want to choose for me too. I'll make my own decisions please, thanks.

Again, government medical saves money...

Prove it.

and produces a longevity rate equal to or greater than the US regardless of what one may think of their procedures and policies.

If other countries do such an efficient job of delivering high quality services, then explain to me why it is when world leaders, the super rich, and people of like mind with the means in this country, like say Ted Kennedy opt to get the best, the most expensive health care in the world, from the worlds best doctors, specialists, and facilities in the world? Why is socialized medicine only for the masses and not for the ones mandating that everyone be under their yoke?

 

[apple0154]

aaahhh, the same old liberal memes. How cute. It is funny that Demalquedacrats weren't opposed to the filibuster when they were using it to block Bush judges. But, hey, that is ancient history right? Remember the left wingers in the Senate saying that the House was the cup and the Senate was the saucer? The Senate was there to cool down the hot headed House? Remember that? Oh yeah, you probably forget.

I love to hear demalquedacrats talk about "compromise" as if they are really compromising. It is always the same old game to them. They always ask for the whole enchilada in growing the federal gobblement. The GOP of the past would squewk a little bit, then only grow gobblement a little bit. The whole time, the federal gobblement is growing. That is how demalquedacrats define compromise. It is with the GOP caving on their principles. It is never the demalquedacrats caving on their principles.

Your little missive about the left wingers not getting what they wanted with this healthcare law falls flat because unless you are complete blooming idiot, you know that this monstrosity of a bill was designed to move us toward single payor. It was designed with the express purpose of collapsing the current system and leaving the poor uneducated masses with the conclusion that single payor is the only way to go.

Sorry, but you should try peddling your bullshit somewhere else. I ain't buying it

An excerpt from your link in msg. #178 reads, “Solving emergency room crowding is clearly more complicated than many thought. Insurance coverage is just the first step.” That's the important part. Insurance coverage is just the first step.

ObamaCare would never have passed if a proper one payer plan was offered. Fopr one thing the drug companies would have swamped the airwaves with negative ads if Obama had mentioned drug price negotiation but drug price negotiation is a major tool of a one payer system. If the government is buying in bulk to supply medication to the citizens it's just common sense price negotiation has to take place. How can a system charging "what the market will bear" operate when the market is the government? If one is entitled to a certain medication when hospitalized and the government guarantees such entitlement that means the drug companies can charge any amount they wish. When negotiations are permitted should the government decide to buy all their aspirin from Bayer the government can demand Bayer lower prices on other drugs. Negotiate a package deal.

As for ObamaCare "was designed with the express purpose of collapsing the current system and leaving the poor uneducated masses with the conclusion that single payor is the only way to go" the system was designed for exactly the opposite. From the very beginning the Repubs' input was designed to cause a failure so people would revert to a "pay or suffer" system. And as to "Your little missive about the left wingers not getting what they wanted with this healthcare law falls flat because unless you are complete blooming idiot, you know that this monstrosity of a bill was designed to move us toward single payor" that's exactly what it's original purpose was but the Repubs threw a gear in the works. Certain deals and negotiations that were made in the beginning stayed in the bill. The Dems did not start from the beginning and revamp the whole bill.

In any case the private sector had generations to come up with a plan. One hundred years to be exact. It's the same thing every other country went through on it's way to a one payer plan. No plan is going to operate if certain parts of it are run by greedy entities. Why would hospital furniture companies agree to negotiations if drug companies wouldn't? What about companies that manufacture cleaning supplies?

Government medical offers savings and longevity equal to or greater than the US and the citizens in those countries with government medical are not only happy but insist on keeping their respective plans. What else is there to consider?

 

[j-mac]

Government medical offers savings and longevity equal to or greater than the US and the citizens in those countries with government medical are not only happy but insist on keeping their respective plans. What else is there to consider?

I see so repetition of tired talking points is your argument? And when asked to provide proof of your claim you just ignore it and repeat as though it is indisputable...mmmmk

Look, people that get hooked on heroin often tell stories of dealers giving them the drug for free in the beginning also, does that mean that heroin is good for you?

 

[Howey]

An excerpt from your link in msg. #178 reads, “Solving emergency room crowding is clearly more complicated than many thought. Insurance coverage is just the first step.” That's the important part. Insurance coverage is just the first step.

ObamaCare would never have passed if a proper one payer plan was offered. Fopr one thing the drug companies would have swamped the airwaves with negative ads if Obama had mentioned drug price negotiation but drug price negotiation is a major tool of a one payer system. If the government is buying in bulk to supply medication to the citizens it's just common sense price negotiation has to take place. How can a system charging "what the market will bear" operate when the market is the government? If one is entitled to a certain medication when hospitalized and the government guarantees such entitlement that means the drug companies can charge any amount they wish. When negotiations are permitted should the government decide to buy all their aspirin from Bayer the government can demand Bayer lower prices on other drugs. Negotiate a package deal.

As for ObamaCare "was designed with the express purpose of collapsing the current system and leaving the poor uneducated masses with the conclusion that single payor is the only way to go" the system was designed for exactly the opposite. From the very beginning the Repubs' input was designed to cause a failure so people would revert to a "pay or suffer" system. And as to "Your little missive about the left wingers not getting what they wanted with this healthcare law falls flat because unless you are complete blooming idiot, you know that this monstrosity of a bill was designed to move us toward single payor" that's exactly what it's original purpose was but the Repubs threw a gear in the works. Certain deals and negotiations that were made in the beginning stayed in the bill. The Dems did not start from the beginning and revamp the whole bill.

In any case the private sector had generations to come up with a plan. One hundred years to be exact. It's the same thing every other country went through on it's way to a one payer plan. No plan is going to operate if certain parts of it are run by greedy entities. Why would hospital furniture companies agree to negotiations if drug companies wouldn't? What about companies that manufacture cleaning supplies?

Government medical offers savings and longevity equal to or greater than the US and the citizens in those countries with government medical are not only happy but insist on keeping their respective plans. What else is there to consider?

Precisely why the VA system of single payor is so successful. Even more than Medicare. Want our ever expanding patient load? Good. Work with us to establish fair prices.

 

[Howey]

I'd wager a good 99 percent of all liberals are at least open to the idea of advancing Communism in this country to 100% effect.

Thank you for showing us that you are nothing more than a pitiful, seething pile of stinky shit CHARACATURE of intelligence.

 

[apple0154]

(Apple) Again, government medical saves money...

Prove it.

If other countries do such an efficient job of delivering high quality services, then explain to me why it is when world leaders, the super rich, and people of like mind with the means in this country, like say Ted Kennedy opt to get the best, the most expensive health care in the world, from the worlds best doctors, specialists, and facilities in the world?

Two reasons. First, the US may have cutting edge technology/procedures. While the US may have, as of now, experimental procedures in almost all cases medical advancement is shared so there are few cases where that would apply.

Second, going on that assumption certain people will try anything to prevent death. We hear of celebrities going to foreign countries and trying all sorts of weird treatments when they are told there is nothing more that can be done in the US. Even a guy as smart as Steve Jobs decided on alternative therapy. Needless to say he didn't make it.

Why is socialized medicine only for the masses and not for the ones mandating that everyone be under their yoke?

Unless a procedure is still in it's trial stage it's available to everyone under government medical. At least that's how it's run in Canada. Also, we have to remember how many people can afford experimental therapies/procedures. There is nothing forbidding someone to pay out of pocket for experimental care.

 

[apple0154]

I see so repetition of tired talking points is your argument? And when asked to provide proof of your claim you just ignore it and repeat as though it is indisputable...mmmmk

Look, people that get hooked on heroin often tell stories of dealers giving them the drug for free in the beginning also, does that mean that heroin is good for you?

As you'll notice I did supply proof in msg #194. Be patient. I can't concentrate on JPP and porno sites at the same time!

 

[j-mac]

As you'll notice I did supply proof in msg #194. Be patient. I can't concentrate on JPP and porno sites at the same time!

heh, heh....Fair enough....Sorry bout that....

 

[j-mac]

Prove it.

Two reasons. First, the US may have cutting edge technology/procedures. While the US may have, as of now, experimental procedures in almost all cases medical advancement is shared so there are few cases where that would apply.

Second, going on that assumption certain people will try anything to prevent death. We hear of celebrities going to foreign countries and trying all sorts of weird treatments when they are told there is nothing more that can be done in the US. Even a guy as smart as Steve Jobs decided on alternative therapy. Needless to say he didn't make it.



Unless a procedure is still in it's trial stage it's available to everyone under government medical. At least that's how it's run in Canada. Also, we have to remember how many people can afford experimental therapies/procedures. There is nothing forbidding someone to pay out of pocket for experimental care.

And what would you say spurs that innovation, and experimentation? The promise of capital gain? or top down regulation?

 

[apple0154]

And what would you say spurs that innovation, and experimentation? The promise of capital gain? or top down regulation?

I'd say capital gain. However, one must remember there are degrees of capital gain and that's really the crux of the problem. There was a time when top management would earn multiples of tens compared to the average worker. If the average worker earned $40,000/yr the top bosses may have earned $400,000 (10X) or $800,000 (20X) or $1.6 million (40X). Today, we're looking at multiples of hundreds. The worker earning $50,000/yr compares to people earning $5 million (100X) or $10 million (200X), etc. Will a person earning $50,000/yr be that much more motivated knowing they may earn $5 million compared to $500,000/yr? I posit someone earning $50,000/yr will work as hard as they can if they have the chance to earn 1/2 a million/yr.

I may be wrong but I don't see the benefit of earning a vast amount of money. It seems more of an obsession as opposed to doing so as a benefit in which case one's drive to make money is based more on the acquisition as opposed to a specific amount. It becomes a compulsion.

What say you?

 

[CanceledB]

Thank you for showing us that you are nothing more than a pitiful, seething pile of stinky shit CHARACATURE of intelligence.

But even caricatures at least resemble what they're mocking, Howey.

 

[j-mac]

I'd say capital gain. However, one must remember there are degrees of capital gain and that's really the crux of the problem. There was a time when top management would earn multiples of tens compared to the average worker. If the average worker earned $40,000/yr the top bosses may have earned $400,000 (10X) or $800,000 (20X) or $1.6 million (40X). Today, we're looking at multiples of hundreds. The worker earning $50,000/yr compares to people earning $5 million (100X) or $10 million (200X), etc. Will a person earning $50,000/yr be that much more motivated knowing they may earn $5 million compared to $500,000/yr? I posit someone earning $50,000/yr will work as hard as they can if they have the chance to earn 1/2 a million/yr.

I may be wrong but I don't see the benefit of earning a vast amount of money. It seems more of an obsession as opposed to doing so as a benefit in which case one's drive to make money is based more on the acquisition as opposed to a specific amount. It becomes a compulsion.

What say you?

I'd say that envy never came up with one treatment, or new drug...This over riding jealousy is unbecoming, and rational people reject it.