lesson on why liberals will never be more than an occasional flash in the pan.

[gslack]

OTTAWA, Canada — In a last-ditch effort to convince Canadians that their public health care system should be privatized, Canadian Medical Association (CMA) President Robert Ouellet has promised to “pull out all the stops” during the association’s annual meeting next week. Trouble is, Ouellet’s mission to lead the change to privatization is exactly the opposite of what 86 percent of Canadians want.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.

New poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care | Physicians for a National Health Program

WTF are you talking about "for profit" ??? you think the medical professions are not for profit? Gimme a break the entire premise is just misleading... medical pros make money, insurance companies make money, and changing how we pay changes anything is a fantasy...

Unified healthcare or whatever you wish to call it is more for helping the medical profession than the people. Try and get a medical malpractice lawsuit once we have a locked in and nation wide unified healthcare system fully sponsored by government. Won't happen very often and certainly will not be easy.

 

[Chris]

OTTAWA, Canada — In a last-ditch effort to convince Canadians that their public health care system should be privatized, Canadian Medical Association (CMA) President Robert Ouellet has promised to “pull out all the stops” during the association’s annual meeting next week. Trouble is, Ouellet’s mission to lead the change to privatization is exactly the opposite of what 86 percent of Canadians want.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.

New poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care | Physicians for a National Health Program

WTF are you talking about "for profit" ??? you think the medical professions are not for profit? Gimme a break the entire premise is just misleading... medical pros make money, insurance companies make money, and changing how we pay changes anything is a fantasy...

Unified healthcare or whatever you wish to call it is more for helping the medical profession than the people. Try and get a medical malpractice lawsuit once we have a locked in and nation wide unified healthcare system fully sponsored by government. Won't happen very often and certainly will not be easy.

And won't be as necessary.

If people don't have to suffer extraodinary financial loss, they will be less likely to sue.

Do a little reading about how the rest of the industrialized countries do healthcare. They do a better job than we do. Especially the French, who use a combination of public and private healthcare.

 

[gslack]

OTTAWA, Canada — In a last-ditch effort to convince Canadians that their public health care system should be privatized, Canadian Medical Association (CMA) President Robert Ouellet has promised to “pull out all the stops” during the association’s annual meeting next week. Trouble is, Ouellet’s mission to lead the change to privatization is exactly the opposite of what 86 percent of Canadians want.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.

New poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care | Physicians for a National Health Program

WTF are you talking about "for profit" ??? you think the medical professions are not for profit? Gimme a break the entire premise is just misleading... medical pros make money, insurance companies make money, and changing how we pay changes anything is a fantasy...

Unified healthcare or whatever you wish to call it is more for helping the medical profession than the people. Try and get a medical malpractice lawsuit once we have a locked in and nation wide unified healthcare system fully sponsored by government. Won't happen very often and certainly will not be easy.

And won't be as necessary.

If people don't have to suffer extraodinary financial loss, they will be less likely to sue.

Do a little reading about how the rest of the industrialized countries do healthcare. They do a better job than we do. Especially the French, who use a combination of public and private healthcare.

Once again, WTF???

Medical malpractice... Got that? Thats when they (medical pro) screw up and you are injured from it somehow... Now care to explain how in the hell you got that from my point of medical malpractice suits? If a person gets a bad surgery or suffers due to medical malpractice, they should sue regardless of how much the procedure originally cost them or how they paid....

Oh I think I do a fair amount more actual reading than you do... I at least read the articles and not just take the headlines or accept what the major media tells me... Matter of fact if you actually did some reading and used your head for more than a liberal PR sponge; you would know the difference in reality and bullshit...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every other industrialized country in the world has nation health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

The Germans have had it since 1886!

But conservatives like Ronald Raygun fought against Medicare tooth and nail.

And they lost....

Blatant lies. I am going to assume that people have already refuted your claims about health care costs since I am new to the board and not bother to do it myself.

Nothing to refute. I told the truth.

We pay 16% of our GDP in healthcare costs, the highest percentage in the world.

America's Health Care Cost Highest Worldwide

Where does that say we spend twice what anyone else does?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

What exactly does the new law do to address this? The Democrats are in the pocket of trial lawyers and have consistently blocked all efforts to reform malpractice laws.

 

[Flopper]

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

What exactly does the new law do to address this? The Democrats are in the pocket of trial lawyers and have consistently blocked all efforts to reform malpractice laws.

The new law does not address tort reform. Although I think tort reform is needed, there is no way to put a dollar figure on the possible cost savings.

 

[geauxtohell]

Guess what guys, the other guy is worse. Just because Rand does not pass some sort of racial purity test you want to kill him

I don't think Paul is a racist. Ron and Rand Paul are just so wed to their didactic version of the "way things should be" that they refuse to concede a no-brainer.

As for your bold statement: liberalism has been the driving force behind politics for a long time. Society tends to progressivism and not the opposite.

Other than Rand, you won't hear many people arguing that we should go back to a time when people were allowed to be discriminated against. You don't hear many people arguing that we should take away a woman's right to vote.

Except in Islamic circles.
Fail.

Non sequitur.

Fail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Guess what guys, the other guy is worse. Just because Rand does not pass some sort of racial purity test you want to kill him

I don't think Paul is a racist. Ron and Rand Paul are just so wed to their didactic version of the "way things should be" that they refuse to concede a no-brainer.

As for your bold statement: liberalism has been the driving force behind politics for a long time. Society tends to progressivism and not the opposite.

Other than Rand, you won't hear many people arguing that we should go back to a time when people were allowed to be discriminated against. You don't hear many people arguing that we should take away a woman's right to vote.

Except in Islamic circles.
Fail.

You just equated Rand Paul's view of racial discrimination to Islamic views of women's rights.

Good one. I bet you didn't mean to. lolol

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't think Paul is a racist. Ron and Rand Paul are just so wed to their didactic version of the "way things should be" that they refuse to concede a no-brainer.

As for your bold statement: liberalism has been the driving force behind politics for a long time. Society tends to progressivism and not the opposite.

Other than Rand, you won't hear many people arguing that we should go back to a time when people were allowed to be discriminated against. You don't hear many people arguing that we should take away a woman's right to vote.

Except in Islamic circles.
Fail.

You just equated Rand Paul's view of racial discrimination to Islamic views of women's rights.

Good one. I bet you didn't mean to. lolol

No, actually you did that. You really need to watch your hands as they are typing things your brain doesn't recognize. Like Dr Strangelove maybe?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now I am really confused. Why are you trying to use a court case which said that the court interpretation of the CRA that led to affirmative action is not applicable to prove that the CRA is necessary today?

You are confused alright.

The Court held 5-4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the basis for ruling in favor of the plaintiffs,

your claim that conditions no longer exist making the act necessary has to be false.

Not only does the case prove that the CRA is still relevant and necessary, it also shoots a hole in any claim anyone would make that the CRA only serves people of color, or anyone else who isn't a white male.

If you bothered to check your facts before trumpeting your win you might notice the inconvenient fact that the provision of the CRA you are referring to was written in 1991. How does that prove that the CRA of 1964 is still relevant? How does it prove I am wrong?

You are wrong to think that just because a law has been very successful in preventing a crime somehow leads to the conclusion that the law isn't needed anymore.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every other industrialized country in the world has nation health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

And they all hate it!

No they don't. But of course if you have a reliable source providing evidence that 100% of people in every country that has national healthcare hates it, by all means post it.

Do 100% of American seniors hate their Medicare. Do 100% of American veterans hate the VHA?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are confused alright.

The Court held 5-4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the basis for ruling in favor of the plaintiffs,

your claim that conditions no longer exist making the act necessary has to be false.

Not only does the case prove that the CRA is still relevant and necessary, it also shoots a hole in any claim anyone would make that the CRA only serves people of color, or anyone else who isn't a white male.

If you bothered to check your facts before trumpeting your win you might notice the inconvenient fact that the provision of the CRA you are referring to was written in 1991. How does that prove that the CRA of 1964 is still relevant? How does it prove I am wrong?

You are wrong to think that just because a law has been very successful in preventing a crime somehow leads to the conclusion that the law isn't needed anymore.

Are you really equating a law that deals with crime to one dealing with civil rights? Really?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you bothered to check your facts before trumpeting your win you might notice the inconvenient fact that the provision of the CRA you are referring to was written in 1991. How does that prove that the CRA of 1964 is still relevant? How does it prove I am wrong?

You are wrong to think that just because a law has been very successful in preventing a crime somehow leads to the conclusion that the law isn't needed anymore.

Are you really equating a law that deals with crime to one dealing with civil rights? Really?

Yes, on the matter of deterrence. Why not? What is the material difference between a law with civil penalties and one with criminal penalties when it comes to, specifically, the matter of deterrent effect?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are wrong to think that just because a law has been very successful in preventing a crime somehow leads to the conclusion that the law isn't needed anymore.

Are you really equating a law that deals with crime to one dealing with civil rights? Really?

Yes, on the matter of deterrence. Why not? What is the material difference between a law with civil penalties and one with criminal penalties when it comes to, specifically, the matter of deterrent effect?

You're joking, right?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Yet liberals always win, especially on social issues, as societies evolve, no matter how much conservative kick and scream, whine and rant and rave. They are always left in the past.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet liberals always win, especially on social issues, as societies evolve, no matter how much conservative kick and scream, whine and rant and rave. They are always left in the past.

Just ask Salvadore Allende.

 

[rikules]

30 years ago gays were still in the closet

today they are out and about everywhere!
in theatre, on tv (they have their own shows), in politics, business, the arts, the military, religion

and MOST people (even most of the cons on this board) are fine with that.

Gays live in our neighborhoods, they work with us, the are our brothers, sisters and children...

and MOST of us are fine with all of that...

liberals and liberalsim did that....

The ones that seem to have a problem with it are the so called liberals.

When a conservative blogger repeated the rumor among Kagan's friends that she was a lesbian, and pointed out that it was not an issue with him, and should not be an issue to anyone else, who made it an issue? Who is coming out with the fact that she went out with men in college, thus proving that she is not gay?

30 years ago interracial relationships were still taboo.

today blacks and white date and marry and nobody cares! Even bob jones university finally ended its bigotted anti-interracial dating policy

once again, most cons today will insist that they are NOT racists and do NOT care about this anymore....

thanks to liberals

The same liberals who insist that blacks need special help to get into universities becasue they are not as smart as whites?

30 years ago blacks, minorities, women and gays were all still on the sidelines of the playing fields that were dominated by white males

today
they are in PROMINENT positions of business, politics, the military, theatre

we watch their shows and admire their careers
and vote for them for president...

blacks, women...
soon.....gays...(maybe real soon if hillary actually is gay)

thanks to liberals!

Victoria Woodhull and Frederick Douglass - 1872 First woman candidate for president and first African American candidate for vice president.

Charlotta A. Bass - 1952 First African American woman nominated for president.

One of the wonders of a liberal education is its lack of depth.



Isn't she the one who washed out after 4 hours?



Are you blaming liberals for everything that conservatives have been blaming them for all these years?



Conservative Christians were doing that? Is that like all the Tea Party terrorism we are getting from all those protests today?



Since you obviously have no idea what either of those terms mean you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

deranged windbag snarled;

"Since you obviously have no idea what either of those terms mean you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. "


----------------
I was going to try and address each of your deranged responses...

however

besides being a collosal waste om my time....
I already did that with my initial post.

you are obviousyly a deranged lunatic

because it takes a deranged lunatic to try and gfive credit to hatefilled bigotted conservatives for all the wonderful accomplishments of liberalism


the truth is;

LIBERALS fought (and died) for civil rights for gays, blacks, women)

while deranged hatefilled christian conservatives fought them tooth and nail to keep America dominated by white christian males

the last 30 years in particular are evidence of that.

and
as I say
If you deny this
anc continue to claim credit for conservatives

then YOU don't know what YOU are talking about.

but it doesn't matter

because.....
women and gays and blacks and minorities are all firmly entrenched in the power structure of America and if you don't have a problem with that then you, too, are liberal and progressive

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are confused alright.

The Court held 5-4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the basis for ruling in favor of the plaintiffs,

your claim that conditions no longer exist making the act necessary has to be false.

Not only does the case prove that the CRA is still relevant and necessary, it also shoots a hole in any claim anyone would make that the CRA only serves people of color, or anyone else who isn't a white male.

If you bothered to check your facts before trumpeting your win you might notice the inconvenient fact that the provision of the CRA you are referring to was written in 1991. How does that prove that the CRA of 1964 is still relevant? How does it prove I am wrong?

You are wrong to think that just because a law has been very successful in preventing a crime somehow leads to the conclusion that the law isn't needed anymore.

Great comeback.

I never said the law was not needed today, I said that liberals are stupid for focusing on things that are irrelevant to the world today instead of focusing on the issues that matter. You proceeded to make my point by trying to prove that a law passed in 1991 somehow proves that the CRA of 1964 is still needed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet liberals always win, especially on social issues, as societies evolve, no matter how much conservative kick and scream, whine and rant and rave. They are always left in the past.

Classical liberals always win because their ideas are about personal freedom. Modern liberals prefer government intervention, and will always loose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was going to try and address each of your deranged responses...

however

besides being a collosal waste om my time....
I already did that with my initial post.

you are obviousyly a deranged lunatic

because it takes a deranged lunatic to try and gfive credit to hatefilled bigotted conservatives for all the wonderful accomplishments of liberalism


the truth is;

LIBERALS fought (and died) for civil rights for gays, blacks, women)

while deranged hatefilled christian conservatives fought them tooth and nail to keep America dominated by white christian males

the last 30 years in particular are evidence of that.

and
as I say
If you deny this
anc continue to claim credit for conservatives

then YOU don't know what YOU are talking about.

but it doesn't matter

because.....
women and gays and blacks and minorities are all firmly entrenched in the power structure of America and if you don't have a problem with that then you, too, are liberal and progressive

Where did I try to give conservatives credit for anything? All I did was point out that your statements were factually challenged. Does the fact that your arguments are based on the delusion that I am conservative, despite the fact that I trashed both political parties in the OP, indicate that you are deranged?