Welcome the the Socialist STATES of AMERICA

[elvis]

Thank God for that, Paul is a lunatic.

I'll bet anything Fed Spending/GDP, Gov't Jobs Created/Total Jobs Created, and Fed Deficit/Total Fed Spending are all lower under Obama than they've been under Bush.

i dont like obama OR bush.

 

[Chris]

you need to get that free health care crap outta your head. In case your mama never told you this nothing in life is free. You have to pay for "free health care" and then what you get is a chance to stand in line waiting for treatment that may never come.

More lies.....

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thank God for that, Paul is a lunatic.

A lunatic that would have brought real change and reform to Washington.

 

[elvis]

A lunatic that would have brought real change and reform to Washington.

He didn't have enough money.

 

[Modbert]

He didn't have enough money.

Ron Paul raised plenty of money, more then alot of the other candidates.

It was his views in the Republican party which ended up hurting him.

 

[elvis]

Ron Paul raised plenty of money, more then alot of the other candidates.

It was his views in the Republican party which ended up hurting him.

If he had had more money, he could have been a legitimate third party candidate like Perot could have been.

 

[Modbert]

If he had had more money, he could have been a legitimate third party candidate like Perot could have been.

He could of been, but he didn't want to leave the Republican party.

He wants to fix the Republican party.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he had had more money, he could have been a legitimate third party candidate like Perot could have been.

He had no interest in running third party.

 

[elvis]

He had no interest in running third party.

He got more attention this way. But if he were a billioinaire like Perot, I think he could have been a legitimate third party candidate. he ran on the lib ticket in 88.

 

[driveby]

You either an idiot or a total idiot.

There may be a tiny number of super wealthy people go to places like John Hopkins, and it may be true that the cutting edge of American medical services are among the best, but for the most part the American medical industry SUCKS!

Why is it that back in the 1960s doctors in the Soviet Union knew that ulcers were caused by bacteria and treated them with antibiotics, while American doctors were cutting people open for no reason?

Why is it that while American doctors were saying that lime disease was incurable, Lithuanian doctors were curing it?

When it comes to quality of healthcare the U.S. is far behind, in terms of the service available for the vast majority of Americans, than just about every industrialize nation in the world and a few non-industrialized.

I'm sure Warren Buffet and Bill Gates get great medical care, but for the rest of us it SUCKS!

I've known quite a few people that leave America for other countries to get quality care.

Anybody that thinks that the American medical system is anything other than a complete mess is a stupid

That's your argument? lime disease and a bunch of b.s. propaganda ? Got anything less than 30 years old ?

Chew on this a while, numbnuts......Articles on British Health Care

 

[Navy1960]

That's your argument? lime disease and a bunch of b.s. propaganda ? Got anything less than 30 years old ?

Chew on this a while, numbnuts......Articles on British Health Care

the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Chris]

the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You know you might want to double check your facts before you post something totally bogus.

Click below for a list of all the Nobel winners for Physiology and Medicine. If you click on each name, you can see where they work.

All Nobel Laureates in Medicine

 

[Navy1960]

You know you might want to double check your facts before you post something totally bogus.

Click below for a list of all the Nobel winners for Physiology and Medicine. If you click on each name, you can see where they work.

All Nobel Laureates in Medicine

Chirs I highly suggest you read my post again, and read it VERY VERY carefully before making that assertion.

 

[Chris]

Chirs I highly suggest you read my post again, and read it VERY VERY carefully before making that assertion.

The Nobel Prize site does not indicate that the foreign scientists were working in the U.S.

 

[Navy1960]

The Nobel Prize site does not indicate that the foreign scientists were working in the U.S.

1996

Peter C. Doherty Rolf M. Zinkernagel
1/2 of the prize 1/2 of the prize
Australia Switzerland
St. Jude Children's
Memphis, TN, USA University of Zurich,

1 Foreign Born Working in the US and 1 foreign born

1997

Stanley B. Prusiner
USA
University of California School of Medicine
San Francisco, CA, USA

1 American

1998

Robert F. Furchgott Louis J. Ignarro Ferid Murad
1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize
USA USA USA

3 American

1999

Günter Blobel
USA
Rockefeller University
New York, NY, USA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute

b. 1936
(in Waltersdorf/Silesia, Germany)

1 Foreign Born working in the the US

2000

Arvid Carlsson Paul Greengard Eric R. Kandel
1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize
Sweden USA USA


1 Foreign, 1 American, 1 Foreign working in the US

2001

Leland H. Hartwell Tim Hunt Sir Paul M. Nurse
1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize
USA United Kingdom United Kingdom

1 American, 2 Foreign

2002

Sydney Brenner H. Robert Horvitz John E. Sulston
1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize
United Kingdom USA United Kingdom

1 American, 1 Foreign born in the US, 1 Foreign

2003

Paul C. Lauterbur Sir Peter Mansfield
1/2 of the prize 1/2 of the prize
USA United Kingdom

1 American, 1 Foreign


2004

Richard Axel Linda B. Buck
1/2 of the prize 1/2 of the prize
USA USA


2 American

2005

Barry J. Marshall J. Robin Warren
1/2 of the prize 1/2 of the prize
Australia Australia

2 Foreign

2006


Andrew Z. Fire Craig C. Mello
1/2 of the prize 1/2 of the prize
USA USA


2 American


Totals Last 10 Years.. American Born. 12 Americans , Foregin Born working in the US 4,
Foreign prizes 7

Now I will add 2007 and 2008 just to catch things up since the article I posted was from 2006.


2007

Mario R. Capecchi Sir Martin J. Evans Oliver Smithies
1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize 1/3 of the prize
USA United Kingdom USA


2 Americans, 1 Foreign born


2008

Harald zur Hausen Françoise Barré-Sinoussi Luc Montagnier
1/2 of the prize 1/4 of the prize 1/4 of the prize
Germany France France


3 Foreign


So next time you say my data is wrong read it before leaping to conclusions. The data according to the article is right on the money.

 

[Navy1960]

The Nobel Prize site does not indicate that the foreign scientists were working in the U.S.

Sydney Brenner
1/3 of the prize
United Kingdom
The Molecular Sciences Institute
Berkeley, CA, USA

I had no problem finding it Chris, perhaps you need to read it a little more closely.

 

[Chris]

Sydney Brenner
1/3 of the prize
United Kingdom
The Molecular Sciences Institute
Berkeley, CA, USA

I had no problem finding it Chris, perhaps you need to read it a little more closely.

I thought the article was current, so I was correct as far as the numbers being wrong for the last 10 years.

 

[Chris]

the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Actually your post was wrong, because you state "In the last 10 years for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country."

It should have read "Between 1996 and 2006," instead of "In the last 10 years..."

 

[Navy1960]

I thought the article was current, so I was correct as far as the numbers being wrong for the last 10 years.

The data upated still supports the article though Chris, it would look like this 14 Americans, 4 working in the US born in other countries and 11 from other countries. in the last 12 years. Still the data is completely right and shows that the United States a world leader in Medical innovation and technology. This innovation and technolgy is fueled by research money which the United States has plenty of. When I see these stats. that are posted by some on here in a lame attempt to make the United States medical community look bad to justify Universial Health Care I see it for what it is.

 

[locksmith30076]

I am going to try my best IMHO as a life long Republican to put the Bush Years into perspective. First let me say this, it is a fact that Bill Clinton was if you set aside his moral stature a good manager of domestic policy as could be seen in the number of jobs created, the budget surplus, and the overall growth of the economy during his administration. However as a CIC he left much to be desired from his mishandling of the situation in Somalia, to the USS Cole, to the Khobar Towers, to the misguided retribution on suspected terrorist camps in the Sudan. Some give Bill Clinton high marks domestically, however they fail to address the .com boom and bust at the beginning of the Bush Administration. I would say however as a domestic president Bill Clinton was a good president and good manager.

As for Geeorge W. Bush, faced with 9-11 his choice of Don Rumsfeld as SecDef was a terrible choice in that Don Rumsfeld had a rather myopic view and failed to even consider the advice of everyone within the DoD command structure when it came to Iraq or for that matter Afghanistan. He managed the war on the cheap, commiting US Military assets to battle all the while cutting programs right and left. It took over 2 years into the Iraq War to get uparmored Humvee's deployed into the theater. The entire time George Bush as CiC had an obligation to the troops in the field and the nation as a whole to manage the affairs of Don Rumsfeld and his little cardre at the DoD. His blind loyality to those individuals caused much harm in the decision process and you can see the results of a coherent policy now that should have been in place at the outset. As for domestically, during George Bush's tenure this economy during his first term was in a growth cycle and admittedly even if no one will now, it was a time when most were reaping the benefits of a fast and furious housing market. However his failure to also regulate that along with the congress eventually caused a titanic failure of epic proportions which we are all seeing now. As a manager George Bush would rank among the very worst as a president for his loyality to the people around him at the expense of those he was in the office to represent.

It is a fact that the lead up to the War was supported by both Democrat and Republican alike. This retro active trying to distance yourself from that decision simply for political purposes no matter if someone is a democrat or republican shows the person has a lack of courage to admit they supported the War and have simply changed their mind and are simply paying lip service to voters. The fact remains we are in Iraq and will be there for some time regardless of who is elected. The situation there has become at least stable to some degree and as the Iraqi government has expressed a desire to take over the situation , IMO I don't see it as being long before they will have complete control as each day US Forces hand over more and more responsibilites to the Iraqis. If anyone here thinks for a moment this means that all the Brigades in Iraq will be comming home, then think again, both of these men have said that they have a desire to redeploy them to Afghanistan. In conclusion, I would not hold out hope that in Jan. when one of these men become president that the War will end and a chicken will be in every pot.

this man speaked truth . nothing but the truth good job sir. you are so articulate .