Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obamacare will be the most popular program ever when implemented, and will be improved forever. Talk of single payer is pie in the sky for the forseeable future. 60% are against, 70% admit they don't know what it is! Pelosi was right, wait until it's implemented. Dems did this to be popular fcs...
Sanders got $10 billion for low cost clinics, there are guidelines for care that will lower tort costs, insurers are limited to 15% non medical spending (now 27%)- finally, affordable, GUARANTEED care for all, and control of costs (everybody but bought off Pubs say so)-etc etc etc. Stop listening to bought off Pub A-holes and their silly drones.
Tugboat, every time I think you can't write a dumber post....you sprint right ahead and do!
Americans: 51% opposed, 39% for.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan
Spending tax dollars to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all American citizens makes sense and cents. Of course to see the potential of spending money to save lives and money is one which requires more than a one sentence phrase or accepting the 'logic' of an ideological purest.
Spending tax dollars to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all American citizens makes sense and cents. Of course to see the potential of spending money to save lives and money is one which requires more than a one sentence phrase or accepting the 'logic' of an ideological purest.
Not when some persons are out of the tax game... ~50% paying no federal income tax... so you have some footing the bill for others... not the way it should be
How about we ban health insurance outright? That will force the price for services down to something the market can sustain out of pocket.
How about we ban health insurance outright? That will force the price for services down to something the market can sustain out of pocket.
Nothing wrong with health insurance as long as there is competition. What is needed is a public option, a no frills health insurance policy available to all citizens. Those who want frills should have the option to purchase additional insurance.
Simple solutions to complex problems is the conservative way. All we need do is to end any regulation of the insurance industry and restrict the ability of individuals to secure legal counsel when they feel they or a loved one has been harmed is PC's solution - debate ended and if one disagrees they are called dumb and worse.
Group-'thinking' callous conservative blame the victim for medical maladies and claim if the patient had only practiced a healthy life-style ... I suggest those who don't remember Jim Fixx learn a little bit of him and his history. It seems he picked the wrong parents - tsk, tsk, tough shit buddy your dead, you ought to have picked different & better genes.
Of course smoking, abusing alcohol or drugs, a high fat diet, obesity and a lack of exercise contribute to early morbidity. And the cost to treat illness related to life-style is expensive. But not everyone who dies early has made poor choices, and many who do don't understand the long term consequences of unhealthy choices. Preventative medicine discovers disease early and can help the patient mitigate the damage done by 'life' choices - either before or after his/her conception.
Spending tax dollars to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all American citizens makes sense and cents. Of course to see the potential of spending money to save lives and money is one which requires more than a one sentence phrase or accepting the 'logic' of an ideological purest.
How about we ban health insurance outright? That will force the price for services down to something the market can sustain out of pocket.
Nothing wrong with health insurance as long as there is competition. What is needed is a public option, a no frills health insurance policy available to all citizens. Those who want frills should have the option to purchase additional insurance.
Simple solutions to complex problems is the conservative way. All we need do is to end any regulation of the insurance industry and restrict the ability of individuals to secure legal counsel when they feel they or a loved one has been harmed is PC's solution - debate ended and if one disagrees they are called dumb and worse.
Or......liberals simply have a tendency to overcomplicate things in order rationalize otherwise illogical stances. Economics was one of my favorite subjects in school because most of it really is just basic common sense.
Group-'thinking' callous conservative blame the victim for medical maladies and claim if the patient had only practiced a healthy life-style ... I suggest those who don't remember Jim Fixx learn a little bit of him and his history. It seems he picked the wrong parents - tsk, tsk, tough shit buddy your dead, you ought to have picked different & better genes.
Of course smoking, abusing alcohol or drugs, a high fat diet, obesity and a lack of exercise contribute to early morbidity. And the cost to treat illness related to life-style is expensive. But not everyone who dies early has made poor choices, and many who do don't understand the long term consequences of unhealthy choices. Preventative medicine discovers disease early and can help the patient mitigate the damage done by 'life' choices - either before or after his/her conception.
Are you really trying to argue that people can't cause themselves health issues by choosing to smoke or choosing to eat junk food for years on end? I don't see anyone making an all or nothing argument here. Believe me having had cancer I know that some health issues are unplanned and unavoidable. But many of them are and are things the individual has direct control over. Preventative medicine is good but it also doesn't require governmental administration.
Spending tax dollars to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all American citizens makes sense and cents. Of course to see the potential of spending money to save lives and money is one which requires more than a one sentence phrase or accepting the 'logic' of an ideological purest.
It does, accept for the extra step your adding in there which makes things far from efficient. Your essentially saying I shoud take my money, give it to government and in exchange they will provide me with free preventative medicine? Why not just eliminate the horribly inefficient middle man and I just take what I was going to give government and put it toward doing the same thing myself?
Obamacare will be the most popular program ever when implemented, and will be improved forever. Talk of single payer is pie in the sky for the forseeable future. 60% are against, 70% admit they don't know what it is! Pelosi was right, wait until it's implemented. Dems did this to be popular fcs...
Sanders got $10 billion for low cost clinics, there are guidelines for care that will lower tort costs, insurers are limited to 15% non medical spending (now 27%)- finally, affordable, GUARANTEED care for all, and control of costs (everybody but bought off Pubs say so)-etc etc etc. Stop listening to bought off Pub A-holes and their silly drones.
Tugboat, every time I think you can't write a dumber post....you sprint right ahead and do!
Americans: 51% opposed, 39% for.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan
You simpky prove my point. People have no clue.And you're a brainwashed idiot.
And the tugboat was the most glorious BB ever. Was 300 yds from me, wrecked
after breaking tow in a gale.- 2 years old I was, in Cornwall, and before you go there, still American.
Simple solutions to complex problems is the conservative way. All we need do is to end any regulation of the insurance industry and restrict the ability of individuals to secure legal counsel when they feel they or a loved one has been harmed is PC's solution - debate ended and if one disagrees they are called dumb and worse.
Group-'thinking' callous conservative blame the victim for medical maladies and claim if the patient had only practiced a healthy life-style ... I suggest those who don't remember Jim Fixx learn a little bit of him and his history. It seems he picked the wrong parents - tsk, tsk, tough shit buddy your dead, you ought to have picked different & better genes.
Of course smoking, abusing alcohol or drugs, a high fat diet, obesity and a lack of exercise contribute to early morbidity. And the cost to treat illness related to life-style is expensive. But not everyone who dies early has made poor choices, and many who do don't understand the long term consequences of unhealthy choices. Preventative medicine discovers disease early and can help the patient mitigate the damage done by 'life' choices - either before or after his/her conception.
Spending tax dollars to provide Universal Preventative Health Care to all American citizens makes sense and cents. Of course to see the potential of spending money to save lives and money is one which requires more than a one sentence phrase or accepting the 'logic' of an ideological purest.
How about we ban health insurance outright? That will force the price for services down to something the market can sustain out of pocket.
Nothing wrong with health insurance as long as there is competition. What is needed is a public option, a no frills health insurance policy available to all citizens. Those who want frills should have the option to purchase additional insurance.
Let's see if I got this. It's the government that gets to tell health insurance companies what they have to cover, the 'frills' if you will. But at the same time government should get to sell a no frills option. If there was a demand for that, why would the free market not meet it?
Again let's pretend this is automobiles. What you're basically saying is that even though there's a market for a basic automobile without features like moon roofs, power windows, power seats, no stereo, etc. The government should be able to tell Ford that they have to put all of those things on a car anyway if they want to sell it. Meanwhile Government Motor Company should get to be the only company that gets to build and meet the demand for vehicles without those features. Tell me, how stupid does your solution sound now?
Tugboat, every time I think you can't write a dumber post....you sprint right ahead and do!
Americans: 51% opposed, 39% for.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan
You simpky prove my point. People have no clue.And you're a brainwashed idiot.
And the tugboat was the most glorious BB ever. Was 300 yds from me, wrecked
after breaking tow in a gale.- 2 years old I was, in Cornwall, and before you go there, still American.
Ah...Tuggy, why do I have the feeling that you're sulking about the education that I gave you as far as Hitler, FDR and Mussolini all being socialists...
And a wise move it was in not responding to the post.
Now, as far as the tugboat,...you seem to think that you should be represented by a battleship...when your posts are hardly even a canoe. See, I upgraded you to a tugboat: I could have called you 'leaky!'
"...most popular program ever when implemented,..."
I'm going to take the opposite position...the electorate will be proven correct, ObamaCare will ruin the economy, cost lives, and stultify any advances in American healthcare...the best in the world currently.
Hint: you do suppose that mega-villain Pelosi-galore and her puppet put off implementation until after his supposed re-election?
Here's more homework for you: Why Obamacare is Wrong for America, Turner, Capreta, Miller and Moffit.
Excellent book.....oops! did I use a four-letter word?
BTW, leaky, you can stop announcing at the drive-through that your order is to go.
.... I disagree that there's any need to have the government run medical care itself. I think we can learn from what other countries have done. France's model (much like I've described above) seems to work better than Britain's, which is true socialized medicine.
Except France's model isn't runing well. It runs deficits in the billions every year forcing them to cut back on reimbursements and what they'll pay for. Sort of defeats the purpose if you ask me.
...
You're forgetting the cost to provide medical treatment to those who can't pay for treatment, those who choose not to or are not permitted to buy health insurance (pre-existing condition) and those who must sell their home to pay for care. You also ignore the loss of productivity, the higher cost of delay and the ability of Universal Preventable Health Care can slow down a pandemic or the transmission of communicable disease.
My solution: Ban health insurance. The industry will be forced to provide services that people can actually afford. Every time a doctor says "Let's run this test" the patient will immediately chime in wanting to know about costs. They'll demand their doctor's provide them with specific recommendations that are cost effective for them, as opposed to what happens now where doctor's recommend every test under the sun, because the money's going to come anyway.
.... I disagree that there's any need to have the government run medical care itself. I think we can learn from what other countries have done. France's model (much like I've described above) seems to work better than Britain's, which is true socialized medicine.
Except France's model isn't runing well. It runs deficits in the billions every year forcing them to cut back on reimbursements and what they'll pay for. Sort of defeats the purpose if you ask me.
...
Yeah... I've never been that interested in the French model because even its advocates admit that they're still dealing with runaway health care inflation. So in my book, it completely ignores the real problem.
I think the reason we can't agree on a solution, is that we can't even agree on what the problem is. For some, the fact that health care expenses aren't socialized IS the problem. If that's your pov, you're pretty much only going to see one type of solution. Socializing it might make some things better for some people, for awhile. It might even (eventually) come around to dealing with the inflation. But that will require greater and greater state control over healthcare itself, if not a complete takeover.
If, on the other hand, we see runaway inflation in the health care market as the main problem, the solutions run in a different direction. We need to look for the factors that have distorted the market and correct them.
How about we ban health insurance outright? That will force the price for services down to something the market can sustain out of pocket.
Nothing wrong with health insurance as long as there is competition. What is needed is a public option, a no frills health insurance policy available to all citizens. Those who want frills should have the option to purchase additional insurance.
You simpky prove my point. People have no clue.And you're a brainwashed idiot.
And the tugboat was the most glorious BB ever. Was 300 yds from me, wrecked
after breaking tow in a gale.- 2 years old I was, in Cornwall, and before you go there, still American.
Ah...Tuggy, why do I have the feeling that you're sulking about the education that I gave you as far as Hitler, FDR and Mussolini all being socialists...
And a wise move it was in not responding to the post.
Now, as far as the tugboat,...you seem to think that you should be represented by a battleship...when your posts are hardly even a canoe. See, I upgraded you to a tugboat: I could have called you 'leaky!'
"...most popular program ever when implemented,..."
I'm going to take the opposite position...the electorate will be proven correct, ObamaCare will ruin the economy, cost lives, and stultify any advances in American healthcare...the best in the world currently.
Hint: you do suppose that mega-villain Pelosi-galore and her puppet put off implementation until after his supposed re-election?
Here's more homework for you: Why Obamacare is Wrong for America, Turner, Capreta, Miller and Moffit.
Excellent book.....oops! did I use a four-letter word?
BTW, leaky, you can stop announcing at the drive-through that your order is to go.
You're a moron. If you think Hitler was a socialist, Beckbot- I suggest you read a real history book.
Myth: Hitler was a leftist.
Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.
Summary
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.
The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer.
1. Myth: Hitler was a leftist
To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack
, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the ...
Myth: Hitler was a leftist - Cached - Similar
