OT: How's the new President doing?

[Rockindeano]

Jesus Christ, did Reagan have a hit record with this?

[Deb]

There are statistics out there that suggest that Canadians (for example) are not as healthy as Americans when it comes to things like cancer.

Link?

LOL was just going to ask for the link too.....find that one hard to believe. I usually stay out of these political threads, cuz I won't even pretend to have an informed opinion enough to debate anything. Our health system is by no means perfect.......but I sure wouldn't trade it for the US system. My dad (67) is having his 2nd full hip-replacement surgery next week (both hips being done this year).......I have no complaints.

[Rockindeano]

There are statistics out there that suggest that Canadians (for example) are not as healthy as Americans when it comes to things like cancer.

Link?

LOL was just going to ask for the link too.....find that one hard to believe. I usually stay out of these political threads, cuz I won't even pretend to have an informed opinion enough to debate anything. Our health system is by no means perfect.......but I sure wouldn't trade it for the US system. My dad (67) is having his 2nd full hip-replacement surgery next week (both hips being done this year).......I have no complaints.

Maybe Canadian Care is the reason Canucks are so much friendlier than Yanks. They haven't the issues nor fears to deal with in life. The only thing I can think of Canada doesn't do as good as America is the Poste or postal system. Canadian Poste is delivered via stagecoach it seems.

[Monker]

Deano, hold onto your panties........................ The private health insurance companies won't make it financially, if the government is offering public health insurance. When the government becomes an insurance competitor with private insurance, and the flood of people now insured with private insurance, or employer private insurance move their coverage to public insurance, then that means there are fewer members in the private insurance pool. That means premiums go even higher for each member remaining with private insurance. Then those members can't afford the insurance through their private carrier, so they move to the public program, thereby exaerbating the loss of members in private insurance. Guess what...??? The result will be NO private insurance, only the public insurance and Universal Health Care for all. Your health care provider will then be a lacky of the Federal Government, and since all the profit is taken out of medicine, there will be less health care providers. We will have health care as good as the USPS operates! So to say there is a choice. For a while, but the end game is not good.

LOL...What you are saying is that government can out compete private industry. It's very ironic that any conservative would believe the above.

Everything you say is conjecture anyway. Having another option is a good thing. It's competition. Any conservative who argues against it is arguing against their own philosophy that competition is always a good thing...which they are always using for other arguiments. Hypocrits!

[Deb]

Maybe Canadian Care is the reason Canucks are so much friendlier than Yanks. They haven't the issues nor fears to deal with in life.

Nah, it's the fresh air.

The only thing I can think of Canada doesn't do as good as America is the Poste or postal system. Canadian Poste is delivered via stagecoach it seems.

Can't argue there, very true. And it's Canada Post, what are ya french now?

[Rockindeano]

Maybe Canadian Care is the reason Canucks are so much friendlier than Yanks. They haven't the issues nor fears to deal with in life.

Nah, it's the fresh air.

The only thing I can think of Canada doesn't do as good as America is the Poste or postal system. Canadian Poste is delivered via stagecoach it seems.

Can't argue there, very true. And it's Canada Post, what are ya french now?

It's in BOTH languages you tard.

[Barb]

Deano, hold onto your panties........................ The private health insurance companies won't make it financially, if the government is offering public health insurance. When the government becomes an insurance competitor with private insurance, and the flood of people now insured with private insurance, or employer private insurance move their coverage to public insurance, then that means there are fewer members in the private insurance pool. That means premiums go even higher for each member remaining with private insurance. Then those members can't afford the insurance through their private carrier, so they move to the public program, thereby exaerbating the loss of members in private insurance. Guess what...??? The result will be NO private insurance, only the public insurance and Universal Health Care for all. Your health care provider will then be a lacky of the Federal Government, and since all the profit is taken out of medicine, there will be less health care providers. We will have health care as good as the USPS operates! So to say there is a choice. For a while, but the end game is not good.

LOL...What you are saying is that government can out compete private industry. It's very ironic that any conservative would believe the above.

Yes. The government can afford to operate without profit, even at a loss year after year. Private companies cannot.

[Eric]

There are statistics out there that suggest that Canadians (for example) are not as healthy as Americans when it comes to things like cancer.

Link?

Healthy may end up being too subjective to argue either way, but, wait times are longer in Canada for Emergency rooms and especially for mental health crisis. I suspect that the average healthiness is better here than in Canada for people who are insured, and worse for those uninsured. The average is probably close. Ideally, we could get everyone insured who wants to be without Government control.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There are statistics out there that suggest that Canadians (for example) are not as healthy as Americans when it comes to things like cancer.

Link?

Healthy may end up being too subjective to argue either way, but, wait times are longer in Canada for Emergency rooms and especially for mental health crisis. I suspect that the average healthiness is better here than in Canada for people who are insured, and worse for those uninsured. The average is probably close. Ideally, we could get everyone insured who wants to be without Government control.

What you say is true, but Donna singled out cancer rates.
So you're arguing from the specific to the general.
Given that universal healthcare places much more emphasis on preventive care than we have here, I'd like to see these "statistics" she mentioned.

[Barb]

OK....page 114 of the New Kennedy Health Bill..

"Congress and the Senate are exempt"

"Union Health Benefits will not be taxed"

Fucking hypocrites...just like The Won wouldn't commit to it last night...shit care for thee but not for me!

Gee. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with this.

[StoneCold]

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

[Eric]

http://www.billoreilly.com/newsletterco ... ?pid=26794

There does need to be proper weighting on demographics...and also party affiliation for this question.

[donnaplease]

There are statistics out there that suggest that Canadians (for example) are not as healthy as Americans when it comes to things like cancer.

Link?

Healthy may end up being too subjective to argue either way, but, wait times are longer in Canada for Emergency rooms and especially for mental health crisis. I suspect that the average healthiness is better here than in Canada for people who are insured, and worse for those uninsured. The average is probably close. Ideally, we could get everyone insured who wants to be without Government control.

What you say is true, but Donna singled out cancer rates.
So you're arguing from the specific to the general.
Given that universal healthcare places much more emphasis on preventive care than we have here, I'd like to see these "statistics" she mentioned.

I heard it on TV, but I'll look to see if I can find a link to it.

[donnaplease]

Here's a link to the interview I saw. It has specifics on statistics near the end of the interview. I watched O'Reilly last night because I just had to see round 2 with Barney Frank. It wasn't as much fun as round 1 was.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/orei ... 29125.html

[donnaplease]

Here's another one where references are cited:

http://medpolitics.com/content/Pardon-i ... pean-Gover

[The_Noble_Cause]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/orei ... 29125.html

Thanks for the effort, but let's aim the bar a little higher than proven hacks like Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly.
When it comes to matters of life and death, I wouldn't insult your intelligence giving you an article by James Carville or Randi Rhodes.

Here's another one where references are cited:
http://medpolitics.com/content/Pardon-i ... pean-Gover

That's more like it.
The one Lancet study cited by this doctor was also looked at by the Washington Post.
Yes, Canada does seem to have a lower survival rate, but not by much.
And other nations with universal healthcare are right up there with the US.
Seems to change depending on which cancer is being looked at.
Overall, there is a disparity in survival rates between Europe and US, when it comes to breast and prostate.
Japan and France, meanwhile, lead the way on colon and rectal cancer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02480.html

[Monker]

Yes. The government can afford to operate without profit, even at a loss year after year. Private companies cannot.

And, when Reagan was doing exactly the same thing, during a recession, deficit spending was brushed aside by most Republicans and was even labeled as a good thing by some. it all depends on what part is in power...and which party is the hypocrits. Right now, critique by Republicans is very hypocritical, and frankly meaningless considering what Bush did.

[Monker]

Correct..you cannot compete with the Government, if you do they will ruin you..

Then I expect Republicans will no longer be asking for a voucher program or other policies to compete against public schools.

I thought it was rich last night when even The Won wouldn't commit to using the plan he's espousing. Talk about hipocrits. What about the part where he thought the old folks should just be given a pain pill instead of other more expensive treatments? He wants to kill off the old people to save money, said so himself. That scares the shit outta me.

\

Obama has CONSISTANTLY said there should be a choice. But, of course Republicans ignore that and have reach for doomsday scenerios to say there really isn't going to be a choice. This is just one more issue that Republicans are way off center on.

[Eric]

considering what Bush did.

Holy Fuck is this getting old!

[Monker]

considering what Bush did.

Holy Fuck is this getting old!

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

The simple fact is that Bush and the Republicans CREATED the deep deficit we are now in.

[Eric]

considering what Bush did.

Holy Fuck is this getting old!

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

The simple fact is that Bush and the Republicans CREATED the deep deficit we are now in.

Obama has tripled the deficit in 5 months.....and plans to triple that triple...TWICE. At least W's was for defense.....like we should be more aggressively pursuing now quite frankly.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

Hell, eight years into Bush's term they were scapegoating Clinton (and even Carter!) for the housing meltdown.
You're dealing with the 12% Bushbot deadenders that find unnecessary invasions and torture morally palpable, but draw the line at re-building infrastructure.
Like Bill Maher said this week, they are "a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earth-ers and Civil War reenactors who mostly communicate by AM radio...."

[donnaplease]

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

Hell, eight years into Bush's term they were scapegoating Clinton (and even Carter!) for the housing meltdown.
You're dealing with the 12% Bushbot deadenders that find unnecessary invasions and torture morally palpable, but draw the line at re-building infrastructure.
Like Bill Maher said this week, they are "a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earth-ers and Civil War reenactors who mostly communicate by AM radio...."

Dude, Bill Maher is totally losing his marbles. They don't get any further left than him, IMO.

[hoagiepete]

considering what Bush did.

Holy Fuck is this getting old!

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

The simple fact is that Bush and the Republicans CREATED the deep deficit we are now in.

Wrong. Bush, Congress (all of them Rs and Ds), bureaucrats, greedy wall streeters and more are to blame. Blaming one guy is silly.

Now, if Obama doesn't slow down on the spending, we're all screwed.

[donnaplease]

Did anyone actually watch the infomercial last night? I didn't watch it, but I heard clips from it today. The part where he told that woman that her grandmother (or mother) didn't really need that pacemaker surgery, and that maybe she could've just taken a pain pill... Aargh!!! He basically said that quality of life should not be a deciding factor on who gets surgery. Just because the woman had 'a lot of spirit' didn't mean she should qualify for a pacer if she was a hundred years old. (She was able to get the surgery and is reportedly 105 now).

Slippery slope folks...

[Tito]

considering what Bush did.

Holy Fuck is this getting old!

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

The simple fact is that Bush and the Republicans CREATED the deep deficit we are now in.

We've been in a defecit for decades. They just made it bigger and to be fair Obama & Co. are making it deeper. Both parties are to blame.

[Monker]

considering what Bush did.

Holy Fuck is this getting old!

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

The simple fact is that Bush and the Republicans CREATED the deep deficit we are now in.

Wrong. Bush, Congress (all of them Rs and Ds), bureaucrats, greedy wall streeters and more are to blame. Blaming one guy is silly.

The Republicans were the party in power for most of the past two presidential terms, and Bush was the guy on top who should take the responsibility for what happened under HIS watch.

[Monker]

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

Hell, eight years into Bush's term they were scapegoating Clinton (and even Carter!) for the housing meltdown.
You're dealing with the 12% Bushbot deadenders that find unnecessary invasions and torture morally palpable, but draw the line at re-building infrastructure.
Like Bill Maher said this week, they are "a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earth-ers and Civil War reenactors who mostly communicate by AM radio...."

Dude, Bill Maher is totally losing his marbles. They don't get any further left than him, IMO.

But, he's right...the Republicans want to legislate the bible, and are stuck in the very distant past. I find it ironic that when Republicans speak of the future of the party, all they can do is invoke the spirit of Reagan. Yeah, that's really looking towards the future.

[Monker]

considering what Bush did.

Holy Fuck is this getting old!

Yeah, and two years into Bush's first term, people were STILL blaming Clinton for a economic issues that Bush never did fix.

The simple fact is that Bush and the Republicans CREATED the deep deficit we are now in.

Obama has tripled the deficit in 5 months.....and plans to triple that triple...TWICE. At least W's was for defense.....like we should be more aggressively pursuing now quite frankly.

...and Obama's was to avoid another Great Depression....a road which Bush went down with his policeies and inaction on other issues.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Did anyone actually watch the infomercial last night?

How is it an infomercial?
Was it because of that liberal, Diane Sawyer, who formerly worked for Nixon?
Or, was it because of Charlie Gibson?
Y'know, the rabid leftist who suggested that the median income for teachers was $200,000 and they needed the Bush tax cuts.
Don't forget, ABC News also routinely features commentary by socialists like Glenn Beck and John Stossel.

Slippery slope folks...

Yeh, I bet Deb and all our friends in the north live in waking fear.