Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
replied to
The MILLION MAN MARCH, had 15 times the people as this lame behind protest...
in Politics RJ - I think that was intended to be a comparison shot from the news story it was linked to.
|
bigkat | 23 |
|
![]() |
LRR - His statement is fundamentally correct, Coverage doesn't mean Care. In order to receive quality health care, you need quality providers. If the ObamaCare plan doesn't compensate providers for providing care, then the providers quit providing and you have the situation you are describing in Las vegas. Too many patients, not enough doctors.
As you stated, you apparently have coverage, but you can't see a doctor.
How will getting the govt involved fix this problem? Instead, perhaps we should look at why there aren't enough doctors and address that issue first.
If there are more doctors, wait times at least go down, but does quality go up? What about costs? If there are more doctors, won't costs go down because of competition between them?
Why would any smart person choose to dedicate 12 years post high school to becoming a doctor if all that provided him was a govt controlled system? Between medicare, medicaid, insurance companies, medical malpractice lawsuits, we have greatly reduced the incentive to want to be a doctor.
If someone is smart enough to be a doctor, they can also be a lawyer, an engineer, an accountant an MBA each of which can provide as good or even better lifestyle with alot less time and financial exposure.
How will this new healthcare plan help? It won't unless we can sweeten the pie enough for people to want to become doctors again.
Cheers
![]() |
LeRinkRat | 15 |
|
![]() |
HIs speech was only great if you think like he does. He is a great cheer leader for rah rah ing the party faithful, but like any cheer leader, it only works with rehearsed lines and staged actions. He says nothing ever of substance and specifics. The more he continues to "rally his base" the more he loses the people who voted him in, the independents.
He was elected by a war weary public who were tired of Bush. The republicans and conservatives weren't behind McCain because he was basically a liberal light, not a conservative. Obama wowed the nation and many voted for him because they wanted to vote for the first Black Pres and bouh into the Hope and Change slogan. Even with all of that he only won 52% of the vote. Not exactly a mandate for change or a landslide victory.
The Dems will lose seats in the house and Senate this next election (2010) as historically all party's in power lose seats in mid term elections, how many is the only question. My hope is one of the chambers becomes a conservative chamber to stop the liberal agenda in its tracks. This is ruly the best thing for America because it allows all sides to discuss and debate and usually results in nothing controversial getting done. Certainly it will prevent the ram-rodding of the agenda from either party. Obama and the Dems know this so they are doing everything they can to try to get their legislation passed before anyone has a chance to object to it.
Health Care reform the way Obama and the liberals want it will not pass. IF they are foolish enough to ignore the voting public and do what they want, chances are they will be decimated by the mid term elections.
So I say, Keep it up mr Teleprompter. Lead those cheers, because you certainly don't know how to lead a nation.
Cheers
![]() |
don juan | 38 |
|
![]() |
Maybe we should tell the "47 million" to become Canadian citizens and their health care problems will be solved.
|
LeRinkRat | 15 |
|
![]() |
Thanks APK
![]() |
AlexPKeaton | 46 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Wow, you have become an angry zealot. I feel bad for you. Why don't you tell me what you believe is an unnecessary test? In what situation? I may agree with you. But if you are suggesting that any test for cancer or other terminal illnesses is not necessary, we can agree to disagree. If the doctor is ordering tests in the practice of medicine for the better treatment and analysis of his patients condition then I would agree it is a necessary test. If the doctor is ordering tests to reduce his liability from a lawsuit, that is an unnecessary test. |
DiscoD69 | 28 |
|
![]() |
I love it. Football has hijacked a Politics thread.
|
don juan | 40 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
There may be an argument that the US had some prior knowledge of the likelihood of an attack, but it stops there. The rest is well-documented. Can't speak for others, but I have seen video of every plane crash except for the PA. I apologise for implying you were a 911 conspiracy theorist. |
Mikael99 | 45 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by jpero:
Probably not an inside job but I would bet my life and future childrens' lives that the US government knew/ is concealing all the facts and information regarding 9/11. There is too much that happened coincidentally for them to not have known or not have tried stopping it. Most secure building in the world doesn't even have video of a plane hitting it yet there are countless video of all the other plane crashes and even the plane that crashed in the Hudson. There is a lot of things that don't add up and the government ignores these questions. Too many people profited off 9/11. Its sad and scary to think the government would allow such a thing to happen but it has happened in the past with other countries. Back to global warming debate. I said this before a long time ago on this website and I will say it again. If a specialist/doctor tells you that you have a potential life threatening disease/condition that will kill you in the future. Do you refuse treatment to possibly fix the problem and wait ti the last moment when you realize "damn the doctor was right" and now it is too late to do anything. Or do you go along with the treatments and live longer than you would have and possibly defeat/eliminate the problem before it becomes unfixable. There is no logical, good reason to not want to produce/create greener, safer technologies. It has been proven that cars and other equipment create pollution and cause problems. The scale of the problems are what people bicker and argue about. Was there smog in LA 100 years ago. Was rain as acidic as it is today. This is a prime example of pollution and just the beginning of how it affects the environment. I agree with that analogy to a point. The first doctor "doctor A" however is not certain, it is only a possibility it MAY happen the way he thinks. I go to another specialist and ask him, "doctor B" says something different, that in his opinion, the odds are much less that this will develop. Doctor A's treatment will cost me alot of money, control every aspect of my daily life and people he is in business with will handsomely profit from my treatment. Doctor B does not have a direct influece on my daily life or will not profit from any treatment, but still encourages me to do certain things to improve my overall health. I am going to accept Doctor B's advise, especially when the "symptoms" doctor A said I should begin feeling, aren't materialising. |
Mikael99 | 45 |
|
![]() |
the link is to a graph showing atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
|
Mikael99 | 45 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Sooner--you're a real smart dude, but c'mon, I mean even the village idiot (by the way, that is my next screen name if I ever get banned) knows that every poison is an essential item in measured quantities. Thanks for the compliment and I agree with your statement, however the atmosphere is not approaching toxic levels of CO2. Historically there have been levels of CO2 10 times higher than today, during all the previous epochs from Cretaceous back to Cambrian the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere wer 1000's of ppm. Some of those eras had warmer temps some were similar to todays temps, but they supported life and abundant life on this planet. The scre stories about drought and famine and rising seas, etc. are only partly true. If weather patterns change then some areas with abundant rainfall may see less, but other areas with less rainfall may see more. The sahara wasn't always a desert, but climate changes made it so. Vast coal deposits in the western US are remnants of ancient peatboggs. the climate now is semi arid desert. Climates change. As for mans influence through CO2, ridiculous. Cas in point, if we as humanity are responsible for all the CO2 increase, then why, during this recent econimic downturn when less energy and fossil fuels were being consumed, didn't the average CO2 in the atmosphere decline? Simply put, because the miniscule amount we contribute to the total is irrelevant.
|
Mikael99 | 45 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Is it a mere coincidence that those you believe trickle down economics works are the same as those denying global warming? To paraphrase you - "Is it mere coincidence that those you believe in AGW are the same as those who believe 911 was an inside job?" |
Mikael99 | 45 |
|
![]() |
As much as I disagree with the President on his agenda, we still have a nation to defend and protect. The woman swore an oath to serve at the direction of her commanders, she needs to do her job.
At the same time her complaint has merit ands needs to be properly vetted, out in the open teransparent for all to see. The secrecy surrounding him is only continuing to add to the suspicion.
|
SarasotaSlim | 9 |
|
![]() |
Wall - CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is an essential element for sustaining plant life on the planet.
Cap and trade has absolutely NOTHING to do with pollution. It is about raising revenue, and controlling the population of the earth through their energy usage.
KUJAY - Interesting how you state these catastrophic possibilities as FACT when they are merely simulations of possible outcomes based on computer models that oversimplify the atmospheric process to achiev a desired result. GIGO.
Back to pollution. I am an environmentalist in the sense that I don't think we should pollute just for the sake of polluting. There are reasonable steps that we have taken to clean up our environment and in fact the USA for all it's evil consumption of the earths resources, has a very clean environment.
IF the goal truly was to reduce CO2 because of its dire consequences, then fast tracking the constructiion and development of nuclear power plants would be highest on the environmentalists priority list. It is clean, efficient and sustainable. There newer generation reactors are much safer and the "waste" can be recycled and reused (breeder reactors), resulting in very little actual waste that needs to be disposed of.
The problem is, we get to maintain or cushy lifestyle and continue to procreate and prosper, plus the govt can't tax it as easily since there is no boogey man anymore.
Wake up and breathe the fresh air, the world needs more CO2 to boost agriculture production to continue to feed the ever growing human race.
|
Mikael99 | 45 |
|
![]() |
I believe Bush had the consent of Congress?
|
Killer_B | 43 |
|
![]() |
Mikael - I am going to cut and paste here something that clearly affects the costs associated with the health care industry. I'm not sure if you have the same problem in Denmark, but you can see it is a HUGE financial drain here.
Doctors made the rounds of Senate offices Tuesday -- not to treat lawmakers but to implore them to listen to physicians on health care reform. "A number of us don't feel like we've had much input in this debate," one doctor said. More than 11,000 doctors from around the country who connected on a medical Web site called Sermo signed a petition outlining several issues they think are critical parts of health reform, including tort reform, transparent billing, insurance reform and changing the payment systems to encourage preventive medicine. The petition was delivered to the 100 Senate offices Tuesday, including that of Sen. Tom Coburn, who is also a doctor. "I agree with you we hadn't heard from the medical community," the Republican said. "We've heard from a lobbying arm that's interested in money, not patients and not physicians." The petition comes a day before President Obama addresses a joint session of the Congress in an attempt to rally a fractious Democratic Party and persuade Republicans to drop their opposition. To win the support of doctors, tort reform is key. Some, such as orthopedic surgeons, can pay up to $80,000 a year in malpractice insurance. Obstetricians have it even worse. They can pay astronomical sums of more than $200,000 a year. But insurance is only half the cost. "There's been a number of surveys which have shown that up to a third of all tests and procedures that are done aren’t necessarily in the best interest of the physician or the patient," said Dr. Daniel Palestrant. "They are done to protect both parties from liability." Nevertheless, tort reform isn't part of any of the congressional proposals so far, including the massive one in the House. "If we are putting everything on the table as the president says to try and improve health care, it would seem suspicious that in a 1,200-page bill, the word tort reform or malpractice isn't mentioned once," Palestrant said. In fact, some Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean acknowledges the party was reluctant to cross trial lawyers because they contribute so heavily to Democratic candidates. But some say that has to change. "I think the time has come for the Democrats to say alright, we're going to have to take on one of our own here," said Democratic strategist Bob Beckel. "They are going to have to contribute because it is true that runaway lawsuits have caused insurance premiums to go up." Beckel says that would be a smart political move that would give Democrats more credibility and quiet down Republicans, as he put it. He also says a lot of Democrats are thinking about such a move as a way to breathe new life in the health reform debate. Key points there are the cost to doctors for malpractice insurance and extra tests being performed to cover their collective behinds. I submit that these two elements are one reason why helth care is more expensive and inefficient than other countries. If tort reform and insurance reform are parrt of the final package, I believe costs would drop.
|
Mikael99 | 28 |
|
![]() |
Didn't hawaii have a short lived Kid care type program that was going to bankrupt them so they ditched it? Seems like a couple years ago?
Any one?
|
Travis77 | 11 |
|
![]() |
Mikael99 - We disagree on most things but I really like your Avatars as of late. Very nice to look at, almost nice enough to keep reading your comments. LOL
Cheers
![]() |
Mikael99 | 18 |
|
![]() |
Don - I HOPE thy (dems) are stupid enough to listen to you. The people of the USA, you know VOTERS, don't want this so I really really hope that the Dems follow your advise and vote it in. That way after the next election, Obama will be even more lame than he is now and Pelosi and Reed ( if he survives) will be nothing more than past embarassments to this country not continuous embarassments.
|
don juan | 10 |
|
![]() |
Disco - I won't speak for anyone else but me. I thought Bush did a pretty good job overall.
Foreign Policy - Over all Good Job.
+ Prevented another 9/11 type attack.
+ Ignored North Korea. ( Thanks Clinton and Albright)
- Didn't get Bin Laden or crush the taliban and Al Qaeda.
- Didn't secure Iraq better before leaving office.
Spending - Poor Job.
+ Tax policies were good, economy grew for most of the 8 years he was in office.
- Didn't lower taxes enough or make cuts permanent.
- Didn't control spending during good economic expansion.
- Tried but failed to privatize retirement and phase out Soc Sec.
- Didn't eliminate govt. waste
Education - Average
+ reached across aisle to Ted Kennedy to pass No Child left behind
- Failed to get school vouchers passed as part of the bill (personally Education should be a State issue with no Fed govt involvement)
Overall - He was a good President. Biggest disappointment was his failues in cutting size and spending in govt.
|
DiscoD69 | 18 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.