Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1549865 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#870590 Mar 8, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Dream on Alice! If you believe that then I got a goose that lays golden eggs for sell!
So you remain ignorant by choice.

Just as i figured.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#870591 Mar 8, 2013
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 5: A single-payer system will leave medical decisions to a patients and his or her doctor.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group pushing for a single-payer system in the U.S.:

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.

Yet PNHP seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. Here is how PNHP addresses the question of how to keep doctors from doing too many procedures in a single-payer system:

[Doing too many procedures] is a problem in systems that reimburse physicians on a fee-for-service basis. In today's health system, another problem is physicians doing too little for patients. So the real question is, "how do we discourage both overcare and undercare"? One approach is to compare physicians' use of tests and procedures to their peers with similar patients.

A physician who is "off the curve" will stand out.

Another way is to set spending targets for each specialty. This encourages doctors to be prudent stewards and to make sure their colleagues are as well, because any doctor doing unnecessary procedures will be taking money away from other physicians in the same specialty.

In practice what this will mean is medical decisions will be left up to you and your doctor as long as your doctor isn't doing too many (or too few) procedures and is within a spending target.

The truth is that single-payer systems often interfere with treatment decisions. For example, most single-payer systems have bureaucracies that delay the approval of new drugs, preventing patients from using them. Alice Mahon, a former member of the British parliament, needed the drug Lucentis to slow her macular degeneration. Because of delays due to the National Health Service not yet having approved Lucentis at the time of her diagnosis, Mahon lost much of the sight in her left eye.

In 1999, Canadian patient Daniel Smith, a cystic fibrosis sufferer, and his doctors agreed that he needed a lung transplant. But his surgery was cancelled by administrators because an open hospital bed could not be found.

So much for medical decisions being left to patients and their doctors.

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#870592 Mar 8, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
How much is your eyesight worth?
Galt is more interested in the quality of medical care than in the cost. If the most expensive eye surgeon is the best, that is where Galt goes.
On my tax dollars? BTW, I'm not sure how good a surgeon Rand Paul is--he invented his own board and certified himself, but that's probably just something libertarians do as rugged individualists...

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#870593 Mar 8, 2013
Jane Says wrote:
SINGLE PAYER MYTH No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone.
Leftist Dave Zweifel claims that the U.S. "could make the system so much more fair by enacting a national single-payer health plan." Jonathan Cohn, when asked why he had faith that the government could run the health care system for all when it didn't do it very well for the poor, responded, "My answer is that they do it, and do it well, abroad."
Well, no they don't. According to Canada's Fraser Institute:
... a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours.
It isn't much better in Great Britain. Take a look at the Saga 'Good Hospital Guide' for British hospitals. Compare the ones in Inner London, which tend to be in wealthier areas, to the ones in Outer London, which tend to be in poorer areas.
You'll notice that in general, the ones in Inner London have more doctors and nurses per bed, shorter wait times for MRIs and hip replacements, and lower mortality ratios.
Myth. Our current system provides equal access.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#870594 Mar 8, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Charles Krauthammer:
...Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where’s the due process?
Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms.
Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens in rebellion — killed without due process. Nor did the Americans storming German bunkers at Normandy inquire before firing if there were any German-Americans among them — to be excused for gentler treatment while the other Germans were mowed down.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130217/CO...
That's it in a nutshell; the teaparty anti government white supremacists are afraid of being droned as they hide in their bunkers clutching their guns and refusing to pay their taxes.
That is absolutely it. Thanks sourkraut.

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#870595 Mar 8, 2013
Jane Says wrote:
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs.
Single-payer advocates often claim that the U.S. private sector health care system is wasteful, spending far more on administrative costs than do government-run single-payer systems. According to single-payer advocates David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, "Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003,$6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001."
Yet comparisons of private sector administrative costs with those of government are misleading. Many government administrative expenses are EXCLUDED in such comparisons, such as what it costs employers and government to collect the taxes needed to fund the single-payer system, and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set government health-care policy (the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set company policy are included in private sector administrative costs).
But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary.
The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but OVER-USE of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse.
Fact: The administration of Medicare is far more efficient than that of insurance companies.
sonicfilter

United States

#870596 Mar 8, 2013
KRAUTHAMMER: No I think there are principles at stake. I respect the opposition on this issue, but I don't see any alternative to having unity of command in the conduct of the war. And the principle here even if you attack an American as we did al-Awlaki, if you take up arms against the United States, even if you are a U.S. citizen.

O'REILLY: That's treason.

KRAUTHAMMER: You forfeit the privileges of citizenship including the protections of the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment due process. And once you do that by being an enemy combatant we can drone you the way that we do an Afghan or a Saudi or a Yemeni. There is no difference.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/02...
Jane Says

New York, NY

#870597 Mar 8, 2013
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes.

Most single-payer advocates point to life expectancy and infant mortality as evidence that single-payer systems produce better health outcomes than the U.S. And, indeed, the U.S. has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than many nations with a single-payer system.

The problem is that life expectancy and infant mortality tell us very little about the quality of a health care system. Life expectancy is determined by a host of factors over which a health care system has little control, such as genetics, crime rate, gross domestic product per capita, diet, sanitation, and literacy rate.

The primary reason is that the U.S. has lower life expectancy is that we are ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds -- culture, diet, etc.-- can have a substantial impact on life expectancy.

A good deal of the lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. is accounted for by the difference in life expectancy of African-Americans versus other populations in the United States. Life expectancy for African-Americans is about 72.3 years, while for whites it is about 77.7 years.

What accounts for the difference? Numerous scholars have investigated this question. The most prevalent explanations are differences in income and personal risk factors. For example, one study found that about one-third of the difference between white and African-American life expectancies in the United States was accounted for by income; another third was accounted for by personal risk factors such as obesity, blood pressure, alcohol intake, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and smoking and the final third was due to unexplained factors.

Infant mortality is also impacted by many of the same factors that affect life expectancy -- genetics, GDP per capita, diet, etc.-- all of which are factors beyond the control of a health care system. Another factor that makes U.S. infant mortality rates higher than other nations is that we have far more pregnant women living alone; in other nations pregnant women are more likely to be either be married or living with a partner.

Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of infant mortality is that it is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a useful measure. Under United Nations' guidelines, countries are supposed to count any infant showing any sign of life as a "live birth." While the United States follows that guideline, many other nations do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any infant born measuring less than 12 inches, while France and Belgium do not count any infant born prior to 26 weeks. In short, many other nations exclude many high-risk infants from their infant mortality statistics, making their infant mortality numbers look better than they really are.

In areas where a health care system does have an impact, such as treating disease, the U.S. outperforms single-payer systems. For example, the U.S. has a higher five-year survival rate for victims of heart attacks than Canada, due to the fact that we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties in the U.S. Hospitals in the U.S. also commit fewer errors than hospitals in countries with single-payer systems like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#870598 Mar 8, 2013
Jane Says wrote:
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system.
Everyone in a single-payer system has health insurance, not necessarily health CARE.
While the government in a single-payer system will pay for everyone's health care, it limits the access to health care. In a single-payer system, citizens often believe that "the government" is paying for their health care. When people perceive that someone else is paying for something, they tend to over-use it. In a single-payer health care system, people over-use health care. This puts strain on government health care budgets, and to contain costs governments must ration care.
Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling surgeries. As the Canadian Supreme Court said upon ruling unconstitutional a Quebec law that banned private health care, "ACCESS TO A WAITING LIST IS NOT ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE."
Only a dummy like you would think it's free. Everyone knows that they pay taxes to support single payer healthcare. You're so damn dumb, that it's incredible. Go skiing and break a leg and eat a yellow snowball. Lying swine from hell.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#870599 Mar 8, 2013
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing - 18,000 people die each year due to lack of insurance.

According to PNHP, "Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can't, you don't. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance."

The Institute of Medicine study purporting to show that 18,000 people die each year due to a lack of health insurance is actually a "meta-analysis," a study that summarizes the results of other studies. Yet many of the studies the Institute relied on have some rather odd results. One study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women with private insurance were more likely to survive breast cancer than those uninsured. However, data in the study also showed that those who were uninsured had a higher survival rate than women covered by Medicaid. This suggests that factors other than health insurance, like education and income, were at play in determining breast cancer survival.

Furthermore, everyone in the U.S. can get care regardless of income. In 1986 the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This requires emergency rooms to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.
Nuculur octopussy

Pompano Beach, FL

#870600 Mar 8, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Carol's been stuck on that piece of stupidity for several years now.
She oscillates between calling blacks stupid for not voting Republiclown to these stupid claims that blacks have been fooled by the Democrats.
Yet she doesn't see the ugly racism and bigotry in her words!!
She's that stupid!!
You've been stuck on every piece of stupidity for several years now. You don't see the ugly racism and bigotry in your own words!! You're that stupid!!
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#870601 Mar 8, 2013
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>On my tax dollars? BTW, I'm not sure how good a surgeon Rand Paul is--he invented his own board and certified himself, but that's probably just something libertarians do as rugged individualists...
He should have taken a quicky course in hair transplants
THE POPE

Zagreb, Croatia

#870602 Mar 8, 2013
THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE SOME FORM OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ITS CITIZENS. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM PRESUMABLY.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#870603 Mar 8, 2013
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research.

The PNHP claims:

Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries that have national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The new treatment to cure juvenile diabetics by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
While it is true that medical research will not "disappear," it will surely decline. Consider what has happened to pharmaceutical research in single-payer systems, where the government imposes price controls on prescription drugs. A study (PDF) conducted by U.S. Commerce Department found that drug price controls in other nations reduced annual investment in pharmaceuticals by $5-8 billion, resulting in 3 to 4 fewer drugs being launched each year. The Boston Consulting Group found (PDF) an even bigger effect of price controls, showing a loss of $17-22 billion annually in pharmaceutical research resulting in the loss of 10 to 13 new drug launches.

In a free market, producers make a profit by providing services that consumers find useful. Profits also act as a signal to research - research dollars go toward services that make more profit. This is desirable because services that make more profit are the ones that consumers find most useful. Medical services that make profit -- i.e., the ones that patients find most useful -- will attract more research dollars.

In a single-payer system, government sets the prices for medical services. Since government is not good at setting prices, it inevitably over-pays for some services. Research dollars will go not necessarily toward the services that patients find most useful but toward the services that government over-pays since those will be the ones that will be most profitable.
carol

Orlando, FL

#870604 Mar 8, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
Here's Carol with her revisionist views of history again.
Carol hides her ugly racism behind lies.
The simple answer for which Party represents minorities best, look at exit polls.
Democrats won in every ethnic group, balcks and hispanics by huge majorities. Asians, too.
But Carol loves to peddle her juvenile bullshit.
Fact is, the parties switched, led by Texan LBJ.
Most of the bigots in the south switched to Republiclown after the Civil Rights era.
Including Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc.
But carry on with your nonsense. Maybe it will help Rmoney win!!
HAHAHAHA
<quoted text>
Unemployment among blacks is 15% and quite a few illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

Perhaps voting for the party who wants to keep blacks unemployed and promises more free stuff and dishes out promises to illegal Hispanics and their American families that the American Dream is theirs for the taking if they just keep voting for them is what's behind these statistics?

When Republicans convince enough Hispanics that they, too, are working towards keeping their families together and providing a path to citzenship, that statistic will probably change dramatically. Hispanic voters are typically on the same page as conservatives when it comes to moral standards and principles.

Until more blacks learn that being dependent is nothing more than what their ancestors were forced to be, there isn't any hope of that statistic changing anytime soon.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#870605 Mar 8, 2013
Jane Says wrote:
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 5: A single-payer system will leave medical decisions to a patients and his or her doctor.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group pushing for a single-payer system in the U.S.:
There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
Yet PNHP seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. Here is how PNHP addresses the question of how to keep doctors from doing too many procedures in a single-payer system:
[Doing too many procedures] is a problem in systems that reimburse physicians on a fee-for-service basis. In today's health system, another problem is physicians doing too little for patients. So the real question is, "how do we discourage both overcare and undercare"? One approach is to compare physicians' use of tests and procedures to their peers with similar patients.
A physician who is "off the curve" will stand out.
Another way is to set spending targets for each specialty. This encourages doctors to be prudent stewards and to make sure their colleagues are as well, because any doctor doing unnecessary procedures will be taking money away from other physicians in the same specialty.
In practice what this will mean is medical decisions will be left up to you and your doctor as long as your doctor isn't doing too many (or too few) procedures and is within a spending target.
The truth is that single-payer systems often interfere with treatment decisions. For example, most single-payer systems have bureaucracies that delay the approval of new drugs, preventing patients from using them. Alice Mahon, a former member of the British parliament, needed the drug Lucentis to slow her macular degeneration. Because of delays due to the National Health Service not yet having approved Lucentis at the time of her diagnosis, Mahon lost much of the sight in her left eye.
In 1999, Canadian patient Daniel Smith, a cystic fibrosis sufferer, and his doctors agreed that he needed a lung transplant. But his surgery was cancelled by administrators because an open hospital bed could not be found.
So much for medical decisions being left to patients and their doctors.
That's a lie.
lily waxman raton fl

Pompano Beach, FL

#870606 Mar 8, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you even bother? You're way to dumb to comprehend anything.
Go out and have fun; ignorance is bliss.
Or in your case, another case ... of vodka.

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#870607 Mar 8, 2013
Jane Says wrote:
SINGLE PAYER MYTH NO. 5: A single-payer system will leave medical decisions to a patients and his or her doctor.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group pushing for a single-payer system in the U.S.:
There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
Yet PNHP seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. Here is how PNHP addresses the question of how to keep doctors from doing too many procedures in a single-payer system:
[Doing too many procedures] is a problem in systems that reimburse physicians on a fee-for-service basis. In today's health system, another problem is physicians doing too little for patients. So the real question is, "how do we discourage both overcare and undercare"? One approach is to compare physicians' use of tests and procedures to their peers with similar patients.
A physician who is "off the curve" will stand out.
Another way is to set spending targets for each specialty. This encourages doctors to be prudent stewards and to make sure their colleagues are as well, because any doctor doing unnecessary procedures will be taking money away from other physicians in the same specialty.
In practice what this will mean is medical decisions will be left up to you and your doctor as long as your doctor isn't doing too many (or too few) procedures and is within a spending target.
The truth is that single-payer systems often interfere with treatment decisions. For example, most single-payer systems have bureaucracies that delay the approval of new drugs, preventing patients from using them. Alice Mahon, a former member of the British parliament, needed the drug Lucentis to slow her macular degeneration. Because of delays due to the National Health Service not yet having approved Lucentis at the time of her diagnosis, Mahon lost much of the sight in her left eye.
In 1999, Canadian patient Daniel Smith, a cystic fibrosis sufferer, and his doctors agreed that he needed a lung transplant. But his surgery was cancelled by administrators because an open hospital bed could not be found.
So much for medical decisions being left to patients and their doctors.
Fact: Insurance companies determine what is covered & what is not. Not the patient or doctor.

With single payer, these decisions are made by panels of doctors & administrators. In insurance companies, these decision are made by those who get bonuses for turning down claims.

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#870608 Mar 8, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Uncle Poodle Patrick exhibiting signs of dementia.
Lots of people call Rand Paul, Poodle, but other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.
lily waxman raton fl

Pompano Beach, FL

#870609 Mar 8, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Gunner; it's the Republican party that is anti American. Not only anti American worker, but also anti women, gay, veteran, elderly, student, immigrant, education, children, civil rights, medicare, medicaide, social security, epa, hell, what in hell are you for anyway?
You forgot to mention your favorite one!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 37 min SweLL GirL 10,858
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Ronko 241,689
Spanx-they're for me. 2 hr Odoriferous 3
Black Humor. NO not that black. 3 hr StupidIsForever 6
Why are White men obsessed with Latina women? (Feb '10) 3 hr Blame obumbler 212
Illinois is in critical financial crisis. 3 hr SHALLOW POCKETS 21
last post wins! (Dec '10) 4 hr Concerned_American 3,183

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages