No end in sight to 'war on women' att...

No end in sight to 'war on women' attacks

There are 332 comments on the Politico story from Nov 10, 2013, titled No end in sight to 'war on women' attacks. In it, Politico reports that:

Hardly a commercial break went by in October when Virginia voters weren't reminded of Ken Cuccinelli's far-right views on abortion and other social issues.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Politico.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#248 Nov 16, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>I am sure you could Jimmy...
however when most people calculate the fee for no insurance they forget to include the hidden fee we all end up paying for in the end.
Hmmmmmmmm the mystery begins. Policies pay what they say they will pay. If you get a surprise I guess you should have read the policy.
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#250 Nov 16, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Here moron pick out the liberal authors......hahahahahaha
BOOK SALES RACE... WEEK OF NOV 10 2013: RUSH LIMBAUGH 'BRAVE' TOPS ALL WITH 61,673 SCANNED, 222,375 SINCE RELEASE...... MORE... O'REILLY TAKES PLACE WITH 'JESUS' AFTER 54,445 SOLD [596,907 TOTAL]... KRAUTHAMMER AT SHOW FROM 52,974 [91,115]... MORE... HALPERIN/HEILEMANN 'DOUBLE DOWN' OPENS WITH 26,494; KEARNS GOODWIN 'THEODORE' 25,303...
Jumbles, dear, your answer to the war on women is spout book sales from these goons?

Good try but no war trophy!

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#251 Nov 16, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmmmm the mystery begins. Policies pay what they say they will pay. If you get a surprise I guess you should have read the policy.
That had been said by the private sector industry pre-ACA when ever someone was denied coverage for a pre-existing condition
fingiswold

Streetsboro, OH

#253 Nov 16, 2013
Progressive Ha Ha Ha wrote:
I think CNN/NBC has the right idea in defending BHO's dozen of ACA lies as though Lies were all Americans deserved from this White House.
No evidence whatsoever that he's "lied" about anything connected with the ACA, of course.

Funny how liars lie about lies...:)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254 Nov 16, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
No evidence whatsoever that he's "lied" about anything connected with the ACA, of course.
Funny how liars lie about lies...:)
You really are proving to be the Useful Idiot trying to defend Obama when he proved he was lying about the ACA.

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama

“ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#255 Nov 16, 2013
The Democrats Jackass wrote:
<quoted text>Obama is a liar.
That makes you a chump for believing him
That makes me smart for not believing Obama.
Going forward no-one believes Obama and you are measured for being a fool's fool.
Good for you.
Have a nice day .......
Exactly right! Bravo for putting it so well! It tells us a lot about his followers.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#256 Nov 16, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
(Cutting your post for the sake of space)
First off the testy attitude the you have been exposed to may have been imported from the exchanges with incredulous. Unlike that individual you seem to understand the topic and you haven't spewed venom. You have been polite and if i was less than polite to you i apologize.
The assumptions that I have taken come from sources that I have posted links to. If you have a set of figures, you fee accurate then please supply a link and I will follow though and atempt to understand what your assumptions are and how you came to embrace them.
I am overjoyed that you are healthy, and a pray you stay that way. However I know that all It takes is one person like myself to make up for many dozens of people like you self.
I have had three ruptured discs surguries and the pain management associated with the injuries. in addition I was in an accident as a child that required blood transfusions one of which was tainted and caused me to need to kill a hep 'c' virus the cost of that chemo-treatment is astronomical.
My assumption is that the healthy do not accumulate much in the way of health care . Maybe the occational emergency room visit for, stitches or infection...ect. And we both know that that type of service is the most expensive and the leat efficient in terms of treatment.
However the question of how much this is going to cost us is a question that I can not asnswer with anything other than a general assumption.
If Canada covers 100% of its population with a basic coverage for a per capita cost of about $4,500
And we cover a tad better than 80 % of the population for a quoted average of $8,000 +.
Thus our per capita is $3,000 -$4,000 greater.
Assuming that we can push that remainder into basic insurance then a portion of that $3,000 -$4,000 in additional costs can be absorbed at that point..
Also by changing our administrative practices (the fee for service issue) we should be able to have addition savings and free up doctor hours,
Finally I was baking tort reform into that mix.
I dont believe that the $1,000 savings is out of line.
My only income comes from the stock market. I have seen dozens of companies successfully re-structure themselves. It is the most Capitalist thing under the sun for a company to simply copy the proven aspects of competitors established programs. This is what I am doing.
As an investor and as a part time anaylist I have 6 companies currently in my portfolio. 4 are health care related. 3 bio meds and a company that is involved in electronic record keeping. If I genuinely thought i would be hamstringing those companies I would be cutting my own throat.
Finally if you have a source for information you have that I lack please share.
Thank you
I am in excellent health and condition, a fact that I try very hard not to take for granted and know that I'm blessed to be so. I also know that can change in the blink of an eye.

I'm very sorry to hear about your health problems. My sister-in-law has disc and spinal problems, thanks to a drunk driver. This once fit and active person, with an absolute passion for horses and riding, now describes her body as a prison. As time has worn on, she seems to be coping better, but she still gets very depressed.

Until this happens to ourselves, or in this case, someone very close to us, most of us have no idea how horrible it can get, or how severe or acute pain affects a person, particularly if it's constant. And even when that is under control (as in slight to moderate pain-she's always in pain), the affect of not being able to do a long list of everyday physical movements, never mind the two things she loved most in life...well, it's been a learning experience for me. And there's nothing I can do to help her.

To have Hep C on top of that...again, I'm very sorry to hear it. You must be a helluva trooper.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#257 Nov 16, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
(Cutting your post for the sake of space)

The assumptions that I have taken come from sources that I have posted links to. If you have a set of figures, you fee accurate then please supply a link and I will follow though and atempt to understand what your assumptions are and how you came to embrace them.

My assumption is that the healthy do not accumulate much in the way of health care . Maybe the occational emergency room visit for, stitches or infection...ect. And we both know that that type of service is the most expensive and the leat efficient in terms of treatment.
However the question of how much this is going to cost us is a question that I can not asnswer with anything other than a general assumption.
If Canada covers 100% of its population with a basic coverage for a per capita cost of about $4,500
And we cover a tad better than 80 % of the population for a quoted average of $8,000 +.
Thus our per capita is $3,000 -$4,000 greater.
Assuming that we can push that remainder into basic insurance then a portion of that $3,000 -$4,000 in additional costs can be absorbed at that point..
Also by changing our administrative practices (the fee for service issue) we should be able to have addition savings and free up doctor hours,
Finally I was baking tort reform into that mix.
I dont believe that the $1,000 savings is out of line.

Finally if you have a source for information you have that I lack please share.
Thank you
(Sorry, I cut your post for space)

My argument about the uninsured is that we really don't know what they cost the U.S. annually...but we should. When I try finding numbers on this issue, I tend to find A) very little, and B) fluctuations that are dependent upon what side of the argument a study, paper or article is presented from.

I do, in almost all cases, research who presents what numbers I could find, and sometimes you have to backtrack quite a bit. I do this because statistics are so malleable, as fluctuations, sometimes quite wild, demonstrate. Even on cost per person in the Canadian system, you can find considerable differences between various reports and studies.

Like refereeing a fight between children or friends, I find that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

We should, however, be able to find these numbers. Hospitals, clinics and even some private practices post these numbers.

Canada does cover nearly 100%(even there, there are people who aren't covered), but for all it's great cost, we really do have a better delivery system. And particularly for those of us who have good insurance, we, as individuals, have much more say and control over our own health care. That three month wait for appointments isn't a slogan. It's a fact. And if you think insurance companies drown us in red tape...they got nuttin' on the Canadian government.

Tort reform is a must...but we've been hearing chatter about this for two decades now. Yet, somehow, it never seems to happen.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#259 Nov 17, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
(Sorry, I cut your post for space)
My argument about the uninsured is that we really don't know what they cost the U.S. annually...but we should. When I try finding numbers on this issue, I tend to find A) very little, and B) fluctuations that are dependent upon what side of the argument a study, paper or article is presented from.
I do, in almost all cases, research who presents what numbers I anaged-health-care-vs-fee-for- service.html
Tort reform is a must...but we've been hearing chatter about this for two decades now. Yet, somehow, it never seems to happen.
(I clipped your post)

A single payer system like Canada's is off the table as far as discussing reforming our system. It does cover almost all citizens at a savings over our system, proving that it can be done. American politics would never allow that and if I had the Presidents ear I would have told him the American reform would have had.
1) the coverage mandate...I still can find no flaw in requiring the uninsured to have basic coverage...the risk pool math dictates a saving per head. this requirement does not affect you and me the only group the will feel the bite is the "free loader".
2) Also included is the mandated coverage for pre-
saving per head. this requirement does not affect you and me the only group the will feel the bite is the "free loader".
2) Also included is the mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions, removing caps on coverage for treatment of catastrophic illness. The specialist who treated my liver told me that it was not uncommon to cut short the course of treatment because of issues with insurance coverage, some of his patients had re-lapsed and it is possible that the insurance companies policy was the cause... Thank goodness I also have great insurance.
3)Tort reform was sadly missing, an unforgivable deficiency, that has the Democrats fingerprints all over it, The GOP has industries that it cater to as well, politics...
4) A plan to consolidate as many doctors as possible in to the managed care concepts that are being successfully experimented with at the Cleveland Clinic, Kaiser Perminate group....
I would be eager to hear your take on the fee for service v. this managed concept. I have come to the conclusion that this administrative reform has the potential to be a 'game changer'.

http://www.marketresearch.com/Life-Sciences-c...

http://www.gordonstate.edu/Faculty/jwhite/MAN...

http://www.faqs.org/health/Healthy-Living-V2/...

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#260 Nov 17, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in excellent health and condition, a fact that I try very hard not to take for granted and know that I'm blessed to be so. I also know that can change in the blink of an eye.
I'm very sorry to hear about your health problems. My sister-in-law has disc and spinal problems, thanks to a drunk driver. This once fit and active person, with an absolute passion for horses and riding, now describes her body as a prison. As time has worn on, she seems to be coping better, but she still gets very depressed.
Until this happens to ourselves, or in this case, someone very close to us, most of us have no idea how horrible it can get, or how severe or acute pain affects a person, particularly if it's constant. And even when that is under control (as in slight to moderate pain-she's always in pain), the affect of not being able to do a long list of everyday physical movements, never mind the two things she loved most in life...well, it's been a learning experience for me. And there's nothing I can do to help her.
To have Hep C on top of that...again, I'm very sorry to hear it. You must be a helluva trooper.
Thank you for your kind words.
I used myself as an example to illustrate how a single case of extended care can generate huge bills the uninsured pass on to the insured.
My insurance is great and i am grateful for the care I have received.
In your second post you commented....

" Canada does cover nearly 100%(even there, there are people who aren't covered), but for all it's great cost, we really do have a better delivery system. And particularly for those of us who have good insurance, we, as individuals, have much more say and control over our own health care."

First I agree that the statistics can be mangled but it is indisputable that Canadians pay less per capita and finish higher in measures of quality. the size of the gap is the only issue.

Second you touched on a politic litmus test

"And particularly for those of us who have good insurance, "

The Conservative says I got it good, don't put my advantage at risk. The proof is in the politics of scapegoating the 'have nots', Some of the 'I don't give a damn about them' rhetoric that emanates from some hard core right wingers is a crude play to this distinction.

The liberal views America as a team sport. I was marginally accomplished as a hockey player. I played on teams that embraced various concepts. But I came to see that the way to improve a teams performance is to 'bring up the bottom' not to dote on the stars. The desire here is to find ways of bringing up the bottom.

No one has all of the answers...nor all the blame. The moderate is willing to set aside their ideology and look for solutions that work...by bringing up the bottom....
If you and I are getting great coverage and results that are world class. and our national averages are as poor as they undeniably are (in a price\results view). What does this say about the quality of the care that those who are dragging down our statistical performance. Those at the bottom are receiving 'third world' class care...as a team player that is not acceptable

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#261 Nov 17, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in excellent health and condition, a fact that I try very hard not to take for granted and know that I'm blessed to be so. I also know that can change in the blink of an eye.
I'm very sorry to hear about your health problems. My sister-in-law has disc and spinal problems, thanks to a drunk driver. This once fit and active person, with an absolute passion for horses and riding, now describes her body as a prison. As time has worn on, she seems to be coping better, but she still gets very depressed.
Until this happens to ourselves, or in this case, someone very close to us, most of us have no idea how horrible it can get, or how severe or acute pain affects a person, particularly if it's constant. And even when that is under control (as in slight to moderate pain-she's always in pain), the affect of not being able to do a long list of everyday physical movements, never mind the two things she loved most in life...well, it's been a learning experience for me. And there's nothing I can do to help her.
To have Hep C on top of that...again, I'm very sorry to hear it. You must be a helluva trooper.
P.S.
Thank you for one of the more satisfying exchanges I have had here
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#262 Nov 17, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
(I clipped your post)
A single payer system like Canada's is off the table as far as discussing reforming our system. It does cover almost all citizens at a savings over our system, proving that it can be done. American politics would never allow that and if I had the Presidents ear I would have told him the American reform would have had.
4) A plan to consolidate as many doctors as possible in to the managed care concepts that are being successfully experimented with at the Cleveland Clinic, Kaiser Perminate group....
I would be eager to hear your take on the fee for service v. this managed concept. I have come to the conclusion that this administrative reform has the potential to be a 'game changer'.
http://www.marketresearch.com/Life-Sciences-c...
http://www.gordonstate.edu/Faculty/jwhite/MAN...
http://www.faqs.org/health/Healthy-Living-V2/...
(...you know why I cut it...)

I focus on the Canadian system, because, as I said in a previous post, we spend quite a bit of time in Canada, mostly in Quebec, and have been since before my husband and I were even married.

I'm not sure when their current system started. But our friends and us have been debating the pros and cons of the two systems for years.

As the years pile up, as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., age and often develop more serious illnesses and conditions, their defense of the Canadian system has become far less passionate.

The wait time for appointments is a very big problem, particularly for the more serious health conditions. Almost all other primary care falls to hospital ER's, which is extremely inefficient, not to mention expensive. In this regard, those living in rural areas have the edge.

Availability of specialists is another. For those who don't live near large hospitals or cities, it's not uncommon to have to travel two to three hours to see a specialist or just to get a test. They also lag far behind us in availability of pharmaceuticals, also related to funding restrictions.

They have been plagued with a nursing shortage for years. It's not due to an actual shortage of nurses, but due to funding restrictions. In recent years, they started 'upgrading' LPN's by sending them to school for two to three months so that they can fill in and perform the more advanced services of the RN.(A friend of ours in Granby, Que. went through this training two years ago.(I actually let him practice phlebotomy on my arm...he did okay!)

Their system is more cost effective, but the U.S. is ahead in many areas, particularly preventative medicine, screenings, cancer treatment, fertility and high risk pregnancy/pre-natal issues.

I highly doubt that when they set this system up, this was the outcome they had in mind. But providing healthcare to everyone turned out to be far more expensive and burdensome than they had calculated. It can't be done there without restrictions and cuts, nor can it be done here without the same.

I will look through the links you provided, because I think the U.S. can find a different way...but what I know of these plans sound like HMO's on steroids. There are up sides, but some serious concerns on the downsides, as well.

Let me review and get back to you.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#263 Nov 17, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your kind words.
I used myself as an example to illustrate how a single case of extended care can generate huge bills the uninsured pass on to the insured.
My insurance is great and i am grateful for the care I have received.
In your second post you commented....
" Canada does cover nearly 100%(even there, there are people who aren't covered), but for all it's great cost, we really do have a better delivery system. And particularly for those of us who have good insurance, we, as individuals, have much more say and control over our own health care."
First I agree that the statistics can be mangled but it is indisputable that Canadians pay less per capita and finish higher in measures of quality. the size of the gap is the only issue.
Second you touched on a politic litmus test
"And particularly for those of us who have good insurance, "
The Conservative says I got it good, don't put my advantage at risk. The proof is in the politics of scapegoating the 'have nots', Some of the 'I don't give a damn about them' rhetoric that emanates from some hard core right wingers is a crude play to this distinction.
The liberal views America as a team sport. I was marginally accomplished as a hockey player. I played on teams that embraced various concepts. But I came to see that the way to improve a teams performance is to 'bring up the bottom' not to dote on the stars. The desire here is to find ways of bringing up the bottom.
No one has all of the answers...nor all the blame. The moderate is willing to set aside their ideology and look for solutions that work...by bringing up the bottom....
If you and I are getting great coverage and results that are world class. and our national averages are as poor as they undeniably are (in a price\results view). What does this say about the quality of the care that those who are dragging down our statistical performance. Those at the bottom are receiving 'third world' class care...as a team player that is not acceptable
I'm not sure that Canadians pay less for health care. Health care costs are lower per capita, without a doubt. That is for no other reason than rationing and restricting costs. Limiting the amount of doctors, specialists and nurses, limiting the amount of equipment and machinery (considerably lower amounts, per capita of diagnostic and screening equipment), limiting the use of medicines, particularly cutting edge, or newer, and more expensive pharmaceuticals.

A far lower rate of elective surgeries, of treating certain diseases all-out when positive outcomes are not likely...and no insane, multi million lawsuits paid out every other day, so they don't practice defensively.

In short, if they practiced medicine the way the U.S. does, they would be spending as much, if not more, per capita as we are.

So to level the playing field, as it were, or to bring the bottom up, the top has to come down. And even north of the border and in other countries with similar systems, those with more money, better jobs or, ironically, government jobs, can get more or better care than those who don't.

So no matter what kind of system we manage to devise, we're going to end up in the same place. Many people are resistant to that idea...usually those at the upper end. And Americans are, by nature, resistant to anything related to socialism. It seems to be in the national DNA.

So, what to do??

BTW, I LOVE hockey, and used to play pond hockey up in the Great White North, when those chauvinistic guys would allow a mere girl out on the pond. I played goalie, too often without sufficient equipment. I took more than my share of lumps (literally), but at least I still have all my teeth. And though I live in Ct., I'm a die-hard Habs fan.

What position did you play?
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#264 Nov 18, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
P.S.
Thank you for one of the more satisfying exchanges I have had here
That's flattering, thank you, and you're welcome.

I enjoy debate and the exchange of ideas, because one never knows what good can come from another's opinion or observations. If an exchange can take place without insults and sniping (not all that common, especially on Topix), then one can walk away thinking, instead of reacting. Who knows what can come from a meeting of the minds?

So, thanks, right back at you.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#265 Nov 18, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>dumbospambot re-spammed spam. flagged for removal. Like these:

lafraudspampost#205http://www. topix.com/forum/who/barack-oba ma/T3O2KU4GQM32M5T7P/p8

lafraudspampost#2619http://www .topix.com/forum/who/barack-ob ama/TILS43PEHSQ5B02MQ/p116

lafraudspampost#44http://www.t opix.com/forum/news/immigratio n/TSIOCTLK2QI0JIJOG/p2

lafraudspamposts#571&#572h ttp://www.topix.com/forum/news /immigration/TEGJ5SVQV4Q7H87GG /p27

lafraudspampost#2http://www.to pix.com/forum/us/politics/TEKO 25AEEF2U209FO

lafraudspamposts#6&#9http: //www.topix.com/forum/us/polit ics/T38IK71A5CR22TKM9

lafraaudspampost#149http://www .topix.com/forum/us/politics/T L9UCOM9PR0MUQ5RR/p6

hahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahhahha you are starting to believe your own babble boy.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#266 Nov 18, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that Canadians pay less for health care. Health care costs are lower per capita, without a doubt. That is for no other reason than rationing and restricting costs. Limiting the amount of doctors, specialists and nurses, limiting the amount of equipment and machinery (considerably lower amounts, per capita of diagnostic and screening equipment), limiting the use of medicines, particularly cutting edge, or newer, and more expensive pharmaceuticals.
A far lower rate of elective surgeries, of treating certain diseases all-out when positive outcomes are not likely...and no insane, multi million lawsuits paid out every other day, so they don't practice defensively.
In short, if they practiced medicine the way the U.S. does, they would be spending as much, if not more, per capita as we are.
So to level the playing field, as it were, or to bring the bottom up, the top has to come down. And even north of the border and in other countries with similar systems, those with more money, better jobs or, ironically, government jobs, can get more or better care than those who don't.
So no matter what kind of system we manage to devise, we're going to end up in the same place. Many people are resistant to that idea...usually those at the upper end. And Americans are, by nature, resistant to anything related to socialism. It seems to be in the national DNA.
So, what to do??
BTW, I LOVE hockey, and used to play pond hockey up in the Great White North, when those chauvinistic guys would allow a mere girl out on the pond. I played goalie, too often without sufficient equipment. I took more than my share of lumps (literally), but at least I still have all my teeth. And though I live in Ct., I'm a die-hard Habs fan.
What position did you play?
I have also gotten to compare health care systems by way of talking to the people who live under it. I have heard complaints but when I have pinned them down and asked them if they would trade...never had a taker. They have wait times for electives and they don't have unlimited access to diagnostics but some of our use of those services is in defensive medicine and 'just to cover bases'. When comparing our hockey scarred faces...getting my nose straightened took a couple weeks they waited months...my partial dentures came a lot quicker as well
Americans are Capitalists and I am by defination one of course.... most Canadians are as well . The funny thing about capitalism is that it is like baskin-robins ice cream...44 flavors. The most common bit of rhetorical overkill from the right is that any thing other than laissez-faire is communism. A regulated capitalism is still capitalism... Also examine the Robber Barons and the trust busters and ask your self if the wildly popular Teddy Roosevelt was not some what a american socialist, on some issues
A Montreal fan..figures..lol
I was, most often the checking line Center I spent my time attempting to shut down guys who were far more talented than I was. Bob Gainey was a hero when I was a kid.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#267 Nov 18, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
(...you know why I cut it...)
I focus on the Canadian system, because, as I said in a previous post, we spend quite a bit of time in Canada, mostly in Quebec, and have been since before my husband and I were even married.
I'm not sure when their current system started. But our friends and us have been debating the pros and cons of the two systems for a done here without the same.
I will look through the links you provided, because I think the U.S. can find a different way...but what I know of these plans sound like HMO's on steroids. There are up sides, but some serious concerns on the downsides, as well.
Let me review and get back to you.
With our focus on the Canadian system I must repeat that I dont' believe it to be perfect and there is no way , if I had the Presidents ear, that I would be pushing for an exact copy. It would never pass through our political process and would be a large waste of political capital.
But the universal aspect is admirable and if we can cover close to 100% with a basic coverage, it would an advance in our social infrastructure. And more affordable that is believed. And we are talking about basic coverage with the deductibles and restrictions that are in basic plans that we have always had from the private sector.
Beyond a universal mandate there isn't much in the proposition that I but forward that is taken from the Canadians. I think an American reform is required. ACA is not perfect. The sputtering start reminds me of the sputtering start W's drug plan encountered. No large change is seamless. But keeping it in place is an improvement , that could be larger, it the GOP drops the goal of eliminating ACA you'll find moderate Democrats agreeable to changes in the program.
Again if I had had the Presidents ear back when this was being assembled, I would have urged him to taper his rhetoric and re-shape some aspects. It would have been Ideal to have GOP votes however the GOP was dead set against giving him a victory, politics had trumped function.
And so it becomes at times if the other guy wants a fight give him just a little more fight than he wants...
Politics over function, but if there is a fight..it is always preferable to win...I would have liked to see what results would have happened if the GOP had not recklessly kept raising the ante...

I was sincere in my complement...look at how many exchanges are spitting contests here
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#268 Nov 18, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
With our focus on the Canadian system I must repeat that I dont' believe it to be perfect and there is no way , if I had the Presidents ear, that I would be pushing for an exact copy. It would never pass through our political process and would be a large waste of political capital.
But the universal aspect is admirable and if we can cover close to 100% with a basic coverage, it would an advance in our social infrastructure. And more affordable that is believed. And we are talking about basic coverage with the deductibles and restrictions that are in basic plans that we have always had from the private sector.
Beyond a universal mandate there isn't much in the proposition that I but forward that is taken from the Canadians. I think an American reform is required. ACA is not perfect. The sputtering start reminds me of the sputtering start W's drug plan encountered. No large change is seamless. But keeping it in place is an improvement , that could be larger, it the GOP drops the goal of eliminating ACA you'll find moderate Democrats agreeable to changes in the program.
Again if I had had the Presidents ear back when this was being assembled, I would have urged him to taper his rhetoric and re-shape some aspects. It would have been Ideal to have GOP votes however the GOP was dead set against giving him a victory, politics had trumped function.
And so it becomes at times if the other guy wants a fight give him just a little more fight than he wants...
Politics over function, but if there is a fight..it is always preferable to win...I would have liked to see what results would have happened if the GOP had not recklessly kept raising the ante...
I was sincere in my complement...look at how many exchanges are spitting contests here
This country is not socialist which is why this model is not going to work here. Applying an 'exact copy' of Canadian care is impossible because the demographics alone are not the same. oscumma has been driving single payer care down our throats and the gullible swallow it, ever so gratefully. Although our healthcare system isn't perfect, it should not be uprooted for socialism. We should quit giving govt. more control over our lives. I want to see Medicare abolished and Medicaid reduced. Sponging off a smaller govt. should be less and less likely. The parasites are sucking the lifeblood out of a people who once valued their independence.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#269 Nov 18, 2013
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>This country is not socialist which is why this model is not going to work here. Applying an 'exact copy' of Canadian care is impossible because the demographics alone are not the same. oscumma has been driving single payer care down our throats and the gullible swallow it, ever so gratefully. Although our healthcare system isn't perfect, it should not be uprooted for socialism. We should quit giving govt. more control over our lives. I want to see Medicare abolished and Medicaid reduced. Sponging off a smaller govt. should be less and less likely. The parasites are sucking the lifeblood out of a people who once valued their independence.
1) I made it clear that i wasn't not pushing for single payer. On the grounds of political impossibility.
2)ACA is not single payer
3) If you read what I had written you would have found 'market base" concept heavy on administrative reforms..
4)Did you absorb anything from the tone of the exchanges I have been having with Chicopee ?... No name calling rather nice wasn't it?
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#270 Nov 18, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmmmm the mystery begins. Policies pay what they say they will pay. If you get a surprise I guess you should have read the policy.
The insurance industry has been in bed with govt. for decades because of it's great wealth and power to change markets with it's investing power. The use of that power to corrupt is where it goes wrong which is why the bigger the govt., the more to corrupt and use against its people.

The insurance industry has been gradually socializing health care to some extent which has led to the doctor shortage. Some of the issues associated with it have provided a doorway to socialism which is why so many gullible nimrods think oscumma is proposing something great. The 'war on women' nonsense opens up the portal because if you threaten nearly half the population with oppressive govt. control, you create enough room to allow govt. to slither in and take over. Additionally, the commies have convince many gullibles into thinking women should have society pay for their birth control and maternity care. Women are becoming the new black.

The social extremists have opened this door since early 80s by involving govt in our personal lives. Social extremists have thrown our liberties out the window almost like the liberal commies. This weakening of fiscal conservative influence in govt. has allowed liberal extremists such as oscumma to retain power. There is a war going on in the United States but it is a war against our liberties. I'm afraid the gullible will not wake up until it is too late. The idea of a New World Order does not seem to be the mumblings of the tin foil hat counter-culture any longer. We are beginning to see it unfold before our eyes.

Social extremists have been paving the way. We need to elect a fiscal conservative who will leave the social issues alone except to put an end to bringing illegals into this country. The people must maintain their independence and govt. should be reduced and the real power returned to the people once again. Why do we want to continue to grow and support an IRS who is demanding more and more of our blood?

Both parties have grown the govt. although the liberals want to rule through govt. control. The tea party has the idea except some of the activists' social agenda tainted the movement. Libertarians should merge with the Republican party and focus on govt. waste. If they split with Republicans, the liberal scum will continue to smother our rights.

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.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump too divisive, lacks prez temperament: Hil... Thu They light 76
News GOP establishment plans Trump takedown (Aug '15) Jun 15 Swedenforever 739
News Lefty Glenn Greenwald Slams AP Declaration of H... Jun 7 HillaryIsFakeLiberal 2
News South Florida braces for affects of possible Ha... (Jan '10) May 27 Missy 14
News Sanders says he's backing DNC chair's primary o... May '16 Sulani 18
News Sanders says Democratic convention could be "me... May '16 WelbyMD 4
News Can Bernie Sanders actually hurt Hillary Clinto... May '16 Bill 1
More from around the web