Looks like the Democrats' have another winner.

[mattp]

Thomas Friedman says he hopes that we will in the next election select a president who is willing to offer some vision. I'm not sure that any of the Democratic candidates are really doing that - at least at this stage. In that sense, I guess I agree with the entire premise of this thread.

[allthumbs]

I'd be more than happy to entertain a legitimate Democratic candidate. Hell, I've voted Dem. before. George isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread by any means, and it'd be nice to really have a good person running this country. But where is he?

[catbirdseat]

We broke Iraq, now we own it. Let's fix it. The best we could hope for would be for Iraq to be like Turkey- Muslim, but democratic and secular.

[j_b]

catbirdseat said:

We broke Iraq, now we own it. Let's fix it.

 

but let iraqis decide how it should be fixed

 

The best we could hope for would be for Iraq to be like Turkey- Muslim, but democratic and secular.

 

let's not forget that turkey is only a small step removed from a military dicatorship (as long as the western alliance is not questioned). the kurds and turkish opponents can testify to the extent of democracy there (it's a veneer that peels off as soon as other methods are 'required').

[AmberBuxom]

catbirdseat said:

We broke Iraq, now we own it. Let's fix it. The best we could hope for would be for Iraq to be like Turkey- Muslim, but democratic and secular.

use your imagination. itd be easy to let the 'resistance' continue for awhile with some sporadic weapons recovery shit mixed in. then the spooks could setup some kina huge fukin wmd accident thingy to kill most a bagdad. this would like kill two birds: the wmd naysayers and a whole lotta angry iraqis. then the us sets up a protectorate and we make the iraqi gubmint whatever haliburton and bechtel need.

[slothrop]

Fairweather, what exactly do you mean by "single-payer gov't-sponsored health care" and why do you think it's a bad idea? Just curious.

 

I heard a fascinating bit of news on NPR the other night. The head of the General Accounting Office, whose 15-year appointment began in 1998, was speaking at the National Press Club about the financial state of the union. He said, basically, that we're in deep shit unless we make serious changes to how the government spends money. This includes reforming Social Security (a relatively small task), reforming health care (including Medicare and Medicaid, a huge task), and budgeting for the long term. Boring, right? But it was amazing to hear from someone who devotes so much care to being non-partisan and apolitical. That's good news, good media coverage.

 

All this bitching about how bad Clinton was and who supported who when is totally nonproductive. It doesn't make any sense to refuse to point out the shortcomings of the current administration just because the last one had serious flaws. We can't even re-elect Clinton, it's not possible! So fucking forget about it already! Let him go around sucking at the teat of his fanbase for the rest of his life, who cares? He loves the attention and his fans love giving it.

 

 

[Fairweather]

slothrop said:

Fairweather, what exactly do you mean by "single-payer gov't-sponsored health care" and why do you think it's a bad idea? Just curious.

 

 

 

Right or wrong, the government is already deeply into the health-care business via Medicare/Medicade/VA. I personally believe giving the government further, final, absolute control of our health care crosses a line into the world of socialism, or worse. And lets not forget the gigantic bureaucracy a plan like this would create. More govt jobs, and associated generous taxpayer supported pensions, etc.

 

I don't want the government telling me I can, or cannot be treated for any illness or elective. I don't want to sacrifice my quality of health care because 15% of the population has no insurance. I already pay for the uninsured via higher insurance premiums and copays. I am willing to accept that versus giving the government control of such an important part of my life.

 

I find it ironic that the same people bitching about "The Patriot Act" and "losing their freedoms" are pushing so hard to turn over their freedom to chose and pay the doctor of their choice for such a very private and personal service.

[JayB]

Jim said:

While JayB makes a good point about getting out a message. The right-wingers are good at it because the have access to more money. Do you think those wealthy doaners that got the big tax cut are giving money to Noam Choamsky's orgization or Rush Limbaugh's? It the usual media play in this country - money and corporate governance talk. Hell - you can't even get a National Do Not Call List in place because it infringes on Corporate free speech. Lame-o.

 

Large audience = advertising dollars. Are there any popular conservative commentators who rely on corporate donations to stay on the air? Seems like most of them built up a grassroots following that they subsequently capilalized on for $$$.

[murraysovereign]

Fairweather said:

I find it ironic that the same people bitching about "The Patriot Act" and "losing their freedoms" are pushing so hard to turn over their freedom to chose and pay the doctor of their choice for such a very private and personal service.

 

Doesn't necessarily have to be as Orwellian as you portray it. I live under a "single-payer" system, administered by the Government, and there's none of the loss of choice and/or freedom you describe. I choose my own doctor, I can change doctors any time I feel the need, the only thing I've given up doing myself is paying my doctor. Instead, I pay medical insurance premiums of $56.00 (Canadian) per month. A few years back, I underwent two separate abdominal surgeries (one emergency appendectomy, one hernia repair) that required a total of about 10 days in hospital. Total out-of-pocket cost to me? $10 (Canadian) for the two admitting fees of $5 each. And I didn't have to get permission from some "HMO" before seeking treatment.

 

There are plenty of valid arguments for and against any system of health-care delivery you can imagine, but this business of "losing your freedom" under a single-payer system is a huge red herring.

[Fairweather]

Canada=30 million people.

USA=280 million people.

 

Average wait for ACL Knee surgery in Canada?

 

You paid $10 out of pocket? Who paid the rest?

 

Why are so many Canadian Docs moving to the USA?

 

Why are wealthy Canadians coming here for treatment?

 

Under "Hillary Care" a doctor caught performing services for cash, outside the govt network could be thrown in jail for one year.

 

In France, socialized medicine failed to help 14,000 elderly citizens who died during the August heatwave. Most Doctors and health care workers were on govt-sponsored "holiday".

 

Socialized medicine? No Thanks.

[Dru]

Why are so many Canadian Docs moving to the USA?

 

Why are wealthy Canadians coming here for treatment?

 

1) Cause you are bankrupting yourself with a much higher per capita total expenditure on health care, less efficiently spent, hence more money for doctors and less for patients. You are buying them with higher wages and less work and a big gov't deficit.

 

2) a question for a question - Why are so many Americans coming to Canada to have their prescriptions filled?

[AlpineK]

I think it would be cool if the US government had a major medical plan that everybody paid a flat fee for and then you could buy extra private insurance on top of that.

 

[Bug]

AlpineK said:

I think it would be cool if the US government had a major medical plan that everybody paid a flat fee for and then you could buy extra private insurance on top of that.

One of my brothers is an opthamological sturgon. He doe cataract surgeries at 4 to 6K a pop. on a "good day" he can do nine. Overhead on three nurses, building, malprcatice insurance, equipment, liscenses, supplies takes about 55%. He gets the rest. Do the math.

Then the patients need drugs. so forth and so on. Socialized medicine does not work well in America any more than capitalism works in Russia. The cultures are not willing to look past the temporary bumps to the goal. Meanwhile we have socialized our society with military protection, police, power, sewrer, roadways, retirement, being poor, being a lumber company, being an oil company,.....but don't call us socialists.

[allthumbs]

Our esteemed patron, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., is on record to the effect that voters should choose for their elected representatives people who are "honest, courageous and wise." Those are three excellent adjectives, but we do not observe them as much as we should in our halls of legislature. Honesty has been made ridiculous by the highest officials of the land. Courage is conspicuously absent when it comes to taking a stand which might conceivably lose votes. Wisdom is hard to judge, but it does not seem to be high on the list of the attributes the voters like. Ronald Reagan may be the last chief executive who might be considered to be honest, courageous and wise. People to whom those words apply seem reluctant to put themselves forward in our current political system.

[slothrop]

Fairweather said:

Canada=30 million people.

USA=280 million people.

 

Average wait for ACL Knee surgery in Canada?

 

You paid $10 out of pocket? Who paid the rest?

 

Why are so many Canadian Docs moving to the USA?

 

Why are wealthy Canadians coming here for treatment?

 

Under "Hillary Care" a doctor caught performing services for cash, outside the govt network could be thrown in jail for one year.

 

In France, socialized medicine failed to help 14,000 elderly citizens who died during the August heatwave. Most Doctors and health care workers were on govt-sponsored "holiday".

 

Socialized medicine? No Thanks.

 

The US has more people... so that means it has more doctors and nurses. What's your point?

 

When you paid $10, the government paid the rest, which really means that all your fellow citizens paid a fraction of a cent each for you to get two major surgeries and to help pay the salaries of several doctors, nurses, and hospital staff (jobs).

 

I assume "Hillary Care" was Hillary Clinton's proposal for a health care system. Is Congress voting on such a system? No. Why bother to mention it?

 

Government holidays in France and their health care system are totally different things. We certainly don't have the same holiday culture as a European country. The increase in the number of physician's assistants and in the duties given to less-trained staff has given our doctors more time to play golf on self-imposed vacations, anyway. And I would bet that elderly people dying in France has a lot to do with where they live and the fact that they didn't have air conditioning, rather than a poor health care system. You seem to be making very tenuous correlations here, Fairweather, without any evidence or investigation.

[scrambler]

Not political but sheds some light.

 

So, just before Dr. Leary dies, he says in a speech that 80% of all health care dollars for a particular patient are spent in the last six months of that terminal patient's life.

 

I haven't found the source for this statistic. It's kind of like that saying, 'you only use 10% of your brain cells', sumthin like that.

[Luna]

Here's a couple of stats for you. Blue Cross of Conn. spends the same amount in administration as does the entire Canadian Government health care system.

 

The US spends about 2.5 times in medical administration as does other industrial countries.

 

The reason is obvious - we have 60 different insurers that place a heavy admin burden on medical practice. Seems like consolidation is in order. Good luck on that one however.

[Bug]

trask said:

Our esteemed patron, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., is on record to the effect that voters should choose for their elected representatives people who are "honest, courageous and wise." Those are three excellent adjectives, but we do not observe them as much as we should in our halls of legislature. Honesty has been made ridiculous by the highest officials of the land. Courage is conspicuously absent when it comes to taking a stand which might conceivably lose votes. Wisdom is hard to judge, but it does not seem to be high on the list of the attributes the voters like. Ronald Reagan may be the last chief executive who might be considered to be honest, courageous and wise. People to whom those words apply seem reluctant to put themselves forward in our current political system.

I'm sorry but Reagan is no sacred cow. He just happened to have the best propaganda machine since the Third Reich (no other similarities insinuated. honest). I could go on and on about how Reagan used carefully worded generalizations that were meant to be taken in many different ways by vastly differring people. They used the cowboy persona to perfection. The first president to be seen in leather since Teddy was Ronnie - the first time we saw him after we invaded Granada. After his Polyp operation- back in the saddle-literally. and on and on. Look carefully at his record. He did some good things (like most presidents) but he severely eroded our miranda rights (not to mention deficits, higher taxes, user fees, bigger government, etc). He will not go down in history as being great. That is a star-struck opinion of those who bought into the Media presentation. Turn off your TV!

[allthumbs]

Bug, I can see your point, but I still think you're full of crap.

[whirlwind]

heres a failry unbiased view of the general.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-09-12

the one from fortune is crap, and twisted.

[Bug]

trask said:

Bug, I can see your point, but I still think you're full of crap.

Duh. I'm a dung beetle. That's why I live on cc.com.