Jonesie; yo got a good point there. In the 52nd district we have a saying about the Republican voters.

They vote rich and live poor.

RG.

Beachman,

Did you really expect that Obama would solve all of the Bush economic mess in 5 months? What is wrong with you?

Concerning the prediction of the unemployment rate, this was made at the time of the inauguration, and clearly, the economy was worse than either the Bush or Obama administrations thought at that time.

LAGuy,

You touch on why the Republicans arguments on health care are such a farce. Today, almost every insurance company requires some type of pre-approval for tests and procedures beyond the simple office visit. Yet they scream that the government will do the same thing, I would like someone like Beachman to explain to me the difference. Also, they talk about how great the free market is, but when Obama proposes a public option in health care they oppose that. If the free market is so great, why the fears in competing against a public run insurance company? The only argument that Repubs offer against health care right now is to scream ‘socialized medicine’ because they know when it comes to really talking about the issue they have no valid arguments.


Oh, and Beachman I am a liberal and proud of it. Truth be told when it comes to health care I think the only real solution is a government run health care system. I am also a political realist, and the most liberal reality right now is offering a public option. Then single payer and eventually government run. And if you don’t like it you can move to…oh wait every other major economy has public run health care.

Knockkneedman-

LAWYERS....pre-approval tests and procedures....malpractice insurance and lawyers who want to sue for anything.


The real cost for medical insurance are the fat overweight obese Americans who don't take care of themselves. Almost 70% of adult Americans are overweight and over 30% are OBESE. It doesn't take a genius to know being fat is causing huge medical problems!


The libs (Al Gore) are so concern about global warming but have not concern about global fattening....especially themselves!

Well that certainly was a coherent rant! The best I can get out of it is Beachman is trying to say if Al Gore lost some weight, the insurance companies would all begin to behave responsibly and would stop interfering with the doctor/patient relationship.

Anyone have a better interpretation?

"The libs (Al Gore) are so concern about global warming but have not concern about global fattening....especially themselves!"

Ahhh, but those conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, are slim and trim. Lean, mean exercising machines, every one of them!

Beachman, you are dumber than a stump and a taco short of a combination plate.

So some 3rd-rate hack real estate broker in Orlando posts on a monger board about politics and, apparently, health policy. But, he apparently hasn't gotten laid in 5+ years. Hey, retard, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ON THIS BOARD? The rest of us post about politics and such but usually as a side to our mongering discussions.

You are really a complete fucking loser. Go sell a shithole condo to some unknowing retirees from Ohio or something.

Why is there this terrible fear of 'Socialized Medicine'? Like private medicine is working so great?

Whenever there is a group of people who have a financial stake in the outcome, they will always decide in their own interests. Insurance companies and HMO's are no different. When you get sick or need expensive care, you are asking for a piece of their financial pie. I say "ask", because the answer is not a given. No matter how legitimate your claim. These people squeeze doctor and patient alike. Each generation of health executive is under more pressure to increase profits and cut costs.

An expensive surgery that will save someone's vision one day, an equally expensive test that will detect cancer the next. Denied because a new claims exec is chasing a bonus. Honest medicine is not as lucrative as many think. It may not even be profitable at all.

I vote for Government run healthcare...

At least the Obama administration is not using smoke and mirrors to spy on Americans at home like the Bush administration tried to do.

Talk about Big Brother. This is scary. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy23-2009jun23,0,6115663.story

RG.

If the government had a track history of running efficient health care.

Let us see what their track record is:

Medicare
Medicaid
VA

Is that the kind of health care you want?

Socialize medicine is not the answer....all the countries that practice has worse problems than we do.

If put a higher tax on the people who actually pay taxes for national health care and make health care "free" for everyone. The system will be overloaded. Everyone will go to the doctor or hospital for any and everthing.

Just think if the government gave free gasoline to everyone....think of the shortage we would have?

"Socialize medicine is not the answer....all the countries that practice has worse problems than we do."

Beachman: If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, the first thing you need is a course in English grammar. I cannot even count the number of errors you made in the above sentence. The sentence is truly retarded. Were you drunk or high when you wrote it?

I would also recommend that after completing the course in English grammar, you enroll in a basic logic course. Better yet, you might want to look for a course in everyday common sense.

Beachman, You're arguing about a plan. I'm arguing about the results of a plan.

The results, are that many European economies have government run healthcare and they are not experiencing the sky is falling/commies are coming results you talk about.

Many of your statements are not backed up with any solid information beyond "Rush said". It's door to door fear sales. Nothing more...

You would think those who oppose health-care reform would at least get their "sound bites" straight so as not to be blatantly contradictory.

Let's see . . . Government run health care would result in bureaucrats interfering with the doctor/patient relationship and rationing health care, unlike insurance companies, which never interfere with the decisions doctors and patients make or restrict a patient's medical procedures.

Moreover, if you have national-health care program (even with patient co-pays, and so forth) the system would become overloaded because patients would go to the doctor or hospital for anything and everything, unlike the situation where the insureds have private insurance but do not go to the doctor or hospital for anything and everything (presumably because they support private enterprise and don't want to compromise the profitabilities of insurance companies).

In any event, this notion that with a public health-care program the citizens will go the doctor or hospital for anything and everything is, I suppose, what Republicans refer to as "health care rationing." This term is used to suggest the citizenry should support private insurance company health care plans (which in their mythical world do not ration) to the detriment of government-run programs (which do ration, which is defined for government-run programs as allowing citizens unlimited access to medical care thereby overloading the program).

Makes sense to me . . . well not really.

(Message edited by LAguy on June 23, 2009)

You can never expect much wisdom to come from the world of professional wrestling, but apparently this guy is a former promoter or something. He certainly makes some good points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGp043tHAc8

An article published in a recent edition of The New York Times makes clear that Canada’s much ballyhooed system of socialized medicine, in addition to being plagued by interminable waits for treatment, has prohibited competition from private medicine. But now, as the result of a ruling last June by Canada’s Supreme Court, limited forms of private medical care are apparently in process of being allowed to appear, at least in some provinces. In the Times’ article’s words: “The cracks are still small in Canada's vaunted public health insurance system, but several of its largest provinces are beginning to open the way for private health care eventually to take root around the country.”


The Canadian Supreme Court’s decision was the outcome of a lonely and courageous struggle conducted at great personal cost in time and money by a Canadian physician, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli. Dr. Chaoulli went to court with the case of a chemical salesman who had been forced to wait a year for a hip replacement and who at the same time was prohibited from paying for private surgery. As described in an earlier Times article, Dr. Chaoulli argued


that regulations that create long waiting times for surgery contradict the constitutional guarantees for individuals of “life, liberty and the security of the person,’' and that the prohibition against private medical insurance and care is for sick patients an “infringement of the protection against cruel and unusual treatment.''

To most Americans it may come as something of a shock simply to learn that all is not well with health care in Canada. That’s because Canada’s system has continuously been held up as the model for the United States to follow. Sometimes it seems that every ignoramus with a graduate-school diploma is ready to pontificate on how wonderful medical care is north of the border and that to solve our problems with medical care, all we need do is adopt that wonderful, single-payer Canadian system.

I could stop here, with the satisfaction of conveying knowledge that the system of socialized medical care in Canada is in fact so unwell that the door to its replacement with private medical care has been opened. But there is a deeper point I want to make, which will help to establish why socialized medicine is a profoundly evil and immoral system, that should never be implemented anywhere.

And this is the fact that the prohibition of private medical care that has existed in Canada is not some inexplicable accident but, on the contrary, follows logically from the very nature of socialized medicine. The connection is this:

Socialized medicine is advocated as the means of making medical care free or almost free, thereby enabling even the very poorest people to afford all of it that they need. Unfortunately, when medical care is made free, the quantity of it that people attempt to consume becomes virtually limitless. Office visits, diagnostic tests, procedures, hospitalizations, and surgeries all balloon. If nothing further were done, the cost would destroy the government’s budget. Something further is done, and that is that cost controls are imposed. The government simply draws the line on how much it is willing to spend. But so long as nothing limits the office visits, requests for diagnostic tests, etc., etc., waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer and longer.


"The prohibition of private medical care that has existed in Canada is not some inexplicable accident but, on the contrary, follows logically from the very nature of socialized medicine."



Then the government seeks to limit the number of office visits, tests, procedures, etc., etc., by more narrowly limiting the circumstances in which they can occur. For example, a given diagnostic test may be allowed only when a precise set of symptoms is present and not otherwise. A hospitalization or surgery may be denied if the patient is over a certain age.

As part of the process of cost control, the government controls and sometimes reduces the compensation it allows to physicians and surgeons. For example, in the present fiscal year, in the United States, the fees paid to physicians by Medicare are scheduled to fall by four percent. (The New York Times, Feb. 4, 2006.)

Now all one need do to understand why socialized medicine leads to the prohibition of private medicine is simply to hold in mind the combination of deteriorating medical treatment and controlled physician incomes under socialized medicine and ask what would happen if an escape from this nightmare exists in the form of private medicine. Obviously, physicians who want to earn a higher income and to have the freedom to treat their patients in accordance with their own medical judgment will flee the socialized system for the private system and leave basically only the dregs of medicine for what will remain of the socialized system. That is what the government’s prohibition of private medical care is designed to prevent.

This was confirmed in arguments before the Canadian Supreme Court. The Times article on the subject reported that

Various medical experts, government representatives and union leaders argued in court that privatization of insurance and services would bring an exodus of medical talent from public to private practices, and make waiting times even longer.

And there you have it. Socialized medicine destroys the quality of medical care and dare not allow the competition of private medical care. To prevent that competition, it must prohibit private medical care and establish a legal monopoly on medical care.

Now our beacon of Republican capitalism, Beachman, has gone further into the gutter and engaged in a criminal violation of copyright law. Here is the exact same article, with proper attribution and without use of an illegal cut and paste:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060226-4.htm. And no, Beachman's post would not qualify as "fair use," it qualifies only as a copyright violation.

Oh, and plagiarism too. It looks like it's true: there is not an original thought in Beachman, only parroting. Polly want a Beachman?!

"I could stop here"

I seriously doubt that...

OTOH, at least Plagiarist Beachman writes coherently, unlike Actual Beachman.

Bush vs. Obama

I have chided Hemp's strange appreciation for the virtues of controversy. I don't think Beachman has any!!

There is nothing wrong with the NYT article. The problem is the conclusion that some want to jump to.

There will be flaws in any health plan in the world. For the wealthy, there will always be the private option (or the overseas option). The question is now whether there are flaws in Canada's health plan, that is true. The question is whether the Canadian plan is BETTER for MORE people. Based on most objective measures, I believe it is true.

BTW. Some of these issues can be solved WITHOUT public health care. For example, it is common knowledge that Americans pay more for prescription medicines than any other country in the world. Our government actually plays a role in keeping this artificial burden on Americans and they should just let things flow freely.

Beachman; You forgot one government health care program in your list. Tricare It is far from perfect but I know a lot of people that prefer it to Cigna or another private health insurance program.

I always get a good laugh when Congressman Duncan Hunter talks the Republican health care line. Here is a guy who has never had a private health care provider. He grew up with daddy being a Congressman, went into the Marines, and now has taken over his daddy's congressional seat.

RG.

Why would you replace a fucked up health care system that at least has one thing going for it in that it is mostly paid for..... With a health care system that with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY will be paid for by borrowing unfathomably huge amounts of money and no prospect for ever being paid for.

Insurance companies aren't running trillion dollar deficits each and every year on health insurance. The federal government out of control on spending.

Howabout I have a good plan for all you guys. All of you, give ME, all of your credit cards. Then I will provide high quality free health care for all of you. (just keep making the minimum payment every month when your credit card bill comes and don't worry about any new balance you are carrying)

Sancho, don't you use a free clinic for STD testing and everything?

Perfect point. I could very easily afford to pay for the free STD clinic myself but a State/County that is apparently so cash strapped orphans are staving in the streets, is borrowing the money to pay for it. Where is the sense in that?

Ah, but if it wasn't free, would you just walk around disease ridden? You are, in fact, a burden on the system. You bitch about the "free" clinic, but you yourself use it in spite of your ability to pay. Is it for anonymity - in which case you're simply hypocritical - or are you just cheap and prefer to use resources that could go for better purposes - which makes you a hypocritical Republican?

I just have a thing for the dick inspection lady down there. I was thinking of asking her out, but then I figured the STD clinic is probably not the best place to pick up on nurses.

I would hapily pay my own way if they would take it off my tax bill. I bet if I looked at their budget it probably costs them $100 worth of beurocracy (billed to my taxes) to provide me a service that I could find on my own for $30.

You should try picking up women at abortion clinics instead.

The problem with picking up women at abortion clinics is they tend to be moody, ill-tempered and bleeding from between their legs. Best to let them settle down for a few weeks before you get near them.

I AM one of those pro choice Republicans. In fact I do even support government subsidized abortion clinics. It's not that I believe I have a moral responsibility to pay for someone else's abortion. Just that on a purely pragmatic basis, if a woman is poor and pregnant, paying a couple of hundred tax dollars for an abortion is going to cost me the taxpayer many times less than the alternative.

The Republicans tipped their hand when they opposed the creation of a non-profit health insurance exchange. Somehow, the ‘big government’ bullshit argument doesn’t hold water when a non-profit, non-government option is proposed.

Could it be – just possibly – that what irks the Republicans most is the idea that someone might be denied the opportunity to get rich at someone else’s expense? I’m sorry, but some things should just be off limits to profiteering – health insurance chief among them. The fact that my health insurance premiums line the wallets of already-overpaid insurance execs while his lowly underlings are rewarded with vacations and other perks for denying claims is unconscionable and makes my blood boil.

There is no credible argument against the creation of a public heath insurance option…period.

(Message edited by StandingWave on June 24, 2009)

Does no one like my youtube link? I thought it was pretty funny.

Mitchc,

I enjoyed it, great rant "OMG" !!

I enjoyed it also, although only got halfway through it before something else distracted me. I'll try to listen to the second half.

Here is the truth about Health Care. When the majority of people start practicing responsible health care of themselves health care cost will become reasonable. Just like people who practice their own fiscal responsibility they don't have to have the government taking care of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090625/ts_ynews/ynews_ts408

So Beachman, your proposal is, the best way to cut health care costs is to not get sick and need health care. Is that about it?

Fuck, I think that would work for oil dependency and everything. If we just stopped using oil, the price would go down since we wouldn't need to use it.

I'm with Beachman on this one.

Here's an interesting thread on a political site. Notice how many times Faux News plants a (D) for Democrat "accidentally" by Republican's name whenever they fuck up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5914682&mesg_id=5914819

"I'm with Beachman on this one."

Next thing you know, MitchC will be writing in the name of one of the Butthole Surfers for President in 2012. PLEASE don't take another detour from the world of reality my friend!!

Isn't it just natural for a video tech to assume that there are no Republicans still holding public office therefore this here politician who caused the scandal while in office, must be a Democrat.

Funny though that only the video tech at Fox Snooze makes this mistake. Must be part of their only-hire-the-mentally-handicapped policy.

Well, you pretty much have to be a Republican to work there, so that does explain the mentally-handicapped part.

Mark Sanford would just like to express his thankfulness to his savior Jesus Christ, for taking Michael Jackson home yesterday, therefore almost COMPLETELY pushing his BA mongering trip out of the news cycle. Amen.

He also arranged to have Farrah Fawcett as backup, in the event Michael Jackson and his people were uncooperative. It was not necessary. Too bad she had to die in vain.

Damn Mark Sanford. Goddamn you!

I think what we have here is an illustration of the difference between rational secular humanists (e.g., me) and Republican right-wing fundamentalists (e.g., IAS, with his thanks to Jesus and Amens).

I mean it is a free country and all so IAS has his right to practice his religion (I suppose). But I'll tell you one thing. When IAS shows up at my doorstep with his Jehovah Witness handouts (or worse) this secular humanist is going to whup his ass!!

Sorry about the two edits, but hey, it takes some time to perfect a post!
(Message edited by LAguy on June 26, 2009)

(Message edited by LAguy on June 26, 2009)

Hey, if you know where there are any really hot slutty Jehovah Witness chicks I am perfectly willing to convert to Jehovah Witnessism. It was only last month when I converted from Buddhism to Catholicism so I am not real tied into that religion just yet.

I was going to hook you up with Michael Jackson as a Jehovah's Witness mongering wingman, but as they say, timing is everything.

Beachman says: "Here is the truth about Health Care...."

You KNOW that any statement that begins with that phrase is totally full of shit.

BTW, tell the 45 million uninsured Americans who don't have coverage that they don't need it; all they need to do is stay healthy. Good basis for social policy. That will work well when they get exposed to some virus through no fault of their own. It'll work equally well when they have complications during pregnancy.


So, IAS is a fan of "socialized medicine"? Using the county STD clinic when he could go to any "doc in the box" urgent care clinic and get tested? Interesting. So government is bad except when he uses its services.

I am one of those corrupt self centered, "me first" type individuals. We are so prevalent in the world we doom socialism to failure anywhere it is implemented. I will manipulate the system any way I can for my own personal gain. Most people are like me. Because most people are like that, socialism can not work. Better to have a system whereby our greed is rewarded by producing more, or better or faster than the next guy. You want great health care? Let the market crush losers who provide poor health care and make billionaires of those who provide excellent health care.

Amazing, I am Sancho has just aligned himself with the trial lawyers to crush the losers who provide poor health care! And he calls himself a right-wing nut-job Republican? Get real IAS.

(Message edited by LAguy on June 26, 2009)

Lawyers crushing losers is bad. The free market crushing losers however weeds out those who are not performing and thus improves the system. If there were a free market for health care in the US (which there is not), providers who charge to much or provided poor service would go out of business.
Leaving behind providers who charge less and provide better service.