| Author | Message | ||
     Strokizator |
That's what socialism is all about in the end. Lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. Mediocre rules, excellence is out. The best most recent example is east/west germany. The West Germans gave us Porsche, BMW, MB and Audi. East Germans could only come up with the Trabant. How can the same people come up with such disparate results seemingly determined simply by which side of an arbitrary line they lived on? If you want Cuban/Venezuelan style health care, then move there. I hear it's a worker's paradise. | ||
| Moxnix |
The East German were limited by their Soviet "guests" to only build two stroke autos. Everyone became a mechanic. One would see them at a rest stop with their tool box open and the engine apart all the time. Medical care was "free," but if you wanted a bed in a room rather than the corridor, you bribed someone. Your aging mother needed help going to the bathroom, bribe. Clean sheets? Bribe. Antibiotics or pain pills? Pay with western money. I've seen their health care, knew doctors in the Eastern Block. People died in pain, at home, in the worker's paradise. Of course, it can't happen here. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Only a fool would believe our healthcare ranks just two notches above Cuba. Not even remotely believable. | ||
| Milt |
Health care quality is often measured (very, very roughly) by life expectancy. Our average life expectancy is lowered quite a bit by the number of young people who die in car crashes. If you filter these deaths out, the US does much better. | ||
| Blake |
The idea is truly laughable. But some "Progressive"/Socialist America haters are willing to swallow anything that shows America in a dim light. Sad. (Message edited by blake on February 25, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The single largest cause of death in the US is heart disease. The single largest cause of heart disease is obesity. The single largest cause of obesity is plenty. We have the easiest lifestyle with the ability to eat ourselves to excess and death. Lifespan as a measure of quality of healthcare without examination of underlying factors results in dubious statistical conclusions at best. | ||
| Rainman |
So someone tell me, and I'll pass the info along, what do you who buy your own health insurance pay for premiums and what does it cover? What did you do when you were laid off and suddenly had no insurance? Where did you go for insurance? (Trust me, their previous plan was not platinum or Cadillac. More like pot metal/Yugo) Maybe there's something out there that you know about that they haven't sought out. | ||
| M2me |
You cherry picked some quotes but missed the gist of the report. Don't forget, just because you think I'm a socialist doesn't mean that I don't know how to read. The OECD report that you reference also states the following:
Is health care in the U.S. the best in the world? No, it's not. In some areas it's good and in some areas it's not. One area that we are number one with no competition at all is cost. Nobody comes close to what we spend per capita.
This last quote is the most important. Think about it very carefully. This is the reason why our health care system will never be able to control costs. Spending 17% of GDP on health care today? That number is going to go up and up. There is no way to stop it. Our health care system is a competitive, free market system. That's great for cars, houses, furniture, etc. but it's no good for health care. Most other countries figured this out decades ago. I have economic options for my vehicle. I can choose to drive a 1996 Ford Ranger while Bill Gates can choose to drive a 2010 Porsche. But I don't have the same economic options if I break my femur bone. Am I supposed to get a "cheap" femur bone fix? Where? My femur bone is my femur bone. Nobody makes the same economic choices with their health as they do with their vehicle or furniture or TV or whatever. But our health care system is based on the idea that we can and that we must. It will never work. Bill Gates can spend all he wants on houses and cars, etc. but we've got to restrict or regulate his spending on his femur. If we don't, than health care costs are going to suck our economy dry. The only other option is to say, "Well, if you're wealthy you'll get great health care here in the U.S. If you're not (and 99% of the people are not) you're on your own. Break your femur? The current bid price on setting a femur is $1 million. Don't have that kind of cash? Tough luck for you! Our health care system is competitive, free market. We hate socialism." Sorry, but I couldn't be a proud citizen of a country like that. I'd like to live in a country that stands for something more than just accumulation of wealth for a small number of it's citizens. | ||
| M2me |
The single largest cause of heart disease is obesity. Not really. Unfortunately, the single biggest risk factor is heredity. If you've got a family history of heart disease it's more likely that you will have heart disease, no matter what you do. It sucks, but it's true. | ||
| M2me |
Only a fool would believe our healthcare ranks just two notches above Cuba. Not even remotely believable. I'm not a fool who believes blindly. I've got to see the data. If the data shows that our health care ranks 30 notches below Cuba, then that's the truth. You can believe that our health care system is the best in the world. I can believe that it's 70 degrees outside right now, but that doesn't make it so. The data from weather.com says it is currently 14 degrees. I say that's not even remotely believable! I think it's probably 14, but I still like to believe it's 70.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
So someone tell me, and I'll pass the info along, what do you who buy your own health insurance pay for premiums and what does it cover? What did you do when you were laid off and suddenly had no insurance? Where did you go for insurance? (Trust me, their previous plan was not platinum or Cadillac. More like pot metal/Yugo) Maybe there's something out there that you know about that they haven't sought out. Were I them and concerned about overall costs, I would be seeking out a stop loss plan. It's sole purpose is to prevent a catastrophic health issue from falling on them without some financial protections. Usually these plans have a high deductible ($5,000-15,000), but the benefit is that the premium is very low by comparison. They are designed as temporary go betweens whereby individuals are protecting themselves between jobs. They will cover physician visits in the interim out of pocket. They can negotiate fees directly with the physician. We've done it. Explain to their usual physician that they are between jobs and will be paying cash for services and would appreciate assistance in pricing. They will be surprised at how much physicians are willing to negotiate. I just ran a $5,000 deductible plan on myself. The plan pays nothing until I reach $5,000 in expenses. After I have paid $5,000 out of pocket, the plan pays 100% of expenses. The monthly premium is $74.83. At $3,000 per month, I can pay for a crap load of doctor's visits out of pocket. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'm not a fool who believes blindly. I've got to see the data. If the data shows that our health care ranks 30 notches below Cuba, then that's the truth. You can believe that our health care system is the best in the world. I can believe that it's 70 degrees outside right now, but that doesn't make it so. The data from weather.com says it is currently 14 degrees. I say that's not even remotely believable! I think it's probably 14, but I still like to believe it's 70. I was merely commenting on the report cited. Two notches above Cuba stretches even the most ardent collectivist's beliefs. | ||
| Blake |
John, Nothing that you quoted contradicts statements I posted. Talk about cherry picking. You're the king. It is dishonest to try to pawn off life expectancy as an indicator of the quality of America's health care system versus the other OECD nations. It isn't. The report makes that perfectly clear. Life expectancy is a result of all kinds of other major factors other than quality health care. I dare you to compare the average life expectancies of the various American states. Do the states that have higher life expectancy have better health care? Nope, not necessarilly. Do some states beat all the OECD countries? What does that tell us? If you were honest, you would have highlighted the rest of that life expectancy commentary. But why would you? You aren't interested in truth, just your baloney badmouth America miserableness.
Like I said, heart disease and cancer are the two leading causes of death and America leads the world in treatment that saves lives in those arenas. Period. We do indeed have the very best health care in the world in the most critical arenas. I've already quoted the applicable statements in the report. We certainly don't have a health care system that is "mediocre at best" as you stated. It really burns your blame-America-First Progressive/Socialist hide that America excels in health care, saving the lives of tens of thousands more folks who otherwise would die quickly due to the inferior health care systems of other nations, even those of the OECD. | ||
| Blake |
John, The rest of the statements that you focus on are mostly about cost. Who the !#$% cares about cost if you are dead? That said, I agree that we need to reel in what I view as over-inflated cost of health care in America. While some of our higher cost is justifiable in support of more widely and readily available technology, choice, and unrestricted access; I agree that it is inflated. Why don't car prices as a percentage of GDP keep going up and up, no way to stop it as you claim for health care? Why not? You won't answer. It will explode your brain to be honest about the issue. Why do we see all kinds of amazing new cell phones and computers today that cost less and less compared to years ago where the old technology was big, slow and clunky? You won't answer. It will explode your brain to be honest about the issue. Why doesn't the gov take over the electronics industry so that everyone can afford the same new computer and cell phone and LCD TV? You won't answer. It will explode your brain to be honest about the issue. | ||
| Blake |
John,
Baloney it just costs more. Why? Care to highlight the preceding comments relating to that "most important" quote of yours? Let's do shall we? They are vital to understanding the trade-offs required to achieve lower cost health care.
If you can comprehend it, the above states simply in summary that all other OECD nations have decided to reduce the cost of health care in their nations by
The result is that a lot more people unnecessarily die a lot more quickly than if they were able to take advantage of the American health care system where we enjoy a more free market system, where rather than limit available technology, we innovate and invent it as fast as we can and make it available much more widely. Yep, having the best technology and more of it costs more. MRI and CT machines, nuclear cardio, routine angiograms, stints, immediate cancer diagnosis and aggressive oncology treatments, all that costs more. It also saves a lot more lives. The result is that the wealthy people there come over here when they get sick. It happens every day. They come here so they don't have to die waiting in line for what here is a procedure or treatment that is widely available, or they just want the best care available, the latest treatment, etc. | ||
| Blake |
As with anything, even with the interference of the government and big insurance, eventually rising prices kill demand and prices inflation will subside. If you cannot afford it, you cannot have it. I agree, we don't want that for critical care in America. "Our health care system is a competitive, free market system." Not so much. Medicare is pure socialized medicine and comprises a HUGE portion of our health care system. It is killing our health care system. Medicare, Medicaid, and the effect of the big health insurance industry middlemen has stifled the effectiveness of the now not-so-free market in American health care. This is very easily demonstrable/provable. The vast majority of elective cosmetic surgury is not covered by health insurance. While the technology, science, and state of the art in that field had rapidly advanced and demand skyrocketed, cost have dropped. Proof that if left alone, the free market works. The same is true for dental health care. The technology and demand has advanced significantly, but costs have remained uninflated. Why? No interference in the market. No emotion based nonsense or big government bureaucracies and partisan politics to screw it up. "That's great for cars, houses, furniture, etc. but it's no good for health care." I'm way ahead of you as usual it seems.  Why not? Explain why competition among health care providers is not beneficial? Actually, explain why it is not VITAL! It absolutely is vital to the continued rapid advancement of the field. What happens to any industry when the incentive to improve efficiency, reduce costs, offer wonderful new products, to become more competitive is removed? What is the incentive for all that John? I dare you to say it. You won't. You cannot. Your Socialist head would explode. Do the medicare, medicaid, and even the private insurance schemes most popular in America today hinder that competition in the health care industry? Answer: Yes they absolutely do. Luckily not entirely, just enough to really muck it up. "Most other countries figured this out decades ago. I have economic options for my vehicle. I can choose to drive a 1996 Ford Ranger while Bill Gates can choose to drive a 2010 Porsche. But I don't have the same economic options if I break my femur bone." Yes you absolutely do. If not, you should. Why wouldn't you? Do you actually belive that all doctors, hospitals and clinics charge the same fees, provide the same services, and that you have no choice in the matter? Wow! That is some serious delusion you got going on there. I had some major diagnostic work done last year. I shopped around and found what I thought was the best bang for my buck. The difference in prices was HUGE, on the order of 100% or double the price at one provider versus another. The Mayo clinic was actually pretty reasonable. "Am I supposed to get a "cheap" femur bone fix? Where?" Suggest you check your local yellow pages for orthopaedic surgeons, give them a call and ask their rate. Pretty darn simple. "My femur bone is my femur bone." Uh, okay. FYI, you can just say "my femur", unless you have a "femur muscle" or a "femur mucosa" or a "femur penis" or some mutation the rest of us have never heard of.  "Nobody makes the same economic choices with their health as they do with their vehicle or furniture or TV or whatever." Sure they absolutely do! I do. Lots of self-employed people do. I choose the health care that I find fits my budget and that provides me with the best bang for the buck. I do the same for my dental health and if I ever decide that I need cosmetic surgery, I'll do the same for that too. Not every health issue is a trip to the ER as you seem to want to imagine. "But our health care system is based on the idea that we can and that we must." No, much of it, the part that is killing it pure socialized medicine, medicare/medicaid. "It will never work. Bill Gates can spend all he wants on houses and cars, etc. but we've got to restrict or regulate his spending on his femur. If we don't, than health care costs are going to suck our economy dry." Because the top 1% most wealthy will hog all the doctors for themselves?  The bogus delusional world that you invent for yourself is just too funny John. Unbelievable. Your analogy is of course ridiculously bogus. What you fail to see is that just like in the car industry, some vendors provide luxury, no expense spared products and services. The same is true in medicine, even for your femur, which as you clarified previously is your femur. If all you want is your broken femur set, your local orthopaedic doc can easily handle it. He'll slap on a cast, throw some crutches your way and might see you once before his nurse cuts it off your leg. If however you want all the latest diagnostic 3-D imaging/scans, computerized bone allignment, accelerated bone mending stimulation technoloty, the best latest, most confortable cast technology, and those fancy carbon fiber and titanium crutches, you will need to pay a LOT more. Bill Gates will. You and I won't. Still worried about your femur, which just to clarify again, is indeed your femur... I suggest you get yourself some high deductible medical insurance to guard against catastrophic expense, a so-called stop loss policy. Then at the same time start a health savings account. Problem solved. Personal responsibility is great ain't it? If you cannot afford it, maybe your state is willing to help. Just don't expect others to pay for your broken leg. "The only other option is to say, "Well, if you're wealthy you'll get great health care here in the U.S." Unless you are over 65 or really poor, in which case the rest of us will pay your way. "If you're not (wealthy) (and 99% of the people are not) you're on your own." WOW! Only the top 1% are considered "wealthy" now in America! And only they can afford health care? LOL! The lies you tell and the delusional world you create for yourself never cease to amaze. I cannot debate with such nonsense. It is pointless. One might as well debate a gerbil. Alas, I'll finish this rebuttal in full. Or is it "fool"? "Break your femur? The current bid price on setting a femur is $1 million. Don't have that kind of cash? Tough luck for you! Our health care system is competitive, free market. We hate socialism." Stop! You're killing me! Again, cosmetic surgery and dental health care costs are amazingly reasonable. No gov interference there. Same supply and demand issues as in regular health care. Your storytelling is thus proved baloney. Sorry, but I couldn't be a proud citizen of a country like that. I'd like to live in a country that stands for something more than just accumulation of wealth for a small number of it's citizens." Good news John, America has a large number of wealthy citizens. If you no like, please do try Cuba, or Venezuela. The country I don't care to live in would be the one that...
(Message edited by blake on February 25, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
Rainman, I carry the same type of stop loss insurance that Jeremy mentions, $5K deductible then they cover everything up to the annual limit of $2M and lifetime limit of $5M. I have a tax-deferred health savings account (HSO) that I can use to pay the deductible from as well as any other health related expenses such as dental, eye-doctor and the like. I can't imagine why anyone would want anything more. Worst case I get hit with ongoing medical expenses of less than $500/mo in addition to the insurance, $111/mo for me. Why on earth anyone would pay thousands per month is beyond me. I don't understand why anyone would want anything different. | ||
| Aesquire |
It's a question of positive feedback. That's the thing that makes the speakers squeal whenever I hold the mike too close for karaoke. ( or maybe that's the machine trying to save the crowd ) If you don't care what it costs, why care what you spend? So people expect free everything, and want everything, after all.... the insurance/govt./mommy pays for it. Then the Insurance/govt. underpays, and the hospital, which is also giving out free care for ER patients, HAS to charge more to make payroll and keep the heat on. So half the cost of medical care is due to the insurance & govt. programs supposed to keep it cheaper. Does that make sense? Am I in error? Now multiply those factors by increasing the disconnect between costs and the consumer, and it can only get worse... until a "worth panel" as prescribed by law decides if you are allowed to live. Ask the Europeans... It's great to have "free health care" till you need good health care, then you hop a plane to evil America. | ||
| Conchop |
I think we all need to review the movie "SICKO". AS for the 37th place ranking by the W.H.O.; this is representative of a failed capitalistic system running amok between the healthcare providers and the insurance companies. The average sicko Joe gets beat. When the USA is the richest country in the world yet sports this kind of performance figure, something is very wrong with the quality of the healthcare system. I dare say that if the 37th ranking is 10 years old, the ranking is probably worse now. I would just about bet that if you had the opportunity to get rid of our single payer plans such as SS, Medicare, Veterans care, CHIP, etc., and replace it with your friendly insurance company, you wouldn't do it. I would just about bet that if the Canadians and the British were to have their politicians replace their single payer programs with an American style healthcare insurance program, there would be revolution. I cannot think of too may countries that would want our current system. It seems to me that the logical thing to do would be a to examine the countries that have superior ratings and copy and improve upon their accomplishments. I want to see our numbers improve to the number one spot. If that means a single payer system, then so be it. The conservatives of the Beck, Rush, Sarah end of the spectrum will not have it. They have a history of theatrics which twist the truth into lies and plant seeds of doubt that only seek to preserve what is left of the gilded age. Their ilk voted against SS, VA, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP. The truth is the last time healthcare was measured by objective and scientific measurement, we were 37th. If that makes me a socialist in your eyes, please insure that the shoes you are wearing were not made in Communist Red China before commenting! The hypocrisy is downright funny. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I would just about bet that if the Canadians and the British were to have their politicians replace their single payer programs with an American style healthcare insurance program, there would be revolution. I cannot think of too may countries that would want our current system. The Canadian and British systems are working to do just that, to introduce MORE private competition into the system. | ||
| Blake |
Bunch of hypothetical nonsense, nothing substantive, no fact whatsoever, just more emotional blah-blah-blah and willful ignorance aka "delusion." Example: "It seems to me that the logical thing to do would be a to examine the countries that have superior ratings and copy and improve upon their accomplishments." I agree. Which nations have the best record for treating and curing cancer and heart disease, the two types of disease that comprise the majority of life threatening health issues in America? To which nation to Canadians stream to obtain vital health care in a timely basis? The Canadians have chosen. When the chips are down, if they can manage it, they come the America where our health care system provides unfettered access to the best, most advanced medical technology, the service provider or health care facility o your choice as opposed to the more thrifty socialized systems that on a routine basis by government oversight and according to standard operating procedure,
Conchop accuses conservative of twisting truth and lying with absolutely no evidence. That is about as dishonest as it gets. I'd like to see evidence to support that. Then I'll present the littany of outright lies from the leftists. We should be able to see which side are liars and which are not. "The truth is the last time healthcare was measured by objective and scientific measurement, we were 37th. " Not sure that is accurate. If it is, please explain the following:  Looks like we excel in health care based on actual, meaningful results. I think that is what matters most. I have no idea how the WHO comes up with their ratings. Infant mortality is much less a reflection on the quality of the health care system than it is on the mother. If you don't seek care, there's not much that can be done and the care system should not be blamed, the educations system maybe, but not the health care system. | ||
| Blake |
The best health care in the world don't mean crap if you have no access to it. I have four friends in their 50s who spent 20 years or more apiece working hard only to get laid off because they made the most money (no union so no seniority rules). Their cost for COBRA? $3,000 a month. They're all four working three part-time jobs, 12 hours a day six days a week to make mortgage, food and costs for their families. They and their families have no health care coverage and cannot afford it. Sounds like the consequences of freedom and some bad choices. Still paying a mortgage at age 50+. Only worked 20 years? They chose that, no one forced it upon them. If their assumption was that they would always have gainful employment, was that a good and responsible assumption? Some choose to live well within their means and as a result are able to pay of their mortgage in 15 years or less. Some folks limit themselves to a much smaller, less expensive house in a less than spectacular neighborhood, they forgo the new car, and new motorcycle in favor of financial security. What some are proposing is that those who are responsible and plan for the rainy day should pay for those who are not. I prefer that we all have the freedom to make bad choices, but demand that the consequences also remain. Without them, we have irresponsible folks taking advantage of the nanny state and dragging everyone down to their level. A married couple who are friends of mine are 47 and are debt free; they own their home, a car, truck, two motorcycles and a nice new workshop, they each have health insurance, he pays for his own, and have enough of a rainy day fund that being out of work for six months or more won't be a burden. How many people here have enough in the bank to cover a full six months of expenses? If need be, when hardship hits, one may withdraw from a retirement account with no penalty. Do your friends have any savings at all? If not, well...  If they are still paying for cell phones, cable, internet, eating out, the car loan(s), credit cards... but they cannot afford health insurance? If so, they are choosing to forgo the insurance in favor of other priorities. I hope they find gainful employment soon. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The best way to describe the COBRA/Healthcare thing is that while they were employed, their employer provided them with a company car. They may have had to pay a small portion of the costs or nothing at all for the company car. When they were laid off, they employer said that they could continue to use the company car for the next few months, but they would need to cover the entire cost of the car. Although you'd LIKE to keep driving the car, if you can't make the payment, you have to find other transportation. Here's another way to look at it. How much MORE could they have given some choices. Let's say that they were offered an employer stop loss arrangement whereby the employer would pay $300/month and give them the additional $2,700/month as additional income. What could they do with the additional $2,700/month? The problem isn't healthcare. The problem is OUR expectations of how it is supposed to work. | ||
| Hootowl |
Sicko? Propaganda. "They have a history of theatrics which twist the truth into lies and plant seeds of doubt" That sounds just like your hero, Michael Moore. He's a serial liar. | ||
| Sifo |
The best health care in the world don't mean crap if you have no access to it. I have four friends in their 50s who spent 20 years or more apiece working hard only to get laid off because they made the most money (no union so no seniority rules). Their cost for COBRA? $3,000 a month. They're all four working three part-time jobs, 12 hours a day six days a week to make mortgage, food and costs for their families. They and their families have no health care coverage and cannot afford it. They aren't indigent, so they cannot get free care. Again, what good is the best care in the world if you can't access it? Or do we really care? Maybe it's just their hard luck and, if they die because they don't have access to $300 antibiotics, well, that's just the free market working. Rainman, I meant no offense by calling these plans platinum plans, but if they are costing $3,000 a month they are. Good health insurance can be found for a fraction of that. You say your friends are in their 50's. That puts them in a category where they can get health care plans through AARP or a similar type organization that may be more to their political liking. I've got a friend that got insurance that way and is saving a bundle of cash. Beyond that it's hard to offer concrete help without knowing their financial state, the industry they were in, the state they live in, etc. They will have to shop plans from companies licensed in their state. That is one of the big faults of our current system and they are doing their best to not fix it. I've got a Health Savings Account plan that is great. It makes me think about if I really need what is being done on the small stuff and that keeps costs down. It covers me well for the big things that will bankrupt me. It also covers 100% of most ongoing prescription meds. Sadly planning for the event you describe with your friends should start early in life. Planning for financial hardship after it happens is simply a failure to plan that about 97-98% of our country falls into. You young folks out there are in a position to do great things for yourselves by putting real financial plans together ASAP. I know I'm very glad that I did. | ||
| Reindog |
Laurie and I sacrificed to pay off our 30 year mortgage in nine years. We virtually pumped all disposable income into this because the ONLY freedom is to be debt free. We have lived good but have always lived within our means. Apparently, many Americans don't subscribe to this philosophy and now are crying to the government that they are victims. This is the path to totalitarianism. I have ZERO empathy for Americans who spent lavishly while going further into debt for extravagant, unnecessary things. I live in SoCal where it seems everyone is driving around in a BMW and live in a McMansion. Talk about SICKO? This behavior literally makes me sick. I have relatives on my wife's side who are about to lose their house after paying their mortgage for over THIRTY years. | ||
| Sifo |
Laurie and I sacrificed to pay off our 30 year mortgage in nine years. Beat you by over a year! Good on you though! Once the house payments were done we kept on paying that money into savings for decades. Some years ago I had someone accuse me of hiding an inheritance when my father died. He left us some great land that we still have in MI, but almost no cash. This guy just refused to believe that a normal working person can accumulate considerable wealth. All you need to do is a bit of math though. | ||
| Blake |
The Health Care Summit is going on now. I have Fox News on in the background. Useless so far. Three Dems have spoken at length, one being the President who is on his third turn, just one Republican. Not one of the Republican's questions was answered. Lamar Alexander speaking for the Repubs asked that they scrap the current bill, which America has rejected, and start fresh using a step by step approach to help reduce the cost of health care in America. He presented six steps to consider. He was completely ignored. Sad. One interesting observation by Senator Alexander was that if the Dems ram their bill through the senate, then the only thing that will be bipartisan will be the opposition. I've been in meetings like this before. No specific agenda, participants drift into talking about personal experiences "I saw a man in Michigan crying", "I know a guy who was denied a claim for his baby", blah, blah, blah. It is infuriating. Just one more example of how idiotic Washington DC has become. They do not know how to conduct business or be productive. I'd demand a set specific agenda. If not allowed. I'd sit there and eat beans and contribute my full share to the meeting without uttering a word. LOL! It seems clear right from the start that if this is going to pass, it will require the nuclear option exercised by the Senate Dems. The only thing bipartisan will be the opposition. It's a real shame the President is inflexible on starting fresh in a true bipartisan effort. If he did, he'd be wildly popular. Ideology over all. | ||
| Blake |
Interesting fact: If we took all the profits of all the health insurance companies in America, it would be enough to cover two days of America's health care system. | ||
| Hootowl |
" Just one more example of how idiotic Washington DC has become" Hate to break it to you Blake, but it's been that way for at least 20 years. I watched the entire "assault weapon" ban debate on CSPAN back in the early 90s. I was not a Republican at the time, nor was I a Democrat. In fact, I had no interest in politics at all. I only watched it because I was quite ill, at home, and had nothing better to do. The Republican speakers were thoughtful, concise, precise, quoted facts, statistics about crime rates, and what happens to said crime rates when guns are banned. The Democrats brought in mothers with dead sons who were former gangbangers who made emotional pleas to ban the dreadful guns (that their sons obtained illegally). That was their entire argument. No facts, all emotion, willfully ignorant. After a week of this, I became a Republican. I think if people actually watched CSPAN instead of using sound bites from comedy shows and talking points parroted by news organizations as their sole source of political insight, there would be a Republican supermajority in both houses. |
