Stop looking for communism under every rock.

 Not every rock, just the one sit has, historically, slithered beneath.

A conversation with Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB propagandist, by G. Edward Griffin 1of8

A little Socialism would do this country some good. Level the playing field.

Socialism does not level the playing field, it flattens it. It establishes power differentials with private citizens driven downward, and the state driven up. It breeds dependency, and from dependency, oligarchy.

So you honestly believe that if we had one program that would make everyone equal, open all doors, cross color and race and economic disparities to make all Americans equal, that capitalism in this country would just wink out of existence?

And I read the subtitle on that video, saw the work "propagandist" and it became unnecessary to view.

Any critique of capitalism opens the door to the ghost of Stalin ass fucking your children before shoving them in a shallow grave.

You don't know my kids. It's a chance I'm willing to take.

It's pretty apparent that y'all can't see the forest for the trees ~

all of the ridiculous nit-picking, etc.

Step back a couple of yards and just LOOK at what you see, and if you think about it, you'll start seeing that it's about SO MUCH MORE than "finding Commies," or "racism," or even the Dems ~ it's about the WHOLE SYSTEM, and how rotten it is, through and through.

When Bush left office, the next prez was stepping into the Most Powerful Presidency in our country's history and so, yeah, pretty much anything this Prez does deserves CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, from ALL sides.  That's a little hard to do with folks that just sit there, saying "Rah, Rah, Sis, Boom, BAH!"

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specters-plan-to-rein-in-the-presidency/

When Bush left office, the next prez was stepping into the Most Powerful Presidency in our country's history and so, yeah, pretty much anything this Prez does deserves CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, from ALL sides.

You honestly would've preferred McCoulddieanyminutenow and that ridiculous moron they were running as his VP? Seriously?

And as for forests, trees, and nitpicking, could you please point out to me what there is that worries you about the speech that was made? It's there for you to read, you know.

establishing an economy wherein who you know will be more important than how hard you work or what you have to offer, w

No., I honestly don't know who. Please enlighten me? Why so cryptic, Balor? You're living in the reddest of the red states. Why not just tell me what you see rather than hide it in entendre?

No, i would NOT have been happy with McCain/Palin ~ we've GOT to get back to our roots, and REBUILD THIS BROKEN DOWN SHACK.

THAT isn't going to happen with either of the major parties in office, imho

Yes, it's there for me to read.  Unfortunately, i'm not a child psychologist, who could go over the whole thing, as recorded, for comparison so we'll have to wait and see what THEY might have to say, if anything.

THAT isn't going to happen with either of the major parties in office, imho

Great. Well, good luck getting anyone else elected.

Yes, it's there for me to read.

OK, but have you actually read it?

Unfortunately, i'm not a child psychologist, who could go over the whole thing, as recorded, for comparison so we'll have to wait and see what THEY might have to say, if anything.

OK, but how's about you just read the damn thing and tell me if anything in it strikes YOU as iffy about it?

Dyslexia much, Zoomie?

President tries to fix health care. Your SINGLE biggest issue... cue everyone sitting around looking at their fingernails while he gets shut down by lobbyists.

No caps on medical liability, therefore insurance costs, therefore every other cost is going to torpedo your nation.

BETTER THAT THAN SOCIALISM!!@!

I think I said something about three generations of morons?

Thank you.

OK, but how's about you just read the damn thing and tell me if anything in it strikes YOU as iffy about it?

Yes, i read it.  These are the things i think are Red Flags:

Teaching about Obama, rather than EVERY president.

"What do you think it takes to be President?"
The correct answer will not be given, i suspect, in the way of eligibility.  Not just that, but with most of the naive kids, their opinions will reflect their parents opinions, and be a round-about way of finding out how many folks are on the Where's the BC wagon.

"Why is it important that we listen to the Prez and other elected officials?"
Rather than "why is it important that THEY listen to US."  That is "spin."

Teachers could ask students... i.e., citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president, and be held accountable by their teachers.

Listening with a purpose:
Quote Obama
Quote Obama

The Transition Part ~ the first paragraph ~ MOST IMPORTANT STEP:  "Ask a grown-up (ReadThat: Authority Figure) to check on me often, to make sure i'm reaching each of my steps.  If they don't, that's okay; we fix them until they do add up!"

Those were just the obvious.

Edited for Zoomie ~ see next post

Fyre you know I love you but the first sign of pure ignorance is to result to name calling.

Work on that, huh?

President tries to fix health care.

 I have no idea where to even begin pointing out the profound misguidance of this statement.

"Fix" helathcare by emulating the government run systems which where put into practice have largely resulted in technological stagnation, restricted access, downward-spiraling standards, and upward-spiraling cost to the public?

"Fix" healthcare with 1000 pages of legislation full of the most egregious abuses of government authority... which we were told should be passed without being read and to hell with anyone who questioned it?

Americans have access to the best healthcare in the world. That in itself is cause for part of its high cost. The rest of that coast is largely due to a combination of ambulance chasers and the ways in which the government already interferes in the market.


And as for you , Zoomie... What the fuck are you even talking about anymore?

The No Child Left Behind program that Bush, Ted Kennedy, and the majority of congressional Democrats enacted was a complete failure.

The "No Child Left Behind" program, was a "No Child (and their parents) Left Unexploited" program that was a huge success.

I'm convinced that the way to fix your countries health problems is to kick out the lawyers. Mistakes in medicine happen, people are animals not computers. What needs to stop is hospitals and doctors passing on massive legal risk to your consumers in the form on health insurance. This doesn't happen in other developed nations. The way you kick out the lawyers it to make it not worth their while to operate in that space.

Another theory I have is about drugs. I think you should increase the time span a drugs patent is valid for. I read a couple of years ago that it's about 14 or 15 years from the time an application is mate to the FDA before competitors can start copying the drug. This time-span was set decades ago, when it only took a year or so to get a drug through the process and to market. These days the testing process is much stricter and developing a drug can cost $1billion for the big players, and take 4-7 years to get approved. Drugs companies then have just 7-8 years to recoup their investment before getting undercut. Hence prices for branded prescription drugs keep going up and up. These companies want more people to be able to buy their product, not less. Increasing the minimum patent lifecycle to 12 years from date of FDA approval would allow lower pricing. The drugs company would probably make even more from the wider exposure, as more people and doctors would trust the brand. Win-win

Americans have access to the best healthcare in the world.

Not enough Americans. Hence this debate.

That in itself is cause for part of its high cost.

BS. The same technology gets rapidly rolled out to other countries.

The rest of that coast is largely due to a combination of ambulance chasers

agreed

and the ways in which the government already interferes in the market.

Details please

And as for you , Zoomie... What the fuck are you even talking about anymore?

Oh, sorry, I'll try to be more succint.

Your posts in this thread stink to high heaven of nationalism, racism, and antisemitism.

Hope you got it that time.

The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science has stated that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. The World Health Organization ranks the United States healthcare as 37th in the world behind at least 28 other countries that do have some form of universal healthcare. Like Nick points out, the contention that Americans as a whole have access to the best healthcare the US has to offer would be laughable if it weren't such a shame.

The current system in place to take care of those that are uninsured is described by Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The idea is that if you can't afford the treatment you can always go to the emergency room where they are required by law to treat you. The treatments needed by the uninsured cost lost of money and the hospitals are almost completely incapable of recouping these losses. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip as they say. So the hospitals turn to their "paying customers" to recoup these losses. This drives the price of healthcare into the stratosphere and makes it necessary for more costly insurance. As insurance prices rise, fewer people are insured and are forced to rely on emergency medical treatment. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. I know the free market is supposed to solve all problems, and I can see the argument that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is an example of the government interfering and causing the original problem, but the truth of the matter is that without this Act, poor people would be dying in the streets.

It all boils down to narratives. The right-wingers have a mental idea of the poor unemployed often minority family as parasites who would rather remain unemployed and indulge in drugs than to make an honest living. Meanwhile the left-wingers have a mental idea of the poor unemployed often minority family as folks who are down on their luck and there but for the grace of god go any of us. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. Some unemployed people are parasites on society and some are hard workers that have gotten unlucky. To me I'd rather see parasites enjoying my hard work than to see those that are trying to make a go of it suffering because I'm trying to prove a point.

I'm pretty certain that it would not spell the end of the American Dream if we were to offer a public option. As it is, the insured are already bearing the costs of the uninsured through artificially-bloated healthcare bills. I'm not sure it would have that much of an impact on the taxpayer's life if the same money he pays in the form of higher hospital bills was instead paid as taxes to support a universal system. I think that if the government should limit the public option to those who truly could not afford private insurance and this would remove the so-called "deep pockets" effect that the government would have on competition against private insurance. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of tort reform although it'll be hard to achieve, and I don't think malpractice suits should be done away with at all.

That said, I thought I'd just stop here to recognize how infinitely much more respectable this line of criticism of the current administration's policies is than the previous childishness about secret conspiracies working to hide the fact that the Commander in Chief is a Foreign National or that the President's speech to children will be filled with coded messages that will infect the minds of the youth. I mean there is room for serious debate when we discuss healthcare reform, and I don't think there's necessarily one right answer. So thanks to all for making the intellectual leap.

Japan has a system I hate, the cost of your healthcare is like an income tax, ie proportionate to your income. I hate it because like any taxation system it penalizes employees and rewards small business owners. My health insurance is $270 per month. My wife pays $5 because she can jink her taxable income

I read some interviews with a series of doctors recently.  Of the doctors interviewed, there seemed to be a general consensus that doctors in the US are really good at a lot of things - mostly the high tech and heavy intervention side of medicine.  What the US does not do well is provide preventative or basic care to avoid the bigger problems down the road.  And it's not just the uninsured - even the insured are comparitively short changed on a baseline of care.

----

I generally think arguments about the free market are a load of bullshit.  The development of medical treatments in the United States is heavily subsidized by the government - NIH grants, new treatments developed at the NNMC/Walter Reed, research conducted cheaply by graduate students/medical students at public universities, research at public facilities such as NIST, etc.  

Scientific research generally is heavily subsidized by the government because the demands of satisfying the short-term interests of stock holders has led to private industry doing very little in the way of R&D on a purely private level (expensive, no guarantee of return, time to see a return on investment, etc.).  However, when you can partner with the government and allow tax payers to foot a good portion of the costs & risk of R&D...

To put it succinctly - all of these fantastic advances in medicine that we're trying to figure out how to pay for were not developed by the free market.  If you want a fucking free market, go back to drinking snake oil.

BS. The same technology gets rapidly rolled out to other countries.

Most other countries are at least a few years behind the US. When they do get the newest equipment their government permits them to purchase, they do so in at a far lower equipment-to-patient ration. Have plentiful, bleeding-edge medical equipment costs more money, and saves more lives.

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/best-hospitals/2009/07/10/cost-of-medicine-are-high-tech-medical-devices-and-treatments-always-worth-it.html

If the difference is between waiting three days to find out of I have cancer and waiting three months to find out if I have cancer, yes it is fucking worth it.

The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science has stated that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.

 So fucking what? This just in: Your health is your responsibility. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government has a right to take the responsibility, and the right to make choices concerning your own health and medical treatments, from you.

If you can't afford health then I think you would be happy to allow the government to choose to offer you insurance so that you could choose from a range of options that would not be available but for their intervention. If the alternative is going to the emergency room, getting substandard treatment, and in return leveraging your costs onto the backs of those that can afford health (if only just barely in some cases), then it's lose-lose. I think this is a pretty ridiculous distortion of the proposed healthcare reforms, and it demonstrates either a willful ignorance of the content of the proposals or an over-emotional and mind-clouded response to the proposer, his political party, or certain key words such as "public." An argument is only as strong as its ability to engage with the substance of the position argued against. You're arguing here against something that only exists in your mind.

If the difference is between waiting three days to find out of I have cancer and waiting three months to find out if I have cancer, yes it is fucking worth it.

The scan is only as good as the person who views it.

If the difference is between waiting three days to find out of I have cancer and waiting three months to find out if I have cancer, yes it is fucking worth it.

The scan is only as good as the person who views it.

It also has nothing to do with the article. 

It should though. If your going to write up about how over tech'n is wastefull, I would expect one or two lines about how about how experienced health care workers save more lives than fancy scans.

I shall drop out here.