High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

What would the Tea party cut?

kharaa
04-13-2011, 05:37 PM
Washington (CNN) -- In many ways, the debate over taming the nation's spending and deficit beasts can be compared to a family's hand-wringing over what to cut, and what to keep, in tough times. It may be easy to nix "luxuries" like vacations and eating out. But should "essentials" like a car or a home be downsized or gotten rid of to save money?http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/13/tea.party.cuts/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29

oblioman
04-14-2011, 12:24 AM
The tea party is nothing more than rebranded republicans. Mostly those that were sick or embarrassed by the Bush/Cheney follies. If they were true to their word they would have supported Obama back in December and to let the Bush tax cuts run out. Along with that, they would have demanded that congress follow paygo, reign in defense spending, and concentrate our wealth at home. Next would be domestic spending. Medicaid and Medicare should be dismantled and replaced by UHC. We Americans spend far more than any other country in the world on health care, yet what are we ranked,,,36th,,37th???? Must be the for profit aspect that drives our healthcare so low. How else can it be explained?
Certainly me good friends from the right will have a good time attacking this old lib,,,that's fine. As long as they can justify and not just bloatify,,,,it makes for fun debate.:hithere:

kharaa
04-14-2011, 02:03 AM
The tea party is nothing more than rebranded republicans. Mostly those that were sick or embarrassed by the Bush/Cheney follies. If they were true to their word they would have supported Obama back in December and to let the Bush tax cuts run out. Along with that, they would have demanded that congress follow paygo, reign in defense spending, and concentrate our wealth at home. Next would be domestic spending. Medicaid and Medicare should be dismantled and replaced by UHC. We Americans spend far more than any other country in the world on health care, yet what are we ranked,,,36th,,37th???? Must be the for profit aspect that drives our healthcare so low. How else can it be explained?
Certainly me good friends from the right will have a good time attacking this old lib,,,that's fine. As long as they can justify and not just bloatify,,,,it makes for fun debate.:hithere:

That makes me sad oblio, they shouldn't be attacking YOU for anything; they may attack your beliefs but attacking you would just be low and dirty.

That being said, I agree with alot of what the tea party SAYS the beleive in. That was before they got hijacked by the far-right/anti-libertarians.

That is my dilema, the democrats are a little too, it's a perfect world hippy naive type for me, but the republicans are the "we hate everything and everyone" party of hypocracy.

I thought at first the tea party would be refreshing. :/

DoctorCAD
04-14-2011, 05:46 AM
First, I have nothing to do with the "TEA party", I am a republican in belief.

That said, the very first thing to cut is a 10 - 15% across the board cut. Anything and everything. Pain must be had by all to get out of this spending mess that the past and current congress has made.

No tax increase for the "wealthy", but a 5% tax increase on EVERYBODY for a limited time, say 3 years and then a non-deniable stop.

Lastly, no more giving away tax money. How many times do you hear of people not only NOT paying income tax, but actually getting refunds and credits that far exceed what they would have paid. Estimates put that number at anywhere between 38% and 47% of all wage earners. Seems like a no-brainer way to raise money to me.

I may not agree with Oblio, but I would not attack him.

Rick-F
04-14-2011, 06:17 AM
Perhaps we could start cutting here:


Summary fiscal cost estimates by state amount to $36.6 billion dollars annually for providing public K-12 education, incarceration and emergency medical care for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16723&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

I know it's only drop in the bucket-- but it is over 1,330 times as much as the $27 Million the military spends on NASCAR advertising.

Since the top 1% of earners in the US already pay 38% of ALL income tax, I suppose we should get that 38% up to near 80% so we can grow the the "recipient class" even larger. It is, after all, the democrat base, and to stay in power they must keep the poor poor and make even more "poor" people. It seems to be working; already nearly half the working population have a net federal tax liability of ZERO. What a great country where even the recipient class can have HD TV, cars, iPhones, etc. and still have the "rich" pay for their food, health care and what other basic necessity that want.

Oblioman, you say that "Medicaid and Medicare should be dismantled and replaced by UHC." I'm sure that will cost even more. More is already spent on Medicaid/Medicare than on Defense. You are all for cutting Defense spending while spending MORE on UHC. We have a serious economic crisis coming-- spending MORE on anything will not help. Taxing the "rich" more will not get US out of this crisis-- when US has taken ALL the rich have, we still will need to cut spending. Yours and King Hussein's tax and spend vision will not ever get US out of debt.

I could certainly support UHC as soon as an Amendment to the US Constitution is ratified by the States making health care for all a federal government power. Until then I do not think the government should have anything to do with health care.

amdgamer
04-14-2011, 10:23 AM
Here is my belief.

Balance the fucking budget and then lets talk about tax increases. Raising taxes does nothing unless we can use it to start paying down the national debt. By this time next year, we will be closing at nearly $16T in debt. If we raise taxes before the budget is balanced, the politicians will only use that to spend more money. You also don't raise taxes on ANYONE while we are in the middle of a recession.

Boys and Girls, this country is the Titanic and it is SINKING FAST. Sure they deny it is sinking, but I don't see any possible way to pull out from this kind of fiscal nightmare right now.

Pinoy
04-14-2011, 12:26 PM
How about we chop government officials pay %15 across the board for starters? We got enough millionaire congress members (260?)


Perhaps we could start cutting here:


Summary fiscal cost estimates by state amount to $36.6 billion dollars annually for providing public K-12 education, incarceration and emergency medical care for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16723&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007


I'd agree to that part...

ChocMul
04-14-2011, 12:43 PM
How about we chop government officials pay %15 across the board for starters? We got enough millionaire congress members (260?)




I'd agree to that part...

Also there should be a 50% surtax on any government official salary after leaving office over what they were making when in office. Most of these lawyer politicians are making in the range of $150k in office and when they leave they are making seven figure salaries lobbying the government for favors. So a congressman leaving office and then working as a lobbyist for GE making two million dollars would pay about a $900,000+ surtax. They could call it the taxing the rich/fair share bill .
I would like to see some freshman congressman introduce a bill like that and watch the heads explode on capital hill.

kharaa
04-14-2011, 12:44 PM
Oblioman, you say that "Medicaid and Medicare should be dismantled and replaced by UHC." I'm sure that will cost even more. More is already spent on Medicaid/Medicare than on Defense. You are all for cutting Defense spending while spending MORE on UHC. We have a serious economic crisis coming-- spending MORE on anything will not help. Taxing the "rich" more will not get US out of this crisis-- when US has taken ALL the rich have, we still will need to cut spending. Yours and King Hussein's tax and spend vision will not ever get US out of debt.

for the sake of the discussion, here is the list of the US Spending for 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget



I could certainly support UHC as soon as an Amendment to the US Constitution is ratified by the States making health care for all a federal government power. Until then I do not think the government should have anything to do with health care.

So your only concern about a UHC system is the constitutionality of it?

Loves2Watch
04-14-2011, 12:45 PM
Also there should be a 50% surtax on any government official salary after leaving office over what they were making when in office. Most of these lawyer politicians are making in the range of $150k in office and when they leave they are making seven figure salaries lobbying the government for favors. So a congressman leaving office and then working as a lobbyist for GE making two million dollars would pay about a $900,000+ surtax. They could call it the taxing the rich/fair share bill .
I would like to see some freshman congressman introduce a bill like that and watch the heads explode on capital hill.

Now that would be fun...but it would have to be on Capitol Hill not Capital Hill.

Rick-F
04-14-2011, 02:14 PM
"So your only concern about a UHC system is the constitutionality of it? "

Yeah, pretty much. There are things the federal government should be doing and things they have no business doing. The list of the former is a small one; the latter is everything else!

DoctorCAD
04-14-2011, 02:19 PM
How about we chop government officials pay %15 across the board for starters...

Whooopee!!!!

You just found a whopping $1.5 million dollars (535 x $190000 x .15). They piss that much away on pens a year. Salary's don't mean anything.

$190,000 a year barely pays the rent in DC.

Rick-F
04-14-2011, 02:27 PM
The National Infrastructure Bank what a crock of poop that is . . . another agency to make bad loans for projects real banks would not finance.

Pinoy
04-14-2011, 02:49 PM
Whooopee!!!!

You just found a whopping $1.5 million dollars (535 x $190000 x .15). They piss that much away on pens a year. Salary's don't mean anything.

$190,000 a year barely pays the rent in DC.

Heh. I meant _all_ elected government positions, not just congressmen. Last I recall there's about 500,000 of them.

Loves2Watch
04-14-2011, 04:24 PM
Re-institute the gold standard, that will dissolve the/those Federal Reserve cronies...

rbinck
04-14-2011, 06:54 PM
Re-institute the gold standard, that will dissolve the/those Federal Reserve cronies...
Is there enough gold?

Loves2Watch
04-14-2011, 07:38 PM
Is there enough gold?

There should be but the cost of goods and salaries would have to come down and level off to some normalcy.

oblioman
04-14-2011, 10:15 PM
Perhaps we could start cutting here:


Summary fiscal cost estimates by state amount to $36.6 billion dollars annually for providing public K-12 education, incarceration and emergency medical care for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16723&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

I know it's only drop in the bucket-- but it is over 1,330 times as much as the $27 Million the military spends on NASCAR advertising.

Since the top 1% of earners in the US already pay 38% of ALL income tax, I suppose we should get that 38% up to near 80% so we can grow the the "recipient class" even larger. It is, after all, the democrat base, and to stay in power they must keep the poor poor and make even more "poor" people. It seems to be working; already nearly half the working population have a net federal tax liability of ZERO. What a great country where even the recipient class can have HD TV, cars, iPhones, etc. and still have the "rich" pay for their food, health care and what other basic necessity that want.

Oblioman, you say that "Medicaid and Medicare should be dismantled and replaced by UHC." I'm sure that will cost even more. More is already spent on Medicaid/Medicare than on Defense. You are all for cutting Defense spending while spending MORE on UHC. We have a serious economic crisis coming-- spending MORE on anything will not help. Taxing the "rich" more will not get US out of this crisis-- when US has taken ALL the rich have, we still will need to cut spending. Yours and King Hussein's tax and spend vision will not ever get US out of debt.

I could certainly support UHC as soon as an Amendment to the US Constitution is ratified by the States making health care for all a federal government power. Until then I do not think the government should have anything to do with health care.

Of course the top 1% are going to pay 38% of the tax burden. 35% of $50 million is one hell of a lot more money than 35% of $370,000. The person that books $50 million pays the same tax rate as those just scraping by on $370,000. Here be an interesting read on the distribution of wealth in America,,,,,the gist is that the top 20% are paying their share,,,but it is not an equal share.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And another question - why can Canada and other western countries offer UHC,,,and it seems to be working fine,,,but for some odd reason it would cost more in the US?????

Cygnus
04-15-2011, 12:51 AM
No, there isn't or else US would have never gotten off the gold standard. Some think that once shit really hits the fan, e.g. the dollar becomes worthless, gold might become outlawed and forcibly collected by the govt as what happened in the past.

Is there enough gold?

Loves2Watch
04-15-2011, 06:34 AM
No, there isn't or else US would have never gotten off the gold standard. Some think that once shit really hits the fan, e.g. the dollar becomes worthless, gold might become outlawed and forcibly collected by the govt as what happened in the past.

Totally untrue! If you look at history you would know it was a political ploy to let the BIG bankers (Federal Reserve which is not a govt. agency but private bankers) control the economy of the US. Do some research, you will be amazed at what you find.

tcarcio
04-15-2011, 07:10 AM
And another question - why can Canada and other western countries offer UHC,,,and it seems to be working fine,,,but for some odd reason it would cost more in the US?????

I guess if you call haveing to wait long periods of time to see a doctor or being denied care at times while paying 13% tax rate working fine then I guess your right....:confused:;)

kharaa
04-15-2011, 08:27 AM
I guess if you call haveing to wait long periods of time to see a doctor or being denied care at times while paying 13% tax rate working fine then I guess your right....:confused:;)

Here is some information on the canadian health care system, as compared to the united states health care system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_an d_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Wait_times

Both the USA and Canada have some pretty extreme wait times, but atleast they cover the majority of their people.

Cygnus
04-15-2011, 11:36 AM
Duh no shit yoda... :dunce: I understand the history and conspiracy theories about the fed as I have mentioned them in multiple posts. It was also a way for US to live above its means. Some question how much gold US really owns in fort knox as some of it could have been used as collateral for countries to buy US bonds.

Totally untrue! If you look at history you would know it was a political ploy to let the BIG bankers (Federal Reserve which is not a govt. agency but private bankers) control the economy of the US. Do some research, you will be amazed at what you find.

Rick-F
04-15-2011, 01:26 PM
The tea party is nothing more than rebranded republicans. Mostly those that were sick or embarrassed by the Bush/Cheney follies. If they were true to their word they would have supported Obama back in December and to let the Bush tax cuts run out. Along with that, they would have demanded that congress follow paygo, reign in defense spending, and concentrate our wealth at home. Next would be domestic spending. Medicaid and Medicare should be dismantled and replaced by UHC. We Americans spend far more than any other country in the world on health care, yet what are we ranked,,,36th,,37th???? Must be the for profit aspect that drives our healthcare so low. How else can it be explained?Certainly me good friends from the right will have a good time attacking this old lib,,,that's fine. As long as they can justify and not just bloatify,,,,it makes for fun debate.:hithere:

With all due respect, Oblioman, would you (others should join in too) please relate some first-hand, actual accounts of the inferior health care you, your friends and family have received in the USA. Also tell us why you did not go to Mexico, Greece, or Morocco, Cuba or where ever for QUALITY care. I'm serious. I'd like to know why you think the health care in the USA is so poor!

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a farce. The rankings you keep referring are NOT based on the quality of health care. I'm of the opinion that one the finest (if not the finest) health care systems in the word exist right here in the USA. I, for one, would like to keep it that way. I guess I have been very lucky, because from my personal experience, the care I and my family have gotten has been excellent. I'm sorry your experiences have been so poor to the extent that you feel you have to continue to "bad mouth" one of America's most valuable assets.

okdude123
04-15-2011, 01:38 PM
First, I have nothing to do with the "TEA party", I am a republican in belief.



That's probably the main reason the US is in the position it is in. " I am a Republican"..."I am a Democrat".....both sides are so corrupted that it doesn't matter anymore. A simple guy like Jesse Ventura figured it out long ago when he said "vote for anything but Republican or Democrat". The system needs a cleansing.

amdgamer
04-15-2011, 01:45 PM
With all due respect, Oblioman, would you (others should join in too) please relate some first-hand, actual accounts of the inferior health care you, your friends and family have received in the USA. Also tell us why you did not go to Mexico, Greece, or Morocco, Cuba or where ever for QUALITY care. I'm serious. I'd like to know why you think the health care in the USA is so poor!

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a farce. The rankings you keep referring are NOT based on the quality of health care. I'm of the opinion that one the finest (if not the finest) health care systems in the word exist right here in the USA. I, for one, would like to keep it that way. I guess I have been very lucky, because from my personal experience, the care I and my family have gotten has been excellent. I'm sorry your experiences have been so poor to the extent that you feel you have to continue to "bad mouth" one of America's most valuable assets.

What Oblio also forgot is that those rankings are skewed because they factor in military deaths, even though that has nothing to do with our health care system. If you correct for that, we have THE BEST health care system in the world. I havn't read it in a few years, but I also believe they factor in homicides as well, whcih is something we have a lot of compared to other developed countries. As you stated, the methodology used in that calculation is unbelievably suspect and why I have NO respect or regard for studies that come out from these organizations.

Rick-F
04-15-2011, 02:18 PM
Let us not bring homicides in to stats on health care-- at least 23 other countries have higher (per capita) murder rates than the USA-- heck, we do not even lead North America in that category.

The USA does lead all other countries on the planet in Nobel Prize (in Medicine) winners. Not bad for a place so low . . .

I think Oblioman, et al, base their belief that we have a bad health care here primarily on the all the studies and headlines that bombarded US last year. Like these:
* Reuters: “U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study”
* Los Angeles Times: “U.S. is No. 1 in a key area of healthcare. Guess which one . . . ”
* NPR: “US Spends The Most On Health Care, Yet Gets Least”

He believes it is bad because he was told it was bad. The problem is that so many of these folks do not actually stop and ask themselves WHO is it that is making these claims and conducting these studies, and WHY?

Reuters: “Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday. The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries — Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.”
\
Now that is almost exactly what O-man seemed to be saying . . . and why not? It is what a legitimate news organization reported-- even headlined.

But did they identify the person in charge at the Commonwealth Fund? Did they examine here political background? Did they even consider possible political motivation for the study? They did none of that. Because most of the "press" is a left leaning tool of the Left-- objectivity is not their concern. Nor is the whole truth.

If one were to do a bit more research into the Commonwealth Fund they might run across the fund’s 2009 Report from the President -- which begins: “The Commonwealth Fund marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.” No political bent there . . .

When the press around the world, and in particular-- in the US reports that the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) has ranked the United States of America 37th in health care behind such countries as Morocco, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Greece -- do you really think there is no political bent? Give me a break!

I'm sure if Secretary Clinton needs breast surgery or a heart bypass she'll be on the first flight to Morocco. Yet when Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach needed breast cancer surgery she traveled not to Greece or to Morocco-- but to California. When Canadian MP Robert Bourassa needed treatment for malignant melanoma, he went Bethesda, Maryland.

Canadian Premier Danny Williams, before traveling to Sarasota, Florida for treatment, said this: “This was my heart, my choice and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

unotis
04-16-2011, 11:07 AM
Let us not bring homicides in to stats on health care-- at least 23 other countries have higher (per capita) murder rates than the USA-- heck, we do not even lead North America in that category.

The USA does lead all other countries on the planet in Nobel Prize (in Medicine) winners. Not bad for a place so low . . .

I think Oblioman, et al, base their belief that we have a bad health care here primarily on the all the studies and headlines that bombarded US last year. Like these:
* Reuters: “U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study”
* Los Angeles Times: “U.S. is No. 1 in a key area of healthcare. Guess which one . . . ”
* NPR: “US Spends The Most On Health Care, Yet Gets Least”

He believes it is bad because he was told it was bad. The problem is that so many of these folks do not actually stop and ask themselves WHO is it that is making these claims and conducting these studies, and WHY?

Reuters: “Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday. The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries — Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.”
\
Now that is almost exactly what O-man seemed to be saying . . . and why not? It is what a legitimate news organization reported-- even headlined.

But did they identify the person in charge at the Commonwealth Fund? Did they examine here political background? Did they even consider possible political motivation for the study? They did none of that. Because most of the "press" is a left leaning tool of the Left-- objectivity is not their concern. Nor is the whole truth.

If one were to do a bit more research into the Commonwealth Fund they might run across the fund’s 2009 Report from the President -- which begins: “The Commonwealth Fund marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.” No political bent there . . .

When the press around the world, and in particular-- in the US reports that the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) has ranked the United States of America 37th in health care behind such countries as Morocco, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Greece -- do you really think there is no political bent? Give me a break!

I'm sure if Secretary Clinton needs breast surgery or a heart bypass she'll be on the first flight to Morocco. Yet when Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach needed breast cancer surgery she traveled not to Greece or to Morocco-- but to California. When Canadian MP Robert Bourassa needed treatment for malignant melanoma, he went Bethesda, Maryland.

Canadian Premier Danny Williams, before traveling to Sarasota, Florida for treatment, said this: “This was my heart, my choice and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

Well stated, I too am tired of all this negative rhetoric being spewed all over the news.

I think there are several ways we can improve the health system, but not by a government takeover.

I too have had a lot more then many on this forum fairly major healthcare treatments in the last 11 years ( 4 years in total), hospital stays, surgeries and such and I have to say they've been all pretty much spectacular.

So where is all this piss poor medical treatment happening here in the US, I'm sure it happens just not to the degree that they the media want us to believe.

DoctorCAD
04-16-2011, 11:45 AM
That's probably the main reason the US is in the position it is in. " I am a Republican"..."I am a Democrat".....both sides are so corrupted that it doesn't matter anymore. A simple guy like Jesse Ventura figured it out long ago when he said "vote for anything but Republican or Democrat". The system needs a cleansing.

You notice that I said that I was republican IN BELIEF. A huge distinction.

DonnyDC
04-17-2011, 02:12 AM
If one were to do a bit more research into the Commonwealth Fund they might run across the fund’s 2009 Report from the President -- which begins: “The Commonwealth Fund marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.” No political bent there . . . huh Im pretty sure all these studies had the US pretty far back on the list long before Obama was even a name.

Canadian Premier Danny Williams, before traveling to Sarasota, Florida for treatment, said this: “This was my heart, my choice and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”Thats fine, the canadian government probably even reimbursed part of his medical costs. But even if he didnt go to miami he'd still have the surgery.
Remember canada has 1/10th the population of the states, so lets not attribute the US' medical accomplishments to its flawed healthcare system.

Heres what one american doctor said comparing the systems.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/medical-marvel-a-us-doctor-discovers-canadian-health-care/article1984796/
What is work life like for an American doctor?

You spend so much time hassling with insurance companies, you just can’t imagine. You have to fight with them to get paid.

How about your patients? Do they seem in favour of a single-payer system?

I go on about it to my patients, saying, “We should have what Canada has and they say, ‘You mean we have to cover the illegal immigrants? What about that person over there, he’s fat and he smokes, I should pay for his health insurance?” Things happen to people, it’s insurance and the only way we will be able to afford health care is if everybody chips in.How is medicine different today than it was when you began practising in 1967?

I am 68 years old. When I started, it was much less expensive and doctors didn’t advertise. The business side of medicine is taking over like a creeping eruption. I’m not an entrepreneur and I didn’t go into medicine to run a business. I wanted to take care of people.

How does a doctor deal with the delicate issue of payment?

The first thing a patient does is show me their insurance card. If I’m not in their plan, I won’t get paid, unless the patient pays me.

The U.S. system spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, yet it still leaves more than 50 million without health coverage. Why has reform been so difficult?

We’re always racking our brains and always bemoaning the fact that it shouldn’t be so hard. Part of it is cultural. With Canadians, it’s a community – we’re all in this to help each other. In the U.S., it’s the frontier – I’m going to take care of myself and you can’t tell me what to do.

The new U.S. health care bill - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - has been described by your group as using an aspirin to treat cancer. Isn’t it an improvement?

There’s lots of ways to improve the health care system. The first thing we have to do is get rid of the private health insurance industry because the administrative costs that they entail, we say it adds costs but no value to the system. We don’t think health care should be an opportunity for profit, we think health care is a human need, like the fire department. But in our country, it’s treated as how you make a buck. And we will be mandated to buy their lousy health insurance.

DonnyDC
04-17-2011, 02:18 AM
Now its easy to blame the american insurance companies. But it also goes both ways.

Greedy american doctors.
Aetna sues doctors over bills it calls 'excessive'
One of the nation's largest insurers has sued six North Jersey physicians over bills it considers "unlawful and excessive," including $56,980 for a 25-minute bedside consultation.

In one case, Aetna Inc. claims it paid a Ridgewood neurosurgery practice $3.9 million more than it was entitled to receive. It also alleges the practice billed a patient $116,000, even after the insurer had provided payment in full.

In another case, Aetna claims a cardiologist at Hackensack University Medical Center increased his charges more than sixfold for catheterizations, from $3,000 to $18,720. The fees drove his income from Aetna up from $155,310 in 2006 to $2.5 million in 2008, according to the lawsuit obtained by The Record on Thursday.More at the link. But hey, some people on this forum believe that these doctors had the right to do it since making $155k/yr is still considered pretty poor as rush limbaugh says.

The problem with health insurance is that.. well, like ALL insurance services the people doing the work will the charge the MAXIMUM since its not like insurers will say no(generally).

Loves2Watch
04-17-2011, 02:37 AM
Now its easy to blame the american insurance companies. But it also goes both ways.

Greedy american doctors.
More at the link. But hey, some people on this forum believe that these doctors had the right to do it since making $155k/yr is still considered pretty poor as rush limbaugh says.

The problem with health insurance is that.. well, like ALL insurance services the people doing the work will the charge the MAXIMUM since its not like insurers will say no(generally).

What link?

hatt
04-17-2011, 07:44 AM
canadian premier danny williams, before traveling to sarasota, florida for treatment, said this: “this was my heart, my choice and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when i entered politics.”
:roflmao::lol::roflmao:

Cygnus
04-17-2011, 02:22 PM
For limbaugh, that is poor...

But after taxes, malpractice insurance, skool loan(s), etc, I wonder what the $155K results to... I know a surgeon who claims he does not make that much money due to the high malpractice insurance in illinois

But hey, some people on this forum believe that these doctors had the right to do it since making $155k/yr is still considered pretty poor as rush limbaugh says.

Scottnot
04-17-2011, 07:58 PM
For limbaugh, that is poor...

But after taxes, malpractice insurance, skool loan(s), etc, I wonder what the $155K results to... I know a surgeon who claims he does not make that much money due to the high malpractice insurance in illinois
And let's not forget, that $155K was only his income from Aetna; so probably only represented a fraction of his total annual income.

Rick-F
04-18-2011, 06:34 AM
Well, DonnyDC, I think you reinforced my point:

He believes it is bad because he was told it was bad. The problem is that so many of these folks do not actually stop and ask themselves WHO is it that is making these claims and conducting these studies, and WHY?

"so lets not attribute the US' medical accomplishments to its flawed healthcare system."

I was only trying to make the point that people's perception of healthcare in America is slanted due to media coverage-- not by the actual quality of the healthcare provided.

Scottnot
04-18-2011, 02:29 PM
He believes it is bad because he was told it was bad.
He NEVER said he believed it is bad; he simply pointed out that "we are ranked,,,36th,,37th" (as you rightly pointed out in the WHO study).
Turning it into a discussion of "good" care versus "bad" care without offering anything other than personal anecdotal evidence is really not addressing the issue.

The problem is that so many of these folks do not actually stop and ask themselves WHO is it that is making these claims and conducting these studies, and WHY?
Indeed, those who out-of-hand, and without any supporting evidence post that "The World Health Organization (WHO) is a farce." really should take the time to investigate why the studies were made, what metrics were used, and how the results were determined.

Of course even you (in your post #24) admit that "The rankings you keep referring are NOT based on the quality of health care."
But you never bother to tell us what the rankings ARE about; I wonder why.

"so lets not attribute the US' medical accomplishments to its flawed healthcare system."
Couldn't agree more.
IN SPITE of the US's seriously flawed healthcare system, the US is very much a leader in research, and the best care that money can buy.

I was only trying to make the point that people's perception of healthcare in America is slanted due to media coverage-- not by the actual quality of the healthcare provided.
Perhaps people's perceptions are better slanted by media coverage and valid studies than by purely personal experience.
Unlike you, I have had some less than pleasant personal experiences regarding the care that I and my family have received, but I would not even think to use my personal experiences to either condemn or praise the overall quality of our healthcare system . . . that would be very foolish.

okdude123
04-18-2011, 07:18 PM
Canadian Premier Danny Williams, before traveling to Sarasota, Florida for treatment, said this: “This was my heart, my choice and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

shhhhhh...we have the best health care in the world, everyone knows that :huh

Michael Douglas still love us http://ca.news.yahoo.com/michael-douglass-cancer-diagnosed-canada-now-hes-helping-20110418-123032-406.html

oblioman
04-19-2011, 01:02 AM
shhhhhh...we have the best health care in the world, everyone knows that :huh

Michael Douglas still love us http://ca.news.yahoo.com/michael-douglass-cancer-diagnosed-canada-now-hes-helping-20110418-123032-406.html

and this one quote speaks for millions - After living in both countries my impression is
the Canadian system is better for 90% of the population and worse for 10%.
The American system is better for 10% of the population and worse for 90%.
Unfortunately the 10% call the shots!.

Of course it just be one mans opinion, but somehow those numbers reflect exactly what is happening in America. And not just in healthcare.

okdude123
04-19-2011, 04:59 PM
"quote" After living in both countries my impression isthe Canadian system is better for 90% of the population and worse for 10%.The American system is better for 10% of the population and worse for 90%. Unfortunately the 10% call the shots!.

Having families on both sides of the border, I agree with that as well. Our system is far from perfect, but it helps most of our population without any fear of going bankrupt over medical services. In BC, if one earns less than $22k a year, there is no monthly $60 charge for health care at all. It is as free as free can be.

Rick-F
04-20-2011, 08:53 AM
Having families on both sides of the border, I agree with that as well. Our system is far from perfect, but it helps most of our population without any fear of going bankrupt over medical services. In BC, if one earns less than $22k a year, there is no monthly $60 charge for health care at all. It is as free as free can be.

I think that's the problem: It is not FREE and should not be thought of as FREE or used as if it were FREE. It's not FREE-- it's just being paid for with other people's money.

lsilvest
04-20-2011, 10:07 AM
I love all of the "facts" from "experts" about Canadian healthcare. I was down in Arizona for 12 years and we were flooded with Canadians coming there for medical care and prescription drugs. Apparently that "10%" all came at the same time.

As to the pay doctors receive from medicare, I watch my bills closely and see just what is paid/allowed by medicare and most of it is ridiculously low. For example, when I have blood drawn for routine tests (bp, cholesterol, sugar, etc.) I noticed the amount paid by medicare was a little over $3 which included the draw and the lab tests. Makes you wonder how medicare got in such a hole. Think maybe it's as much due to fraud and inefficiency as anything?

I'm not in Oblio's 10% by any means, yet I have had excellent healthcare from doctors and medical facilities, now on medicare and previously on company insurance. Fortunately, I'm in a smaller population area and I think we are a lot better off than people in the large metropolitan areas.

These politicians all rave on about cutting spending, yet never start at the heart of the problem targeting waste and inefficiency and anyone that's ever been involved in any government operation should understand just how rampant those two factors are. My last job was for a government contractor and I replaced 2 government employees, both of whom made 50% more than I did. I didn't break a sweat picking up their duties and absorbed even more. Administratively, government agencies are top heavy and redundant. Everyone wants to make cuts, but they never start at the top where the real problems are. Do you see anyone in Washington offering to cut their staffs and actually do some real work themselves?

unotis
04-20-2011, 10:38 AM
I love all of the "facts" from "experts" about Canadian healthcare. I was down in Arizona for 12 years and we were flooded with Canadians coming there for medical care and prescription drugs. Apparently that "10%" all came at the same time.

As to the pay doctors receive from medicare, I watch my bills closely and see just what is paid/allowed by medicare and most of it is ridiculously low. For example, when I have blood drawn for routine tests (bp, cholesterol, sugar, etc.) I noticed the amount paid by medicare was a little over $3 which included the draw and the lab tests. Makes you wonder how medicare got in such a hole. Think maybe it's as much due to fraud and inefficiency as anything?

I'm not in Oblio's 10% by any means, yet I have had excellent healthcare from doctors and medical facilities, now on medicare and previously on company insurance. Fortunately, I'm in a smaller population area and I think we are a lot better off than people in the large metropolitan areas.

These politicians all rave on about cutting spending, yet never start at the heart of the problem targeting waste and inefficiency and anyone that's ever been involved in any government operation should understand just how rampant those two factors are. My last job was for a government contractor and I replaced 2 government employees, both of whom made 50% more than I did. I didn't break a sweat picking up their duties and absorbed even more. Administratively, government agencies are top heavy and redundant. Everyone wants to make cuts, but they never start at the top where the real problems are. Do you see anyone in Washington offering to cut their staffs and actually do some real work themselves?

Good post!

okdude123
04-21-2011, 10:41 PM
I think that's the problem: It is not FREE and should not be thought of as FREE or used as if it were FREE. It's not FREE-- it's just being paid for with other people's money.

That's what I meant when I said it's as "Free" as free can be. Somebody's paying for it still, all of us, but it's an ok system that is working for most of the population.

oblioman
04-22-2011, 01:14 AM
I love all of the "facts" from "experts" about Canadian healthcare. I was down in Arizona for 12 years and we were flooded with Canadians coming there for medical care and prescription drugs. Apparently that "10%" all came at the same time.

As to the pay doctors receive from medicare, I watch my bills closely and see just what is paid/allowed by medicare and most of it is ridiculously low. For example, when I have blood drawn for routine tests (bp, cholesterol, sugar, etc.) I noticed the amount paid by medicare was a little over $3 which included the draw and the lab tests. Makes you wonder how medicare got in such a hole. Think maybe it's as much due to fraud and inefficiency as anything?

I'm not in Oblio's 10% by any means, yet I have had excellent healthcare from doctors and medical facilities, now on medicare and previously on company insurance. Fortunately, I'm in a smaller population area and I think we are a lot better off than people in the large metropolitan areas.

These politicians all rave on about cutting spending, yet never start at the heart of the problem targeting waste and inefficiency and anyone that's ever been involved in any government operation should understand just how rampant those two factors are. My last job was for a government contractor and I replaced 2 government employees, both of whom made 50% more than I did. I didn't break a sweat picking up their duties and absorbed even more. Administratively, government agencies are top heavy and redundant. Everyone wants to make cuts, but they never start at the top where the real problems are. Do you see anyone in Washington offering to cut their staffs and actually do some real work themselves?

As a sidenote, the canadiens that seemingly swamped Arizona for healthcare are more than likely Triple AAA farmers ( April-August-Arizona). From Alberta to Ontario, not to mention the midwest US states from Montana to Iowa, hundreds of thousands of triple AAA farmers go to Arizona for the winter months. Most of them are 50+ in age, have health insurance, and are generally well to do.

Not sure what 10% that me be put in??:what: Me post merely stated that the US is ranked 36 (37th) by the WHO when it comes to health care. Surely they take into account all sorts of data to arrive at our ranking, but me guess is that the main reason why we are ranked so low - is simply because of the price we pay VS what we receive. Dollar for dollar, the countries that "tax" their citizens for UHC are ranked higher than the US (in the west). Me stance for UHC is simply that Canadians enjoy a health care system similar to our own - but at much lower costs. Basically they have eliminated the for profit aspect. Of course our taxes will go up to accommodate UHC, but in me opinion, the overall costs will come down when we eliminate the for profit factor. The one argument against UHC so far has been long wait times,,,does anybody have tangible proof that it is a systemic problem? Thought not. Another argument against UHC has been that it will stifle R&D. Maybe so. But if people remove the blinders they will understand that a majority of R&D is publicly funded already through Universities, grants, and yes through private entities that will still receive their stake through investment and selling of their product. The bigger hurdle against UHC in the United States is the grand old party trying to preserve what they think is theirs. The biggest hurdle against UHC in the United States is the myriad of lawyers protecting the myriad of companies protecting the myriad of investors - all making a buck at our health concerns. Remove the for profit health care and you will remove the leeches.

Question to me Canadian friends - What do your doctors and hospitals pay for mal-practice insurance?

lsilvest
04-22-2011, 07:02 AM
Oblio, I know the difference between Canadians and Midwesterners and I stated Canadians specifically. I was there and talked to them. They stated they were there for medical care and especially prescription drugs as the care was better and the drugs cheaper. A lot of them said they had a hard time getting the care they needed. I'll take that input long before I put stock in WHO. I deal in facts, not conjecture.

The 10% I referred to is the segment you specified as wealthy enough to afford good care, and again pointing out the FACT that I (and most people I know) have good care and aren't in that segment.

The main argument against UHC and government involvement is simply the FACT that no government program runs efficiently and/or economically. Name one Government "enterprise" that has worked?

okdude123
04-22-2011, 03:11 PM
.................

okdude123
04-22-2011, 03:12 PM
Question to me Canadian friends - What do your doctors and hospitals pay for mal-practice insurance?

Don't know but this link seems to have most of the info
http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1021977.ece

Being exposed equally to US and Canadian TV and society, I think the fundamental difference between the US and Canada is that the US actively promotes suing the hell out of anybody and everybody and is evident on the amount of ads that run to no end during the commercials and in the daily lives of Americans.

I've been in business for so long in Canada and people just aren't sue crazy. It is not part of their mentality. It's not that it will cost them initial legal fees like the above link suggests either. People would rather get on with their daily lives here than be involved with lengthy legal procedures that leech off the system.

Scottnot
04-22-2011, 04:17 PM
. . . I stated Canadians specifically. I was there and talked to them. They stated they were there for medical care and especially prescription drugs as the care was better and the drugs cheaper.
You're kidding, right . . . or perhaps you were in Arizona in the 50s.
It is an unequivocal FACT that prescription drug prices are, and have been for some time, SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER in the US than in Canada.
I guess the other possibilities are that the folks you talked to were just pulling your leg or possibly had imbibed in too many margaritas.

A lot of them said they had a hard time getting the care they needed. I'll take that input long before I put stock in WHO. I deal in facts, not conjecture.
Funny, you consider your "facts", based on what "a lot of them said" to be more valid that the conclusions (not conjectures) of WHO which were based on an extensive gathering of facts and data.
Brilliant!

. . . the FACT that no government program runs efficiently and/or economically.
Name one Government "enterprise" that has worked?
Other than education and the national highway system; not to mention national defense and perhaps the achievements of NASA.
I would include Social Security and Medicare as well.

ChocMul
04-22-2011, 05:38 PM
Other than education and the national highway system; not to mention national defense and perhaps the achievements of NASA.
I would include Social Security and Medicare as well.

You are kidding, right?

Scottnot
04-22-2011, 06:30 PM
You are kidding, right?
Not at all in fact.

John Rambo
04-25-2011, 03:25 PM
Oblio, I know the difference between Canadians and Midwesterners and I stated Canadians specifically. I was there and talked to them. They stated they were there for medical care and especially prescription drugs as the care was better and the drugs cheaper. A lot of them said they had a hard time getting the care they needed. I'll take that input long before I put stock in WHO. I deal in facts, not conjecture.

The 10% I referred to is the segment you specified as wealthy enough to afford good care, and again pointing out the FACT that I (and most people I know) have good care and aren't in that segment.

The main argument against UHC and government involvement is simply the FACT that no government program runs efficiently and/or economically. Name one Government "enterprise" that has worked?

I don't see how government run health insurance (single payer health care) is any different/worse than privately owned health insurance. Both systems work the same; you pay money (either in premiums or tax revenue) into a pot, and in return, you get health insurance.

The real question is, do you want the insurance company to be accountable to American voters, or do you want the insurance company to be accountable to no one? Should that insurance company be making billions of dollars in profits by skimming off the top, or should it be non profit? Should that insurance company be spending money & resources to find ways to deny claims and deny coverage in order to be more profitable, or should it spend those resources trying to find more cost efficient methods of care?

If you think the insurance company should be accountable to no one, be able to make billions in profits by skimming off the top, and be able to deny claims to make more profits, then by all means, private run health insurance is the way to go.

ChocMul
04-25-2011, 03:32 PM
I don't see how government run health insurance (single payer health care) is any different/worse than privately owned health insurance. Both systems work the same; you pay money (either in premiums or tax revenue) into a pot, and in return, you get health insurance.

The real question is, do you want the insurance company to be accountable to American voters, or do you want the insurance company to be accountable to no one? Should that insurance company be making billions of dollars in profits by skimming off the top, or should it be non profit? Should that insurance company be spending money & resources to find ways to deny claims and deny coverage in order to be more profitable, or should it spend those resources trying to find more cost efficient methods of care?

If you think the insurance company should be accountable to no one, be able to make billions in profits by skimming off the top, and be able to deny claims to make more profits, then by all means, private run health insurance is the way to go.

I think replacing the term insurance company with the term big government here would have more basis in truth but still lacking much.

lsilvest
04-25-2011, 03:59 PM
You're kidding, right . . . or perhaps you were in Arizona in the 50s.
It is an unequivocal FACT that prescription drug prices are, and have been for some time, SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER in the US than in Canada.
I guess the other possibilities are that the folks you talked to were just pulling your leg or possibly had imbibed in too many margaritas.

It's obvious you have no idea of the geographical landscape of this country. Do you know where Arizona is located? Happens to be on the Mexican border where prescription drugs are a fraction of the cost in the US or Canada (or anywhere else for that matter). Why do you think so many people swarm down there? It isn't just the weather.


Funny, you consider your "facts", based on what "a lot of them said" to be more valid that the conclusions (not conjectures) of WHO which were based on an extensive gathering of facts and data.
Brilliant!

Facts are valid when they come directly from the people with knowledge of the system and are subjected to it. What reason would they have to lie about it? The reason it was a topic of discussion is simple. Those of us that lived there wondered why they were coming down for medical treatment. Not just in AZ, but in Mexico.



Other than education and the national highway system; not to mention national defense and perhaps the achievements of NASA.
I would include Social Security and Medicare as well.

As someone else said: You're kidding right?
2 examples of complete fiscal irresponsibility. Both are bankrupt and guilty of squandering billions every year due to fraud and ineptitude.

Scottnot
04-25-2011, 04:43 PM
It's obvious you have no idea of the geographical landscape of this country. Do you know where Arizona is located?
Having lived there for 20 years, I have a pretty good idea. Yes.

Happens to be on the Mexican border where prescription drugs are a fraction of the cost in the US or Canada (or anywhere else for that matter). Why do you think so many people swarm down there? It isn't just the weather.

Facts are valid when they come directly from the people with knowledge of the system and are subjected to it. What reason would they have to lie about it? The reason it was a topic of discussion is simple. Those of us that lived there wondered why they were coming down for medical treatment. Not just in AZ, but in Mexico.
Umm, are you aware that Mexico is not a part of Arizona?

Sounds like the FACTS are NOT that any of these folks were getting their prescription drugs in Arizona, but in Mexico.

Also, a lot of medical procedures are significantly less expensive in Mexico than either Canada or the US.
Perhaps they were in Arizona for Gulf and in Mexico for medical procedures and prescription drugs.

I'm back to wondering how many margaritas everyone had.

oblioman
04-25-2011, 11:09 PM
Name one Government "enterprise" that has worked?

umm..should we start with that old socialist entity "the Bank of North Dakota". Doing pretty good with out any bailouts. Or how about that mean old money sucking socialist state mill in North Dakota - The North Dakota Mill and Elevator Association has contributed in excess of 50% of its profits to the North Dakota State General Fund for more than 35 years and continues to be a valuable asset to the State of North Dakota.

Two little, and yes, isolated examples of government programs that work. Of course this is at the state level. If one wants to look at the federal level, start with the USPS,,,been around for a number of years and operated within it's own expenses. It is just of late that the USPS has had to borrow money from the treasury to pay it's bill's. Due mainly to gas prices and the decline in mail (since the advent of e-mail). But as government programs go - the USPS has been a stellar performer despite the fact that it has over 34,000 brick & mortar locations to upkeep.

And, again, according to your post - The 10% I referred to is the segment you specified as wealthy enough to afford good care, and again pointing out the FACT that I (and most people I know) have good care and aren't in that segment.
Glad to know that you are in that 10%. The elite few that can afford great healthcare. The other 90% are either without healthcare, are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, or struggle on a monthly basis just for basic healthcare. Put is this way, if you were an independent business man with an annual booked income of $400,000 with 3 employees - could you afford to offer them healthcare? Nope. Could the employees afford to go get it on their own? Nope. See the dilemna.

John Rambo
05-02-2011, 02:34 PM
I think replacing the term insurance company with the term big government here would have more basis in truth but still lacking much.

I don't get it. Is this supposed to mean something, or were you just trying to throw the scary term "big government" in there and leave?

Cygnus
05-02-2011, 02:57 PM
Has the tea party cut their leader sarah palin? she has been extremely quiet lately. The donald stole her thunder?

amdgamer
05-02-2011, 04:29 PM
Has the tea party cut their leader sarah palin? she has been extremely quiet lately. The donald stole her thunder?

That is my view.

This is exactly why I think Bill O'Reilly was correct in his assessment that the Donald is going to pose a serious problem for Obama. You have the Obama of 2008, a populist and marketing wizard, who will be running against him in 2012 from what we can tell. Donald has the money and resources to pose a serious challenge because people like what he has to say. He appeals to your average person and says things that many of us are already thinking in our heads. Personally, i'm concerned about him but America does love their celebrities.

John Rambo
05-03-2011, 09:20 AM
That is my view.

This is exactly why I think Bill O'Reilly was correct in his assessment that the Donald is going to pose a serious problem for Obama. You have the Obama of 2008, a populist and marketing wizard, who will be running against him in 2012 from what we can tell. Donald has the money and resources to pose a serious challenge because people like what he has to say. He appeals to your average person and says things that many of us are already thinking in our heads. Personally, i'm concerned about him but America does love their celebrities.

Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee. It never works that way. The guy who is ahead 1.5 years before the election is never the guy who actually gets the nomination.

Giuliani was the front runner at this time in 2007.

amdgamer
05-03-2011, 12:36 PM
Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee. It never works that way. The guy who is ahead 1.5 years before the election is never the guy who actually gets the nomination.

Giuliani was the front runner at this time in 2007.

The political winds are blowing in a different direction this time. Desperate times calls for desperate actions among the population. I don't think the Donald would have stood a chance in 2007-2008, but could pose a serious threat this time.

Cygnus
05-03-2011, 03:40 PM
I think trump is a bigger threat to the repub party than dem party. Obama would luv to go up against trump. Imagine trump in a debate :lol:

The political winds are blowing in a different direction this time. Desperate times calls for desperate actions among the population. I don't think the Donald would have stood a chance in 2007-2008, but could pose a serious threat this time.

Rick-F
05-04-2011, 07:24 AM
I think trump is a bigger threat to the repub party than dem party. Obama would luv to go up against trump. Imagine trump in a debate :lol:

Oh yea. . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8

oblioman
05-04-2011, 08:06 PM
The political winds are blowing in a different direction this time. Desperate times calls for desperate actions among the population. I don't think the Donald would have stood a chance in 2007-2008, but could pose a serious threat this time.

:lol: A threat to whom? Palin perhaps? At this point, the GOP has no challengers to President Obama. Certainly not the Donald. Hopefully the GOP can at least come up with a candidate that is somewhat viable,,,just to make things interesting. Me opinion is that the GOP will invest more $$$ in trying to overtake the senate instead of wasting money trying to defeat Obama. The way some recent town hall meetings have turned out it is becoming apparent that even the newly elected teapublicans in the house will have a hard time retaining their seats. The best the GOP could hope for is to start grooming a viable candidate for 2016 to try and defeat Biden. Once Biden is elected,,,it may very well be possible that he will be president until 2024. By that time Bristol Palin will be age qualified to be president. That me good folks,,,is the GOP's best chance.:lol:

Cygnus
05-04-2011, 08:26 PM
Ugg..biden..please no. Many ppl would not even know is the VP of US... :what:

oblioman
05-04-2011, 08:49 PM
Ugg..biden..please no. Many ppl would not even know is the VP of US... :what:

:lol::lol: Didn't mean to scare ya,,,,but just whom in the GOP lineup do you see that may pose a challenge to Obama? Hillary has a better chance than anybody that the GOP has even thought of putting forward. The big question is who will they find for 2016?? DeMint,,way to extreme. Cantor would be a viable candidate, matter of fact, in me opinion he would be a great candidate. But,,,the religious right and all their failings would hold it against him that he is "gulp" a Jew. The bottom line is that the GOP would really be scraping crap off the bottom of their shoe if trump becomes their candidate. His chance of winning would -0 or -12%, whichever comes first.

Cygnus
05-04-2011, 09:17 PM
No, I agree. GOP is in sad state. Obama has his faults, but I'd still prefer him over mccain. If mccain would have won, US would be in far worse shape and in more wars. I just hope biden does not run for prez in 2016. Regarding hillary, I doubt if she will ever run for anything major again. She sees how corrupt and cut throat things are and have no interest. She recently said she does not want her gig back...

:lol::lol: Didn't mean to scare ya,,,,but just whom in the GOP lineup do you see that may pose a challenge to Obama? Hillary has a better chance than anybody that the GOP has even thought of putting forward. The big question is who will they find for 2016?? DeMint,,way to extreme. Cantor would be a viable candidate, matter of fact, in me opinion he would be a great candidate. But,,,the religious right and all their failings would hold it against him that he is "gulp" a Jew. The bottom line is that the GOP would really be scraping crap off the bottom of their shoe if trump becomes their candidate. His chance of winning would -0 or -12%, whichever comes first.

oblioman
05-04-2011, 10:00 PM
No, I agree. GOP is in sad state. Obama has his faults, but I'd still prefer him over mccain. If mccain would have won, US would be in far worse shape and in more wars. I just hope biden does not run for prez in 2016. Regarding hillary, I doubt if she will ever run for anything major again. She sees how corrupt and cut throat things are and have no interest. She recently said she does not want her gig back...

No matter what people think of Hillary, we gotta admire her for her realization of the muck state our country has become. One way me looks at it is that 24/7 news is really not a good thing. A lot of people are better off by not being bombarded with truth, half truth,,,and downright bullshit in a lot of scenarios. Factual reporting, in depth truth has been replaced by 26 year old squeaky clean "experts" that portray news as they see it. Thus, the public absorbs the bullshit. And half truths become half lies told to half wits which repeat the half lies into full blown bullshit. Case in point - during Obama's speech on Sunday night, frickin CNN kept a scrolling banner that mariah carey had twins, some bimbo broke up with some dude, and some perry chick kissed another girl,,,,,,,,really,,,,,,,who gives a shit. Our president delivered news that we, as a country, have been waiting for years to hear, yet CNN insists that we also read crap that 99% of us couldn't care less about. And they all do it. We have been trained from years ago when weather alerts were the only thing that was scrolled across the screen we read them. Now they continually scroll shit that has no relevance. Sorry about the rant Cygnus!!!!!:hithere:

Cygnus
05-04-2011, 11:16 PM
Heh..I agree. CNN is notoriously bad for doing that whereas fox does not do that much. I don't even bother watching MSNBC. CNN's 24 hour coverage of the royal BS wedding was ridiculous. I barely watched any news that week.

No matter what people think of Hillary, we gotta admire her for her realization of the muck state our country has become. One way me looks at it is that 24/7 news is really not a good thing. A lot of people are better off by not being bombarded with truth, half truth,,,and downright bullshit in a lot of scenarios. Factual reporting, in depth truth has been replaced by 26 year old squeaky clean "experts" that portray news as they see it. Thus, the public absorbs the bullshit. And half truths become half lies told to half wits which repeat the half lies into full blown bullshit. Case in point - during Obama's speech on Sunday night, frickin CNN kept a scrolling banner that mariah carey had twins, some bimbo broke up with some dude, and some perry chick kissed another girl,,,,,,,,really,,,,,,,who gives a shit. Our president delivered news that we, as a country, have been waiting for years to hear, yet CNN insists that we also read crap that 99% of us couldn't care less about. And they all do it. We have been trained from years ago when weather alerts were the only thing that was scrolled across the screen we read them. Now they continually scroll shit that has no relevance. Sorry about the rant Cygnus!!!!!:hithere:

amdgamer
05-05-2011, 07:18 AM
Remember that the election will be about the economy and the price of fuel. Considering the weak lineup, Obama will win in a landslide if fuel prices magically dip back down in time for the election due to the short term memory. This will also work against him because the current spike due to the death of Binny will soon be forgotten as reality sets in.

As I said, do not underestimate the Donald. In the age of reality shows and all sorts of Hollywood crap, I think people are more interested in a man who can be a good publicist of himself. We will see soon whether I am right or not.

You have no idea how much I like Hillary and respect her. Part of that respect comes from how she kept things together after slick Willy screwed her over by literally tasting the town menu. The problem is that this menu was full of trailer trash. I think that while Hillary is very liberal, she is a realist and that I respect.

:lol: A threat to whom? Palin perhaps? At this point, the GOP has no challengers to President Obama. Certainly not the Donald. Hopefully the GOP can at least come up with a candidate that is somewhat viable,,,just to make things interesting. Me opinion is that the GOP will invest more $$$ in trying to overtake the senate instead of wasting money trying to defeat Obama. The way some recent town hall meetings have turned out it is becoming apparent that even the newly elected teapublicans in the house will have a hard time retaining their seats. The best the GOP could hope for is to start grooming a viable candidate for 2016 to try and defeat Biden. Once Biden is elected,,,it may very well be possible that he will be president until 2024. By that time Bristol Palin will be age qualified to be president. That me good folks,,,is the GOP's best chance.:lol:

Rick-F
05-05-2011, 12:24 PM
Listen to this crazy rant . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP5Dm_t0wiA&feature=related

I wish we had more many more loons like this in congress.

jmwatkins
05-05-2011, 03:04 PM
When I first heard that Trump was going to give it a run, I laughed and said "yeah, right". The more I think about it, the more I think he actually has a chance:huh. I can't wait for the White House to add a Hotel and Casino.

Since him and Palin are both reality stars, maybe Fox can start a reality show competition for the Republican Party nomination. Put it on right after American Idol.:banana:

amdgamer
05-05-2011, 05:54 PM
When I first heard that Trump was going to give it a run, I laughed and said "yeah, right". The more I think about it, the more I think he actually has a chance:huh. I can't wait for the White House to add a Hotel and Casino.

Since him and Palin are both reality stars, maybe Fox can start a reality show competition for the Republican Party nomination. Put it on right after American Idol.:banana:

Don't discount that possibility in this age of creative bankruptcy, as anything is possible these days!

John Rambo
05-05-2011, 10:27 PM
As much as I think Trump has turned on the crazy simply for attention, I've gotta say I like that he's actually addressing the China issue. Albeit, he does it whilst managing to still be a complete jackass, but I commend him for addressing it.

Our trade deals with countries like China are destroying our middle class. Edit: HAVE destroyed our middle class. And I have not seen our president even do so much as mention our f'd up trade policy.

I think that trade policy is #2 on the hierarchy of things wrong with this country. #1 is and always will be our campaign finance structure; the fact that money and politics are intertwined. But #2 has to be our insane trade policies that encourage companies to manufacture wherever the labor is the cheapest.