Fund care, not war
Why limit funds for children's health care? So what if one thinks it is
"socialized" medicine? Isn't the post office a "socialized" institution as well,
run by the federal government? I think our money should go toward children's
health care rather than killing in the Middle East for oil.
Janice Rinsky, Arvada
Janice, I agree with you. You go girl. The killers in Iraq-NAM are being shafted with regards to their health care too. Bush (PHONY AIRMAN) is robbing our disabled troops (poor and working class families). The military reservists return home to find they have been fired from their civilina jobs. Bush Rx drugged our troops (PTSD suppressors-mind altering), then when they are in a "crazed" state, murdering innocent Iraqi citizens, Bush rewards them with court martials, facing the death penalty.
Michael Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration (SS), draft dodger like Bush, is just as vile and vicious. Astrue knows our Iraq-NAM disabled vets are suffering from PTSD. This GOP weasel refuses to pay these warriors their SSA disability pay, because Bush has low-balled them on their combat disability ratings.
I've written senators Allard and Shamnesty Salazar (draft dodgers) regarding this injustice. They've opted for mootness. They were also moot while our Rocky Flats contaminated workers (PATRIOTS) were being shafted by Bush too. Ooops! My Bad!The congressional Salazar brothers (D-I-N-O) did find time to vote for their family's $484K federal farm subsidy (welfare for their criminal illegal Mexican farm workers). Larrry Craig looks like gold, when compared to these two GOP thugs.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 18, 2007 07:56 AMJanice,
That should give you a clue. Under socialized medicine, your health care will be delivered with all the warmth and compassion of the post office.
janice my health care insurance is due on the first and its 549.00 so will you pay it for me so my childern will be covered?
no the post office is not a socialized inistution.
if you go there you have to PAY for stamps and services, they are not free.
I am and have always been totally against the Iraq War (google "Ron Paul"), but why does "our money" have to go to one or the other -- through the government? How about not expropriating this money from the people who earned it in the first place?
Yes, the post office is a socialized institution, a monopoly with high prices and poor service (compare with FedEx or UPS). If you want to promote socialized medicine, I don't think the post office is a good analogy to make.
Posted by Larry Ruane on October 18, 2007 08:45 AMSo, because the government owns the post office, the government should own everything?
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 09:01 AM"the post office is a socialized institution, a monopoly with high prices and poor service"
So are public education, Social Security, and Medicare. Please name one socialized institution where that descriptor doesn't apply.
Posted by drew on October 18, 2007 09:41 AMFor some odd reason, the IRS seems to be great at robbing people. Collecting money seems to be the only the thing the government excels at.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 09:49 AMTHE POST OFFICE!!!! THE POST OFFICE?
She wants to go to the same folks for a heart transplant.
BBWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Posted by Hank on October 18, 2007 09:52 AMJanice, How can you be so stupid and still type...?
Posted by on October 18, 2007 10:52 AMif you want to see how great the government runs things just look at the mess they made out of Amtrack and look at the chaos they are causing with the airlines.... I for one would rather not have socialized medicine because I think it is the role of the doctor and not the government to decide the best cure for my ailments.
Posted by on October 18, 2007 10:57 AMDon't forget about the fire dept, the police dept, the highway dept etc etc etc.
Bottomline is that the 5 other richest, capitalist countries on the planet are doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are. The real question for you folks on the far right is....why do you believe we as a country would be unable to adopt and put into place the best practices that are making those countries more successful than we are?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
Furthermore, to bolster the case made in the letter above...not only do the vast majority of Americans believe that Iraq isn't worth the cost in blood and treasure, they fully support the Dem's plan for Iraq AND believe that we should be spending less there and more at home.
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
Worth It 38%
Not Worth It 59%
Unsure 3%
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"
Democrats 49%
Republicans 34%
Both/Neither 14%
Unsure 3%
"The Bush Administration has requested nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars and related U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year. This is about 40 billion dollars more than first estimated. Do you think Congress should approve all of this funding request, or reduce it?"
Approve All 27%
Reduce It 67%
Shouldn't Approve Any Money 3%
Unsure 3%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
Yeah, it's all just fine and dandy if it is smokers who, who are the minority, will be burdened with the majority of the tax money to pay for SCHIP. But how you would yell to the roof tops how unfare it was if the majoity had to dig in their pockets to pay for it. The damned government has come to the smokers ATM for too much already. It's time some of you Zealous non smokers coughed up your share.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 18, 2007 11:16 AMjay,
Do you think government policy should be driven by polls?
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 11:26 AMhey Jay MSNBC liberal ranting onsided polls great reference those of us paying the majority of the taxes are not reflected in those polls polls are for idiots like you to believe
Posted by on October 18, 2007 11:40 AMjay said:
"Bottomline is that the 5 other richest, capitalist countries on the planet are doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are."
What are you basing that assertion on? If you cite a study, please cite the measurements that the study used.
Posted by on October 18, 2007 11:40 AM"Do you think government policy should be driven by polls"
Hmmm....that would mean that the gov't would be ENACTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
The horror!!!!!!
Instead we have 15 or so morons (bush and the 13 R rep's who voted no) deciding gov't policy. Is that a preferrable option, JohnII?
Lets see....on one hand.....MILLIONS of people who want this bill to pass. On the other hand, 15 people (most likely in the pocket of big insurance) who don't want this bill to pass.
Which is preferrable JohnII? The will of millions, or the will of a few? We live in a republic, shouldn't gov't policy reflect the will of the people?
Posted by not jay on October 18, 2007 11:57 AM"What are you basing that assertion on?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
It's just data people.
Don't get your panties in a wad.
John...yes...I think the representatives of the people should actually represent the wishes of the people.
You don't?
Allen....when smokers stop costing our country billions of extra dollars a year in healthcare costs you can play that violin, but until then.....not so much
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 12:03 PMjay,
"John...yes...I think the representatives of the people should actually represent the wishes of the people."
So, you think representatives should conduct polls and vote accordingly? If so, why have representatives? Why not just put everything to a vote by the general public?
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 12:13 PMjay,
That link you posted was to an MSNBC story about a study. The details of the study were not provided. This leads me to believe that you yourself have not examined the details of the study.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 12:20 PMData is data folks...you can't spin data...as much as some of you would like to.
Bottomline...AGAIN...we pay more for lower quality healthcare than any of the other 5 wealthiest, capitalistic countries on the planet.
Come to terms with it.
Attacking the messenger isn't doing you any good.
And John...yes...still...I believe that the representatives of the people should actually represent the people.
I'll ask AGAIN...you don't?
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 12:57 PMJay, watch out now, if you challange John II, too many times he might question your manhood.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 18, 2007 01:04 PMWhere's the data, jay? All you did was post a link to an MSNBC that did not bother to analyze the study. Neither did you. You have no idea what the measurements were. I bet you don't even know which measurement the US scored the highest. You're a joke. You didn't even read the study.
Why do you keep telling me that representatives should represent the people? That's not what I asked you. By definition, representatives represent their constituency. You're simply stating the obvious as if that were the answer to my question. I asked you if representatives should vote strictly by polling data. And, if representatives should simply vote according to polls, why not just let the general public vote on bills?
Posted by George Washington on October 18, 2007 01:07 PMwittle jay said
when smokers stop costing our country billions of extra dollars a year in healthcare costs. why not add the illigals and the lazy like you in there?
I smoke and you have never paid a penny for any of my insurance or medical care. but dont worry about me you just take care of your own sorry butt and we wont need socialized med.
why not tax fast food that leads to many health issues and dont forget your own obesity.
but the only representatives you want heard jay are the socialist you follow. just look how nancy and dingy lost the battle on cship today.
jay said:
"Data is data folks...you can't spin data...as much as some of you would like to."
What an ignorant thing to say. The CommonWealth study was one big spin on data. But, be honest jay, you have not looked at the data. You looked at a MSNBC report that barely examined the study. You accepted the report as truth because it bolstered your own misguided theory on health care.
Sharon B.,
Do you think it's honest to go around saying "data is data folks" when (a) no data was presented and (b) the author did not himself examine the data.
The Common Wealth study was just as bogus as the WHO study. Both organizations have a bias towards government-controlled health care. They weighted their measurements to achieve the results they wanted. Don't believe me? Read the study yourselves. Actual health care quality (the measurement that the US scored the highest in both studies) received a much lower weight than factors such as if the patient paid out-of-pocket or not. In other words, if you go to the doctor and pay cash, you actually lower our score. The studies were set up to inherently favor socialized medicine.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 01:20 PMHow much does it cost to send a letter using FedEx?
Posted by on October 18, 2007 01:26 PM1:26,
That depends on weight and distance.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 01:32 PMJohn...again...attacking the messenger isn't doing your credibility any good.
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 02:38 PMI attacked the messenger, the message, and the fool. I read the study. Did you? No. You read MSNBC and stopped there. And now you go around parroting dishonest claims such as
"we pay more for lower quality healthcare than any of the other 5 wealthiest, capitalistic countries on the planet."
That's a lie. In fact, both the WHO and Commonwealth studies rank the US as having the highest quality. If you read either report you'd know that.
You are so committed to your ideology that you'll blindly and foolishly accept any "study", report or news item as long as it seems to validate your beliefs. Not only that, but you'll go around citing bogus studies as truth even though you've never even read it yourself.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 02:53 PMFrom the WHO report:
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
Down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990, the United States currently ranks 23rd in infant mortality rate.
Down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960, the United States has fallen to rank 20th in life expectancy for women.
Down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960, the United States now ranks 21st in life expectancy for men.
Overall, the United States is ranked 67th for immunizations. Individually, immunization ranks range from 50th to 100th.
The United States ranks below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations as shown by studies on various diseases.
Despite having some of the finest-trained health care providers and the most excellent medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation, the United States still—in relation to other industrialized nations—ranks poorly(3).
1. "The World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems." www.geographic.org. World Health Organization. 9 Mar. 2007
The average ranking for the United States on 16 health indicators in a 1998 comparative study of 13 countries was twelfth, second from the bottom. The top five, in decreasing order, were Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, and Australia.
In another study of 11 Western countries, the United States was ranked last with respect to its primary care base and its per capita health care expenditures (the highest), while ranking poorly on public satisfaction, health indicators, and use of medication.
A 2000 study by the World Health Organization based on various indicators (including disability-adjusted life expectancy, child survival to five years of age, social disparities in care, experiences with the health care system, and out-of-pocket health care expenditures) found the average ranking of the United States to be fifteenth out of 25 countries.
A 1998 meta-analysis of 39 prospective studies in U.S. hospitals estimated that more than 2.2 million patients had serious adverse drug reactions in 1994, resulting in 106,000 deaths.
A 2000 report on the epidemiology of medical error estimated that about 1 million preventable injuries occur to U.S. patients each year; these include transfusion errors, adverse drug events, surgery on the wrong side, and mistaken identity.
The U.S. per capita healthcare expense of $5,635 in 2003 is over twice the OECD median of $2,307. Yet Americans are at or below median OECD levels in health quality per standard indicators
2005 OECD healthcare data, October 12, 2005 edition. Available online at http://www.oecd.org under health statistics
Again John....you can come to terms with the fact that the US spends more money on lower quality healthcare than our global peers...or you can choose not to...but just remember what such behavior does to your credibility.
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 04:16 PMText of the report MSNBC referred to:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final.pdf?section=4039
It's only 40 pages, but you can read the footnoted references as well if that isn't enough for you....
Now, explain how life expectancy and infant mortality rates are valid measurements of health care quality. Those are cultural measurements, not health care measurements.
In the only measurement that actually measured health care quality, the US ranked number one.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 06:34 PMHere's a great paper that describes why life expectancy and IMR are bad measurements for actual health care quality.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html
John II,
One of the most amusing things about your postings is to read you informing someone else that they are:
"so committed to your ideology that you'll blindly and foolishly accept any "study", report or news item as long as it seems to validate your beliefs. Not only that, but you'll go around citing bogus studies as truth even though you've never even read it yourself."
This coming, from a totally committed ideologue such as yourself is truly laughable.
But then, you are "channelling" what you refer to as, "George Washington"; and you are showing that you consistently do nothing more than "think IN the box" - the box of a long dead corpse.
Jay,
You have been trying to make the exact same point I offered, way back on the line. And, as you see, when John II cites a study, it "means" what HE says it "means"; but, when he is challenged to uphold that point, the study becomes "bogus", or "isn't the same", or "didn't say/mean that", or . . . whatever cop-out John II runs to at that moment.
In fact, Jay, John II has NO real credibility, anywhere other than in the claque of his fellow ideologues, all of whom seem to regard him as the "prophet, seer, and revelator" of "unrestrained capitalist free enterprise", according HIS interpretation of the "exact wording" of the Constitution, as those words were chisled in stone in 1789.
That's why he never answers a question concerning a position, or posited premise, with anything other than another rhetorical question, or a brush-off along the lines of the "I never said that in the first place; or if I said it, I meant something else anyway" response. And his lack of any credibility is also why he has NOTHING to offer in the way of constructive ideas for solutions to either present problems or potential future gains, growth, and benefits for others as the world progresses through the 21st Century.
But, I am sure you know that by now. So, all I can offer is, just ignore him. He'll go on conning others into attempting to deal with his nonsenseical fixations - just as James Jones does - and that's just one reason the forum is fun. We get to watch someone trying to nail jello to a wall in the one case, and someone else trying to dialogue with the brain dead in another.
In the meantime, those of us who have ideas can, and should, dialogue among ourselves as we go along. The John IIs and James Joneses may be an amusing diversion; but real attempts to deal with the REAL world shouldn't cease just because they, and/or their claque, blunder in.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 20, 2007 11:49 AMJohn I've given you credible, valid information supporting my position.
I'd rather not have to debunk your myth about the US having the best healthcare in the world again...so for the last time...do you have any questions or are we done here?
Posted by jay on October 20, 2007 10:47 PM