rushmc 23 #26 October 27, 2007 QuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 October 27, 2007 QuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures And by the way. the "numbers" you throw out are left talking points. I do not scept them as anything other than that. Much like the boy the Dems used to put out thier lies. He was covered. Now his mama is an activist for full gov run health care. Another family used for propoganda by the libs to further thier lies"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 October 27, 2007 And gov will only make it worse"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #29 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote. Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government? And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better. And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #30 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Social Security is broken. I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently. Bill Clinton said pretty much the same thing: 22 Sept., 1993 televised speech by WJ Clinton: ....."the costliest and most wasteful system on the face of the Earth"....."most urgent priority"....."the challenge of our time."... I may be mistaken but was not that specific speech the one regarding healthcare reform? On a relative scale which system is having more problems currently healthcare or Social Security? And why? VR/Marg SS is the one headed toward failure. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too SS is solvent and will remain solvent for a long time. Any crisis, if it actually happens, is a long way off and will be due to failure of our political leadership to make adjustments necessitated by the demographics of the US population. If the politicians fail it will be due to their being spineless toads. Like Bush, who twice promised to fix it as a matter of priority, but has done sweet FA in 7 years. And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #31 October 27, 2007 The leftist numbers you're talking about were comprised by Bush's panel on public health........so if you think they're not real talk to them. And it's actually 18k that die a year because of lack of healthcare. QuoteQuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures And by the way. the "numbers" you throw out are left talking points. I do not scept them as anything other than that. Much like the boy the Dems used to put out thier lies. He was covered. Now his mama is an activist for full gov run health care. Another family used for propoganda by the libs to further thier lies...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance.Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Social Security is broken. I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently. Bill Clinton said pretty much the same thing: 22 Sept., 1993 televised speech by WJ Clinton: ....."the costliest and most wasteful system on the face of the Earth"....."most urgent priority"....."the challenge of our time."... I may be mistaken but was not that specific speech the one regarding healthcare reform? On a relative scale which system is having more problems currently healthcare or Social Security? And why? VR/Marg SS is the one headed toward failure. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too SS is solvent and will remain solvent for a long time. Any crisis, if it actually happens, is a long way off and will be due to failure of our political leadership to make adjustments necessitated by the demographics of the US population. If the politicians fail it will be due to their being spineless toads. Like Bush, who twice promised to fix it as a matter of priority, but has done sweet FA in 7 years. And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 October 27, 2007 QuoteThe leftist numbers you're talking about were comprised by Bush's panel on public health........so if you think they're not real talk to them. And it's actually 18k that die a year because of lack of healthcare. QuoteQuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures And by the way. the "numbers" you throw out are left talking points. I do not scept them as anything other than that. Much like the boy the Dems used to put out thier lies. He was covered. Now his mama is an activist for full gov run health care. Another family used for propoganda by the libs to further thier lies Link please"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #35 October 27, 2007 Quote And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carroll) is a wonderful book. Reading your posts reminds me of it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 October 27, 2007 Quote Quote And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carroll) is a wonderful book. Reading your posts reminds me of it. I still await your proposal to fix SS or anything else for that matter. You bitch and complain with the best and you offer nothing, like a turd, fffllllllluuuuussshhhhhhhhhhhh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #37 October 27, 2007 Quote Quote Quote And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carroll) is a wonderful book. Reading your posts reminds me of it. I still await your proposal to fix SS or anything else for that matter. You bitch and complain with the best and you offer nothing, like a turd, fffllllllluuuuussshhhhhhhhhhhh OH, now it's MY job to fix it because BUSH and the GOP controlled Senate and the GOP controlled House couldn't manage it during the 4 years they had total control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Right. Back to the mirror with you. (and quit with the name calling).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #38 October 27, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carroll) is a wonderful book. Reading your posts reminds me of it. I still await your proposal to fix SS or anything else for that matter. You bitch and complain with the best and you offer nothing, like a turd, fffllllllluuuuussshhhhhhhhhhhh OH, now it's MY job to fix it because BUSH and the GOP controlled Senate and the GOP controlled House couldn't manage it during the 4 years they had total control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Right. Back to the mirror with you. (and quit with the name calling). My name calling is a little more direct than yours. Sorry it is hard for you to deal with. Still waiting for your solution. I will get a beer while I wait, maybe a 12 pack, gonna be a long time. Solutions were offered, your side stopped them, your turn ffflfllllluuuuuusssshhhhhhhhhhh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #39 October 27, 2007 Quote Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Please ignore the claim that Mr. Clinton considered SS to be an urgent priority in 1993. I unintentionally quoted a statement he made regarding healthcare, and not SS. I'm currently enrolled in an adult remedial reading program and still have trouble at times. Note that an alert reader replied to my post with: "I may be mistaken but was not that specific speech the one regarding healthcare reform?" I then deleted the post, but any replies that quoted it will live on. ------------------------------------------------- "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #40 October 27, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carroll) is a wonderful book. Reading your posts reminds me of it. I still await your proposal to fix SS or anything else for that matter. You bitch and complain with the best and you offer nothing, like a turd, fffllllllluuuuussshhhhhhhhhhhh OH, now it's MY job to fix it because BUSH and the GOP controlled Senate and the GOP controlled House couldn't manage it during the 4 years they had total control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Right. Back to the mirror with you. (and quit with the name calling). My name calling is a little more direct than yours. Sorry it is hard for you to deal with. Still waiting for your solution. I will get a beer while I wait, maybe a 12 pack, gonna be a long time. Solutions were offered, your side stopped them, your turn ffflfllllluuuuuusssshhhhhhhhhhh Clicky.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #41 October 27, 2007 Quote I'm currently enrolled in an adult remedial reading program and still have trouble at times. ---------------------------------------- Yeah, that's OK.Perhaps you would be kind enough to send Rushmc the details of the program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #42 October 27, 2007 Quote Quote I'm currently enrolled in an adult remedial reading program and still have trouble at times. ---------------------------------------- Yeah, that's OK.Perhaps you would be kind enough to send Rushmc the details of the program. Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. Way upthread you said that SS has not been fixed because the politicians are spineless toads, and you named GWB as an example and mentioned his promise that it was his "top priority". What have non-GOP Presidents done about it? What priority did President Clinton give to SS reform? What were the results? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #43 October 27, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I'm currently enrolled in an adult remedial reading program and still have trouble at times. ---------------------------------------- Yeah, that's OK.Perhaps you would be kind enough to send Rushmc the details of the program. Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ? Social security is not currently broken and is viable for decades: clicky I think you'll find the source credible. Bush's top priority: "Well, first, I made Social Security an issue. For those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis, for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis, you might remember, every speech I talked about the duty of an American president to lead. And we must lead on Social Security, because the system is not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren." GWB 11/4/2004 "Reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration." GWB, 11/4/2004 "Fixing Social Security is our No. 1 priority", GWB, Republican National Convention, 2000. I take it you need no evidence that nothing has been done, and that you are well aware the GOP had control of both the House and Senate from 2002 - 2006.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #44 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ? Social security is not currently broken and is viable for decades: clicky I think you'll find the source credible. Bush's top priority: "Well, first, I made Social Security an issue. For those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis, for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis, you might remember, every speech I talked about the duty of an American president to lead. And we must lead on Social Security, because the system is not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren." GWB 11/4/2004 "Reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration." GWB, 11/4/2004 "Fixing Social Security is our No. 1 priority", GWB, Republican National Convention, 2000. I take it you need no evidence that nothing has been done, and that you are well aware the GOP had control of both the House and Senate from 2002 - 2006. You made no attempt to answer the question I asked, choosing instead to answer one I didn't ask. You also removed the question when you quoted my post. If you are unwilling to answer the question, just say so. Please also tell me why you are unwilling to answer if that's the case. Asking again: What have non-GOP Presidents done about it? What priority did President Clinton give to SS reform? What were the results? BTW, I agree that SS is currently well funded (out to 2043 or or so). I also agree that GWB claimed on more than one occassion that SS was his top priority. And, yes Republicans controlled the votes up until '06. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #45 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Social Security is broken. I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently. Bill Clinton said pretty much the same thing: 22 Sept., 1993 televised speech by WJ Clinton: ....."the costliest and most wasteful system on the face of the Earth"....."most urgent priority"....."the challenge of our time."... I may be mistaken but was not that specific speech the one regarding healthcare reform? On a relative scale which system is having more problems currently healthcare or Social Security? And why? VR/Marg SS is the one headed toward failure. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too SS is solvent and will remain solvent for a long time. Any crisis, if it actually happens, is a long way off and will be due to failure of our political leadership to make adjustments necessitated by the demographics of the US population. If the politicians fail it will be due to their being spineless toads. Like Bush, who twice promised to fix it as a matter of priority, but has done sweet FA in 7 years. And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Compliant Media? Who's side is holding phony FEMA news conferences, giving congress censored versions of global warming reports, or only allowing unrecorded & wouldn't touch being underoath meetings with the 911 commission? Wake up man.......the coffee is brewing....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #46 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ? Social security is not currently broken and is viable for decades: clicky I think you'll find the source credible. Bush's top priority: "Well, first, I made Social Security an issue. For those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis, for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis, you might remember, every speech I talked about the duty of an American president to lead. And we must lead on Social Security, because the system is not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren." GWB 11/4/2004 "Reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration." GWB, 11/4/2004 "Fixing Social Security is our No. 1 priority", GWB, Republican National Convention, 2000. I take it you need no evidence that nothing has been done, and that you are well aware the GOP had control of both the House and Senate from 2002 - 2006. You made no attempt to answer the question I asked, choosing instead to answer one I didn't ask. You also removed the question when you quoted my post. If you are unwilling to answer the question, just say so. Please also tell me why you are unwilling to answer if that's the case. Asking again: What have non-GOP Presidents done about it? What priority did President Clinton give to SS reform? What were the results? BTW, I agree that SS is currently well funded (out to 2043 or or so). I also agree that GWB claimed on more than one occassion that SS was his top priority. And, yes Republicans controlled the votes up until '06. I was responding to your statement: "Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ?" So I gave the evidence. Your question is moot. It was a GOP president that used SS as a panic issue to win votes in two successive elections, when the data show clearly that there is no need for panic at all. And having thus raised the stakes, he then did F.A. about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #47 October 27, 2007 Neither isn't a solution..........it's avoiding the question. Letting the public deal with it obviously hasn't worked............notice how there's so many ways that the insurance companies can choose not to cover stuff. Do you think that was like that when they first started? Obviously not.......so then are consumers happy about it? Obviously not. So there alone your theory has failed. Now.......will insurance companies listen more to customers or the government? Obviously the government, they have more power. So why hasn't anything been done about that? Gee you think it has anything to do with the insurance company special interest groups bribing congress reps for votes? Broken, not working. So you don't believe in the privilidged few...........take Mr Bush for instance. Let's say he didn't inherit his millions or billions, who knows. Where do you think he would be today without the family's money? He didn't earn it. Do you think he ever needed to worry about healthcare? There's just one of the priviledged few. Then look at a kid raised by a single mother who makes $20k a year.......which do you think is gonna get better healthcare? Not one of the priviledged few. I believe in taking care of everybody equally.........the country's benefits isn't just for the top 1%.....it's for everybody. QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance.Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #48 October 27, 2007 QuoteU.S. Advisers Call for Universal Health Care [Bob Dole agrees] Reuters ^ | January 14, 2004 | Maggie Fox Posted on 01/14/2004 10:14:35 AM PST by ejdrapes U.S. Advisers Call for Universal Health Care WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saying 18,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance, federal advisers said on Wednesday the U.S. government must come up with universal health coverage by 2010. The Institute of Medicine, an independent, non-profit group which advises Congress and the federal government on health matters, said taxpayers are paying for 43 million uninsured Americans anyway -- and footing a much bigger bill than they would if those people had decent health care. "The president and Congress should strive to achieve universal health coverage in the United States by 2010," the institute said in a statement. "Uninsured Americans get about half the medical care of those with health insurance," it added. "As a result, they tend to be sicker and die sooner." The institute, one of the National Academies of Sciences, said it was releasing the report in an attempt to influence the November elections. "This report appears at the beginning of an election year," institute president Dr. Harvey Fineberg told a news conference. He said he hoped health insurance would be a major national issue. "This report ... is our contribution to a reinvigorated discussion," he said. Congress has struggled with the issue for more than a decade. Since 1994, when then-President Bill Clinton comprehensive health care initiative collapsed in Congress, lawmakers have adopted a piecemeal approach to the problem of the uninsured, creating programs to expand coverage for children or make it easier for people to stay insured when they switch jobs. And late last year the Republican-led Congress added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in legislation that Democrats are already attacking. But lawmakers have not tackled another sweeping initiative. It is costing money, the institute said. "Tax dollars paid for an estimated 85 percent of the roughly $35 billion in unreimbursed medical care for the uninsured in 2001," it said. It said some hospitals had closed because of the burden of having to treat very sick people for free, leaving some communities underserved. "The United States loses the equivalent of $65 billion to $130 billion annually as a result of the poor health and early deaths of uninsured adults," the institute said. "HEALTH CARE COVERAGE SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL" The institute said it would not recommend any particular form of universal health care. Congress may choose to extend the Medicare and Medicaid programs, for instance -- the joint federal-state health insurance plans for the elderly, poor and disabled. But it laid out several principles that should be followed. "Health care coverage should be universal," it said. "Health care coverage should be continuous ... affordable to individuals and families ... affordable and sustainable to society," it added. "And it should be "effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered and equitable." Former Republican senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole agreed it was time for some form of universal health care but said the idea faced formidable obstacles. "How do you pay for it and how do you make it work?" he asked at the press conference. "The federal government can't carry the entire load for everything." Dole noted that some states had begun designing their own systems, and said people also had to take personal responsibility. For instance, he said he discovered a woman working in his home had no health coverage. A Dole staffer later said Dole had bought the woman private health insurance. ...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #49 October 27, 2007 QuoteI was responding to your statement: "Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ?" So I gave the evidence. Your question is moot. It was a GOP president that used SS as a panic issue to win votes in two successive elections, when the data show clearly that there is no need for panic at all. And having thus raised the stakes, he then did F.A. about it. I asked: "What have non-GOP Presidents done about it? What priority did President Clinton give to SS reform? What were the results?" You consider the question above to be moot and refuse to answer, even though you're well aware that (future) SS solvency was a national issue well before 2001. ......... Another quick question: In the concealed weapon thread "10 things non-gun people...", mnealtx and I were examining statistics and essays related to criminality of CCW holders. When I posted links to a couple studies, I made this statement: "....found a couple reports but havn't looked at them closely. I'm very leery about claims that people on both sides of the issue make, and want to study the reports [first]....." Would you consider my interest in ensuring that no flawed or misleading information/citations/data be used in support of my assertions (even though it would go unnoticed by others) to be a good thing? Bad thing? Don't care? Just curious. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #50 October 27, 2007 Quote[ Would you consider my interest in ensuring that no flawed or misleading information/citations/data be used in support of my assertions (even though it would go unnoticed by others) to be a good thing? Bad thing? Don't care? Just curious. I think it is very cool that you take the trouble. As for presidents before Bush, the baby boom has been in existence since the 1940s and no-one has done a whole lot about the impact it will have on SS, so you can blame all of them. Bush(2) is the only one that called it his top priority, though, while achieving bugger-all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
sv3n 0 #45 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Social Security is broken. I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently. Bill Clinton said pretty much the same thing: 22 Sept., 1993 televised speech by WJ Clinton: ....."the costliest and most wasteful system on the face of the Earth"....."most urgent priority"....."the challenge of our time."... I may be mistaken but was not that specific speech the one regarding healthcare reform? On a relative scale which system is having more problems currently healthcare or Social Security? And why? VR/Marg SS is the one headed toward failure. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too SS is solvent and will remain solvent for a long time. Any crisis, if it actually happens, is a long way off and will be due to failure of our political leadership to make adjustments necessitated by the demographics of the US population. If the politicians fail it will be due to their being spineless toads. Like Bush, who twice promised to fix it as a matter of priority, but has done sweet FA in 7 years. And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Compliant Media? Who's side is holding phony FEMA news conferences, giving congress censored versions of global warming reports, or only allowing unrecorded & wouldn't touch being underoath meetings with the 911 commission? Wake up man.......the coffee is brewing....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #46 October 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ? Social security is not currently broken and is viable for decades: clicky I think you'll find the source credible. Bush's top priority: "Well, first, I made Social Security an issue. For those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis, for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis, you might remember, every speech I talked about the duty of an American president to lead. And we must lead on Social Security, because the system is not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren." GWB 11/4/2004 "Reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration." GWB, 11/4/2004 "Fixing Social Security is our No. 1 priority", GWB, Republican National Convention, 2000. I take it you need no evidence that nothing has been done, and that you are well aware the GOP had control of both the House and Senate from 2002 - 2006. You made no attempt to answer the question I asked, choosing instead to answer one I didn't ask. You also removed the question when you quoted my post. If you are unwilling to answer the question, just say so. Please also tell me why you are unwilling to answer if that's the case. Asking again: What have non-GOP Presidents done about it? What priority did President Clinton give to SS reform? What were the results? BTW, I agree that SS is currently well funded (out to 2043 or or so). I also agree that GWB claimed on more than one occassion that SS was his top priority. And, yes Republicans controlled the votes up until '06. I was responding to your statement: "Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ?" So I gave the evidence. Your question is moot. It was a GOP president that used SS as a panic issue to win votes in two successive elections, when the data show clearly that there is no need for panic at all. And having thus raised the stakes, he then did F.A. about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #47 October 27, 2007 Neither isn't a solution..........it's avoiding the question. Letting the public deal with it obviously hasn't worked............notice how there's so many ways that the insurance companies can choose not to cover stuff. Do you think that was like that when they first started? Obviously not.......so then are consumers happy about it? Obviously not. So there alone your theory has failed. Now.......will insurance companies listen more to customers or the government? Obviously the government, they have more power. So why hasn't anything been done about that? Gee you think it has anything to do with the insurance company special interest groups bribing congress reps for votes? Broken, not working. So you don't believe in the privilidged few...........take Mr Bush for instance. Let's say he didn't inherit his millions or billions, who knows. Where do you think he would be today without the family's money? He didn't earn it. Do you think he ever needed to worry about healthcare? There's just one of the priviledged few. Then look at a kid raised by a single mother who makes $20k a year.......which do you think is gonna get better healthcare? Not one of the priviledged few. I believe in taking care of everybody equally.........the country's benefits isn't just for the top 1%.....it's for everybody. QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance.Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #48 October 27, 2007 QuoteU.S. Advisers Call for Universal Health Care [Bob Dole agrees] Reuters ^ | January 14, 2004 | Maggie Fox Posted on 01/14/2004 10:14:35 AM PST by ejdrapes U.S. Advisers Call for Universal Health Care WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saying 18,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance, federal advisers said on Wednesday the U.S. government must come up with universal health coverage by 2010. The Institute of Medicine, an independent, non-profit group which advises Congress and the federal government on health matters, said taxpayers are paying for 43 million uninsured Americans anyway -- and footing a much bigger bill than they would if those people had decent health care. "The president and Congress should strive to achieve universal health coverage in the United States by 2010," the institute said in a statement. "Uninsured Americans get about half the medical care of those with health insurance," it added. "As a result, they tend to be sicker and die sooner." The institute, one of the National Academies of Sciences, said it was releasing the report in an attempt to influence the November elections. "This report appears at the beginning of an election year," institute president Dr. Harvey Fineberg told a news conference. He said he hoped health insurance would be a major national issue. "This report ... is our contribution to a reinvigorated discussion," he said. Congress has struggled with the issue for more than a decade. Since 1994, when then-President Bill Clinton comprehensive health care initiative collapsed in Congress, lawmakers have adopted a piecemeal approach to the problem of the uninsured, creating programs to expand coverage for children or make it easier for people to stay insured when they switch jobs. And late last year the Republican-led Congress added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in legislation that Democrats are already attacking. But lawmakers have not tackled another sweeping initiative. It is costing money, the institute said. "Tax dollars paid for an estimated 85 percent of the roughly $35 billion in unreimbursed medical care for the uninsured in 2001," it said. It said some hospitals had closed because of the burden of having to treat very sick people for free, leaving some communities underserved. "The United States loses the equivalent of $65 billion to $130 billion annually as a result of the poor health and early deaths of uninsured adults," the institute said. "HEALTH CARE COVERAGE SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL" The institute said it would not recommend any particular form of universal health care. Congress may choose to extend the Medicare and Medicaid programs, for instance -- the joint federal-state health insurance plans for the elderly, poor and disabled. But it laid out several principles that should be followed. "Health care coverage should be universal," it said. "Health care coverage should be continuous ... affordable to individuals and families ... affordable and sustainable to society," it added. "And it should be "effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered and equitable." Former Republican senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole agreed it was time for some form of universal health care but said the idea faced formidable obstacles. "How do you pay for it and how do you make it work?" he asked at the press conference. "The federal government can't carry the entire load for everything." Dole noted that some states had begun designing their own systems, and said people also had to take personal responsibility. For instance, he said he discovered a woman working in his home had no health coverage. A Dole staffer later said Dole had bought the woman private health insurance. ...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #49 October 27, 2007 QuoteI was responding to your statement: "Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ?" So I gave the evidence. Your question is moot. It was a GOP president that used SS as a panic issue to win votes in two successive elections, when the data show clearly that there is no need for panic at all. And having thus raised the stakes, he then did F.A. about it. I asked: "What have non-GOP Presidents done about it? What priority did President Clinton give to SS reform? What were the results?" You consider the question above to be moot and refuse to answer, even though you're well aware that (future) SS solvency was a national issue well before 2001. ......... Another quick question: In the concealed weapon thread "10 things non-gun people...", mnealtx and I were examining statistics and essays related to criminality of CCW holders. When I posted links to a couple studies, I made this statement: "....found a couple reports but havn't looked at them closely. I'm very leery about claims that people on both sides of the issue make, and want to study the reports [first]....." Would you consider my interest in ensuring that no flawed or misleading information/citations/data be used in support of my assertions (even though it would go unnoticed by others) to be a good thing? Bad thing? Don't care? Just curious. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #50 October 27, 2007 Quote[ Would you consider my interest in ensuring that no flawed or misleading information/citations/data be used in support of my assertions (even though it would go unnoticed by others) to be a good thing? Bad thing? Don't care? Just curious. I think it is very cool that you take the trouble. As for presidents before Bush, the baby boom has been in existence since the 1940s and no-one has done a whole lot about the impact it will have on SS, so you can blame all of them. Bush(2) is the only one that called it his top priority, though, while achieving bugger-all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
sv3n 0 #47 October 27, 2007 Neither isn't a solution..........it's avoiding the question. Letting the public deal with it obviously hasn't worked............notice how there's so many ways that the insurance companies can choose not to cover stuff. Do you think that was like that when they first started? Obviously not.......so then are consumers happy about it? Obviously not. So there alone your theory has failed. Now.......will insurance companies listen more to customers or the government? Obviously the government, they have more power. So why hasn't anything been done about that? Gee you think it has anything to do with the insurance company special interest groups bribing congress reps for votes? Broken, not working. So you don't believe in the privilidged few...........take Mr Bush for instance. Let's say he didn't inherit his millions or billions, who knows. Where do you think he would be today without the family's money? He didn't earn it. Do you think he ever needed to worry about healthcare? There's just one of the priviledged few. Then look at a kid raised by a single mother who makes $20k a year.......which do you think is gonna get better healthcare? Not one of the priviledged few. I believe in taking care of everybody equally.........the country's benefits isn't just for the top 1%.....it's for everybody. QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. QuoteQuoteQuoteSS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance.Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #48 October 27, 2007 QuoteU.S. Advisers Call for Universal Health Care [Bob Dole agrees] Reuters ^ | January 14, 2004 | Maggie Fox Posted on 01/14/2004 10:14:35 AM PST by ejdrapes U.S. Advisers Call for Universal Health Care WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saying 18,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance, federal advisers said on Wednesday the U.S. government must come up with universal health coverage by 2010. The Institute of Medicine, an independent, non-profit group which advises Congress and the federal government on health matters, said taxpayers are paying for 43 million uninsured Americans anyway -- and footing a much bigger bill than they would if those people had decent health care. "The president and Congress should strive to achieve universal health coverage in the United States by 2010," the institute said in a statement. "Uninsured Americans get about half the medical care of those with health insurance," it added. "As a result, they tend to be sicker and die sooner." The institute, one of the National Academies of Sciences, said it was releasing the report in an attempt to influence the November elections. "This report appears at the beginning of an election year," institute president Dr. Harvey Fineberg told a news conference. He said he hoped health insurance would be a major national issue. "This report ... is our contribution to a reinvigorated discussion," he said. Congress has struggled with the issue for more than a decade. Since 1994, when then-President Bill Clinton comprehensive health care initiative collapsed in Congress, lawmakers have adopted a piecemeal approach to the problem of the uninsured, creating programs to expand coverage for children or make it easier for people to stay insured when they switch jobs. And late last year the Republican-led Congress added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in legislation that Democrats are already attacking. But lawmakers have not tackled another sweeping initiative. It is costing money, the institute said. "Tax dollars paid for an estimated 85 percent of the roughly $35 billion in unreimbursed medical care for the uninsured in 2001," it said. It said some hospitals had closed because of the burden of having to treat very sick people for free, leaving some communities underserved. "The United States loses the equivalent of $65 billion to $130 billion annually as a result of the poor health and early deaths of uninsured adults," the institute said. "HEALTH CARE COVERAGE SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL" The institute said it would not recommend any particular form of universal health care. Congress may choose to extend the Medicare and Medicaid programs, for instance -- the joint federal-state health insurance plans for the elderly, poor and disabled. But it laid out several principles that should be followed. "Health care coverage should be universal," it said. "Health care coverage should be continuous ... affordable to individuals and families ... affordable and sustainable to society," it added. "And it should be "effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered and equitable." Former Republican senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole agreed it was time for some form of universal health care but said the idea faced formidable obstacles. "How do you pay for it and how do you make it work?" he asked at the press conference. "The federal government can't carry the entire load for everything." Dole noted that some states had begun designing their own systems, and said people also had to take personal responsibility. For instance, he said he discovered a woman working in his home had no health coverage. A Dole staffer later said Dole had bought the woman private health insurance. ...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #49 October 27, 2007 QuoteI was responding to your statement: "Neither one of you have made an effort to support your arguments. ?" So I gave the evidence. Your question is moot. It was a GOP president that used SS as a panic issue to win votes in two successive elections, when the data show clearly that there is no need for panic at all. And having thus raised the stakes, he then did F.A. about it. I asked: "What have non-GOP Presidents done about it? What priority did President Clinton give to SS reform? What were the results?" You consider the question above to be moot and refuse to answer, even though you're well aware that (future) SS solvency was a national issue well before 2001. ......... Another quick question: In the concealed weapon thread "10 things non-gun people...", mnealtx and I were examining statistics and essays related to criminality of CCW holders. When I posted links to a couple studies, I made this statement: "....found a couple reports but havn't looked at them closely. I'm very leery about claims that people on both sides of the issue make, and want to study the reports [first]....." Would you consider my interest in ensuring that no flawed or misleading information/citations/data be used in support of my assertions (even though it would go unnoticed by others) to be a good thing? Bad thing? Don't care? Just curious. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #50 October 27, 2007 Quote[ Would you consider my interest in ensuring that no flawed or misleading information/citations/data be used in support of my assertions (even though it would go unnoticed by others) to be a good thing? Bad thing? Don't care? Just curious. I think it is very cool that you take the trouble. As for presidents before Bush, the baby boom has been in existence since the 1940s and no-one has done a whole lot about the impact it will have on SS, so you can blame all of them. Bush(2) is the only one that called it his top priority, though, while achieving bugger-all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
