billvon 3,009 #26 September 5, 2009 >Right but I wouldn't call the cold war a military success. I'd consider it a success however you measure it. Getting an enemy's country to collapse without firing a shot is the dream of most leaders. Even some of the wiser military commanders, who have seen the human cost of combat, might prefer such a victory. >Also wasn't Reagan's budget largely responsible? Well, military spending helped scare the USSR and spur them on to ever more expensive military endeavors, so yes, that helped. On the other hand, the recession during his presidency didn't help the cause much. Every president did their part. Kennedy got the Russians to back down during the Cuban missile crisis without firing a shot. Bush I took a more measured approach to the USSR, and made it seem to the world like a conflict between an evil empire and a good one. The one common thread was that they were all wise enough not to start a war that would have destroyed both countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #27 September 5, 2009 Quote Quote Marc, the real point of the article is that the straw man of "death panels" already exist with private insurance companies. That's absolutely true. That argument against the new health plan is a bullshit argument. But I hate taking data points and using them as though they exist in a vacuum. However, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a single, centralized insurance company form. That would not fix all of the problems and rejections. But if it could reduce wrong-information rejections noticeably, that's probably substantive. Sounds like a L6S project Wendy P. Sorry Wendy, I don't agree. The only way to control costs in a system like what is proposed it to limit coverage. Someone will have to decide. It is not bullshit. Look at Canada and the just recent reports from the UK. The article is a hit piece not news. A piece to help with the Obama agenda with which they obviously agree In other words, you are 100% in favor of corporate death panels run by private insurance companies, who answer only to their management and shareholders, and 100% opposed to federal death panels that would be answerable to elected officials, and indirectly to the American people. BRILLIANT!!! That is very logical way of thinking... NOT The Medicare program was first proposed by Pres Truman. JFK tried to get it passed, and failed. Johnson finally signed it into law. The first person enrolled was the father of Medicare, Pres Truman. The righty opposition said the same shit then, as they are now. They kept it from happening for 20 years. Marc, I'll bet you are really proud of their efforts and sad that they weren't successful. Your kind FAILED to prevent socialized medicine from happening, and it has become WILDY popular. Maybe the opposition was totally wrong, Marc. Maybe Medicare is actually a really good thing. It could be that a public option to keep the insurance companies in check is a good idea. After all, the opposition is from the same folks that opposed Medicare. The way I see it, they were wrong then, and are wrong now. Single payer would level the ecomonic playing field for American Industry, at least what is left of it since the R war on the middle class. Job mobility is MASSIVELY hindered by the private insurance DEBACLE that has been foisted on us. People stay in jobs they hate, that have no future, just so that they don't lose health insurance. EVERY OTHER civilized democracy has some form of national health insurance for their citizens. The USA is the only one that doesn't. The lack of economic mobility for the workforce, due to insurance issues, is one of the real issues that isn't being discussed. These concepts are too difficult for the rightys to understand, so they oppose the ideas without any understanding at all. The that thought that we might do something that actually helps the average US citizen is something that they simply cannot allow, if we let them get away with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #28 September 5, 2009 Quote The only way to control costs in a system like what is proposed it to limit coverage. Someone will have to decide. So could you please explain what's going to be different comparing to what we have right now?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 September 5, 2009 Quote So you're saying that when the government does it, it's a death panel, and when private insurance companies do it, it's just controlling costs?Wendy P. No, not at all"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 #30 September 5, 2009 Quote Quote Quote >The cold war was an economic win. Had we actually gone to war we would >have lost. That's what I mean. We were smart enough to engage the USSR in an arena where we had the advantage. Right but I wouldn't call the cold war a military success. Also wasn't Reagan's budget largely responsible? SO you disagree with bodypilot90, then, The govt. CAN do things right. Yes, those things they are constitutionally allowed to do"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 #31 September 5, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Marc, the real point of the article is that the straw man of "death panels" already exist with private insurance companies. That's absolutely true. That argument against the new health plan is a bullshit argument. But I hate taking data points and using them as though they exist in a vacuum. However, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a single, centralized insurance company form. That would not fix all of the problems and rejections. But if it could reduce wrong-information rejections noticeably, that's probably substantive. Sounds like a L6S project Wendy P. Sorry Wendy, I don't agree. The only way to control costs in a system like what is proposed it to limit coverage. Someone will have to decide. It is not bullshit. Look at Canada and the just recent reports from the UK. The article is a hit piece not news. A piece to help with the Obama agenda with which they obviously agree In other words, you are 100% in favor of corporate death panels run by private insurance companies, who answer only to their management and shareholders, and 100% opposed to federal death panels that would be answerable to elected officials, and indirectly to the American people. BRILLIANT!!! That is very logical way of thinking... NOT The Medicare program was first proposed by Pres Truman. JFK tried to get it passed, and failed. Johnson finally signed it into law. The first person enrolled was the father of Medicare, Pres Truman. The righty opposition said the same shit then, as they are now. They kept it from happening for 20 years. Marc, I'll bet you are really proud of their efforts and sad that they weren't successful. Your kind FAILED to prevent socialized medicine from happening, and it has become WILDY popular. Maybe the opposition was totally wrong, Marc. Maybe Medicare is actually a really good thing. It could be that a public option to keep the insurance companies in check is a good idea. After all, the opposition is from the same folks that opposed Medicare. The way I see it, they were wrong then, and are wrong now. Single payer would level the ecomonic playing field for American Industry, at least what is left of it since the R war on the middle class. Job mobility is MASSIVELY hindered by the private insurance DEBACLE that has been foisted on us. People stay in jobs they hate, that have no future, just so that they don't lose health insurance. EVERY OTHER civilized democracy has some form of national health insurance for their citizens. The USA is the only one that doesn't. The lack of economic mobility for the workforce, due to insurance issues, is one of the real issues that isn't being discussed. These concepts are too difficult for the rightys to understand, so they oppose the ideas without any understanding at all. The that thought that we might do something that actually helps the average US citizen is something that they simply cannot allow, if we let them get away with it. Wow, you must think you are good as assuming! "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 2,032 #32 September 5, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote >The cold war was an economic win. Had we actually gone to war we would >have lost. That's what I mean. We were smart enough to engage the USSR in an arena where we had the advantage. Right but I wouldn't call the cold war a military success. Also wasn't Reagan's budget largely responsible? SO you disagree with bodypilot90, then, The govt. CAN do things right. Not necessarily. Especially in light of the phrase even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and a while. So now you're equating President Reagan with a blind squirrel. OK.... 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
funjumper101 15 #33 September 5, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Marc, the real point of the article is that the straw man of "death panels" already exist with private insurance companies. That's absolutely true. That argument against the new health plan is a bullshit argument. But I hate taking data points and using them as though they exist in a vacuum. However, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a single, centralized insurance company form. That would not fix all of the problems and rejections. But if it could reduce wrong-information rejections noticeably, that's probably substantive. Sounds like a L6S project Wendy P. Sorry Wendy, I don't agree. The only way to control costs in a system like what is proposed it to limit coverage. Someone will have to decide. It is not bullshit. Look at Canada and the just recent reports from the UK. The article is a hit piece not news. A piece to help with the Obama agenda with which they obviously agree In other words, you are 100% in favor of corporate death panels run by private insurance companies, who answer only to their management and shareholders, and 100% opposed to federal death panels that would be answerable to elected officials, and indirectly to the American people. BRILLIANT!!! That is very logical way of thinking... NOT The Medicare program was first proposed by Pres Truman. JFK tried to get it passed, and failed. Johnson finally signed it into law. The first person enrolled was the father of Medicare, Pres Truman. The righty opposition said the same shit then, as they are now. They kept it from happening for 20 years. Marc, I'll bet you are really proud of their efforts and sad that they weren't successful. Your kind FAILED to prevent socialized medicine from happening, and it has become WILDY popular. Maybe the opposition was totally wrong, Marc. Maybe Medicare is actually a really good thing. It could be that a public option to keep the insurance companies in check is a good idea. After all, the opposition is from the same folks that opposed Medicare. The way I see it, they were wrong then, and are wrong now. Single payer would level the ecomonic playing field for American Industry, at least what is left of it since the R war on the middle class. Job mobility is MASSIVELY hindered by the private insurance DEBACLE that has been foisted on us. People stay in jobs they hate, that have no future, just so that they don't lose health insurance. EVERY OTHER civilized democracy has some form of national health insurance for their citizens. The USA is the only one that doesn't. The lack of economic mobility for the workforce, due to insurance issues, is one of the real issues that isn't being discussed. These concepts are too difficult for the rightys to understand, so they oppose the ideas without any understanding at all. The that thought that we might do something that actually helps the average US citizen is something that they simply cannot allow, if we let them get away with it. Wow, you must think you are good as assuming! What part of what I wrote do YOU think is inaccurate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #34 September 6, 2009 Quote Wow, you must think you are good as assuming! Would you care to rephrase that for those of us who don't understand gobbledegook. Thank you in advance.... 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
bodypilot90 0 #35 September 6, 2009 QuoteLook at the Manhattan and Apollo projects. We can do as good a job as we want to do - or as lousy a job as we want to do. I still think industry could do those better, faster cheaper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #36 September 6, 2009 $100 claw hammers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #37 September 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteLook at the Manhattan and Apollo projects. We can do as good a job as we want to do - or as lousy a job as we want to do. I still think industry could do those better, faster cheaper. AIG sure lost a lot of money better, faster. Must be those big bonuses that the execs get in the private sector.... 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 2,032 #38 September 6, 2009 Quote$100 claw hammers? Yup. It's outrageous that private industry would charge that much for a hammer.... 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
bodypilot90 0 #39 September 8, 2009 Did the gov't buy it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #40 September 8, 2009 >I still think industry could do those better, faster cheaper. Industry isn't in business to achieve goals like landing on the moon or building the first nuclear bomb. They are in business to make money. Landing on the moon didn't make us any money, although the side benefits of that effort, both tangible and intangible, were enormous. It makes a lot of sense for capitalism to take care of some things. It makes a lot of sense for governments to take care of other things. They do not have the same goals, and are not equally suited for all things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #41 September 8, 2009 Quote Any and all that would be elective. How do you define "elective"? Honestly, short of treating a condition that would otherwise be terminal, most medical care is, in a way, "elective", and is a quality of life issue. For example, I can "elect" to treat my chronic migraines, or suffer through them... they're not going to kill me, but it's certainly a quality of life issue. Plastic surgery may seem "elective" on its face, but what about surgery for the baby born with a hairlip or cleft palate? Or reconstructive facial surgery for someone in an auto accident? Or treating someone for burn scarring? Surely a nose job would be strictly "elective", but what about the corrective surgery for the kid with the broken nose? Another example, paying for elective weight loss surgery. Some insurance plans cover this, because they feel that paying for the weight loss surgery is more cost effective than paying for the health complications, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc, that can result from obesity. Some insurance plans are covering LASIK or other vision correction surgery, because it might end up cheaper than a lifetime of glasses and contacts. Covering birth control can be cheaper than covering prenatal care, and birth control is not always just used to prevent pregnancy (acne treatments, prevent headaches, PMS, etc...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
