From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html)

Whether it's dollars spent, group coverage or Medicaid income cutoffs, health care goes hand in hand with numbers. Moore opens his film by giving these statistics, "Fifty million uninsured Americans ... 18,000 people die because they are uninsured."

For the most part, that's true. The latest numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say 43.6 million, or about 15 percent of Americans, were uninsured in 2006. For the past five years, the overall count has fluctuated between 41 million and 44 million people. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

Moore says that the U.S. spends more of its gross domestic product on health care than any other country.

Again, that's true. The United States spends more than 15 percent of its GDP on health care -- no other nation even comes close to that number. France spends about 11 percent, and Canadians spend 10 percent.

Like Moore, we also found that more money does not equal better care. Both the French and Canadian systems rank in the Top 10 of the world's best health-care systems, according to the World Health Organization. The United States comes in at No. 37. The rankings are based on general health of the population, access, patient satisfaction and how the care's paid for.

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights.

Those other countries don't have anywhere near 300+ million people to take care of either.

Those other countries don't have anywhere near 300+ million people to take care of either.

That may be true Phyrex, but it also means they don't have 300+ million people to help pay for it. :)

That may be true Phyrex, but it also means they don't have 300+ million people to help pay for it. :)

You'll probably find that the more there is the harder things are to handle. We probably have a higher percentage of poor and or unemployed people than smaller developed countries.

You'll probably find that the more there is the harder things are to handle. We probably have a higher percentage of poor and or unemployed people than smaller developed countries.

You may have a point, but are you suggesting we can't have some form of universal health care simply because of our size?

Analysis: "Sicko" Numbers Check Out

Oh, how you are about to enrage the ConservaZombies, dharma. :bombout:

Just the suggestion that what a critic of the status quo is saying might be correct will send them over the edge.

They will soon be telling you why Moore is an evil unAmerican traitor......they will soon be telling you all the reasons why we just can't -just CAN NOT possibly- have a public health care system in this country like virtually every other First World nation has.

The same flagwaving rightwing simpletons who, when the issue is spending on the glorious U.S. war machine, NEVER see any obstacle to coming up with untold hundreds of billions of taxdollars, who NEVER think that we might perhaps find a more sane use of our taxdollars than to spend over a half trillion dollars a year on bombs and tanks and warplanes and missiles, will sagely inform you that --"Hey, Americans can't AFFORD it!!" -- when the subject turns to health care instead of war.

But then, that fits perfectly with the brainwashing that the Conservasheep have been subjected to;

Health Care = something of benefit to the People in their daily lives ------ ergo, public health care must always be viewed as "bad" and "unecessary". Health care is to be forever deemed "unaffordable". Health care is to be viewed as "wasteful" and as "socialism".

War = something not of benefit to the People in their daily lives ------ ergo, War must always be viewed as "good" and "honorable". War is to be viewed as "absolutely necessary". War is to be viewed in the context of -- "There is no such thing as spending too much money, when it concerns waging foreign wars".

Like Moore, we also found that more money does not equal better care. Both the French and Canadian systems rank in the Top 10 of the world's best health-care systems, according to the World Health Organization. The United States comes in at No. 37. The rankings are based on general health of the population, access, patient satisfaction and how the care's paid for.

That suprises me with the way we bitch, whine and moan here about our system. Which has gone noticably down hill over the last 20 years. That is due to poor administration. Governments in general manage to bolox everything up. We have tons of money within the system but it often does not get to where it needs to be.

None the less, over the past six months, for the first time in my life I needed lots of tests and a specialist. I was shocked at how well I was cared for and the speed with which things were done. As it turned out, I was fine. Had I actually needed further care, I felt completely confident in our system. The only thing that came out of my pocket was my health care card.

I know some of you knock our system and our country, but for the average person, this system works. Although it certainly needs a clean up, when one needs it, it works.

That suprises me with the way we bitch, whine and moan here about our system. Which has gone noticably down hill over the last 20 years. That is due to poor administration. Governments in general manage to bolox everything up. We have tons of money within the system but it often does not get to where it needs to be.

None the less, over the past six months, for the first time in my life I needed lots of tests and a specialist. I was shocked at how well I was cared for and the speed with which things were done. As it turned out, I was fine. Had I actually needed further care, I felt completely confident in our system. The only thing that came out of my pocket was my health care card.

I know some of you knock our system and our country, but for the average person, this system works. Although it certainly needs a clean up, when one needs it, it works.
Not everyone down here complains about your system Sal. I have private healthcare insurance here and I have to wait a month to see a doctor for a routine visit.
The county supervisors just voted to close a county run hospital this week, due to poor management and ineffective care. The wait there in the emergency room was 10-12 hours, and sometimes longer. Patients were dropping dead in the waiting room, while hospital staff ignored their requests for help.

Not everyone down here complains about your system Sal. I have private healthcare insurance here and I have to wait a month to see a doctor for a routine visit.
The county supervisors just voted to close a county run hospital this week, due to poor management and ineffective care. The wait there in the emergency room was 10-12 hours, and sometimes longer. Patients were dropping dead in the waiting room, while hospital staff ignored their requests for help.

Oh geez, that is sad. It does happen here once in a while though too. People get triaged incorrectly.

Right now in the community in which I live, we are "renovating" one of our hospitals. It should have been closed, gutted and begun anew. What a waste of money it has been to try to preserve the old. The community fought the tear down for sentimental reasons.... my great, great grandma was born there. You know sentimental bullshit like that.

Grannies dead rip the fucking place down. Anyway, I know someone doing the electrical updates. A two month contract has turned into over a year for him. They estimate it should be done in two more months... He just rolls his eyes and says they will be lucky to complete this in another year. He HATES working on it and says it takes hours and hours to complete tiny little sections because of old construction. He could send his kid to school on the money we have wasted just on him. And he is one contractor out of how many working this project.

It's crap like this where we need to government to step in and say no.

Waste, waste and more waste. We even tried to place women into high level positions that had nursed since they had been on the front lines and knew directly the waste involved. The system just swallowed them too. None the less for all the waste it's there when you need it. And sooner or later everyone does.

I had 3 freinds that lost their jobs last week ... and they are all hard core conservatives that had always said I'd rather have no health care than have single-payer, universal care ... well, here's their chance to back up those words because all 3 of them now have no health care and no idea how they can afford what is out there ... all of them have families.

Guess what they're crying for now? Yup -- universal health care ...

ROTFLMAO these dudes are the biggest republican suckers in the world but they're my friends and I still love them.

I had 3 freinds that lost their jobs last week ... and they are all hard core conservatives .........

Just as they are blind to their hypocrisy with regards to health care, I would wager that they have the blinders on when it comes to them having lost their jobs.

Under G.W. B*sh, millions of jobs have been lost.....but your 3 pals --like good and faithful little ConservaZombies-- will no doubt find something else, anything else to focus on.

Just as they are blind to their hypocrisy with regards to health care, I would wager that they have the blinders on when it comes to them having lost their jobs.

Under G.W. B*sh, millions of jobs have been lost.....but your 3 pals --like good and faithful little ConservaZombies-- will no doubt find something else, anything else to focus on.

Correct-a-mundo Free ... they simply refuse to connect the dots back the root cause. More than likely, they're waiting for Rush to give them some talking points on how to blame it on Clinton.

More than likely, they're waiting for Rush to give them some talking points on how to blame it on Clinton.

And he will.

And they will.

That suprises me with the way we bitch, whine and moan here about our system. Which has gone noticably down hill over the last 20 years. That is due to poor administration. Governments in general manage to bolox everything up. We have tons of money within the system but it often does not get to where it needs to be.

I would submit that is specificly because of the Conservative agenda, which began under Reagan, wherein the rightwing began telling us that the Government cannot do anything right. This enabled their elected representatives to do everything from Iran-Contra to dismantling social programs and undermining public education just so they could turn around and point out how the government can't do anything right while ignoring the fact that it was in fact, they themselves who cannot do anything right.

People who do not believe in government cannot govern effectively.

Electing a Conservative to government is like making an Athiest the Pope.


:thumbs:

I know some of you knock our system and our country, but for the average person, this system works.

The majority of personal bankruptsies in America are due to medical costs and almost half of those are people who had full insurance.

The American for-profit system only "works" if you are: A. Wealthy or B. Healthy.

I am glad that you were not seriously ill Sal.

:thumbs:

I am glad that you were not seriously ill Sal.

:thumbs:
Thanks Dharm, it sure gives you a new perspective on things. :thumbs:

You may have a point, but are you suggesting we can't have some form of universal health care simply because of our size?

Actually, I've said a few times that I actually support Universal Health Care. It would be tough though. However if the kinks can be worked out, it would be better than the current system.

Lets put our health in the hands of the government!! ........

HOW DUMB!!!!

Lets put our health in the hands of the government!! ........

HOW DUMB!!!!

Yeah you're so right. Better to not have any health care at all. :thumbs:

Lets put our health in the hands of the government!! ........

HOW DUMB!!!!

Yes that is quite the dumb statement.

The government will merely be paying for the care, not providing it. You will still have your choice of doctors, more choice in fact, but they will, in many but not all cases, be billing the government for the service instead of an insurance company.

:thumbs:

Lets put our health in the hands of the government!! ........

HOW DUMB!!!!
Do we not already put our safety in the government? Let's privatize the military and police forces! That'll work!

Why not just hold a steady job with a company who offers to pay half or more of your health insurance?

Why not just buy a plan for your self, and not sit there with your hand held out expecting the government to buy you health insurance?

It is not a constitutional right to have free health insurance!

It is not the governments responsibility to buy us all health insurance.

I suggest that we all stop crying and take care of our selvs.




Yeah you're so right. Better to not have any health care at all. :thumbs:

I put the safety of my self and my family in my hands not in the hands of the government.

The military and police, and the postal service are the few things that the government does half way right.

Are you saying that you would trust a government run health insurance program?




Do we not already put our safety in the government? Let's privatize the military and police forces! That'll work!

Why not just hold a steady job with a company who offers to pay half or more of your health insurance?

Why not just buy a plan for your self, and not sit there with your hand held out expecting the government to buy you health insurance?

It is not a constitutional right to have free health insurance!

It is not the governments responsibility to buy us all health insurance.

I suggest that we all stop crying and take care of our selvs.

The primary reason you need health care in your country sisko is because it is far too expensive not to have it.

That's why so many people sue. Because the cost of medical care rises constantly. Everyone who can, is trying to make a buck off of everyone else. And eventually everyone needs health care. Some way more than others. Your current system just keeps driving the cost up.

There's one reason.

While it is nice to be self sufficient and pay your own way, there may well come a day when you are too sick to work.

Or your company decides you personally are expendable. They fire you, you get sick from the stress, you're screwed and so is your family. Your kid then gets sick but you can't afford to have him treated properly. How bad does that feel?

Look at Lung's example of his friends. Not going to happen to you though right? Do you think they thought it would happen to them? No, they had the "take care of me first and screw the rest of you" attitude. Problem with that is life usually has a way of levelling things out.

Once the system is in place sisko no one has their hand out. And when people are medically treated in a timely manner the cost to the system is far, far less than something left to grow and get worse.

Do you see one single argument here about health care being a constitutional right. I don't, but perhaps it should be.

This is not even touching on the ethical and moral reasons why a highly evolved society opts to take care of those less fortunate.

Also the government is not going to "buy" you health care sisko. That is not how the system works in the rest of the first world countries that have health care.

I put the safety of my self and my family in my hands not in the hands of the government.
Take on Al Qaeda and the drug gangs then if you advocate our government doing such things to keep us "safe."

Renegade sisko, oh yeah!
Are you saying that you would trust a government run health insurance program?
Am I saying about health insurance what? No.

I am saying we should have the government run the entire healthcare system itself. Insurance?!

With the quality of people we have been electing to our government, and the fools they have appointed to cabinet positions, for the past 50 years, health care is the last thing I want them to manage.

I had 3 freinds that lost their jobs last week ... and they are all hard core conservatives....
Fucking liar.

With the quality of people we have been electing to our government, and the fools they have appointed to cabinet positions, for the past 50 years, health care is the last thing I want them to manage.

With the quality of people we have been electing to our government, and the fools they have appointed to cabinet positions, for the past 50 years, health care is the last thing I want them to manage.

The *quality* of the political leaders that a populace chooses is a direct reflection on the *quality* --collectively-- of that populace itself.

How any grouping of ostensibly sane human beings could go to the voting booth and willfully select (as they did in the 2004 election) a man like George W. B*sh to lead them, after the abysmal failure of leadership --in virtually every issue confronting us as a People-- that this country suffered through from 2000 to 2004, is something that I will never be able to comprehend. Never.

___________________________

It is time to wake up and realize that Bush and his far-right cheerleaders and apologists have been wrong about virtually every issue facing America. These include but are not limited to; the Iraq war, the war on terror, bin Laden, the Patriot Act, wiretapping of phone calls, global warming, tax breaks for the rich, Alito, Katrina, Dept. of Homeland Security, privacy, torture, media reform and electronic voting machines.

___________________________

http://nmazca.com/blog/bush_disaster.jpg

Contrary to nearly every one of your posts: It has not been just Bush. The past 50+ years have been full of incompetent asses, attempting to do a job well above their abilities.

The really sad thing is that those running, now, are no better.

..................... YEP!!!



With the quality of people we have been electing to our government, and the fools they have appointed to cabinet positions, for the past 50 years, health care is the last thing I want them to manage.

Contrary to nearly every one of your posts: It has not been just Bush.

Your allegation that --"In nearly every one of your posts you claim it is just B*sh!"-- is unwarranted.

I have never suggested nor hinted that *it is B*sh alone.

In point of fact, I have said on numerous occasions that B*sh's predecessors in the White House were also no friend to the People of the US, and failed in their duties.

The past 50+ years have been full of incompetent asses........

A fact that I have reiterated often, and that those who have read my prior posts are well aware of.

Your allegation that --"In nearly every one of your posts you claim it is just B*sh!"-- is unwarranted.

I have never suggested nor hinted that *it is B*sh alone.

In point of fact, I have said on numerous occasions that B*sh's predecessors in the White House were also no friend to the People of the US, and failed in their duties.



A fact that I have reiterated often, and that those who have read my prior posts are well aware of.


Post something besides your communist drivel, and I might read a few more of them.

Contrary to nearly every one of your posts: It has not been just Bush. The past 50+ years have been full of incompetent asses, attempting to do a job well above their abilities.

The really sad thing is that those running, now, are no better.

Those running things now are FAR worse than anyone else in the last 50 years, hands down.

It has been especially bad ever since Reagan. That is what happens when you elect people to government who don't believe in government.

:rolleyes:

Just as they are blind to their hypocrisy with regards to health care, I would wager that they have the blinders on when it comes to them having lost their jobs.

Under G.W. B*sh, millions of jobs have been lost.....but your 3 pals --like good and faithful little ConservaZombies-- will no doubt find something else, anything else to focus on.

Are you really going to pretend like millions of jobs have been lost? You can't add up each job that has been lost, you look at the unemployment rate. Unemployment in the United States is the lowest in the world. It has been under 4% in the state I live in for as long as I can remember. In the city I live in, the unemployment rate is below 2%. Its difficult for me to find an employee. Everyone who wants a job has got one. Talk about having your blinders on, moron.

Are you really going to pretend like millions of jobs have been lost? You can't add up each job that has been lost, you look at the unemployment rate. Unemployment in the United States is the lowest in the world. It has been under 4% in the state I live in for as long as I can remember. In the city I live in, the unemployment rate is below 2%. Its difficult for me to find an employee. Everyone who wants a job has got one. Talk about having your blinders on, moron.Are you really going to pretend that every job provides health insurance? Most small employers do not or can not, self-employed people must provide their own if any, and America's largest private employer, Walmart, insures only 42% of it's workers. One of the main reasons we have more than 40 million uninsured citizens in this country is because we have lost jobs that provided insurance and replaced them with jobs that do not.

Are you really going to pretend like millions of jobs have been lost? You can't add up each job that has been lost, you look at the unemployment rate. Unemployment in the United States is the lowest in the world. It has been under 4% in the state I live in for as long as I can remember. In the city I live in, the unemployment rate is below 2%. Its difficult for me to find an employee. Everyone who wants a job has got one. Talk about having your blinders on, moron.


Are you really going to pretend that the "unemployment" figure is accurate and includes everyone who is out of work? Are you going to pretend that it includes the people who have given up looking for jobs or whos benefits have expired or were contested?

Millions of jobs HAVE been lost. The GOOD PAYING jobs. Companies don't save any money by outsourcing the low paying jobs.
They have been replaced with McJobs, thats it. Used to be a programmer? Well now you had better get "retrained" to "manufacture" burgers because that is the Conservatives' grand new economic plan for America.

:upyours:

Are you really going to pretend that the "unemployment" figure is accurate and includes everyone who is out of work? Are you going to pretend that it includes the people who have given up looking for jobs or whos benefits have expired or were contested?

Millions of jobs HAVE been lost. The GOOD PAYING jobs. Companies don't save any money by outsourcing the low paying jobs.
They have been replaced with McJobs, thats it. Used to be a programmer? Well now you had better get "retrained" to "manufacture" burgers because that is the Conservatives' grand new economic plan for America.

:upyours:


As if there was anything anyone could say to change your mind about politics. By the way, your 'sicko numbers that check out' are not correct. Canada is ranked 30 on the WHO list, US 37. France is definitely in top 10 though, you got that part right.

But really, what's the point of replying to dharmabum.

As if there was anything anyone could say to change your mind about politics. By the way, your 'sicko numbers that check out' are not correct. Canada is ranked 30 on the WHO list, US 37. France is definitely in top 10 though, you got that part right.

But really, what's the point of replying to dharmabum.
Actually Mr. Cooper you skewed your figures too:Also, I find it funny that on the list that ranks each country in the world's health care; Canada is only one spot ahead of us on that list.

Why didn't he make a movie about Canada's health care... He does live there, you know...

He didn't make a movie about the Canadian health care because it isn't in top top ten. Why the hell would you take a mediocre system over one of the best. Our system used to be good, better yet, great, until we got a "close our eyes, things are good political attitude" no matter how corrupt they are, much like yourselves. We are pretty much like cousins in that regard. Mediocre attitude equals mediocre leadership and everything just goes down hill from there.

Correct-a-mundo Free ... they simply refuse to connect the dots back the root cause. More than likely, they're waiting for Rush to give them some talking points on how to blame it on Clinton.


lmao! EXACTLY! they never care for the problems that the poor people face - until it hits home.

Millions of jobs HAVE been lost. The GOOD PAYING jobs.
Yeah, they're called manufacturing positions. :rolleyes:

With union shops paying some jerkoff, like, 15 to 20 dollars an hour to load a piece of sheet metal and push a button, it makes me wonder why all the companies out there would even think about "researching their options"....

Compound that with restrictive governmental practices (i.e., high taxes, the EPA, special permits, lots of red tape, etc.), and hell......let's just face the cold, hard facts here; the US isn't a very business-friendly place anymore.

Used to be a programmer? Well now you had better get "retrained" to "manufacture" burgers because that is the Conservatives' grand new economic plan for America.

:upyours:
No. It's simply the nature of the beast (i.e., the free market - which is anathema to extreme lefties, I know - but roll with me here).

Feel free to utilize your programming prowess in India via your new hi-tech job in New Delhi, but something tells me that you'll probably live a better life right here in America, and here's the kicker: more than likely, you'll make more money "manufacturing" burgers at your "McJob".

But hey, don't take it from me - move there and find out for yourself. Asswipe.

Are you really going to pretend like millions of jobs have been lost?

I am not "pretending" anything, sir.

I am simply looking at the statistics.

You use the figure of 4% for unemployment.

(For your state, which means nothing to what the national employment rate is. But I digress.)

Even IF the current figure for unemployment in the U.S. was "the lowest in the world", it would not offset the years previous when joblessness was on the rise, when millions of maufacturing jobs were lost, when the unemployment rate had risen 33% over what it was in 2001 when B*sh took office.

The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research says that Bush could become the first president in more than 70 years to accumulate a net loss of jobs during his term.


In the city I live in, the unemployment rate is below 2%. Its difficult for me to find an employee. Everyone who wants a job has got one. Talk about having your blinders on, moron.

Mathematically, your own city could have unemployment of zero, and the national unemployment percentage could at the same time be at a record high.

You're the one behaving like an imbecile on this topic, not me.

You're the one with the blinders strapped on tight.

Then again, maybe it's just that you have very limited understanding of mathematics.

But you could STILL read and look over the statistics...and if you WERE to take your blinders off and read up on the topic, you'd find out how bad --overall-- the Bush Administration has been with regard to job creation.

(one last thing; if you ever DO take those blinders off, bub, you might want to look into how the method for determining the unemployment percentage has been changed. The number they provide is no longer accurate in counting all those out of work. But then, you'll probably find a way to lie to yourself on that topic, too.)

i have told you this a thousand times before.

All things considered Bush has done a damn good job with the economy.

Lets see hummmmm 8 months after he took office 9-11 happened.

(I bet that took some jobs)



I am not "pretending" anything, sir.

I am simply looking at the statistics.

You use the figure of 4% for unemployment.

(For your state, which means nothing to what the national employment rate is. But I digress.)

Even IF the current figure for unemployment in the U.S. was "the lowest in the world", it would not offset the years previous when joblessness was on the rise, when millions of maufacturing jobs were lost, when the unemployment rate had risen 33% over what it was in 2001 when B*sh took office.

The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research says that Bush could become the first president in more than 70 years to accumulate a net loss of jobs during his term.




Mathematically, your own city could have unemployment of zero, and the national unemployment percentage could at the same time be at a record high.

You're the one behaving like an imbecile on this topic, not me.

You're the one with the blinders strapped on tight.

Then again, maybe it's just that you have very limited understanding of mathematics.

But you could STILL read and look over the statistics...and if you WERE to take your blinders off and read up on the topic, you'd find out how bad --overall-- the Bush Administration has been with regard to job creation.

(one last thing; if you ever DO take those blinders off, bub, you might want to look into how the method for determining the unemployment percentage has been changed. The number they provide is no longer accurate in counting all those out of work. But then, you'll probably find a way to lie to yourself on that topic, too.)

i have told you this a thousand times before.

All things considered Bush has done a damn good job with the economy.

Wow.

"damn good job with the economy"......??!?!?

I cannot imagine how bad it would have to be before you called it a *bad job* with the economy.

I'll grant you one thing.

You might be the most consistently willfully-blind human being I have ever encountered.

Lets see hummmmm 8 months after he took office 9-11 happened.

(I bet that took some jobs)

Yes, it may have caused some job losses. But then, I would think that from B*shCo's perspective, it was looked at in the context of ----

"Hey!, who gives a fuck how many jobs will be lost when the terrorists carry through with their plans? My pals in the Military/Industrial complex are about to reap a 500 billion dollar windfall!!.....WHoooohooooo!!!!!""

Ok freethinker, what exactly constitutes a good ecnomy for you? aprrently none of the ususal economic indicators that professionals use suits you, so what is it? when Chairman Mao comes back to life and rams your ass?

Yes, it may have caused some job losses.
"May have"???? :rolleyes: Get bent, FT.

Ok freethinker, what exactly constitutes a good ecnomy for you? aprrently none of the ususal economic indicators that professionals use suits you, so what is it?
Why waste the bandwidth?

thats true, Pagan may issue us a citation.

LOL - I said that before I saw what happened in the other thread.

That may be true Phyrex, but it also means they don't have 300+ million people to help pay for it. :)

Yes...lets add on another tax for the FICA Program. It's not that difficult to find an employer that offers health insurance. My HMO at work costs $24 a paycheck.

If 300 million people were all paying for it it would work, the problem is only about 100 million will be paying the bill while the other 200 million (plus tens of millions of illegals) get a free ride.

If 300 million people were all paying for it it would work, the problem is only about 100 million will be paying the bill while the other 200 million (plus tens of millions of illegals) get a free ride.Who do you think pays for everything now?

we do, but piling everyone else on the wagon while the smae number of people pull it wont help anything.

we do, but piling everyone else on the wagon while the smae number of people pull it wont help anything.Everyone else already is on the wagon. Emergency rooms treat people who don't have insurance and that's expensive -- especially when people wait until their condition is severe. It would be cheaper to insure everyone so people can seek treatment before they need costly procedures, and office visits are far less costly than emergency room care. We the taxpayers are already footing everyone's bill as it is. We should be looking for ways to reduce that bill.

I have a neighbor who gets all of his medical care through the VA. All for a small co-payment. He has a standing appointment, every six months, to see the Dr. But first he has to make a special trip, to the VA hospital, to have blood drawn, one week before his appointment (this 2 min. procedure takes half a day).
If he gets sick, or doesn't feel well, between his scheduled visits, he can not get in to see his "Primary Care Physician". He is told to go to the VA emergency room. If he misses an appointment, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to get another one.

I'm sorry folks, if the VA and Medicare are examples of govt managed health care, I'm not interested.

Yep...... I don't want to trust the government with my safety, health, health care,exc.


I have a neighbor who gets all of his medical care through the VA. All for a small co-payment. He has a standing appointment, every six months, to see the Dr. But first he has to make a special trip, to the VA hospital, to have blood drawn, one week before his appointment (this 2 min. procedure takes half a day).
If he gets sick, or doesn't feel well, between his scheduled visits, he can not get in to see his "Primary Care Physician". He is told to go to the VA emergency room. If he misses an appointment, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to get another one.

I'm sorry folks, if the VA and Medicare are examples of govt managed health care, I'm not interested.

Ok freethinker, what exactly constitutes a good ecnomy for you? aprrently none of the ususal economic indicators that professionals use suits you, so what is it?

It is not true at all that --""none of the ususal economic indicators that professionals use"" -- suits me.

The usual economic indicators of the professionals --and the hard cold numbers that they deal in-- suit me perfectly.

In fact, the man who is the chief accountant for the United States, who oversees its budget numbers, is someone whose word and whose assessment I would think is unquestionable and unassailable.

His name is David Walker, and he is the U.S. Comptroller General.

I believe he would know what sort of economic problems --if any-- that we are facing in this country.

And here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_APRkrXeY) is what he had to say on the subject, as of March of this year --

Assessment of the U.S. economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_APRkrXeY)

Can we say that at this instant, our economy seems to be doing alright...? Yes.

But when we take into account all that we OWE, and when we take into account that this "good economy" is built on a foundation comprised entirely of borrowed money, the truth is quite a bit more grim.

Yes that is quite the dumb statement.

The government will merely be paying for the care, not providing it. You will still have your choice of doctors, more choice in fact, but they will, in many but not all cases, be billing the government for the service instead of an insurance company.

:thumbs:

having the gov't merely provide administrative services is not health care, socialized or otherwise. As soon as the gov't starts paying the bills you will be giving up the right to make choices. Yes you can see whatever GP you'd like. No the gov't will not pay for everything. It's happened/ing in GB, it's happening in Canada. There are services that the gov't will not pay for, there are drugs the gov't will not pay for. As the cost of health care continues to escalate the range of health services provided by the gov't will continue to shrink.

I am not "pretending" anything, sir.

I am simply looking at the statistics.

You use the figure of 4% for unemployment.

(For your state, which means nothing to what the national employment rate is. But I digress.)

Even IF the current figure for unemployment in the U.S. was "the lowest in the world", it would not offset the years previous when joblessness was on the rise, when millions of maufacturing jobs were lost, when the unemployment rate had risen 33% over what it was in 2001 when B*sh took office.

The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research says that Bush could become the first president in more than 70 years to accumulate a net loss of jobs during his term.




Mathematically, your own city could have unemployment of zero, and the national unemployment percentage could at the same time be at a record high.

You're the one behaving like an imbecile on this topic, not me.

You're the one with the blinders strapped on tight.

Then again, maybe it's just that you have very limited understanding of mathematics.

But you could STILL read and look over the statistics...and if you WERE to take your blinders off and read up on the topic, you'd find out how bad --overall-- the Bush Administration has been with regard to job creation.

(one last thing; if you ever DO take those blinders off, bub, you might want to look into how the method for determining the unemployment percentage has been changed. The number they provide is no longer accurate in counting all those out of work. But then, you'll probably find a way to lie to yourself on that topic, too.)

The notion that millions of jobs have been lost is utter dribble. Looking at the BLS statistics there have never been more americans employed then there are currently.

Millions of jobs were lost.

That is obvious to all the people who lost them.

Sure, there have been some more McJobs created to take their place but they pay significantly less money.

:thumbs:

As if there was anything anyone could say to change your mind about politics.

If certain people on this board could do more than call people they disagree with names you might have better luck.


By the way, your 'sicko numbers that check out' are not correct. Canada is ranked 30 on the WHO list, US 37. France is definitely in top 10 though, you got that part right.

What part do you think is incorrect exactly?

Have you seen the film?


But really, what's the point of replying to dharmabum.

Nobody is forcing you kiddo.

:hula:

So jobs were lost, more jobs were created. There are now more jobs than there were before.
What exactly is your point?

So jobs were lost, more jobs were created. There are now more jobs than there were before.

Is that what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says?

Do you think that if a manufacturing job is lost and replaced by a job as fry cook at McDonalds, it is a wash??.....that the two jobs offset one another......??

Let me fucking guess what your take on the matter would be;

Whenever a Republican is in office, the two jobs perfectly offset one another. The latter job is every bit as good a job as the former. But were a Democrat to be in office and something like that take place, such trade-offs are a terrible blow to labor and to the economy.

It does indeed. You even have the ability, i think, to verify my assertion.

As far as jobs are concerned they are indeed a wash. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

Manufacturing jobs have been on the decline for over 30 years. The US became a service oriented economy back in the mid-80's. Republicans nor demcrats have anything to do with it.

Sure, there have been some more McJobs created to take their place but they pay significantly less money.

This is assumed to be such a given that no one even bothers to offer proof. Nevertheless, I've never seen it proven.

:thumbs:

Must you put that at the end of every post?

This is assumed to be such a given that no one even bothers to offer proof. Nevertheless, I've never seen it proven.

Experience is the quite telling for tens of thousands of Americans who lost good paying jobs and now work for less than they were 10 years ago.

What would you accept as "proof"?

How about this article from the Wall Street Journal executive career site - 08/03/2004?

Layoff Victims Lose Ground
As New Jobs Pay Lower Salaries (http://www.careerjournal.com/salaryhiring/hotissues/20040803-needleman.html)

:hula: <-- better?

Experience is the quite telling for tens of thousands of Americans who lost good paying jobs and now work for less than they were 10 years ago.

What would you accept as "proof"?

How about this article from the Wall Street Journal executive career site - 08/03/2004?


Actually, my experience is directly in line with that article because I had to take a pay cut (about 12%) when I got laid off a few years ago. And yet I'm not working at a burger flipping job or anything even approaching a burger flipping job. And my pay is back where I left off anyway. There's a big difference, and maybe others will disagree, between going from UAW work to McDonald's, and what the article is saying.

Actually, my experience is directly in line with that article because I had to take a pay cut (about 12%) when I got laid off a few years ago. And yet I'm not working at a burger flipping job or anything even approaching a burger flipping job. And my pay is back where I left off anyway. There's a big difference, and maybe others will disagree, between going from UAW work to McDonald's, and what the article is saying.

I certainly do disagree with you there.

:thumbs: