Democrats & Liberals Archives

Nine Angry Old White Men Up Early

Nine! What happened to the other angry old white guy? Who’s missing? Seriously, I can’t tell these guys apart. Anyhow, according to ABC’s online poll, Ron Paul just massively killed all the other candidates. That makes four in a row and that’s the last time I’ll mention him in this post. Apparently he’s unelectable. Here’s the transcript of Sunday’s early morning debate, and here are the video clips.

There wasn't really much worth getting up early for. All the GOP candidates want to keep large numbers of combat troops in Iraq forever (remember, I'm not talking about Paul) and they don't want Americans to have affordable health care. Oh, and they're not going to raise taxes to pay for anything including our infrastructure and our massive national deficits and debt. I guess they think China will loan us a billion dollars a day forever and never ask for it back.

Actually, I heard that Republicans are working a deal where China buys America outright so that Americans will never ever have to pay taxes ever again. I forget what we have to give them in return. Something about 'in dentures' and serving 'tudes, or something. But hurray! No taxes!

Back to the debate, the Republican candidates favor Health Savings Accounts (HSA's) to cover healthcare expenses. These accounts allow you to put up to $15,000 into a bank account tax free to pay medical bills. I swear, these guys are on another planet. People who can't afford health insurance don't have $15,000. Seriously, who has $15,000 lying around anyhow? Oh yeah, rich people do. An HSA would make an excellent tax shelter wouldn't it.

Probably the most talked about zinger of the morning was Romney's pot shot at Barak Obama, "In one week he went from saying he’s going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he’s going to bomb our allies. I mean, he’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

When pressed, Romney and Giuliani both admitted that they'd bomb our allies as well. All of a sudden, there was a whole stage full of Republican Dr. Strangelove's endorsing Barak Obama. Hypocrites.

And wacky. Giuliani was asked if he'd raise taxes or cut programs to maintain America's infrastructure. Giuliani said he wouldn't do either one. His idea is to cut taxes. Giuliani says cutting revenue will raise the revenue to rebuild our bridges -- in fantasy land. Giuliani's America will be like the Soviet Union, I guess, where the government pretends to pay for federal highway bridges with imaginary revenue and construction workers pretend to maintain them -- while you and I end up at the bottom of the Mississippi.

Oh, and Tom Tancredo defended his plan to nuke Mecca and Medina after the spanking Dr. Rice gave him, "Yes, the State Department -- boy, when they start complaining about things I say, I feel a lot better about the things I say, I’ll tell you right now."

Hahaha! Yeah. The State Department. The guys who actually had a plan for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Who cares what those guys think, right? Hahaha. Moron.

It's easy to see why Republicans are sending their campaign donations to Democrats. Ugh.

Posted by American Pundit at August 7, 2007 3:36 AM
Comment #228616


It’s quite evident that cherry-picking quotes to mislead people was done here. Contextual evidence and a complete reading around the quotes extracted would help one better understand what was actually said.

I realize that this will not be done because it distorts what one would have people believe, therefore a rebuttal would not prove anything or be worthwhile. I expect a remark will follow that baits the readers to demean themselves to argue the case, but it would prove nothing, and only prove the myopic mindset of the issues posted.

One interesting fact about this debate was broadcast on a Sunday morning…it is clear evidence that the audience was not intended to be Republican in nature, and was geared to fuel the left….which as we read, had it’s desired result.

Posted by: cliff at August 7, 2007 11:57 AM
Comment #228617

Hilarious article.

“Actually, I heard that Republicans are working a deal where China buys America outright so that Americans will never ever have to pay taxes ever again. I forget what we have to give them in return. Something about ‘in dentures’ and serving ‘tudes, or something. But hurray! No taxes!”

Dentures? Hey, maybe that means our old folks will get a brand new set of chompers from our new Communist Chinese overlords…

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #228619
One interesting fact about this debate was broadcast on a Sunday morning…it is clear evidence that the audience was not intended to be Republican in nature, and was geared to fuel the left….which as we read, had it’s desired result.

Um… why it this ‘clear evidence’ that the debate was geared towards the left?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #228626

How many Republicans are watching TV on Sunday morning?

Posted by: cliff at August 7, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #228628
It’s quite evident that cherry-picking quotes to mislead people was done here.

I provided a link to the transcript. If you don’t believe me, go see for yourself.

You didn’t provide any specific quote that you had a problem with — and obviously you didn’t watch it on Sunday morning — so I’ll just assume you don’t know jack about what happened at the debate and move on.

BTW, why is it that you never see an analysis of Republican debates on the Republican side of WatchBlog? Is it because you guys don’t care about issues at all? Or are your candidates so bad you’re too embarrassed to mention them?

Posted by: American Pundit at August 7, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #228638

I rest my case…

Posted by: cliff at August 7, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #228645
How many Republicans are watching TV on Sunday morning?

I don’t know, how many? Or is this the start of a joke? Like, How many republicans does it take to screw up a country?

Seriously, how do we know that Republicans wouldn’t be watching TV on Sunday morning? Where all of the participants in the debates not Republicans since they were in the debate? Or what about all of those Republicans who are on Sunday Morning TV shows?

Is there a law or edict that you have to have your TV off on Sunday morning or you aren’t a good Republican?

If you could be so kind as to explain what it is that Republicans have that no one else does that requires them not to be watching TV on Sunday morning that would be much appreciated.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #228648

Some one needs to explain to these angry white men that this is the modern civilized world!!!!!!!!! Put down your hate and your killing machines grab your good book and see what Jesus would do, not what Satan would do. Then see how people react to your new approach to solving problems. If you come across as a drunken bar room bully, people will feel threatened by your posturing. Why do they hate their country and the people of the world so much????? Put down your killing machines and you won’t have to keep looking over your shoulder for some revenge seeking child whose parents you murdered so that you could steal their resources. Do you think the world is a better place after all the killing that has been done in the last few years??????????? You angry hateful people need to change your strategy!!!!!!!! Tax cuts and killing are not the answer to the world’s problems. Throw down your hate!!!!!!! See if you can gather up some compassion. Don’t just make it a campaign slogan (compassionate conservative). Then after the election, break out the killing machines, torture chambers and tax cuts for the rich. If you are trying to end the world your strategy is working.

Posted by: Outraged at August 7, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #228654

“If you could be so kind as to explain what it is that Republicans have that no one else does that requires them not to be watching TV on Sunday morning”

Maybe he means they’re all over at church accepting Jesus as their personal savior. The only folks who would be at home drinking hot coffee and watching what the guys who want to be next leader of the free world have to say on a Sunday morning are non-Republican sinners.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #228659

Cliff — in order to rest a case — you need to attempt to make one first please. Savage

Posted by: TheSavage at August 7, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #228662


Please read my first post…

Posted by: cliff at August 7, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #228664

Ok, I’ll bite. Cliff, why didn’t Republicans schedule their debate for a time when Republicans would watch it? Are Republicans that incompetent? Or do the Republican candidates have something to hide from their supporters?

Do the Republican candidates believe their supporters just don’t care about issues? That GOP voters would vote for the devil himself if he ran as a Republican, no questions asked?

Why, Cliff?

Posted by: American Pundit at August 7, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #228681

Oh, didn’t you know AP, the LIBERALS control the airwaves, and somehow THEY forced the Republicans to debate on the Lord’s day, when all True Believers will be keeping the Sabbath holy. It’s all a great conspiracy by the intelligencia-latte-sipping-limp-wristed-bra-burning-red-diaper-doper-baby-godless-commie LIBERALS, darn us all to heck.



Posted by: leatherankh at August 7, 2007 9:19 PM
Comment #228684

Well, it’s strange to me, both that cliff hasn’t bothered to explain what he meant and that it seems that he is saying that all republicans, and only republicans, are ‘god-fearing folk’. I was SURE that a lot of Catholics were democrats because of Kenenedy, that a lot of republicans were for the most part ‘not’ church goers and seriously, advocating hatred and fear doesn’t seem much of a christianly thing to do.

Of course, this is further confusing to me that it would be seen as a ‘GOOD’ think that a candidate believed in a fairy tale, like the easter bunny, santa clause or god, but apparently I’m in the ‘minority’ in the US.

All hail the invisible man in the sky watching everything I do! *rolls eyes*

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #228688

They didn’t seem that angry and there is nothing wrong with being a older white man.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #228696


What’s really missing is the GOP’s two actual front-runners:

Fred Thompson & Newt Gingrich.

We still haven’t learned to play by Rove’s rules!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 7, 2007 11:33 PM
Comment #228701


Just google, religious right …………..

and then google, religious left !

On Yahoo religious right garners 147 million hits.

Religious left garners a measly 45 million.

It’s no secret that the right panders to the Talibangicals er, uh evangelicals.

Look how Romney has “flip-flopped” since being Governator of a Blue state just to please the Religious right.

The right wing today consists of Neanderthals and Phoneys …………..and one historical revisionist with a desire to bring the USA back to third world status by removing every safeguard put in place by FDR and Ike.

But, that’s just my opinion.

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2007 12:23 AM
Comment #228704

Make no mistake about it. Ron Paul believes what all Republicans believe, we all have a right to health FREEDOM:

And that’s about all we have a right to. That and dieing if you can’t afford healthcare. No mention of cutting out the middleman, ie: the insurance company……….because that would hurt the “markets”!

NEANDERTHALS……… and all!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2007 12:39 AM
Comment #228707

And from the heartland of liberal America,San Francisco,Barry Bonds just hit homer 756 for an all time record. Damn liberals…

Posted by: BillS at August 8, 2007 12:52 AM
Comment #228709
That and dieing if you can’t afford healthcare

KansasDem, ever ask yourself why so many people can’t afford healthcare?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2007 1:00 AM
Comment #228710

Btw, why not just let us see how Wisconsin does in implementing a ‘single payer’ healthcare system before we implement it nationwide?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2007 1:04 AM
Comment #228718

Yeah..lets wait and see.Same with CA and Mass. Nice thing about having states take different approaches to problems is when the feds do act we can look at actual results. The Canadian system started out province by province also.
I do wish you righties would get your terminology right. Socialized” medicine is when the government owns the facilities and healthcare workers work directly for the government. We do have a large example of that here already,the VA. Single payer is not technically the same thing. Providers would stay privately owned and managed. In the dicotomy between socialism and free market approaches single payer IS the compromise position and a typically American one at that.

Posted by: BillS at August 8, 2007 1:51 AM
Comment #228721

I’d like to see a debate with no present audience, no commercials, and 100% equal time on all questions … but then, we live in America. Products must be applied directly to our foreheads, and insurance companies need to compete over the business they’re guaranteed to get.

Posted by: wtc7 at August 8, 2007 2:17 AM
Comment #228722
I do wish you righties

Righty? lol

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2007 2:20 AM
Comment #228723

Geez, I need to stop blogging before midnight … lol

Posted by: wtc7 at August 8, 2007 2:21 AM
Comment #228729

“ever ask yourself why so many people can’t afford healthcare?”

IMO “no value added” services like insurance companies themselves are the number one reason. For decades Americans have depended on employer-provided insurance and globalization is making it more and more difficult for American employers to do that and still compete.

I think the number two reason for increased costs is that everyone who can pay has to pay more to make up for those who can’t pay. It’s rather arcane, in the long run we’re already paying for everyone to have healthcare, but we’re doing it so stupidly (mostly through overuse of ER’s) that it costs us many times more than it should.

“why not just let us see how Wisconsin does in implementing a ‘single payer’ healthcare system before we implement it nationwide?”

A single state is going to be at a heck of a disadvantage compared to ALL of the US. But it appears that’s where we’re headed. Each state will have it’s own healthcare policies, immigration policies, drug enforcement policies, etc, etc…

Anarchy anyone? Then again maybe I read too much Bertrand Russell :^/

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2007 7:53 AM
Comment #228738

KansasDem, how is each state having their own healthcare system ‘anarchy’ exactly?

Adrienne has been trying to convince me that the Democratic party was the party of Jefferson, which I disagree with of course. Your statement taken with what Jefferson has said seems to back my view that the progressives have moved the Democratic party very far away from what Jefferson believed.

The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.

I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2007 10:28 AM
Comment #228743

My “good book” is Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, and he did not think that war was a very good idea.

A party that would consider Newt Gingrich as a viable political candidate must really be from outer space.

I usually watch Stephanopolous on Sunday, for the In Memoriam and the tidbits from the comedy shows, and I watched the Rpblcns debating Sunday. Ron Paul was cheered wildly by the crowd at Drake U. for his anti-war stand, but when he was on the show a few weeks before, Stephanopolous said he would bet everything in his pockets that RPaul would not be the next president, but I think he just wanted RPaul to reach into his pocket.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 8, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #228748

“the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally”


How did letting the states deal with civil rights work out?

Posted by: KansasDem at August 8, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #228749

Kansas Dem, I couldn’t agree more. It is ridiculous to think that each state will need to have a totally separate single payer healthcare system. It will save money to design it as a national plan, rather than having plans that don’t interface well with each other. Yet, BillS made a great point too — that it’ll be good to see how efficiently Wisconsin and California and Massachusetts can make their individual states plans work in the meantime so that we can take a look at what works the best for the most people. When the government gets around to this, I think they should look at that, and at what the French have accomplished with their healthcare system, which is currently the best in the world.

Rhinehold, Jefferson was very pro-personal freedom, but he was also adamantly anti-corporation, especially Big Corporation. It’s hard to know what he’d think if he were alive today, especially seeing as he lived long before the Industrial Revolution, but I’m almost certain he wouldn’t share your modern Libertarian beliefs, because he was far too much in favor of new reforms, and very open to new ideas for progress. That being said, he might share something in common with European-style libertarians — who oppose both too large a centralized government and extremely powerful corporations. European-style libertarian is very distinct from American Libertarian which is basically a property rights party, while European libertarians are focused on freedom from too much authority without all the property rights rhetoric.
Jefferson also said lots of things during the span of his life which directly contradict each other (as you’ll have noted by looking at the quotes that I previously put up in that other thread).

For instance, while Jefferson was expounding on this nation becoming a place where all men were created equal, and who could enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he also didn’t think we should allow too many people to come here because he wanted it to remain a nation with an agrarian economy, and with only small scale industry. He hated corporations, thought they were corrupt by nature, and was afraid they would dictate to the government so he didn’t want too many of them either.
It’s too late for Jefferson’s vision of America to be realized, and too late for some of the classically liberal ideas he sometimes promoted side by side with his progressivism and idealism. We’ve got tons of people, many of whom do not have any healthcare at all, and the rest of us are in thrall to the corporate entities of the health insurance industry for our insanely expensive, but inefficient healthcare.
If Jefferson was alive today, being the progressive liberal and reformer he was, I’d be willing to bet that he’d be open to new ideas on healthcare, and would roundly reject the modern Libertarian idea that the common welfare should not be protected from the tyranny of these corporations.

Here’s a couple more quotes for you:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, and will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2007 12:18 PM
Comment #228761

Your trying to combine the anarcho-capitalists who latch on to the libertarian party with those who actually understand and vote for the idiology of true libertarianism. If you want to keep trying to combine the two it will be no different than differentiating between the liberals and progressives of the democratic party and the conservatives and neo-cons of the republican party. Not really very fair, is it?

Nowhere, ever, did he expouse PROGRESSIVE ideals. I’m sorry, but your quotes are nothing coming close to the notion of what progressives support. As a libertarian I agree with those quotes you have posted as well. In fact, I have yet to see anything that either of us have posted by Jefferson that I do not agree with.

However, you make it clear that is not what you believe at this time, neither does KansasDem. Which just goes to prove my point.

We’ve got tons of people, many of whom do not have any healthcare at all, and the rest of us are in thrall to the corporate entities of the health insurance industry for our insanely expensive, but inefficient healthcare.

And, as usual, the progressives do not look at WHY this is the case and instead use it as a way to further the intrusion of government into our lives, take private property away from individuals to give it to the collective and inject POLITICS in what should not have politics involved in it.

There is no ‘let’s look at a way to solve the problem that is within the bounds of the constitution, within the ideals that we are free individuals and within the notion that we should be removing the monopolies of the current healthcare system instead of making them stronger as is being offered by the current group of progressives running the democratic party.

Jefferson would not be alive today to say anything because the very thought of us giving so much control over our lives to a central, federal government would have killed him, I’m sure. AND, I am 100% positive that he would not support the healthcare ideas as they are being presented now based off of the numerous things he’s written about this.

It’s ok if you admit that the democratic party has moved away from the libertarian/classic liberal views that Jefferson believed in and towards the philosophy of progressivism, but can’t have it both ways and say things that are clearly not accurate concerning Jeffersonian views.

(BTW, *again*, there is nothing at all in opposition between libertarian thought and Jefferson’s distrust of a moneyed aristocracy and support for a freedom from monopolies)

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2007 2:01 PM
Comment #228764

BTW, the ‘property rights rhetoric’ is a simple explanation of why property rights are essential for a free country to exist. That you see it as ‘rhetoric’ shows just how much the progressives, who HAVE to abandon the notion of private property rights in order to accept the notions of bypassing those rights to support the new rights they want to create, are in charge.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #228798

What exactly is there about single payer healthcare,eliminating insurance companies,that is personally intrusive or unconstitutional?

Posted by: BillS at August 8, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #228809

I’m going stand on what I’ve said thus far. Jefferson has long been a great personal hero of mine, and after reading so much about him, and everything last thing I can find of his public writings, and personal correspondence, I’ve formed these opinions of mine. They will not be changed simply because of your differing opinion, though of course, you are perfectly entitled to hold to your views as well. And so, I won’t bother to try to persuade you any further (besides, it’s off topic for this thread).
In fact, now that I think about it, I believe we might have had a similar go round in this blog before about Jefferson’s philosophies, and their degree of influence on both Progressive and Liberal ideas, as well as those of the Libertarians — and obviously neither one of us has budged an inch. :^) So, let’s just leave it there, shall we?

Bill has just asked you an excellent question though, and one that I was actually thinking myself as I read your post. I hope you’ll reply, as I see nothing that would prohibit a national healthcare system in our Constitution.
Much like there was nothing that prohibited the nation from instituting public education, or a Dept. of Education, or having a budget dedicated to national education.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2007 11:02 PM
Comment #228818

It’s interesting you brought up the Dept of Education.

Much like there was nothing that prohibited the nation from instituting public education, or a Dept. of Education

That’s actually not true, if the 10th amendment were to be followed as intended and written. However, the corruption of the Supreme Court in the 1930s by FDR’s attempt to pack it in order to get his unconstitutional programs through caused subsequent courts to basically ignore the 10th amendment these days. (Jefferson specifically pointed to the 10th amendment as a necessary against the type of government we now have)

But, beyond that, since the department was instituted the test scores of children in the US has gone down. All of the ills that the department was suppose to address have gotten worse. So we have a program/department created to solve a problem, without really understanding the problem, and it has made the problem worse. Which is exactly what is going to happen if the government gets MORE involved in health care than it is currently.

As for how single payer programs intrude on the individual rights of Americans, it will basically put the government, a political entity, in the role of deciding what to cover and what not to cover. What happens when someone who runs the program decides that we shouldn’t cover abortions? Or circumcisions? Or alternative medicines?

The decision on what type of healthcare a person has should be between him and his doctor ONLY. The biggest problem with HMO’s now is that they get in the way of you and your doctor deciding what is best for treatment (I havce run into this personally so many times it makes me want to bash my head into a wall). They are motivated by simple profit, which we know the reasons and can get around if we work hard enough. What happens when we introduce POLITICS?

The federal government should now (and IMO does not have the constitutional authority) to be involved in this decision, bascially deciding for us how our health care is provided for us. It should not be anywhere in-between the doctor and the patient. *IF* we find that our HMO is acting unreasonably, there should be a way to change HMOs (even though we are allowing them to operate as a monopoly now, which we should definately not be doing). *IF* we find that the Government is not acting reasonably we can not just ‘change insurance’ companies.

THEN, what happens when we decide to go ‘outside of the system’ to avoid the government being involved in the decision? Well, to make single-payer to work, we would have to do what Hillary attempted in 1997, make it ILLEGAL for a doctor and patient to work outside of the proposed system. Now we are using the police force of the government telling us we can’t negotiate what we need without government decision.

My question is, how does anyone think that this type of program DOESN’T infringe on our rights as citizens?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #228869

Rhinehold, Please. You’re just throwing up the same tired old bogeyman arguments against socialized medicine that we’ve had shoved down our throats for years from conservatives. Meanwhile, France is rated as having the best healthcare IN ENTIRE THE WORLD, with a socialized national program. We can get this right for our country, too.
Btw, no one is saying that Americans won’t be allowed to go get healthcare outside of a national system if that’s what they want to do, and they have the money to spend, or even if they take a negative view of the idea of finding a way to provide national healthcare for all of our citizens, as you seem to.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #228871

*sigh* Instead of dealing with the realities I provide, you say I’m ‘throwing out bogeymen’, even though I use the FAILED education system as an example.

Before I go on, you said:

no one is saying that Americans won’t be allowed to go get healthcare outside of a national system if that’s what they want to do

Actually, Hillary Clinton in 1997 attempted to do just that. It would have been a crime for a citizen to go outside of the system to work with a doctor privately. Now, that didn’t fly of course and the program she attempted to put together was quickly scrapped for this and many reasons, but it is an end result if we take the desire to provide identical healthcare to all citizens equally. If we are just wanting to make sure our young and poor are taken care of, we can do that by just expanding medicare, can’t we?

France is rated as having the best healthcare IN ENTIRE THE WORLD with a socialized national program

I’m not sure I would call their system, as it stands today, socialized. France’s system is really not that much different than what we have now, but there are distinct differences, really meaning that the government has become a player in the insurance market. While it is 100% coverage (which btw we have here for the most part, through a series of agreements and laws where no one can be denied healthcare) remember that most citizens, around 80% have supplemental coverage because the benefits provided are not enough for them.

But further, let’s look at these other ‘successful’ healthcare programs. In England, the NHS is horrible, to the point those with money go outside of the system to get adequate healthcare. Is this what we are really going after? That the rich are kept healthy while the poor are forced into waiting lines and rejected claims? AND, these private centers will be able to provide more money to the better doctors, which means the national care will lose doctors and nurses. In fact, a study by a consultancy company which works for the Department of Health shows that every £200 million spent on privately financed hospitals will result in the loss of 1000 doctors and nurses.

In Canada, it has been found that most complaints against the system are ‘swept under the rug’ and long lines are the norm. In addition, their doctor to patient ratio is very poor.

I could go on, but here is the end result. I agree that we need to do something about healthcare. There are a lot of systems out there now that we can use a model. HOWEVER, as an American, I would rather we find a way of dealing with healthcare without limiting choice, forcing the increase of income taxation, limiting lines, ensuring medical advancements and doing all of this without trampling on the constitution further than we already have and keeping political decisions out of the equation as we failed to do with education.

We are smart people, I think we can do it if we try. The problem is no one wants to try and keep politics out of our healthcare system. It is a goldmine for politicans to use as a wedge system against us. Meanwhile, our children will not only get DUMBER through the years as we have already seen, but sicker as well. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #228874

Well, I don’t like Hillary, and she obviously bungled what she was trying to do with healthcare, so I’m not going to defend what she was advocating. Nor will I defend things that aren’t working in other countries. However, I think we should look closely at what is working, come up with our own system, and do our best to make it work.
Things can’t stand as they are now forever — at least we seem to agree upon that.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #228942

I usually avoid weighing in on health care questions, but I just wanted to voice my belief that the federal government will never provide comprehensive health care, because we would be providing it to people that the right wing does not want to provide with any government benefits.
Donald von Trump and Chris Kennedy are more likely to get the benefits of government programs than the people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder in this country.

I have dealt with doctors and nurses continually for the past 14 years, and I am not going to give you thirty pages of case histories, but I would say that opinions differ on medical treatment given to many patients.

I knew a thirty year old who received a kidney and liver transplant. After he died, it was determined through an autopsy that he had an accelerated aging disease. He had the best medical treatment in the world, but he died after this unnecessary period of medical torture and extended anxiety for his family.

Providing public health care would have to include cost factors. I have a client waiting for a $4000 hemoglobin building factor, which would require a copayment of $350 a month. How much and for what treatments will a government program be willing to pay? One person may have a DNR and another person may want heroic measures for the same problem.

What kind of treatment will be covered for a person with MS? A person can be kept alive for a long time with a feeding tube, but will the federal government provide help to that person, if that is their decision?

I might be in favor of a system where obese people would be subjected to health measures against their will. I am sick of smokers, but should a person be clubbed in the street for smoking? We harass drug addicts, why not other addictive behaviors?

Posted by: ohrealy at August 10, 2007 12:50 PM
Post a comment