Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:38 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:37 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Someone has hacked into Gov. Palin's personal e-mail account and posted what he found on the Internet. The Associated Press, with which the findings were shared, was asked by the Secret Service for copies. It refused.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D938QN880&show_article=1

Meanwhile, commentator Nicholas Provenzo has weighed in on Palin's decision not to abort a developmentally disabled baby. In what may be the most uncharitable fashion possible:
Quote:
A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others.

The URL, if anyone would like to read the whole thing:
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/palins-down-syndrome-child-and-right-to.htm


Provenzano's musings, however, are pathetically weak compared with those of Salon columnist Cintra Wilson, who wrote under the headline, "Pissed about Palin":

Quote:
Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/

Seen the latest in T-shirt fashion, BTW? Here's a look:
http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/retarded-republican-babies-for-palin-08

And then there's photographer Jill Greenberg, hired by The Atlantic magazine to shoot the cover pic for its campaign piece on McCain. By all means, check out what else she did while she was at it:
[urlhttp://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007737.html[/url]

Senator Obama must be so proud of what his supporters are doing in behalf of his campaign.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5814
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
So . . When Bush supporters and campaigners during the 2004 election informed South Carolina voters that they should not vote for McCain because of his black baby, was that Conservatism at its finest? Or was it when anti-government conservative Tim McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City?

Painting with broad brushes is dangerous.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
No, No. 9, this is conservatism at it's finest:
Quote:
Republicans Use Fake Troops for RNC Video

For its "Pledge of Allegiance video" on Tuesday night, the Republican National Convention used stock footage of a staged military funeral, along with actors dressed as soldiers and sailors. CBS has the story.
...
The issue here isn't that the RNC used actors in what might have been a haste. Rather, the underlying problem is that Bush and McCain supporters don't like to deal with the messy reality of warfare that genuine troops bring to the table. That is, they feel compelled to stage a funeral with actors. Because to show a real military funeral--with the heaving chests of a broken family clutching a flag-draped coffin containing the pieces of their dead soldier--might just make the funny hat-clad, stupid button-wearing audience blanch. And that doesn't make for good TV. Plus, people just wouldn't go for it. So they use sanitized actors.

But this is an insult to the military. The use of actors shows an unwillingness to face up to what they've done--to the military and to the nation. And it shows that the only way to keep up support for the war is to hide its reality from the American people.

http://vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1843

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
By the way, Bob, have you never read the insane comments of Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter? You're showing a lot of hubris if you think that the comments you posted are somehow outrageous and unique to liberal journalists.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:30 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
US military personnel are forbidden by Defense Department policy to allow themselves to be photographed, videotaped, or filmed while in uniform and on duty for partisan political purposes.

Here, read it for yourself:
http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

Couldn't be that the RNC researched the subject, discovered the policy, and proceeded accordingly, could it?

Nah, that would be giving too much credit. It had to have been sheer Republican callousness. :)

And, yeah, Willton, I have read Hannity and Coulter, and both of them do hit hard. But so far, at least, I haven't seen anything remotely close to the stupefyingly ugly, bitter, and deranged lashing out by the Left. But, hey, this election is shaping up to be much more difficult than the Democrats expected. It's not going to be an Obama landslide; in fact, it's possible he'll lose. So maybe this depravity can be explained by panic, eh?

Oh, by the way, Coulter spells her first name A-n-n. No "e" on the end.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5814
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bob in Boston wrote:
US military personnel are forbidden by Defense Department policy to allow themselves to be photographed, videotaped, or filmed while in uniform and on duty for partisan political purposes.

Here, read it for yourself:
http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

Couldn't be that the RNC researched the subject, discovered the policy, and proceeded accordingly, could it?


Bob,
The link didn't work for me so that I couldn't look up the answer to my questions.
One, is a military funeral considered to be "on duty?"
Two, I have a hard time believing that those at the military funeral are "allowing" the photographing, videotaping or filming for partisan political purposes. I expect that they are at the funeral for much different reasons. That photographers, videographers or filmographers are there as well does not necessarily connote that those in uniform are somehow practising partisan politics by "allowing" themselves to be photographed or filmed.

Again, I can't open the link but - at least on its face - it would seem that the directive would prevent someone from knowingly allowing himself/herself to be photographed or filmed when they know that it is for political purposes.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5814
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bob in Boston wrote:
I haven't seen anything remotely close to the stupefyingly ugly, bitter, and deranged lashing out by the Left.


That is because you are a Conservative. There are extremes on both sides. There is plenty of ugly, bitter and deranged ranting from the Right. Hell, the link that you provided referenced the ridiculous attempts to portray Obama as a Islamic terrorist. Both sides try to portray the other side's extremes as mainstream for that party. It's false. You know it. I know it. Leaders on both sides know it.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Can any of you give me any reason why you are going to vote for Obama OTHER than the fact you don't like the Republican party or conservatism. I have tried to listen to Obama objectively, but he doesn't say anything, just the word "change," about a hundred times(McCain says "reform" a hundred times and its kinda getting on my nerves)

What characteristics of Obama do you like? Please don't use McCain or Palin in your argument, I want to know what you like about Obama, his policies, etc. Or are you pulling the party line(which is ok to say).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bob in Boston wrote:
And, yeah, Willton, I have read Hannity and Coulter, and both of them do hit hard. But so far, at least, I haven't seen anything remotely close to the stupefyingly ugly, bitter, and deranged lashing out by the Left.

Really? Perhaps you've forgotten this little gem:
Quote:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," said Coulter, whose comment was followed by applause.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/ ... index.html

Yes, I'm sure that the above quote cannot be considered a "stupefyingly ugly, bitter, and deranged lashing out" by Ms. Coulter.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:14 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
Can any of you give me any reason why you are going to vote for Obama OTHER than the fact you don't like the Republican party or conservatism. I have tried to listen to Obama objectively, but he doesn't say anything, just the word "change," about a hundred times(McCain says "reform" a hundred times and its kinda getting on my nerves)

What characteristics of Obama do you like? Please don't use McCain or Palin in your argument, I want to know what you like about Obama, his policies, etc. Or are you pulling the party line(which is ok to say).

What's to like about Obama? Well, he's charismatic, a strong speaker, and responds well against adversity. You may think that some of that is form over substance, but the ability to convey a message is almost as important as the message itself. Plus, I don't see how being able to inspire people is a bad thing.

As for policies, I like that he's pushing for bringing scientifically-valid evidence back into the decision-making process for administrative agencies, as opposed to the last 8 years' focus on ideological predispositions. I also like his take on education policy, in that we need to stop teaching tests and start teaching the actual subject matter. And Obama's healthcare policy, according to my health law friends, makes far more sense than McCain' healthcare proposal, which will apparently practically do away with employer-based healthcare plans.

And last but certainly not least, the mess in Iraq. It has gone on for far too long, and fighting an endless war does not do Iraq or the U.S. any good. I agree with Obama: Iraq needs to take responsibility for its own country, and we have more important things to worry about back home and abroad. If we are to fight terrorism, then we should do so where it exists (Afghanistan and Pakistan), not where it does not exist (Iraq). At the very least, we owe it to our troops.

So, is that good enough?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:24 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Very well said Wilton.

Maybe most important is the idea that change can only come by inspirational leadership. There is only one candidate who has that FDR, or JFK ability. McCain only came to the need for change because he finally realized that he couldn't win unless he too started to preach change. He has come around to the winning view espoused from the beginning by Obama.

Agree with all other points stated in previous post.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:07 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6279
Acidic verbage and vitriole spew forth from the mouth's of pundits at both ends of the spectrum. I have heard Ann Coulter say things that were unacceptable. I cannot stomach even seeing her on the screen anymore. I no longer watch Keith Olberman either. I used to see some humor in his rantings but they have become equally distressing.
One of the things that I like about McCain is his ability in the PAST to work both sides of the aisle in congress to get things done. However, he seems to have turned his back on his maverickness (is that a word? well it is now) since he has started to rise in the polls.
Obama, IMHO, has been a lot of fluff and good time feelings, but really hasn't said anything about the issues.
I will be writing in my vote. Have not decided who it will be. I have thought about voting for myself. I am probably as qualified as either of these guys. That also points out the sad state of our nation's leaders.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Willton wrote:
Piratefan13 wrote:
Can any of you give me any reason why you are going to vote for Obama OTHER than the fact you don't like the Republican party or conservatism. I have tried to listen to Obama objectively, but he doesn't say anything, just the word "change," about a hundred times(McCain says "reform" a hundred times and its kinda getting on my nerves)

What characteristics of Obama do you like? Please don't use McCain or Palin in your argument, I want to know what you like about Obama, his policies, etc. Or are you pulling the party line(which is ok to say).

What's to like about Obama? Well, he's charismatic, a strong speaker, and responds well against adversity. You may think that some of that is form over substance, but the ability to convey a message is almost as important as the message itself. Plus, I don't see how being able to inspire people is a bad thing.

As for policies, I like that he's pushing for bringing scientifically-valid evidence back into the decision-making process for administrative agencies, as opposed to the last 8 years' focus on ideological predispositions. I also like his take on education policy, in that we need to stop teaching tests and start teaching the actual subject matter. And Obama's healthcare policy, according to my health law friends, makes far more sense than McCain' healthcare proposal, which will apparently practically do away with employer-based healthcare plans.

And last but certainly not least, the mess in Iraq. It has gone on for far too long, and fighting an endless war does not do Iraq or the U.S. any good. I agree with Obama: Iraq needs to take responsibility for its own country, and we have more important things to worry about back home and abroad. If we are to fight terrorism, then we should do so where it exists (Afghanistan and Pakistan), not where it does not exist (Iraq). At the very least, we owe it to our troops.

So, is that good enough?


Let me start by saying, I asked you those questions without attitude or smugness. What I wanted to hear was approval of Obama rather than disapproval for Bush or McCain. It seems as though many Liberals I converse with go on a rant about Bush(who is not running for President) and McCain and will not tell me anything they like about Obama other than he is an elloquent speaker. I am not trying to start a debate littered with anger and malice. I let myself get upset with Sysiphus and for that I was wrong.

As far as McCain goes, I am not in agreement with him on a few issues;

1) His refusal to drill in ANWAR

2) His propensity to give illegal aliens a "pass" with amnesty(McCain supported the amnesty bill he forged with Ted Kennedy) This country was founded on the principal, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," LEGALLY. Many people in America that started their lives in a foreign land followed the proper procedures and waited in the lines to enter this country legally, why should their efforts be minimized by illegals being granted a free pass. Where is the justice? What is encouraging is that his stance against illegal immigration has strengthened.

What I support

1) His willingness to stay vigilant in the "War on Terrorism," the moment we let up, is the the moment we lose all the ground we had gained. Terrorists are in this thing forever. Americans must understand that we will be waging this war till the end of time.

2) His desire to see Iraq through to the end. Wilton you mention that Iraq was "a mess," where do you get that view? From CNN? I have friends that have been to Iraq and back and I've read the reports concerning the troop surge, all spells success, not to mention the stories from my friends were tremendously inspiring to say the least. Unfortunately very little has been reported concerning the good that has been done in Iraq, many reports are formulated to vilify the efforts of the troops and Iraqi Government. Many of us historians know that it takes time to establish a working democracy, how many years did it take for the US to draft the Constitution and develop a baseline government, something like 4 years right? What we owe our troops is a strike in the win column. Pulling the troops from Iraq would be equivelant to having the Pirates forfiet a game in the 7th inning with a 10 run lead. Pulling the troops from Iraq would allow Al Qeada a chance to restructure and rebuild.

3) The economic policy of reducing taxes across the board. The opposition claims that he will propse legislation to tax the top 7% more than the rest of the country. On the surface, that sounds promising to a guy like me in the middle portion of the middle class, the thought process being "hey you guys make more so you should pay more," I mean its patriotic(according to Biden). In reality, it underminds the capitalist economic principals that make this country great. We would essentially be penalizing citizens for being successful. That essentially leads to those top 7% (who are more or less business owners) having to cut costs by laying off workers(of the middle class and lower) or outsourcing to foreign countries who provide cheap labor. Therefore taking funds that would have circulated here in America and distributing it around the world. What I don't understand is how many people forget to actually do the math when it comes to taxes, if I pay 25% and the business owner who makes considerably more than me pays %25, he is paying more money into the government than me already. Of course businesses receive tax breaks as well they should if they continue to employ American citizens and keep manufacturing and business here in America. What Obama's economic policy alarmingly represents is a "redistribution of wealth" which is literally socialism that leads inherantly to a communist society. If we as American citizens allow this step to be taken, what will follow? Will there no longer be private ownership? Will the government then begin to tell me what my career will be at birth? Liberals rave about human rights and free thinking, it perplexes me that Liberal leadership suggests such opposing ideals to their policies. Frankly, I do not want to be taxed more so that my money ends up in the hands of a lazy individual who decides not to work. Government aide should be limited only to those that are in dire necessity. As a small business owner myself, my taxes on profit under Obama's new economic policy would rise from an already high 39% to a wopping 57%. Thats over half of my business profits!! I will lose my business immediately, I cannot survive under that tax hike. America takes pride in its small businesses, in a capitalist society, it generally makes the economy tick.

4. Energy policy Why are we more concerned about nature than the survivablity of human society. Nature has survived for thousands of years, what makes us think that it won't for thousands more without our help. Too many people are worshiping nature when it was God that created it and it should be him that is worshipped. We are leaving ourselves as a nation vulnerable econmically,and national defense becomes a weakness when we rely on foreign oil. Especially oil that comes from Arabian nations. Nobody is implying that we utulize all of our oil, but merely to start the process of producing our own oil to which would drive the cost of foreign oil down and give us a safety if these other nations were to cut off our supplies. Additionally, consider the amount of jobs it would create to build and operate the oil infrastructure. We as a country are allowing a few nature worshipping environmentalists put this country into jeopardy.

Those are just a few but to answer some of what you had mentioned about Obama.

1. His ability to stir up the faithful by the spoken word. Thats all well and good, but after the speech, there must be substance. Leadership is a combination of the ability to inspire, the development of a cause, the willingness to do what is right, and the sacrifice of popularity. Being a leader is not popular. I am further concerned about his historic knowledge of this country most importantly how many states we actually do have(certainly not 57, thats Heinz Ketchup).

2. An alarming inconsistency of love for country, the leader of this country should show an unwavering love for the country and its people. And when did we transform into this self conscious, insecure nation that is concerned about what the world in general thinks about us or our politicians? This nation should make its decisions based on what is right and just, not based upon what Europe, Asia, or the Arabian nations think. Why have many Americans developed this embarrasement of being American? We are exceptional in the world community, sorry, but its true. I am proud to be an American, I served willingly in its armed forces, and I get tears in my eyes during the National Anthem, Pledge of Alliegence, and Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." Not once have I ever considered what another country was to think of our decisions. Its not arrogant, its patriotic, if your embarrased about this country, its time to find a new one. I rpomise you though that there is none other like America, we are exceptional, we are the best. I DO NOT want a leader who apologizes for this country, that would disgrace all those that have died defending it.

3. Scientific as opposed to Idealogic approach... I cannot disagree with you more on this concept. A leader of a nation must have mission and a vision to accomplish that mission, and those are based upon idealogic principals, not scientific. Science plays an important role in decision making I will say but should never be the deciding factor in decisions that would effect 281 million people.

4. As far as education goes, I don't have kids and am not tapped into the heart of the education process. So I cannot comment. But from what you wrote, I would say that tests are the proving grounds for a subject matter learned. I know as I grew up, the testing process was derived from the subject matter and it was our responsibility to understand the whole subject to be able to be successful on the test. Please explain more of the current process.

5. Health Care-- Obama's healthcare policy reaks of nationalized healthcare, "healthcare for everyone", "lower premiums", etc. I am certainly all for people being given healthcare at a reasonable rate, but how do you accomplish that when everyone is provided healthcare? Who pays for it? Unless, like Cuba, the government regulates the costs charged by Doctors and Hospitals. For everyone to have healthcare it has to be payed for by someone, that someone is you and me, in taxes. So our premium will be lower, doctor availability will be lower, quality of care will be lower, and hospital supplies and equipment will be in a shortage because of the "lower cost" healthcare. But hey, our premium will be lower and that deadbeat individual who refuses to work will have healthcare payed by me. I don't think so, I don't want to pay for anybody who is physically able to work but refuses. If this country adopts a nationalized healthcare system, our best doctors will find another country to do business in. We will be left with average doctors trying to make a living. There is no way I'm going under for any surgery by the guy who got "C's" in Med School. Now, with that all mentioned, our healthcare system is not in great shape, it does need to be fixed, but nationalized healthcare is NOT the answer. The more the government is involved in our day to day life, the more we resemble a communist society.

Anthony DePalmo of the NY Times writes(in response to the film "Sicko" by Michael Moore)
Quote:
Universal health care has long given the Cuban regime bragging rights, though there is growing concern about the future. In the decades that Cuba drew financial and military support from the Soviet Union, Mr. Castro poured resources into medical education, creating the largest medical school in Latin America and turning out thousands of doctors to practice around the world. But that changed after the collapse of the Soviets, according to Cuban defectors like Dr. Leonel Cordova. By the time Dr. Cordova started practicing in 1992, equipment and drugs were already becoming scarce. He said he was assigned to a four-block neighborhood in Havana Province where he was supposed to care for about 600 people. “But even if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis,” he said, “I couldn’t write a prescription for antibiotics, because there were none.” He defected in 2000 while on a medical mission in Zimbabwe and made his way to the United States. He is now an urgent-care physician at Baptist Hospital in Miami. Having practiced medicine in both Cuba and the United States, Dr. Cordova has an unusual perspective for comparison. “Actually there are three systems,” Dr. Cordova said, because Cuba has two: one is for party officials and foreigners like those Mr. Moore brought to Havana. “It is as good as this one here, with all the resources, the best doctors, the best medicines, and nobody pays a cent,” he said. But for the 11 million ordinary Cubans, hospitals are often ill equipped and patients “have to bring their own food, soap, sheets — they have to bring everything.” And up to 20,000 Cuban doctors may be working in Venezuela, creating a shortage in Cuba. Until he had to have emergency surgery last year, Fidel Castro — who turned 80 this year — was considered a model of vibrant long life in Cuba. But it was only last week that he acknowledged in an open letter that his initial surgery by Cuban doctors had been botched. He did not confirm, however, that a specialist had been flown in from Spain last December to help set things right.


The bottom line for Americans may be similiar, all would HAVE access to healthcare, but the quality and quantity of supplies would be in question. Especially quality of doctors, like in the case of Fidel Castro needing a professional from Spain to "fix" mistakes by his so-called excellent doctors.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:23 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Piratefan13 wrote:
5. Health Care-- Obama's healthcare policy reaks of nationalized healthcare, "healthcare for everyone", "lower premiums", etc. I am certainly all for people being given healthcare at a reasonable rate, but how do you accomplish that when everyone is provided healthcare? Who pays for it? Unless, like Cuba, the government regulates the costs charged by Doctors and Hospitals. For everyone to have healthcare it has to be payed for by someone, that someone is you and me, in taxes. So our premium will be lower, doctor availability will be lower, quality of care will be lower, and hospital supplies and equipment will be in a shortage because of the "lower cost" healthcare. But hey, our premium will be lower and that deadbeat individual who refuses to work will have healthcare payed by me. I don't think so, I don't want to pay for anybody who is physically able to work but refuses. If this country adopts a nationalized healthcare system, our best doctors will find another country to do business in. We will be left with average doctors trying to make a living. There is no way I'm going under for any surgery by the guy who got "C's" in Med School. Now, with that all mentioned, our healthcare system is not in great shape, it does need to be fixed, but nationalized healthcare is NOT the answer. The more the government is involved in our day to day life, the more we resemble a communist society.

Anthony DePalmo of the NY Times writes(in response to the film "Sicko" by Michael Moore)
Quote:
Universal health care has long given the Cuban regime bragging rights, though there is growing concern about the future. In the decades that Cuba drew financial and military support from the Soviet Union, Mr. Castro poured resources into medical education, creating the largest medical school in Latin America and turning out thousands of doctors to practice around the world. But that changed after the collapse of the Soviets, according to Cuban defectors like Dr. Leonel Cordova. By the time Dr. Cordova started practicing in 1992, equipment and drugs were already becoming scarce. He said he was assigned to a four-block neighborhood in Havana Province where he was supposed to care for about 600 people. “But even if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis,” he said, “I couldn’t write a prescription for antibiotics, because there were none.” He defected in 2000 while on a medical mission in Zimbabwe and made his way to the United States. He is now an urgent-care physician at Baptist Hospital in Miami. Having practiced medicine in both Cuba and the United States, Dr. Cordova has an unusual perspective for comparison. “Actually there are three systems,” Dr. Cordova said, because Cuba has two: one is for party officials and foreigners like those Mr. Moore brought to Havana. “It is as good as this one here, with all the resources, the best doctors, the best medicines, and nobody pays a cent,” he said. But for the 11 million ordinary Cubans, hospitals are often ill equipped and patients “have to bring their own food, soap, sheets — they have to bring everything.” And up to 20,000 Cuban doctors may be working in Venezuela, creating a shortage in Cuba. Until he had to have emergency surgery last year, Fidel Castro — who turned 80 this year — was considered a model of vibrant long life in Cuba. But it was only last week that he acknowledged in an open letter that his initial surgery by Cuban doctors had been botched. He did not confirm, however, that a specialist had been flown in from Spain last December to help set things right.


The bottom line for Americans may be similiar, all would HAVE access to healthcare, but the quality and quantity of supplies would be in question. Especially quality of doctors, like in the case of Fidel Castro needing a professional from Spain to "fix" mistakes by his so-called excellent doctors.


Obviously I have a unique (and probably biased) view of this. I am extremely eager to hear the other side of the coin argued before I provide my perspective, however. Sub? Willton?

And by the way, what's wrong with getting C's in med school??!!! I wouldn't want to operate on you anyways!! :lol:
(Actually, that is facetious as most medical schools are now Pass/Fail so you can't distinguish docs that got D's from those who earned A's). HA! Board scores are the more pertinent measuring stick (and I was >2 Std. dev. above the national average on step 1 :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: ).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
BBF wrote:
Piratefan13 wrote:
5. Health Care-- Obama's healthcare policy reaks of nationalized healthcare, "healthcare for everyone", "lower premiums", etc. I am certainly all for people being given healthcare at a reasonable rate, but how do you accomplish that when everyone is provided healthcare? Who pays for it? Unless, like Cuba, the government regulates the costs charged by Doctors and Hospitals. For everyone to have healthcare it has to be payed for by someone, that someone is you and me, in taxes. So our premium will be lower, doctor availability will be lower, quality of care will be lower, and hospital supplies and equipment will be in a shortage because of the "lower cost" healthcare. But hey, our premium will be lower and that deadbeat individual who refuses to work will have healthcare payed by me. I don't think so, I don't want to pay for anybody who is physically able to work but refuses. If this country adopts a nationalized healthcare system, our best doctors will find another country to do business in. We will be left with average doctors trying to make a living. There is no way I'm going under for any surgery by the guy who got "C's" in Med School. Now, with that all mentioned, our healthcare system is not in great shape, it does need to be fixed, but nationalized healthcare is NOT the answer. The more the government is involved in our day to day life, the more we resemble a communist society.

Anthony DePalmo of the NY Times writes(in response to the film "Sicko" by Michael Moore)
Quote:
Universal health care has long given the Cuban regime bragging rights, though there is growing concern about the future. In the decades that Cuba drew financial and military support from the Soviet Union, Mr. Castro poured resources into medical education, creating the largest medical school in Latin America and turning out thousands of doctors to practice around the world. But that changed after the collapse of the Soviets, according to Cuban defectors like Dr. Leonel Cordova. By the time Dr. Cordova started practicing in 1992, equipment and drugs were already becoming scarce. He said he was assigned to a four-block neighborhood in Havana Province where he was supposed to care for about 600 people. “But even if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis,” he said, “I couldn’t write a prescription for antibiotics, because there were none.” He defected in 2000 while on a medical mission in Zimbabwe and made his way to the United States. He is now an urgent-care physician at Baptist Hospital in Miami. Having practiced medicine in both Cuba and the United States, Dr. Cordova has an unusual perspective for comparison. “Actually there are three systems,” Dr. Cordova said, because Cuba has two: one is for party officials and foreigners like those Mr. Moore brought to Havana. “It is as good as this one here, with all the resources, the best doctors, the best medicines, and nobody pays a cent,” he said. But for the 11 million ordinary Cubans, hospitals are often ill equipped and patients “have to bring their own food, soap, sheets — they have to bring everything.” And up to 20,000 Cuban doctors may be working in Venezuela, creating a shortage in Cuba. Until he had to have emergency surgery last year, Fidel Castro — who turned 80 this year — was considered a model of vibrant long life in Cuba. But it was only last week that he acknowledged in an open letter that his initial surgery by Cuban doctors had been botched. He did not confirm, however, that a specialist had been flown in from Spain last December to help set things right.


The bottom line for Americans may be similiar, all would HAVE access to healthcare, but the quality and quantity of supplies would be in question. Especially quality of doctors, like in the case of Fidel Castro needing a professional from Spain to "fix" mistakes by his so-called excellent doctors.


Obviously I have a unique (and probably biased) view of this. I am extremely eager to hear the other side of the coin argued before I provide my perspective, however. Sub? Willton?

I can't offer anything right now, as I'm a little busy at work (I just got an offer from my summer employer to work part time during my 3L year) and the best information I can give actually comes from my law school friends who are heavily into health law (I'm an IP guy), but based on what PF13 said above and a cursory look at Obama's proposal, it appears that PF13 has not actually read what Obama is proposing healthcare-wise.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama and Biden will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.


Collecting and reporting on quality and costs will cost more time and money for hospitals, time and money which will be scarce in this new healthcare policy. This is an inclination of government monitored health care.

Quote:
The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible.


More big brother looking over the shoulders of insurance companies, more government involvement.

Quote:
Tackle disparities in health care. Obama and Biden will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. They will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.


Inequalities? So I assume Barack Obama will have no problem seeing the same physician an unemployed worker on the basic government controlled healthcare program sees?

Quote:
Insurance reform. Obama and Biden will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.


The reason for high premiums on malpractice suits is the actual need for the protection. America has become sue happy and any mistake a doctor makes puts him in jeopardy. I am not defending insurance companies(which are useless when actually needed), but how does Obama and Biden propose to eliminate, or minimize "mistakes" by doctors? It sounds good, but reality sees this a bit overstretched.

Quote:
Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama and Biden will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama and Biden will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.


Who is going to convert all medical records to electronic? It sounds great, but somebody has to pay for it. You and me in higher taxes.

Quote:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. Their plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. Their new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.


Who is going to prevent the Barney Franks' of the world from abusing power over government subsedized programs to line their pockets for better than 90million dollars? Obama and Biden talk a tough guy game, but how do they propose to force a company to charge a decent rate? The only way to combat high prices is to stimulate competition, and with such high tax rates proposed on businesses, the only companies that will be left are the strongest, therefore forcing monopolies.

Quote:
Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS.


Never even knew he was the "global leader" to begin with. According to news reports and the USAID site, The President George W. Bush is a "global leader" in the fight against AIDS and also Foreign assistance. No mention of Barak Obama anywhere on the site.

Quote:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.


The growing numbers of autism is alarming and I hope there is something we can key upon as a major contributor, but where is $1 billion dollars of federal funding coming from?

In reading the entire healthcare plan, I see some ideas that are unique and somewhat inspiring but yet in reality are not attainable. Overall, the healthcare policy is riddled with government intervention, with government regulation, and with government directives. In a capitalist society high costs are confronted by healthy competition, not government regulation.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
BBF wrote:
Piratefan13 wrote:
5. Health Care-- Obama's healthcare policy reaks of nationalized healthcare, "healthcare for everyone", "lower premiums", etc. I am certainly all for people being given healthcare at a reasonable rate, but how do you accomplish that when everyone is provided healthcare? Who pays for it? Unless, like Cuba, the government regulates the costs charged by Doctors and Hospitals. For everyone to have healthcare it has to be payed for by someone, that someone is you and me, in taxes. So our premium will be lower, doctor availability will be lower, quality of care will be lower, and hospital supplies and equipment will be in a shortage because of the "lower cost" healthcare. But hey, our premium will be lower and that deadbeat individual who refuses to work will have healthcare payed by me. I don't think so, I don't want to pay for anybody who is physically able to work but refuses. If this country adopts a nationalized healthcare system, our best doctors will find another country to do business in. We will be left with average doctors trying to make a living. There is no way I'm going under for any surgery by the guy who got "C's" in Med School. Now, with that all mentioned, our healthcare system is not in great shape, it does need to be fixed, but nationalized healthcare is NOT the answer. The more the government is involved in our day to day life, the more we resemble a communist society.

Anthony DePalmo of the NY Times writes(in response to the film "Sicko" by Michael Moore)
Quote:
Universal health care has long given the Cuban regime bragging rights, though there is growing concern about the future. In the decades that Cuba drew financial and military support from the Soviet Union, Mr. Castro poured resources into medical education, creating the largest medical school in Latin America and turning out thousands of doctors to practice around the world. But that changed after the collapse of the Soviets, according to Cuban defectors like Dr. Leonel Cordova. By the time Dr. Cordova started practicing in 1992, equipment and drugs were already becoming scarce. He said he was assigned to a four-block neighborhood in Havana Province where he was supposed to care for about 600 people. “But even if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis,” he said, “I couldn’t write a prescription for antibiotics, because there were none.” He defected in 2000 while on a medical mission in Zimbabwe and made his way to the United States. He is now an urgent-care physician at Baptist Hospital in Miami. Having practiced medicine in both Cuba and the United States, Dr. Cordova has an unusual perspective for comparison. “Actually there are three systems,” Dr. Cordova said, because Cuba has two: one is for party officials and foreigners like those Mr. Moore brought to Havana. “It is as good as this one here, with all the resources, the best doctors, the best medicines, and nobody pays a cent,” he said. But for the 11 million ordinary Cubans, hospitals are often ill equipped and patients “have to bring their own food, soap, sheets — they have to bring everything.” And up to 20,000 Cuban doctors may be working in Venezuela, creating a shortage in Cuba. Until he had to have emergency surgery last year, Fidel Castro — who turned 80 this year — was considered a model of vibrant long life in Cuba. But it was only last week that he acknowledged in an open letter that his initial surgery by Cuban doctors had been botched. He did not confirm, however, that a specialist had been flown in from Spain last December to help set things right.


The bottom line for Americans may be similiar, all would HAVE access to healthcare, but the quality and quantity of supplies would be in question. Especially quality of doctors, like in the case of Fidel Castro needing a professional from Spain to "fix" mistakes by his so-called excellent doctors.


Obviously I have a unique (and probably biased) view of this. I am extremely eager to hear the other side of the coin argued before I provide my perspective, however. Sub? Willton?

And by the way, what's wrong with getting C's in med school??!!! I wouldn't want to operate on you anyways!! :lol:
(Actually, that is facetious as most medical schools are now Pass/Fail so you can't distinguish docs that got D's from those who earned A's). HA! Board scores are the more pertinent measuring stick (and I was >2 Std. dev. above the national average on step 1 :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: ).


Hey thanks there BBF! Appreciate the support. :cry:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Well, first off Obama and Biden are not gonna make anybody do anything. They are excutive branch. They can certainly ask congress to try to pass a law to make people do things, but that is certainly not the sweeping hand of pharoah.

I do like the transparency aspects though. I am a transparency kind of guy. Transperancy eliminates the need for a lot of regulation by keeping sunlight on things.

Interesting point though about that, and the databasing. I ran into a fellow at the Houston airport a month ago. He is a semi-retired ER doctor. Hit his stress limit abouta year ago, and went part time. He is now working with a company that was founded by a bunch of retired Navy Top Guns in the early '80's to address the issue of why 747's were dropping out the sky every couple weeks (remember that period? Planes flying into Long Island Sound, etc. - seemed like almost weekly).

Anyway, I digress.

The point is that the Top Guns did a huge quality audit of the airline industry. Top to bottom, and provided commons systems of communication that have reducted "Planes in Water" to almost nil. This doctor had joined them as they are now doing the same thing for Hospitals.

He was showing me bits and pieces of the current network of ER care facilities.. a group called Columbia I think. The lack of ANY coordination between the facilities was mind numbing shocking. All the same company, but no two even had a common invoicing system, or contracting system, or patient data entry system.

If this is what Obama is talking about, all for it. But note, its already underway without any directives from on high.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Well, first off Obama and Biden are not gonna make anybody do anything. They are excutive branch. They can certainly ask congress to try to pass a law to make people do things, but that is certainly not the sweeping hand of pharoah.

I'll concede that, and anyone thinking that any president can unilaterally create sweeping change in the law doesn't understand bicameralism and presentment. But the President does have the power to enforce the law, and much of that is done through the administrative agencies in the executive branch. The President has a lot of say over how the FDA, SEC, OSHA, EPA, NRDC, SCC, IRS, FBI, CIA, DHS, USPTO (in which I have a personal stake), and many others carry out their duties, and much of that comes from appointing competent (or, in the case of our current administration, incompetent) people to run those agencies. How the President exercises his powers is just as important as what powers Congress allows the President to exercise.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Liberalism's finest hour
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Before I get in to the military thing, is anyone besides me here Active Duty military?

I ask because I don't want to speak for you.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits