Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFlorida Congressman Alan Grayson keeps provoking congressional Republicans and their media allies with fact-based challenges to the lies being used to block health care reform.
The insurance-industry stooges keep taking the bait.
And the truth about the high cost of delaying needed changes in America's health care delivery system keeps getting the attention it deserves.
Why is Grayson so effective?
Because, unlike many other Democrats and mainstream Republicans, he refuses to be intimidated by the bullying tactics employed by the GOP's "Party of 'No' caucus" and its accomplices.
No matter how desperately Republicans in Congress and their amen corner in the media may try to the censor the dissident Democrats, Grayson is reminding America about the trail of dead left by insurance-company greed and political neglect.
The Florida Democrat who drew national attention last month when he declared on the House floor that the Republican plan for uninsured Americans was "don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly," was back on the House floor this week to announce the creation of a website to honor the victims of the current system.
Grayson, who has taken the lead in highlighting a Harvard study that shows 44,000 Americans die annually because they have no health insurance, told the House and the nation: "I think it dishonors all those Americans who have lost their lives because they had no health coverage, by ignoring them, by not paying attention to them, and by doing nothing to change the situation that led them to lose their live."
With that in mind, he announced the launch of a Names of the Dead website.
Grayson's welcoming message at the site declares:
Every year, more than 44,000 Americans die simply because have no health insurance.I have created this project in their memory. I hope that honoring them will help us end this senseless loss of American lives. If you have lost a loved one, please share the story of that loved one with us. Help us ensure that their legacy is a more just America, where every life that can be saved will be saved.
Visitors to the site are invited to add the names and stories of people who have died. They're also asked where they stand with regard to the health-care reform debate. There are links to the Harvard study, Grayson's speeches and his congressional and campaign websites.
The last link stirred predictable objections from Republican political operatives who are not used to Democrats who take the health care debate seriously enough to try and win it.
"What is wrong with this man? Alan Grayson's morbid exploitation of ‘the dead' for personal political gain may be the most shameless stunt he's pulled yet," grumbled Andy Sere, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Sere and his compatriots -- who are paid to pull shameless stunts for political gain -- charged that Grayson had committed some kind of ethics violation. They weren't sure what kind exactly, but they wanted to get the term "ethics violation" in play.
As when congressional Republicans threatened to sanction him for bringing up the fact that people die when they are denied insurance and health care, Grayson responded with a cry of: Bring it on!
"Let them file a complaint," said the congressman, who reminded reporters that he had paid for the website with his own money. "I'm sure I'll be vindicated."
Actually, he's already been vindicated.
Opponents of health care reform are so desperately frightened by Grayson's tactics that they immediately attacked the "Names of the Dead" site and posted false names -- "Wile E. Coyote" and "Hugh G. Reckshinn" -- to mock the reality that Americans die because our insurance industry.
When your critics are reduced to making light of the innocent dead, you have won the debate.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Isn't the truth that the Dems and Magic will be the ones who will be the most "frightened" if they can't get a health-care bill? Not of the Republicans, but their own Kool-aid lovers....LOL!
For many Dems, they are "frightened" IF there is a health-care bill.....come Nov., 2010.
Delicious, ain't it?
Posted by Happy at 10/21/2009 @ 6:59pm
Amazing is the lower depths the Demoncrats will plunge to in order to gain political power! They want us to look like europe and will get us to look more like G. Brittion!
The TPA examined the World Health Organization's latest-available data to contrast the NHS with the Dutch, French, German and Spanish health systems, which are less government-dominated. Specifically, the pro-market group measured "mortality amenable to health care" - those deaths that a medical organization realistically should prevent.
While those four countries averaged a 106.6 amenable mortality rate, Britain was almost 29 percent deadlier, with its rate of 135.3. The TPA thus calculates that the NHS took the lives of 17,157 Britons who otherwise would have survived were they treated by doctors across the English Channel. This figure is more than two-and-a-half times Britain's yearly alcohol-related deaths, and is quintuple its annual highway fatalities. Comparing 60 million Brits to 300 million Yanks, this is like a federally-operated health agency eliminating 85,785 Americans in 2004.
"Anyone looking to reform the American health-care system should learn lessons from the European experience," says Matthew Sinclair, the TPA policy analyst who authored this study. "Britain's NHS has produced dismally poor results. Thousands die every year, thanks to its poor performance and its failure to make good use of new resources. Other European health-care systems deliver greater competition, decentralization and independence from political meddling."
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 7:14pm
No one can complain that the NHS is underfinanced. This year's budget is $210 billion - about $1.05 trillion if adjusted to match America's population. NHS funding climbed 221.7 percent between 1996 and 2006. Despite such largesse, "we have not increased the pace of improvement in the most important measurement of its output - its ability to save lives," laments professor Karol Sikora, a leader of Doctors for Reform, which hopes to inject competition and choice into British medicine.
Poor sanitation has become the NHS' latest worry. The BBC's Danielle Glavin worked undercover at a government hospital in Kent. "On my first day, as I emptied bins, swept and mopped, I noticed old blood stains ingrained on the floor," Glavin reported. In one surgical theater, "a blood-stained gown was left on a trolley for 24 hours, and used medical instruments were discarded in a sink for a day."
This helps explain why the British government estimated that 9 percent of inpatients in 2000 suffered hospital-acquired infections. The bacterium Clostridium difficile often is associated with hospital outbreaks and extended medical stays. English and Welsh death certificates citing C. diff as a cause or contributing factor grew from about 1,000 in 1999 to 3,807 in 2005.
Diseases snuff Britons sooner than they do others in the developed world. A September 2007 Lancet Oncology article found 66.3 percent of American men alive five years after cancer diagnosis. Among male Finns, that figure was 55.9 percent, while only 44.8 percent of Englishmen survived after five years. Across the European Union, 20.1 females per 100,000 under 65 died prematurely of circulatory disease. Among British women, that number was 23.6.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 7:15pm
Collectively, these data strongly rebuff the notion that America's imperfect health-care industry needs a booster shot of mandates and regulations. What it sorely lacks is more choice, competition and freedom - and loads less government.
John McCain's ideas - among them, expanded health-savings accounts; individually owned, portable health-insurance policies available across state lines; and medical-lawsuit reform - are the antidote to the "health care with a British accent" that Clinton or Obama would import, unless American voters stop them.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 7:16pm
Not enough, well how about one of the "best" socialistic systems!
Switzerland's hospitals may be the envy of the world, but rising health costs and patient numbers are increasingly putting the system under strain. The situation is exacerbated by an ageing population, severe budget cuts in health care and a shortage of doctors.
Hospitals are reporting that they are full and that waiting times for operations have lengthened. Casualty departments say they are admitting more and more patients.The situation is even more evident in summer, when families go on holiday, leaving older relatives behind.
"There are lots of patients who shouldn't be in... hospital," Sacha Pfaender, a junior doctor in internal medicine, who has worked at the Geneva University Hospital and two other hospitals, told swissinfo.
Hospital staff say people are increasingly turning to the casualty department instead of waiting for an appointment with the family doctor.
Bern University Hospital has recorded a three per cent jump in admissions over the past two years, and Geneva saw figures rise by four per cent in 2002.
According to the Federal Statistics Office, 1.39 million patients were treated in Switzerland's 364 hospitals at a cost of SFr14.6 billion ($10.6 billion) in 2001.
« There are lots of patients who shouldn't be in hospital. »
Sacha Pfaender, junior doctor Demand for healthcare Doctors say that since obligatory health insurance was introduced in 1996, the Swiss seem to feel they have a right to health care. This tendency has increased as health insurance has become more expensive.
Pfaender says he has also noticed a change in people's attitudes: as people have become better informed about health, they are demanding more expensive examinations, such as a scan.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 7:29pm
A shortage of personnel is compounding the problem, putting pressure on both staff and patients.
"There are always a few patients waiting in the bathrooms or in the corridors," Marco Bettoni, a cardiologist and former junior doctor at Geneva University Hospital, told swissinfo.
Staff cutbacks Bettoni and others are also concerned about continuous staff cutbacks.
Hospital staff also regularly work long hours - between 70 and 80 hours a week. One young junior doctor at Lausanne University Hospital told swissinfo he sometimes worked a 36-hour shift.
Parliament is aware of the problems and in 2002 decided to limit working hours for junior doctors to 50 hours a week – a measure due to come into force in 2005.
Under pressure from junior doctors' unions, most cantons have now implemented the agreement, but evidence suggests that it is not always respected by some hospitals, mainly for financial reasons.
According to Christophe Gapany, junior doctor at the children's hospital in Lausanne, patients will continue to suffer unless the workload is reduced to fit into the 50-hour limit.
More medical students Oliver Adam, from the Bern branch of Switzerland's junior doctors' association, says another problem is the drop in the number of people choosing to study medicine.
In 1998 there were almost 8,000 medical students, but this figure fell to just over 7,000 last year.
One solution to make up the shortfall has been to hire foreign doctors. Around 30 per cent of hospital doctors come from abroad, mainly from Germany.
But other European countries such as Germany, France and Britain are also suffering from a shortage of medics.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 7:29pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 7:14pm |
"Amazing is the lower depths the Demoncrats will plunge to in order to gain political power! They want us to look like europe and will get us to look more like G. Brittion!"
Having positive GDP growth like Norway and Germany, you mean?
"Comparing 60 million Brits to 300 million Yanks, this is like a federally-operated health agency eliminating 85,785 Americans in 2004."
Nice meaningless comparison...since we're not asking for anything remotely like the NHS in the USA.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/21/2009 @ 7:41pm
"Opponents of health care reform are so desperately frightened by Grayson's tactics that they immediately attacked the "Names of the Dead" site and posted false names -- "Wile E. Coyote" and "Hugh G. Reckshinn" -- to mock the move to honor insurance-industry victims. When your critics are reduced to making light of the innocent dead, you have won the debate."
I think you're making a giant leap past Occam's razor on this one.
Try twelve-year-olds (though distinguishing them from our resident cons can be challenging, I'll admit).
Posted by snowball777 at 10/21/2009 @ 7:43pm
bigpasture is just one giant plagiarizing machine....
way to go there!
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:41pm
hey bigpasture, have you ever been to europe? europeans kick our asses on almost every level. they speak at least two languages, and in many cases, three languages. they eat better, drive less, live longer. they are much thinner. they work less, play more. and, most importantly, everyone has healthcare.
and you wanna talk about "health savings accounts"? that's the most retarded idea EVER.
that's code word for: buy insurance from us, we'll trade it away on wall street, and deny you needed coverage.
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:51pm
let's put it to a vote: how many people here want to entrust their HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS to large corporations??????????????
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:59pm
Yeah, but you wouldn't want him to call out FOX referees call out. Most of the official 'calling out' has been very measured, very very un-FOXlike. Very very un-Rev Happy Larrylike.
This Grayson move is of the same ilk. Foregoing the MSM myth of bipartisanship *the flipside of MSM mega ultra lifeblood lie: false equivalency*-foregoing these lies for brash fact
One David-man's truth to MSM Goliath power.
Can anyone recall any bipartisanship in the however many *hundreds* of issues from likes of Rev Happy Larry and the party of No? Exactly.
Posted by winyahn at 10/21/2009 @ 10:13pm
and you wanna talk about "health savings accounts"? that's the most retarded idea EVER.
that's code word for: buy insurance from us, we'll trade it away on wall street, and deny you needed coverage.
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
DarlaLOON does not even read what is posted! No one said anything about that which YOU RANT!!! We do know one thing you would deny medical services to our servicemen!
---------------------
deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
We know Darlaloon hates herself and all American soldiers who she would rather see DEAD! She is the Islamic fascist terrorist best friend at home!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 10:22pm
The strategy to pass Doc Fix before Obamacare to purchase doctors groups support for Obamacare was documented in the media. The Hill reported earlier this week that "the White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal: They'll freeze cuts in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors' support of healthcare reform." This strategy collapsed today when the Senate voted 47-53, well short of the necessary 60 voted needed, to commence debate on the bill.
Many senators voiced policy concerns about a $247 billion new spending bill with no method to cut other areas of the budget to pay for this new spending. Sen. Mike Enzi (R.-Wyo.) said of the vote today, "[T]he majority is trying to add a quarter-trillion dollars in Medicare spending to our nation's deficit this week. Meanwhile, they're working behind closed doors on a healthcare bill that will cut a half-trillion dollars from Medicare benefits to pay for new entitlement programs. That is irresponsible. We need to fix Medicare's problems, like physician payments, before anyone should even think about cutting more money from Medicare to create a new government entitlement program." With the budget deficit for the year at $1.4 trillion, it seems like a terrible time to pass a bill costing hundreds of billions of dollars in new deficit spending.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 11:32pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 11:32pm |
Yes, there's good strategy in pandering to the elderly (who actually vote in each and every election), but since when are Pugs DEFENDING Medicare?
I thought you cons were opposed to any and all spending that doesn't result in casualties (ours OR theirs, you're not too particular).
And where WAS all this "fiscal discipline" for the last 8 years?
Save your croc tears.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:17am
BigPasture and HAPPY momentarily succeeded in hijacking this thread with anti-reform mumbo jumbo. Neither one even mentioned the subject of the post Alan Grayson.
It shows how afraid they are of someone like Grayson, and is why they tried to hijack this thread. Grayson shows the kind of savy political moxie that has the ability to smack down Neo-Fascists like flies sprayed with RAID.
Grayson is the kind of politician that we had hoped Obama might be. But instead we got Mr. Rodgers or Melvin Milquetoast.
I have been tempted to say that I would not vote for a Democrat again. But Greyson may prove to be someone worth watching. I like this guy more and more as time goes on.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 05:09am
44,000 Americans are dying every year because they are either underinsured or uninsured. Or even because they are afraid of going to the doctor because they can't afford the co-pays and deductibles.
There is a recent story of a 39 year old man who joined the Marines for a four year stretch because his wife needs cancer treatments. He has a young daughter starting her freshman year in highschool who is heartbroken that her father will be gone until she graduates.
How can this crap happen in our country? How much collateral damage is being done to our children?
We are losing almost as many people every year as lives lost in the entire Vietnam War. All because we have a capitalistic predatory healthcare system.
And yet there are people like HAPPY and BigPasture trying to undermine efforts to fix a broken system. HAPPY even thinks it's "Delicious"...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 05:29am
Here's a thought! How about Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sander's arrange an intervention for Barack Obama and Harry Reid. The subject of the intervention would be, "How To Locate Your Yam-Bag".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 06:22am
let's put it to a vote: how many people here want to entrust their HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS to large corporations??????????????
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:59pm
I say, let morons like Rio keep their private coverage since they'll be able to....that's what real choice is.
If they believe it to be superior to a public option, then by all means they should spend more of their hard earned money only to be denied care when they actually need it. Then when they are whining about not having coverage and are dying as a result they'll deserve to die because they'll have chosen their own poison based off their idiotic hatred of logical reason.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 06:32am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 06:32am
With people like Rio or Happy it all boils down to their smug self assurance that "I have mine, so screw you". They think, "I can afford cadillac care and you can't, neener neener", "I will live longer than you which makes me superior, neener neener".
And when people start talking about single payer or universal healthcare, they see just one more assualt on their selfish, vainglorious illusion of personal superiority.
To them, Egalitarianism sucks. Things like political, economic and social equality are a direct threat to their self image as being "special". If the rabble can enjoy the same status as they, it may become apparent that everyone is "special". And to their level of spiritual achievement, that is simply intolerable.
They are worms trying to be butterfly's at everyone elses expense. They are low level beings who are still jealous of others.
If I was Jesus, I would say, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".
But i'm not Jesus, and all I can say is, "Punch em in the fuckin' mouth!".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 07:03am
BigPasture and HAPPY momentarily succeeded in hijacking this thread with anti-reform mumbo jumbo. Neither one even mentioned the subject of the post Alan Grayson.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 05:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
Attacking without reading posts makes you really look stupid! Our do you need "specific name useage" to get the point?
"Amazing is the lower depths the Demoncrats will plunge to in order to gain political power! They want us to look like europe and will get us to look more like G. Brittion! "
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 7:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Who do you think I was referring to?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 07:07am
And where WAS all this "fiscal discipline" for the last 8 years?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:17am
the last 30 years..
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2009 @ 07:31am
it is kinda tacky that he has links to his campaign.....
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2009 @ 07:32am
"Big Pasture," your statistics merely compare "G. Brittian's" health outcomes with those of other European countries that would never dream of becoming more like the United States.
For the Germans, we are "ein abschreckendes Beispiel" - a deterrent example.
The basic facts are still that the British system outperforms ours in infant mortality and life expectancy and costs a lot less.
1st number infant mortality, 2nd number life expectancy, from 2006
US 7.0, 77.2 United Kingdom 5.3, 78.5 Germany 4.2, 78.4 France 3.9, 79.4 Netherlands 4.8, 78.6 Japan 3, 81.6 Canada 5.4, 79.7 Sweden 3.1, 80.2
Source: "International Healthcare Systems Primer," American Medical Student Association, 2006
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/22/2009 @ 07:53am
I've got over a hundred people on ignore, and what I'm left reading on this thread is basically people responding to the idiotic ramblings of BigPasture.
I'm sure there is a lesson to be learned from that.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 07:54am
If I was Jesus, I would say, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".
But i'm not Jesus, and all I can say is, "Punch em in the fuckin' mouth!".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 07:03am
I second that!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 07:57am
I'm sure there is a lesson to be learned from that.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 07:54am
The lesson I've learned from all of this is that it doesn't matter what the people of the U.S. want. The circus we have in D.C. is a freak show to dupe us into thinking we actually have a voice in what goes on in this country.
The only recourse we have is to vent against aholes like Rio. Obviously voting for "change" didn't do dick. The same system is in place with the same people calling the shots.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 08:04am
The Central Intelligence Agency, as I've mentioned before, is also an interesting source. The CIA ranks a number of countries according to infant mortality and life expectancy.
Here are the projected infant mortality rankings of the UK and the US for 2009:
https:// www.cia.gov/ library/ publications/ the-world-factbook/ rankorder/ 2091rank.html
United Kingdom: 4.85
United States: 6.26
And here are the projected life expectancy rankings of the UK and the US for 2009:
https:// www.cia.gov/ library/ publications/ the-world-factbook/ rankorder/ 2102rank.html
United Kingdom: 79.01
United States: 78.11
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/22/2009 @ 08:08am
I'm sure there is a lesson to be learned from that. Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 07:54am |
Yes, if you want to interact with humans (as opposed to our pastoral con representative), you need to post something with a question mark in it.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 05:29am |
And now you know why most of us have that dipshit, Happy, on ignore. He hasn't said anything even remotely interesting or near topic in months.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 08:17am
With people like Rio or Happy it all boils down to their smug self assurance that "I have mine, so screw you". They think, "I can afford cadillac care and you can't, neener neener", "I will live longer than you which makes me superior, neener neener".
If the rabble can enjoy the same status as they, it may become apparent that everyone is "special". And to their level of spiritual achievement, that is simply intolerable.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 07:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
The ignorance , arrogance , and elitism of leftist never ceases to amaze me! Did you have a gross income of less than $30,000. last year, wife and I did?
You da fool of the day!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:25am
I say, let morons like Rio keep their private coverage since they'll be able to....that's what real choice is.Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 08:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
The ignorance , arrogance , and elitism of leftist never ceases to amaze me! Did you have a gross income of less than $30,000. last year, wife and I did?
I was wrong, its a tie between wolf and chaoszen for da fool of the day!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:30am
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/22/2009 @ 07:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
The 44,000 includes the over 30,000 who died of the flu but not the over 40,000 who died of traffic accident injuries I guess! Keep playing the flawed statistics games like a good Demoncrat and you may make it to the House some day!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:34am
Who do you think I was referring to? Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 07:07am
How the fuck should I know? Your as crazy as a shit house rat. By the way, can you tell me how long it has been since you were "punched in the fuckin' mouth?"
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 08:35am
Robert Reich -- University of California, Berkeley -- 26, September 2007
I'll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:
"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more.
...continued below
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 08:37am
...post continues
"Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."
Are you taking notes, Alan Grayson? Okay, now back to Robert Reich and his uncomfortably brutal honesty about health care.
"Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."
http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=IT7 Y0TOBuG4
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 08:37am
I've got over a hundred people on ignore, and what I'm left reading on this thread is basically people responding to the idiotic ramblings of BigPasture.
I'm sure there is a lesson to be learned from that.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 07:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
Another "open mind" trapped in his myopic echo chamber speaks! Typical of leftist elitism!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:39am
You da fool of the day!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:25am
Thank's Big, I try.
If you really do have an annual income of less than $30,000 annualy, and you are bound and determined to express positions that are contrary to your best interests, I need not worry.
You are already busy enough punching yourself in the fuckin' mouth. Sorry to intrude on your Masochism...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 08:48am
How the fuck should I know? Your as crazy as a shit house rat. By the way, can you tell me how long it has been since you were "punched in the fuckin' mouth?"
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 08:35am | ignore this person | warn this person
Three at one time tried when I was 16 and alone, but like most cowards they backed down turned and ran. Over the years it seems many talk a good fight, but are gutless to start one even when given the opportunity! Now that I'm 62, 6', 215lbs and can still lift the engine and transaxel of a front drive off the floor I still find few challegers? No one actually works physically anymore cause they can't hack it and are just lazy!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:52am
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 08:35am
Now now, what did we learn in kindergarden? No punching. A straight jacket, electric shock, injection of a soul not whorshiping a golden calf greed machine, a few daily moral meds-- and viola, the return of what once was a human being!
No need to punch.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 08:54am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 08:37am | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 08:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
That about sizes it up! And, you actually live up to your moniker!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:56am
No, no, it's not polite to say, 'I'll punch you in the f*****n' mouth!'
Rather, say, 'I'll section 1233 your butt.'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 08:59am
The 44,000 includes the over 30,000 who died of the flu but not the over 40,000 who died of traffic accident injuries I guess! Keep playing the flawed statistics games like a good Demoncrat and you may make it to the House some day!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:34am
Firstly you quote JakobFabians post concerning statistics reported by the CIA, then you fail to respond to the conclusions of that post and then pull some half assed stats right out of your butt concerning the Harvard Study on Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults.
I have read the entire study. Which takes some work to understand. So, can you tell me where in that study it refers to 30,000 people who died of the flu? I must have missed that..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 09:10am
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:52am
Uhh.. Big, my reference to a punch in the mouth is allegorical. I could have done without your life history and personal self aggrandizement..
Now I feel like blowing chunks.. Thanks.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 09:17am
Well, it's off to bed for me, gotta work tonite.
It's been fun, but.. Oh well you know the rest. Later. PEACE.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 09:20am
Until 2003, the CDC had estimated 20,000 deaths per year, but in a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, of which Thompson was the lead author, researchers concluded that flu-related deaths had increased during the 1980s and 1990s to between 17,000 and 51,000 deaths annually, an average of 36,000. They attributed that partly to a rise in the number of elderly people, who are at higher risk of dying from flu complications, and to virulent strains circulating in the '90s.
So yea, there must be about 44,000 that die yearly under our health system if you count other causes, but then what should we expect from a population of over 300,000,000.? That's about 1/10,000s of a percent of the population?!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 09:24am
Wow! In 2008 we only killed 37,261 people in motor vehicle accidents! The recession has done somebody good!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 09:29am
Big, you keep missing the big part of the 44k dead study-- it is of those without insurance. Clearly some did die of the flu-- but the conclusion is that their not having insurance greatly increased their likelihood to die from not having med care on a regular basis, weakening them per relying only on an emergency room when it's normally too late.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 09:35am
I'm assuming BigP is missing a big part and hoping it's simply not brains and/or a soul...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 09:37am
Uhh.. Big, my reference to a punch in the mouth is allegorical. I could have done without your life history and personal self aggrandizement..
Now I feel like blowing chunks.. Thanks.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 09:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
Allegory, illustration, verbose threat, demeaning argument, or just leftist blowhard, like I said just talking a good fight as most bullies are good at!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 09:41am
Big, you keep missing the big part of the 44k dead study-- it is of those without insurance. Clearly some did die of the flu-- but the conclusion is that their not having insurance greatly increased their likelihood to die from not having med care on a regular basis, weakening them per relying only on an emergency room when it's normally too late.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 09:35am | ignore this person | warn this person
What kind of care would they get in Mexico if they returned there?
Apparently the Demoncrats like Grayson think illegal aliens are to be protected by our health system and taxpayer dollars so I'M SURE they are included! What is the breakdown of national origin of people dying under U.S.A. healthcare?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 09:46am
Clearly some did die of the flu-- but the conclusion is that their not having insurance greatly increased their likelihood to die from not having med care on a regular basis, weakening them per relying only on an emergency room when it's normally too late.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 09:35am
Big Pasture (Rio) is Ebenezer Scrooge's great great grandtwink. He's of the mind that if the sick must die, then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population. Charles Dickens was evidently a Maoist Commie too.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 09:52am
you all need to chillax.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/22/2009 @ 10:34am
jakobfabian,
with regards to britain, you forgot the most important aspect of their system: it insures everyone. even foreigners. even "illegals". and still ends up costing a lot less than ours.
you see, bigpasture/happy/antisocialist: they are more interested in an arcane, outmoded political philosophy, than in changing the way our government functions in the interests of working people.
they are, in short, ideologues with a lot of rage and hatred.
Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:07am
I was in a car accident in january without health insurance and I am 24 years old. I have become almost 75K in debt and I make roughly 30K a year. It would take me 2.5 years (not considering tax). So basically I'm not paying them anything so who's gonna end up with the bill. Taxes will end up paying the bill at least in the form of a write off. This is the richest country in the world there is no reason why we can't have the best healthcare for all. And whats the deal with not even considering a deficit. It's ok for Afganistan but not for healthcare. It's time for progressives to get louder then the ignorant tea baggers and win this fight it should be easy but not enough liberals have the courage of grayson.
Posted by black_sheep at 10/22/2009 @ 11:08am
"Apparently the Demoncrats like Grayson think illegal aliens are to be protected by our health system and taxpayer dollars so I'M SURE they are included!"
of course, they do!
Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:09am
basically, bigpasture's version of a healthcare system:
whites only, payment on delivery of services
Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:10am
People die from the flu!
People die in traffic accidents!
People die in combat!
People die fighting fires and fighting crime!
People die from drug overdose!
People die from violent crime!
People die from homelessness!
People die because they smoke all their lives!
People die from old age!
People die from suicide!
People die from cancer!
PEOPLE DIE!!!!!!
BABIES ARE BORN!!!!!!
Guess what. We're ALL going to die someday!!!!!!
Get a grip everyone. People die and babies are born. It's called the circle of life and it's been going on since the beginning of time.
Spending a trillion or more on HC reform will not change that fact. Nor will it change the stats. It will just place more debt on our kids and grandkids backs and water down quality HC. But, if it is done right, it can help some people live a little longer, except for old people who will have their HC rationed. Also, plan on long waits to see your doctors and to have testing done. There will not be nearly enough doctors and to have testing done and other health care professionals to handle the overload. That's just reality.
The only hope for people who are used to quality care from their doctors and short waiting periods for appointments and in waiting rooms would be for doctors to suspend their practices and only see patients they already care for. Most established practices aren't able to take on new patients. No new patients for awhile until the pool of docs can be widenened through attrition the entry of new doctors over the next decade.
Obama doesn't care about the cost or the rest of the downside. He cares only about CHANGE! And rewarding all those who voted for him from his community organizing days. It doesn't matter what kind of change.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/22/2009 @ 11:10am
Gunslinger.... Actually over a period of time having medicare for all could actually make us spend a lot less.
Posted by black_sheep at 10/22/2009 @ 11:14am
For more detail on Grayson.
http://tinyurl.com/ykbgod3
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 11:20am
No one actually works physically anymore cause they can't hack it and are just lazy!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:52am
then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population. Charles Dickens was evidently a Maoist Commie too.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 09:52am
Almost nobody works physically anymore, at least not backbreaking coal mine/cotton field/steel mill work, because of automation and the conversion to a service economy. Now we have plumbers and computer programmers and cabdrivers. We're a long way from Dickens.
And on the subject of Dickens and Mao, if you're worried about the surplus population, just remember that when Ebenezer Scrooge asked "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Mao could easily have produced a very long list, not to mention a count of the "surplus population" eliminated in the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 11:23am
On Grayson: How is it that he can go to the floor of the House and say that republicans want to kill people yet when Sarah Palin used the words 'death panels', which of course is a good way to describe a board of muckity mucks deciding if people are too old to spend on for such silly things as hip replacements or heart surgery or kidney transplants in favor of someone younger.
This is what government run HC would do to the elderly. I think Sarah was right on with her analysis. Changes were made in democratic proposals shortly after but they haven't gone far enough. But Palin was castigated by the leftwing press and by democrats everywhere. Thank God we have Sarah to shine a light on the unseemly motives of the liberals.
The words, 'no senior citizen will be denied HC to any degree or discriminated against by HC professionals or government run HC based upon their advanced age at any time' must be included in any bill presented. So far I haven't seen it. If someone else has I'd appreciate the enlightenment.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/22/2009 @ 11:33am
gunslinger1: "Get a grip everyone. People die and babies are born. It's called the circle of life and it's been going on since the beginning of time."
--I'm sure you weren't saying the same thing about our invasion of Iraq.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/22/2009 @ 11:37am
Thank God there is at least one Democrat left in the House.
Go Grayson!
Posted by LarryB at 10/22/2009 @ 11:45am
Sweden 3.1, 80.2
Where for decades everyone has public health care insurance & anyone can buy a private supplement if s/he wishes. Few do. Most doctors are self-employed (the reverse of UK).
Oh, and all education, from daycare to Ph.D. is free.
And not even the Swedish Conservatives would dream of changing this.
The US is committing suicide.
Posted by sloper at 10/22/2009 @ 11:45am
whites only, payment on delivery of services
Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:10am
Darla, You have to amend that to: rich whites only on delivery of services.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 11:47am
The Sunday Times of London October 18, 2009
3,000 NHS staff get private care -- Marie Woolf, Whitehall Editor
THE National Health Service has spent Ł1.5m paying for hundreds of its staff to have private health treatment so they can leapfrog their own waiting lists.
More than 3,000 staff, including doctors and nurses, have gone private at the taxpayers' expense in the past three years because the queues at the clinics and hospitals where they work are too long.
Figures released under the Freedom of Information act show that NHS administrative staff, paramedics and ambulance drivers have also been given free private healthcare. This has covered physiotherapy, osteopathy, psychiatric care and counselling -- all widely available on the NHS.
"It simply isn't fair to have one service for staff and another for everyone else," said Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, who obtained the figures.
"If the NHS has to circumvent their own waiting lists the system isn't working well enough. It's an admission by the NHS that their own system isn't able to respond to the mass of people desperate to get back to work."
The number of health service employees sent to private healthcare facilities has more than doubled in the past three years.
In 2006-7, 708 staff working for NHS trusts received private treatment at a cost of Ł279,000. Last year it increased to 1,641 at a cost of Ł828,413.
...continued below
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 11:49am
The Sunday Times of London October 18, 2009
3,000 NHS staff get private care -- Marie Woolf, Whitehall Editor -- (continued)
The health department defended the practice and said sending doctors, nurses and other key staff for private treatment helped to get them back to work.
"If trusts want to get their staff back to work more quickly they can't jump NHS waiting lists, so going private is an option," said the spokesman.
"There is evidence that early intervention in tackling sickness absence enables staff to return to work more quickly.
"Other benefits include: reducing the risk of chronic illness that could result in ill health retirement, cost-saving on temporary staff and having a positive impact on staff health and wellbeing and, in turn, patient satisfaction."
The East Midlands ambulance service recently set up a contract with a private occupational healthcare specialist worth Ł300,000 a year. It has sent its staff to the specialist for vaccines, health screening and to deal with needle injuries and blood tests.
Other big spenders include the south east coast ambulance service, which has sent more than 800 staff for physiotherapy, osteopathy and counselling at a cost of more than Ł279,000 over three years.
Humber mental health trust has spent more than Ł47,000 on private counselling, even though it specialises in offering this service along with psychiatric help. A spokeswoman said staff would feel awkward being counselled by NHS colleagues.
"An appropriate and professional counselling and therapeutic service has to be free from any other existing pressures in respect of relationships and therefore cannot always be provided by an organisation," she said.
"Staff may also be referred externally due to peak of demand to meet the need
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 11:50am
you see, bigpasture/happy/antisocialist: they are more interested in an arcane, outmoded political philosophy, than in changing the way our government functions in the interests of working people.
they are, in short, ideologues with a lot of rage and hatred.
Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:07am
We got it Darla. You believe that the constitution is arcane and outmoded to today's hipsters. Tell us what govt you would like to put in it's place?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 11:53am
I was in a car accident in january without health insurance and I am 24 years old. I have become almost 75K in debt and I make roughly 30K a year. It would take me 2.5 years (not considering tax). So basically I'm not paying them anything so who's gonna end up with the bill. Taxes will end up paying the bill at least in the form of a write off. This is the richest country in the world there is no reason why we can't have the best healthcare for all. And whats the deal with not even considering a deficit. It's ok for Afganistan but not for healthcare. It's time for progressives to get louder then the ignorant tea baggers and win this fight it should be easy but not enough liberals have the courage of grayson.
Posted by black_sheep at 10/22/2009 @ 11:08am
I assume that you must have been at fault in your accident?
Otherwise the liability insurance of the at fault driver was responsible for your medical bills. And if that driver did not have sufficient coverage, you had the right to sue and would win in court.
If you were at fault, why do you blame the health insurance industry for your negligence?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 11:56am
and viola, the return of what once was a human being!
No need to punch.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 08:54am
...and (after proper treatment) a human being who can play the viola!
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 12:03pm
Grayson has shown once again that he is perhaps the most classless jerk in Congress.
I have already filed my protest on his website with a phony name and a commentary on the unconstitutional basis of his agenda. I am emailing friends around the country to join me in attacking his efforts.
It is also noteworthy of the bottom of that website
"Paid for by the Committee to Elect Alan Grayson"
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 12:07pm
More than 3,000 staff, including doctors and nurses, have gone private at the taxpayers' expense in the past three years because the queues at the clinics and hospitals where they work are too long.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 11:49am
whites only, payment on delivery of services
Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:10am
So the UK NHS has gone for a "private option." Maybe darladoon can look up the race of British physicians and explain how the British heqlthcare system is racist.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 12:11pm
Posted by urmygyro at 10/22/2009 @ 11:37am
Yes, urmy. People die in combat too. It's on my list above.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:11pm
Posted by LarryB at 10/22/2009 @ 11:45am
Grayson is a new Congressman. Give him a few more months and he'll be bought and paid for as well.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:12pm
Bigpasture's thorazine shufflings Big: It is an irony you show up on a blog dedicated to the principles of civil debate and the elevation of intellectual discourse. I remember you too well from our days working together. Your simplistic analysis of issues was your moniker and your drug induced hubris was what attracted my attention. I was always curious about your fixation on physical stature, especially when you began to wear military boots with exaggerated lifts (almost high heels) and still you could not have been more than 5' 4" in height and maybe 115lbs. What happened? Why all this venom? Do you still drive that TAXI and listen to the inane, insane ramblings of Rush and his other half, Glen Beck?
Posted by startrev at 10/22/2009 @ 12:19pm
What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 08:37am
Total donkey vomit. There is no causal factor here. If the drug companies don't make as much profits, there is no reason to assume that they won't innovate. As inovation still leads to increased profit. Maybe it will lead to some fat trimmed from the excess that is the legalized drugging of the American people.
The drug companies swamp the airwaves with propaganda to sell their wares to those who likely don't need it. Drugs have become a lifestyle need for many americans to balance their blood pressure to maintain their cholesterol levels, while continuing their unhealthy lifestyles. We drug our children at early age if they are not focused enough during class, nevermind that recess and P.E. has been reduced or cut from many curicula. So instead of insuring our kids have the exercise they need, we just drug them.
How much money do the drug companies make from viagra, or propecia or for treating restless leg syndrome (wtf?). The drug companises are out of control, and I think they would be just fine if the government like costco or walmart or any other business was allowed to bargin on price.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 12:20pm
Well, for Congressman Grayson, I am one of the uninsured and have been for 9 months. No big deal. Doctors take cash when I need them.
I would note that Congress and the States have so screwed up the Insurance companies that it is very hard to get individual health insurance unless I have perfect health. Why, they can only rate by age and sex. If you have a problem that can not rate differently to include the risk associated with a sickness.
Conversely, they can not rate differently if you are well. Also, kind of crazy. Consider most Americans live fairly healthy lives and yet get no benefit from it. A comparison to car insurance would be - the guy with three tickets, a DUI and a Corvette gets charged the same as a guy with a clean record and a used Camry. Just doesn't seem far or reasonable. If our health insurance were rated on health behavior, we would all live cleaner, healthier lives with less health expense.
But that is too 'results oriented' for the Dems. They think we need a one size all solution, an expensive one size fits all solution that I can really afford.
Tom
Posted by tomlew at 10/22/2009 @ 12:25pm
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 12:20pm |
But what will we do without helpful adverts to tell us what we didn't know was wrong with us until they made it clear?
Ask your doctor!
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:27pm
Argument: If people on the right think this list business is an objectionable stunt, just think of the "stunts" pulled by those astroturf mad dogs this past summer in an attempt to hijack public opinion in a much more brutal way. After all, look at the content here, and the form, and the overall objective: we're not talking disruption of public meetings, we're talking promotion of humanity, that is, making the health of citizens into a social - and thus political - priority, a democratic responsibility. If this sounds "European", then hell, let's be "European". Or better still, let's invent a model of health care that plays on the real strengths of medical know-how in the U.S. and is reducible to no other model. The key is pretty simple: the responsibility of society (= all of us) for its members in questions of health, since everyone benefits from living in a healthy society. The state is not by definition some monster or parasite on society, except in the minds of those who adhere to that ol'-time primitive market-fundamentalist religion. There's no necessary tyranny of the state: we simply need to mold the state to our collectively and democratically defined purposes, and use democratic vigilance if something goes seriously wrong (or crooked). And if certain parasitic private interests stand in the way of a more democratic model benefiting a broader and deeper swath of the citizenry, these interests should not be held as sacrosanct in the same way as rights that actually enhance the well-being of large numbers of human beings.
Posted by JimDelNorte at 10/22/2009 @ 12:28pm
'Total donkey vomit.' -- Extraneous
Robert Reich, who made the remark about innovation in the speech quoted above, is a former Labor Secretary in the Clinton Administration.
If you allege that he is 'talking donkey vomit' then you really should have some evidence.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 12:34pm
'Total donkey vomit.' -- Extraneous
Robert Reich, who made the remark about innovation in the speech quoted above, is a former Labor Secretary in the Clinton Administration.
If you allege that he is 'talking donkey vomit' then you really should have some evidence.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 12:34pm
...on the other hand, if Reich is a Democrat then the use of the term DONKEY vomit is somehow appropriate.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 12:40pm
So then Democratic party policy expert Reich is a WONKEY DONKEY?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 12:49pm
Sounds like a new Jen & Barry's flavor.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 12:54pm
basically, bigpasture's version of a healthcare system: whites only, payment on delivery of services
"Apparently the Demoncrats like Grayson think illegal aliens are to be protected by our health system and taxpayer dollars so I'M SURE they are included!"
of course, they do!
you see, bigpasture/happy/antisocialist: they are more interested in an arcane, outmoded political philosophy, than in changing the way our government functions in the interests of working people.
they are, in short, ideologues with a lot of rage and hatred.
Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
--------------------------
What was that you said Darlaloon? Oh yea,
deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
You have nothing but love for others especially our servicemen fighting for your right to be a total FOOL!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 1:08pm
So basically I'm not paying them anything so who's gonna end up with the bill. Taxes will end up paying the bill at least in the form of a write off.
Posted by black_sheep at 10/22/2009 @ 11:08am | ignore this person | warn this person
Obviously not a responsible citizen who could have bought named insured medical payments or sue his auto company for U.M. B.I limit, assuming he even bothered to buy automobile insurance, and was obviously responsible for the accident probably causing property damage and bodily injury to one or more people, refuses to pay personal medical debts caused by his negligence;
Yea, you've got real credibility problems discussing healthcare!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 1:19pm
Grayson is a gas bag. It takes no courage to preach to the fellow kool-aid drinkers. I have yet to see him disprove a single claim by the people who do not want government run health care. Meanwhile unemployment edges up near 10% with no end in sight. Tick-tock, 2010 for the morons who are running our economy. How is that hope and change working for you?
Posted by pyeatte at 10/22/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 11:23am
Perhaps you can tell us where our tomatoes come from... magic?
Posted by tomlew at 10/22/2009 @ 12:25pm
Tell us how it works out when you get in an auto accident or get cancer. Oh yeah, we don't need to because we know of thousands of "no big dealers" who found themselves sick, went to a public hospital, declared bankruptcy and left their fellow taxpayers the check. Thanks, buddy.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:27p
1 in 3 will ask their doctor for a specific medication after seeing an ad for it. That's effective advertising.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 1:35pm
If you allege that he is 'talking donkey vomit' then you really should have some evidence.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 12:34pm
Why don't you provide some evidence supporting his position on the impact of allowing the feds to negotiate drug prices will stiffle inovation?
I would ask Robert but he is not here, just the person who cut-n-pastes from other peoples speeches, and then acts as if those words are sacrosanct.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 1:48pm
Perhaps you can tell us where our tomatoes come from... magic?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 1:35pm
The post in question did say, "ALMOST nobody works physically anymore." The agricultural sector of our economy is tiny (and heavily subsidized, but that's another issue).
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 1:51pm
'Why don't you provide some evidence supporting his position on the impact of allowing the feds to negotiate drug prices will stiffle inovation?' -- Extraneous
That's a good point. I don't have any evidence that reducing prices the drug researchers are allowed to charge will reduce innovation. However, it is logical that paying less for something will get you less of that thing.
Mr. Reich, however, SHOULD be able to back up his statement, otherwise he wouldn't have said it. He is after all a former Cabinet member in the Clinton Administration.
Of course it is possible for Administration policy experts to make errors or attempt to deceive. Do you believe Mr. Reich is lying, or in error? Do you think anyone in the current Administration is making a mistake on the healthcare issue, or, even worse, is lying?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 2:41pm
and the conversion to a service economy.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 11:23am
hahahahahahaha!!!!!
well, that's sure working out well, isn't it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2009 @ 2:53pm
Mr. Reich, however, SHOULD be able to back up his statement, otherwise he wouldn't have said it. He is after all a former Cabinet member in the Clinton Administration.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 2:41pm
That is really funny, are you serious?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 3:00pm
Do you believe Mr. Reich is lying, or in error? Do you think anyone in the current Administration is making a mistake on the healthcare issue, or, even worse, is lying?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 2:41pm
I think he is in error. I don't believe that using the barganing power of the federal goverment to reduce the amount medicare and medicaid pay for drugs will equate to reduced inovation by drug companies. In general the way producers and retailers bargain is those that buy more of a product get a better deal on said product. It is why Costco is cheaper than safeway in a price/unit basis. It is common and basic. Currently the federal government is not allowed to bargain with the drug pushers on price. I would think most people would find this problematic.
There is not a direct causal link between barganing for prices and innovation. Anyone who has haggled over a price before knows that rarely will you reach a deal where the seller does not make profit. How much profit do companies need to continue to innovate? What about the innovation potentials for smaller companies to reach the market. Just a few of my reasons for disagreeing with Roberts statement.
But since it is not your statement you cant discuss it. Instead you ask questions about whether politicians lie. Funny.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 3:12pm
Tom
Posted by tomlew at 10/22/2009 @ 12:25pm
Tom, What's your answer to some poor kid born with muscular dystrophy? The disease cripples over time, some faster than others. Since they are not healthy, do you believe the prices should be jacked up on them?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 3:18pm
Here's an idea that would promote more healthy people and reduce doctors visits. What if companies that allowed workers to take an hour during the day to go for a walk or go to the gym (if there's one close by). In return, the company gets either a tax credit or as the system is now, a reduction in their insurance premiums.
A healthier workforce would definitely reduce overall health care costs, but everyone has to anti-in that includes businesses, insurance companies and the workers themselves. As it stands, our society is based strictly on profit motivation. Hell, even in the military they allowed us time in our work day to go work out. ....but then again, being in shape was part of our duty but in the end it reduced doctors visits. Work outs reduce stress, help the cardiovascular system, and helps maintain bone density. All pluses for everyone involved.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 3:26pm
and the conversion to a service economy.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 11:23am
hahahahahahaha!!!!!
well, that's sure working out well, isn't it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2009 @ 2:53pm
I believe the idea is that an advanced economy has fewer people doing the dirty and dangerous jobs, and even those agricultural, mining and manufacturing jobs that are left are safer and less backbreaking (drive a backhoe instead of swing a pick, for example). Compare the current US economy to the economy of 1900.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 3:27pm
and helps....sorry, should be help maintain
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 3:28pm
Big, you keep missing the big part of the 44k dead study-- it is of those without insurance. Clearly some did die of the flu-- but the conclusion is that their not having insurance greatly increased their likelihood to die from not having med care on a regular basis, Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 09:35am
What kind of care would they get in Mexico if they returned there? Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 09:46am
Only a very miniscule percentage were possibly illegal aliens if you bothered to read the report. You'd have just as much credibility arguing against legal aliens from another planet getting tax payer healthcare per their extra-ordinary age...
BigP, what is it that you seem to continually over dramatize, over estimate, over compensate for?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 3:28pm
..and (after proper treatment) a human being who can play the viola! Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 12:03pm
Voila-- viola!
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 3:31pm
BigP, what is it that you seem to continually over dramatize, over estimate, over compensate for?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 3:28pm
According to startrev's post, quite a bit. Sounds like an overcompensating underachiever.....typical republican in short.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 3:33pm
'I think he is in error.' -- Extraneous
Good point. Of course it leads to the following problem:
One of the proponents of change to a government healthcare system, former Secretary Robert Reich, is wrong about the economic impact of such a system.
Do you think that the current Administration is wrong as well?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 3:42pm
Sounds like an overcompensating underachiever.....typical republican in short. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/22/2009 @ 3:33pm
But will a single payer HC system help him with that? BigP may just have to stick with paying for his own cadi.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 3:57pm
Do you think that the current Administration is wrong as well?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/22/2009 @ 3:42pm
I have struggled keeping up with their changing proposal and don't really know what the current administration is proposing, as the Baucus bill is NOT the Obama plan. The following excerpt is from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
"Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs' negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion, to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality."
I agree with this proposal. If they have changed their mind, I would be dissapointed.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 3:59pm
Previously posted on another thread:
Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults
Andrew P. Wilper, MD, MPH, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, Karen E. Lasser, MD, MPH, Danny McCormick, MD, MPH, David H. Bor, MD, and David U. Himmelstein, MD
The population analyzed in the original study was older on average than were participants in our sample (22.8% vs 55.6% aged 34 years or younger).
Our estimate for annual deaths attributable to uninsurance among working-age Americans is more than 140% larger than the IOM's earlier figure. Objectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between uninsurance and death with more recent data.
Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We analyzed participants aged 17 to 64 years to determine whether uninsurance at the time of interview predicted death.
Conclusions Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44789 deaths per year in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease (n=42868).41 The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance. Despite widespread acknowledgment that enacting universal coverage would be life saving, doing so remains politically thorny. Now that health reform is again on the political agenda, health professionals have the opportunity to advocate universal coverage.
http://tinyurl.com/l5apzx
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 4:07pm
As I pointed out in Nichol's previous promotion of this jerk, the Harvard study is bogus.
Two critical elements of their estimate are sufficient to render this "study" worthless
The oft quoted Harvard study is so bogus that I'm amazed that Democrats even have the nerve to quote it.
1. No adjustment is made for death by accident; in fact it isn't even explored
2. No verification was made to see if they had health insurance at any time after the initial interview that was conducted.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 5:09pm
Why don't you libs go after something that really kills people-prescription drugs. Yet, none of you or your Dem leaders seem concerned.
106,000 Americans die every year from the NORMAL side effects of taking prescription medicines
<Lazarou J; Pomeranz BH; Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA, 1998 Apr 15, 279(15): 1200 5.>
There are currently 25,000 prescription and 200,000 otc drugs on the market.
3.05 billion prescriptions are written each year.
The average family has 29 different drugs in their medicine cabinet.
Americans consume 68% of all of the drugs in the world at the rate of twenty five million pills each hour, twenty four hours a day.
http://www.accentonhealth.org/pdfs/side_effects.pdf
<An article in Newsweek put this into perspective. Adverse drug reactions, from "properly" prescribed drugs, are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. According to this article, only heart disease, cancer, and stroke kill more Americans than drugs prescribed by medical doctors. Reactions to prescription drugs kill more than twice as many Americans as HIV/AIDS or suicide. Fewer die from accidents or diabetes than adverse drug reactions. It is important to point out the limitations of this study. It did not include outpatients, cases of malpractice, or instances where the drugs were not taken as directed.
According to another AMA publication, drug related "problems" kill as many as 198,815 people, put 8.8 million in hospitals, and account for up to 28% of hospital admissions.>
http://tinyurl.com/57vfxs
And people wonder why I'm against prescription drugs.
Get Americans off of prescription drugs and save lives!
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 5:11pm
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 1:51pm
You also need to use a little more imagination. You think people hauling boxes at UPS, retrieving shoes all day from the storeroom in a busy shoe department, construction/road workers, etc. aren't doing physical work?
If anything, this tells us more about your circumstances than about the economy. You can say we've moved to a service economy, but you cannot say the service economy isn't physical work. On the lower end of the scale, it is physical work.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 5:31pm
Harvard study is bogus. Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 5:09pm
Links?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 5:31pm
According to another AMA publication, drug related "problems" kill as many as 198,815 people, put 8.8 million in hospitals, and account for up to 28% of hospital admissions.>
http://tinyurl.com/57vfxs
And people wonder why I'm against prescription drugs.
Get Americans off of prescription drugs and save lives!
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 5:11pm
Yikes, I actually kinda agree with anti on this one. My wifes uncle just had a stroke and is in a coma due primarily to his medication.
I believe they have their time and place, but that our society considers them the panacea to all problems. 'Don't change to a healthy lifestyle, just medicate'.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 5:44pm
antisocialist: "2. No verification was made to see if they had health insurance at any time after the initial interview that was conducted."
=======================================
The statistical trendline is that people have LOST healthinsurance in this decennium. So the numbers are even worse according to this.
People who had healthinsurance when first interviewed but subsequently lost it and died because they couldn't pay for adequate healthcare were still regarded as having healthinsurance. Statistically, it's more likely this is what happened than the other way round.
Posted by polderjongetje at 10/22/2009 @ 6:42pm
Bushfools,
Here is what they say in their report (page 5)
<Our study has several limitations. NHANES III assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.>
You may re-read the report as I have dones several times. There is no evidence that they established cause of death in their findings.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 7:12pm
"And people wonder why I'm against prescription drugs.
Get Americans off of prescription drugs and save lives!"
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 5:11pm
"I left the world of smoking weed 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean I'm don't realize the stupidity of these laws."
Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:56pm
But get them smoking weed at their leisure, no prescription required if you had your way, and that will make them healthier.
You are a fricking walking contradiction Larry.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/22/2009 @ 7:27pm
Now that I'm 62, 6', 215lbs and can still lift the engine and transaxel of a front drive off the floor I still find few challegers? No one actually works physically anymore cause they can't hack it and are just lazy!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:52am
BP - we call them car jacks and they are generally located in the rear of the vehicle.
Don't get a hernia man.
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2009 @ 7:31pm
But get them smoking weed at their leisure, no prescription required if you had your way, and that will make them healthier.
You are a fricking walking contradiction Larry.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/22/2009 @ 7:27pm
No, I'm a libertarian and find no constitutional reason for the Fed govt to ban marijuana use.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 7:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 7:44pm
wtf?
I don't care WHAT you call it Larry.
It's still a glaring contradiction.
I think you waited a little too late to put down the joints.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/22/2009 @ 7:55pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 5:11pm...
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 5:44pm...
Agreed.
Posted by ttr at 10/22/2009 @ 9:09pm
Mark Twain spoke of lies and statistics.
Up until now the insurance reform movement has been attributing 18,000 annual deaths due to a lack of insurance. Now they have tweaked the numbers to 44,000.
It still won't do. The uninsured total 47 million. The AMA admits that the remaining 153 million insured population suffers over 100,000 iatrogenic hospital deaths every year. Those are medically caused fatalities such as infections caught in the hospital. In effect, those people die because they were admitted to hospitals.
Another 100,000 people die annually as a consequence of some prescription mistake or abuse. Tens of thousands more are victims of faulty out-patient treatment.
In short, the ratio of deaths resulting from access to medical care is higher than deaths due to lack of such access.
My point is not that medical care is undesirable, but that statistics can lie. And Congressman Grayson is a big liar. He is a demagogue who likes brandishing a bloody shirt, facts be damned.
Medicare and Medicaid began in 1966. In the ten years before, did those millions of aged and indigent who had no insurance, die in significantly larger numbers than in the ten years following 1966 when they had coverage? The answer is no.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/22/2009 @ 10:35pm
"The mechanisms by which health insurance affects mortality have been extensively studied. Indeed, the IOM issued an extensive report summarizing this evidence.29 The IOM identified 3 mechanisms by which insurance improves health: getting care when needed, having a regular source of care, and continuity of coverage.
The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care than the insured. For instance, Lurie et al. demonstrated that among a medically indigent population in California, loss of government-sponsored insurance was associated with decreased use of physician services and worsening control of hypertension.28,29 The uninsured are also more likely to visit the emergency department30 and be admitted to the hospital31 for ‘‘ambulatory care sensitive conditions,'' suggesting that preventable illnessesare a consequence of uninsurance.
The chronically ill uninsured are also less likely to have a usual source of medical care,32 decreasing their likelihood of receiving preventative and primary care. Discontinuity of insurance is also harmful; those intermittently uninsured are more likely to die than the insured.13 All of these factors likely play a role in the decline in health among middle-aged uninsured persons detected by Baker et al.33,34 This trend appears to reverse at age 65, when the majority gains access to Medicare coverage.35 Other studies suggest that extending health insurance not only improves health, but also may be cost effective.36
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 11:08pm
However, our analysis controlled for tobacco and alcohol use, along with obesity and exercise habits. In addition, research has found that more than 90% of nonelderly adults without insurance cite cost or lack of employer-sponsored coverage as reasons for being uninsured, whereas only 1% percent report ‘‘not needing'' insurance.39 In fact, the variables included in our main survival analysis may inappropriately diminish the relationship between insurance and death. For example, poor physician- rated health, poor self-rated health, and unemployment may result from medically preventable conditions. Indeed, earlier analyses suggest that the true effect of uninsurance is likely larger than that measured in multivariate models.13,40 In addition, Hadley found that accounting for endogeneity bias by using an instrumental variable increases the protective effect of health insurance on mortality.40"
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 11:12pm
So why not to better regulate big pharm, initiate a public option and legalize mary jane to do her thing. Repeal DOMA and DADT while we at it too.
However, considering high death rates in hospitals, please consider a lot of people die in hospitals because they didn't have med records per no insurance and no primary doc... ( 100k - 44k = 56k )
As well, more of the remaining 56k/250mil use hospitals on a revolving door basis per chronic illnesses, increased cancers, higher child mortality rate and lower mortality age.
The 44k death study simply calculated that the risk of dying sooner increase without access to regular healthcare access a la no health care insurance. And thus Grayson's assertion that repubs want people w/out HC insurance to die sooner.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 11:48pm
And Congressman Grayson is a big liar. He is a demagogue who likes brandishing a bloody shirt, facts be damned.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/22/2009 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh Hugo - this is funny coming from you.
'MEDICARE'S SUCCESS: Since the advent of Medicare, "the health of the elderly population has improved, as measured by both longevity and functional status," said one study published in the journal Health Affairs. In fact, according to the study, "life expectancy at age 65 increased from 14.3 years in 1960 to 17.8 years in 1998 and the chronically disabled elderly population declined from 24.9 percent in 1982 to 21.3 percent in 1994." Leaders of the Commonwealth Fund wrote in May that, "compared to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees have greater access to care [and] fewer problems with medical bills." The report added that this finding is significant when considering that those Americans on Medicare represent a demographic that is more likely to be in poor health and to have lower incomes. Prior to Medicare, "about one-half of America's seniors did not have hospital insurance," more than 25 percent "were estimated to go without medical care due to cost concerns," and one in three were living in poverty. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.'
HEALTH CARE 44 Years The Progress Report July 2009
Posted by OneVote at 10/22/2009 @ 11:56pm
happy- comensurate with your rantings you are frigthened. Bigpasture- with all your unsupported figures you attempt to say much but say nothing. He is so full of shit he is cute. Chaoszen-you are a thinker. A great American. Wolfgangi- stay with it. HonestLiberal is a smart dishonest neocon. Let the games begin.
Posted by lousnation at 10/23/2009 @ 02:35am
Finally, an honest Democrat! He is right on this one Republicans. Time to face the music, and pull out the ear plugs!
Posted by sheila60 at 10/23/2009 @ 08:15am
'HonestLiberal is ... smart.. Let the games begin.' -- lousnation
Thank you so much. This is much nicer than the usual ad hominem we see posted here. Indeed, if we were speaking face-to-face most of the time we'd have to wipe the flecks of spittle off our glasses after listening to a typical rant.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/23/2009 @ 08:16am
I believe the idea is that an advanced economy has fewer people doing the dirty and dangerous jobs, and even those agricultural, mining and manufacturing jobs that are left are safer and less backbreaking (drive a backhoe instead of swing a pick, for example). Compare the current US economy to the economy of 1900.
Posted by Mistral at 10/22/2009 @ 3:27pm
I don't think this is necessarilly true. With fewer and fewer workers in unions, meatpacking has become horribly dangerous, and I think both it and mining are worse than they were 30-50 years ago.
Can anyone can get the stats to either support or disprove this?
Posted by cka2nd at 10/23/2009 @ 09:09am
With fewer and fewer workers in unions, meatpacking has become horribly dangerous, and I think both it and mining are worse than they were 30-50 years ago.
Can anyone can get the stats to either support or disprove this?
Posted by cka2nd at 10/23/2009 @ 09:09am
Since you're the one to proffer an opinion on the increased dangers due to "fewer workers in unions", why don't you first offer some "stats" to `prove' it?
Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 09:45am
Posted by cka2nd at 10/23/2009 @ 09:09am
The Department of Labor isn't big on historical analysis beyond a few years. However, the information they have contradicts your hypothesis.
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm
http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT8.HTM
Posted by srjenkins at 10/23/2009 @ 09:50am
The problem with Big Pasture's lengthy series of postings is total lack of comparison to the US. NHS would use a trillion bucks if the UK had 300 million people? Well, the US spends over 2 trillion bucks a year on health care now--call it 50% savings. NHS's results aren't as good as other countries with national health plans? Given that their results are far better than the US's, does his comparison really have anything to do with the matter of health care in the US? If you don't compare to the US, you're just tossing out red herrings to slime up the trail. ("Big Pasture" because of the number of cow patties?)
Posted by dossthane at 10/23/2009 @ 09:52am
It's an indication that the repukeli-trolls have so little to do with their lives (like work, maybe?) that they can spend all day spewing their mindless sewage. An intelligence test, like the first three words of the Constitution, might shut them up for awhile.
The debt was placed on our unto-the-seventh-generation grandkids by the senile b-movie actor and his handler Traitor George, by "deregulate and let god sort 'em out!" Salamander Grinch, and by "I'm the decider-guy," the illiterate coward cocaine-snorting war-mongering nose-picking drunk.
Universal single-payer health care SAVES MONEY. It gets the insurance profiteers out of their "skim of the top" scams. It prevents small businesses from losing employees. It saves workers from going into bankruptcy. IT MAKES DOCTORS AND DRUG COMPANIES COMPETE.
Pay attention, all reichwingnuts who so smugly believe "it can't happen to me" -- YES, IT CAN. Cancer, a car crash, "complications" -- and you will learn things you never DREAMED were possible, about being an "undesirable."
Anyone with half a brain cell should be able to take a look at insurance executives' salaries, compared to how little you get for it in return for your annual payments (go add it up, and remember to put in the comma after three digits so the number makes sense to you), and understand that INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE SCREWING US.
If you're too stupid to understand that, well, no wonder you're a bushdick. The vast majority of Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, don't have much sympathy for people telling us that "we" can't afford the cost of universal health care, when THEY have solid-gold health care at OUR expense.
To all the morons whining about drugs and smoking: happy appendicitis and stroke.
Grayson rules!
Posted by TheDieHard at 10/23/2009 @ 10:24am
Keep it up, Congressman Grayson. A larger section of the public is rapidly perceiving the right wing position on health care from one of cruel & usual to that of cruel & unusual.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/23/2009 @ 11:35am
Just returned from Paris and I can attest the Republicans and their lickspittle pissant blabbers are competely lying or are completely ignorant of the world outside of walmart stores and mcdonalds. As well as their trailer park abodes. Not one, repeat not one person I spoke with would trade their healthcare system for the US disaster. In fact most are indignant that Universal systems are being derided at all and pretty much view Amerika, or large demographic aspects of it, as a failed state. Well, there you have it. The US has finally been acknowledged as a group of hee haw extras as presented at these white trash rallies. A viewpoint richly derserved. Happy and Big Pasture should join them.
Posted by jobbo at 10/23/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by dossthane at 10/23/2009 @ 09:52am
The problem with BigPasture is that he's not the brightest bulb on the tree. He can be safely ignored, unless of course you like to make your head a commode into which any dimwit is invited to excrete his ideas.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/23/2009 @ 11:44am
hey bigpasture, have you ever been to europe? europeans kick our asses on almost every level. they speak at least two languages, and in many cases, three languages. they eat better, drive less, live longer. they are much thinner. they work less, play more. and, most importantly, ...
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:51pm
Most importantly, they do exactly as their betters in government tell them to without ever asking questions.
Do they enjoy more freedom than we do– specifically free speech? How are the Europeans at defending their own liberty? How are the Europeanse at removing genocidal dicatators? How well have Europeans done at instilling the pluralistic values in the immigrants that are taking over their countries?
Socialism is great in a world without external threats. So long as the US is there to remove those external threats for Europe, Socialism will rock on.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/23/2009 @ 12:18pm
hey bigpasture, have you ever been to europe? europeans kick our asses on almost every level. they speak at least two languages, and in many cases, three languages. they eat better, drive less, live longer. they are much thinner. they work less, play more. and, most importantly, ...
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:51pm
The have more extra-marital affairs than we do. They are less spiritual. They are more docile. They are easier to control. The are much more class conscious. They value collectivism more than us.
Why is speaking more languages a good in and of itself? Multiple languages is inefficient and wastes resources. Is it a sign of multi-culturalism that makes it intrinsically good?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/23/2009 @ 12:25pm
Posted by jobbo at 10/23/2009 @ 11:41am
Do you think that we actually care what the French think?
Do you think we even care if France exists?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:35pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/22/2009 @ 08:48am
Absolutely spot-on. It never ceases to amaze me how so many can be bamboozled into supporting policies contrary to their interests.
How does the "liberal media" accomplish this feat?
Posted by drhammer at 10/23/2009 @ 12:51pm
"Why is speaking more languages a good in and of itself?"
dumbest question of the day.
but it's hard to top this for stupidity, as well:
"Multiple languages is inefficient and wastes resources"
wow!!!!!!!
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 12:52pm
Europe would be a nice place to visit to see the historic relics; however you have to put up with Europeans so it's not worth it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 1:08pm
Public OPTION.
Emphasis on the word OPTION.
If you were to OPT to enroll in a government plan that does not refuse claims due to pre-existing conditions, or cancel your coverage for other spurious reasons, or cost enough to necessitate second and third jobs, or require monstrous deductibles and reams of paperwork, then that would be your choice.
If, on the other hand, your were to OPT to stay with your current insurance carrier, that would be your choice as well. If you were put off by the socialist aspect of the government-run plan, you would have the OPTION of buying into the "free market" version.
How very democratic.
Posted by drhammer at 10/23/2009 @ 1:19pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 07:54am | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by dossthane at 10/23/2009 @ 09:52am
The problem with BigPasture is that he's not the brightest bulb on the tree. He can be safely ignored, unless of course you like to make your head a commode into which any dimwit is invited to excrete his ideas.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/23/2009 @ 11:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
Another "open mind" trapped in his myopic echo chamber speaks! Typical of leftist elitism!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 08:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
Secular Humanism must be such a lonely religion.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/23/2009 @ 1:21pm
Do you think that we actually care what the French think?
Do you think we even care if France exists?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:35pm
Larry, I completely forgot that you are a cultural snob on top of being a homophobic bigot. Thanks for reminding me.
Need I remind you that we would have lost the Revolutionary War if it weren't for the French?
Yet again, you prove yourself an idiot.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/23/2009 @ 2:07pm
Why is speaking more languages a good in and of itself? Multiple languages is inefficient and wastes resources. Is it a sign of multi-culturalism that makes it intrinsically good?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/23/2009 @ 12:25pm
You must live in a VERY small world, my friend. Too bad for you because you're missing out with your ignorance.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/23/2009 @ 2:09pm
"Europe would be a nice place to visit to see the historic relics; however you have to put up with Europeans so it's not worth it."
if antisocialist was multi-lingual, then maybe he would like europeans.
Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:42pm
I don't think this is necessarilly true. With fewer and fewer workers in unions, meatpacking has become horribly dangerous, and I think both it and mining are worse than they were 30-50 years ago.
Can anyone can get the stats to either support or disprove this?
Posted by cka2nd at 10/23/2009 @ 09:09am
A quick search of the net is all I have time for, but the following study goes back about 20 years.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0596.pdf
January 2005 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, while Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened
Quote from page 3: Meat and poultry workers sustain a range of injuries, including cuts, burns, and repetitive stress injuries, and while, according to BLS, injuries and illnesses in the meat and poultry industry declined from 29.5 injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers in 1992 to 14.7 in 2001, the rate was among the highest of any industry.
Quote from page 4: some evidence suggests that the agency's efforts have had a positive impact on the injury and illness rates of workers in this industry. For example, in 2003, OSHA conducted inspections of almost 200 meat and poultry plants that, according to the agency and some plant officials we interviewed, resulted in many safety and health improvements.
Posted by Mistral at 10/23/2009 @ 3:36pm
You can say we've moved to a service economy, but you cannot say the service economy isn't physical work.
On the lower end of the scale, it is physical work.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009
What you say is true, but the post did not say that physical work had disappeared, leaving us nothing but a nation of blobs each with two muscular thumbs tapping away at a tiny keyboard. The post said that physical work is less common, less strenuous and less dangerous than it was in the past. Farmers don't hoe weeds in hot cotton fields, highway workers drive machines more than they swing picks and factory workers wear hard hats and safety goggles while robots do the stoop labor.
The lower end of the scale is pushing a mop, not bucking barley like George and Lennie did.
Posted by Mistral at 10/23/2009 @ 3:41pm
The point is not what the French or Europeans think but rather the influence the citizenry have over the government. As Europe is generally more progressive place than the US it naturally would have more enlightened social policies. Citizen is the key term here. In the US its equivalent is consumer. Hence, the failure of both government and large aspects of society to deliver necessary social policy.
Some of these uneducated remarks from big pasture and others need addressing:
"Most importantly, they do exactly as their betters in government tell them to without ever asking questions."
Your lack of awareness is appalling. In France and Italy protests and strikes occur whenever unpopular policies are presented by the government. Invariably these are corporate policies that the elites are trying sneak into the public policy area. See any similiarity anywhere else. The difference is in the US there is no protest mechanism of this sort. If you think tea parties are this good luck. Those are just okies airing their dirty underwear.
"Do they enjoy more freedom than we do– specifically free speech? How are the Europeans at defending their own liberty? How are the Europeanse at removing genocidal dicatators? How well have Europeans done at instilling the pluralistic values in the immigrants that are taking over their countries."
That you are not familiar with US history in these areas is evident. However, contempory Europe probably surpasses the US in expessions of civil rights and is much less of a police state than the US.I hope you are not referring to Saddam Hussein as your dictator. That activity on the part of the US is a war crime.
Cable show perversity is not an education mechanism. You are close to imbecility.
Posted by jobbo at 10/23/2009 @ 3:49pm
"The have more extra-marital affairs than we do. They are less spiritual. They are more docile. They are easier to control. The are much more class conscious. They value collectivism more than us."
The author of this needs to return to third grade and continue their eduction.
Posted by jobbo at 10/23/2009 @ 4:00pm
"The have more extra-marital affairs than we do. They are less spiritual. They are more docile. They are easier to control. The are much more class conscious. They value collectivism more than us."
The author of this needs to return to third grade and continue their eduction.
Posted by jobbo at 10/23/2009 @ 4:00pm
While Rio is not a grammatarian, his points are still valid and cogent (at least to anyone other than a liberal elitist).
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 6:54pm
While Rio is not a grammatarian, his points are still valid and cogent (at least to anyone other than a liberal elitist).
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 6:54pm
oops, didn't see my type---s/b grammarian. That will teach not to think I can type with my glasses off.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:10pm
Rep. Grayson,
Thank you for recognizing the ultimate sacrifices that ordinary citizens had to make to line the pockets and increase the profits of the United States' criminal health insurance monopolies. Your efforts to bring their stories to the nations attention are not going unnoticed.
Nextly, Big Pasture your party is DOA and there's nothing you can do about it. Repetitive bullying posts and misinformation, domestic or foreign, won't work any longer. The American people WANT health care reform and most WANT a public option. They realize that insurance reform won't work without a government bargaining block to contain costs.
Goodbye!
Posted by thewah at 10/23/2009 @ 11:09pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/23/2009 @ 12:25pm |
"The have more extra-marital affairs than we do."
And yet so few divorces as a result.
"They are less spiritual."
http://blog.hotelclub.com/ europes-most-beautiful-sacred-destinations/
"They are more docile. They are easier to control."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xAQGS0fodE
"The are much more class conscious."
Doubtful.
"They value collectivism more than us."
Agreed.
"Why is speaking more languages a good in and of itself?"
It exercises the brain and opens you up to new colloquialisms.
"Multiple languages is inefficient and wastes resources."
Uh..no.
They write their signs in ONE language and expect YOU to learn how to read it. Unlike like here where every sign has 3-10 languages for those too lazy to learn a second one.
"Is it a sign of multi-culturalism that makes it intrinsically good?"
No, just a sign of a decent educational system; you should try it sometime.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/23/2009 @ 11:12pm
"The have more extra-marital affairs than we do. They are less spiritual. They are more docile. They are easier to control. The are much more class conscious. They value collectivism more than us."
The author of this needs to return to third grade and continue their eduction.
Posted by jobbo at 10/23/2009 @ 4:00pm
While Rio is not a grammatarian, his points are still valid and cogent (at least to anyone other than a liberal elitist).
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Wasn't me, it was DARIN the calorically challenged! Admitedly I see no reason to use a spell check since at least it seem to be the only conizant or coherent argument the leftist are capable of!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/24/2009 @ 12:58am
Europe would be a nice place to visit to see the historic relics; however you have to put up with Europeans so it's not worth it. Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 1:08pm |
Nice bigotry, Larry.
You remind me of the jackass Americans on the train from Paris to Amsterdam on my honeymoon who had bought the wrong ticket, but made everyone on the train wait while they argued with the ticket checker and refused to get the hell off.
Although I did find their penchant for constantly smoking cigarettes mildly disturbing, I found the people I met in France to be incredibly friendly and the Dutch even more so during the second half of our honeymoon.
I pity your closed and simple mind.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 12:25am
From the Daily Mail (UK)
'After witnessing a gay pride march, Christian Pauline Howe wrote to the council to complain that the event had been allowed to go ahead.
But instead of a simple acknowledgement, she received a letter warning her she might be guilty of a hate crime and that the matter had been passed to police.
...
Mrs Howe, 67, whose husband Peter is understood to be a Baptist minister, yesterday spoke of her shock at the visit and accused police of 'wasting resources' on her case rather than fighting crime.
'I've never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door,' she said.
'Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience.
'The officers told me that my letter was thought to be an intention of hate....
The incident has echoes of the case of a pensioner couple who were lectured by officers from Lancashire Police on the evils of 'homophobia' and 'hate crimes' after criticising gay rights in a letter to Wyre Borough Council.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk /news/article-1222861/ Pensioner-complained-gay-pride-march -warned-police-hate-crime. html
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 2:42pm