Where's Bush when we need him?

[Guest Keith]

Remember when it was unpatriotic to criticize the President?

Says who?

[Guest 2smart4u]

You say that, but the facts do not support you. The USA is the only industrialized nation in the world without a national health system. Many countries have single payer systems. By every objective standard of measurement, such as longevity and infant mortality, virtually all of them are delivering better health care to their people for less money than here in the USA.

Government is inefficient and bureaucratic. You're absolutely right. But for all its faults, government has a critical role to play in a health care system. We are foolish if we do not pay attention to the fact that other countries whose governments are more deeply involved in their health care system than ours is, have better health care at a lesser per capita cost.

Right. People from all over the world come to the U.S. for surgery because of the poor health care we provide.

[Guest Guest]

You say that, but the facts do not support you. The USA is the only industrialized nation in the world without a national health system. Many countries have single payer systems. By every objective standard of measurement, such as longevity and infant mortality, virtually all of them are delivering better health care to their people for less money than here in the USA.

Government is inefficient and bureaucratic. You're absolutely right. But for all its faults, government has a critical role to play in a health care system. We are foolish if we do not pay attention to the fact that other countries whose governments are more deeply involved in their health care system than ours is, have better health care at a lesser per capita cost.

Objective measures are fine if you want to advance the agenda here. What I care most about is the quality of care; which can not be measured with anything other than the patient themselves. I want COMPLETE control of my own healthcare. I don't believe that the government will take a hands off approach. Like it or not, there is no way for you to PROVE to me that this will be the case, until a national healthcare system has been in place for a number of years. I don't want to take that chance.

For you the objective measures work, at this point it is only a "promise" of something better. It is unquantifiable, because it simply doesn't exist yet.

Longevity and infant mortality (an unusual standard for someone, I assume, has a pro-abortion stance) do not occur in a vacuum. Is it POSSIBLE that other factors, besides nationalized health care, take part in an increase in longevity?? The answer is yes, and you know it.

[Guest Paul]

Objective measures are fine if you want to advance the agenda here. What I care most about is the quality of care; which can not be measured with anything other than the patient themselves. I want COMPLETE control of my own healthcare. I don't believe that the government will take a hands off approach. Like it or not, there is no way for you to PROVE to me that this will be the case, until a national healthcare system has been in place for a number of years. I don't want to take that chance.

For you the objective measures work, at this point it is only a "promise" of something better. It is unquantifiable, because it simply doesn't exist yet.

Longevity and infant mortality (an unusual standard for someone, I assume, has a pro-abortion stance) do not occur in a vacuum. Is it POSSIBLE that other factors, besides nationalized health care, take part in an increase in longevity?? The answer is yes, and you know it.

This is double-talk. Objective measures take a bigger picture than individual reports.

However, the fact is that people in countries with national health care systems are satisfied with them.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/per...002082/abstract

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/t...d_n_265459.html

http://wagner.nyu.edu//faculty/publication...mparehealth.pdf

http://www.paho.org/HIA/vol1regionalingcap4.html

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~healthpl/conce...calAnalysis.pdf

[Guest Paul]

As long as there are big corporations running the Health Care System, we will never have a national health care system. It is all about profit and answering to stockholders. I disagree with you in saying we are "foolish" in paying attention to other countries who have national health care. You give no examples of which countries that have better health care than the US. Back up your statements with proof. You accuse everyone who you disagree of not providing it so why is it ok for you. Its easy for you to toss out quotes with no backing. Its what you do.

From the countries I have visited they wish they didnt have to pay for their national health care. In France for example. 52 % of the average salary goes to health care. Much of it is administrative which the US will run into the same situation here. Tell it to the average American that he is going to have to put out 1/2 of his salary to support someone who is either an illegal citizen or a foreigner coming in just to use our health system. You should think twice before just towing along the Democratic line.

No, it's not what I do. You could have done some research yourself, but since you asked:

Reputable studies disprove the myths (1) that people in countries with national health care systems are dissatisfied with it and (2) .

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/per...002082/abstract

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/t...d_n_265459.html

http://wagner.nyu.edu//faculty/publication...mparehealth.pdf

http://www.paho.org/HIA/vol1regionalingcap4.html

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~healthpl/conce...calAnalysis.pdf

Here is an analysis by a group of physicians who favor a single payer system:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

Even the far-right Cato Institute admits that other countries spend far less for health care than we do.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272

That's just a start. Study the issue yourself.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, it's not what I do. You could have done some research yourself, but since you asked:

Reputable studies disprove the myths (1) that people in countries with national health care systems are dissatisfied with it and (2) .

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/per...002082/abstract

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/t...d_n_265459.html

http://wagner.nyu.edu//faculty/publication...mparehealth.pdf

http://www.paho.org/HIA/vol1regionalingcap4.html

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~healthpl/conce...calAnalysis.pdf

Here is an analysis by a group of physicians who favor a single payer system:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

Even the far-right Cato Institute admits that other countries spend far less for health care than we do.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272

That's just a start. Study the issue yourself.

It is true that other countries spend far less on health care. That's true however because we invest heavily in technology and R & D. That's why people from all over the world come here for intricate surgeries that aren't available elsewhere.

Under government healthcare those research and R & D dollars would not be there.

Whoever penned that saying, "you cannot see the forest for the trees" had Paul in mind.

[Guest Keith]

It is true that other countries spend far less on health care. That's true however because we invest heavily in technology and R & D. That's why people from all over the world come here for intricate surgeries that aren't available elsewhere.

Under government healthcare those research and R & D dollars would not be there.

Whoever penned that saying, "you cannot see the forest for the trees" had Paul in mind.

Can you offer any shred of proof of anything you said in this post? Here's a little secret. We have very talented healthcare workers in this country but we certainly don't have the market cornered. Where did you go for you "logicectomy?"

[Guest Guest]

It is true that other countries spend far less on health care. That's true however because we invest heavily in technology and R & D. That's why people from all over the world come here for intricate surgeries that aren't available elsewhere.

Under government healthcare those research and R & D dollars would not be there.

Whoever penned that saying, "you cannot see the forest for the trees" had Paul in mind.

Yet another claim that 2stupid2words can't back up with any facts.

But he sure is witty, ain't he. Yep, whoever coined that phrase in 1546 was thinking about Paul LaClair. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/can...r%20the%20trees

Moron.

[Guest Guest]

It is true that other countries spend far less on health care. That's true however because we invest heavily in technology and R & D. That's why people from all over the world come here for intricate surgeries that aren't available elsewhere.

Nice try, Dumbo, but in usual lying Republican scumbag fashion, you’re just making it up. “Investment” is 7% of total health care spending in the United States. http://www.chcf.org/documents/insurance/Qu...enceGuide08.pdf

Even if we assume that the entire 7% is for research, it doesn’t begin to account for the disparity of expenditures between the United States and every other country. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

See, stupid. That’s what facts look like. You should try it sometime.

Under government healthcare those research and R & D dollars would not be there.

Of all the stupid remarks you've made, that may just be the stupidest. Government funds research all the time. Now of course, if lying Republican scumbags were in charge, there might not be any funds for research. If liberals are in charge, there will be.

You're just making stuff up.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yet another claim that 2stupid2words can't back up with any facts.

But he sure is witty, ain't he. Yep, whoever coined that phrase in 1546 was thinking about Paul LaClair. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/can...r%20the%20trees

Moron.

I am impressed with the number of minions that serve under Paul. All I need to do is respond to one of Paul's posts and immediately a swarm of angry Loonies spring into action. Paul is sort of like the Jim Jones of KOTW.

[Guest Guest]

I am impressed with the number of minions that serve under Paul. All I need to do is respond to one of Paul's posts and immediately a swarm of angry Loonies spring into action. Paul is sort of like the Jim Jones of KOTW.

Of course you utterly FAIL to respond with any FACTS to suppotrt your own BS statements

[Guest Guest]

I am impressed with the number of minions that serve under Paul. All I need to do is respond to one of Paul's posts and immediately a swarm of angry Loonies spring into action. Paul is sort of like the Jim Jones of KOTW.

I'm impressed with the number of inventive ways you have of saying something stupid and completely beside the point.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I'm impressed with the number of inventive ways you have of saying something stupid and completely beside the point.

What number minion are you?

[Guest Guest]

What number minion are you?

As I said, another stupid remark, completely beside the point.

[WilliamK]

His approval rating is down to 38% and dropping.

Liar.

Obama job approval poll numbers, current as of the time of this post:

Gallup - 50%

Rasmussen - 47%

NBC - 51%

ABC/Washington Post - 57%

Pew - 51%

Fox - 53%

Source: RCP

[Guest Keith]

I am impressed with the number of minions that serve under Paul. All I need to do is respond to one of Paul's posts and immediately a swarm of angry Loonies spring into action. Paul is sort of like the Jim Jones of KOTW.

Congrats Paul! You are now the GOP's latest bogeyman! Yes 2smart! Everymorning Paul gives us our marching orders. Where do you get yours?

[Guest Guest]

Congrats Paul! You are now the GOP's latest bogeyman! Yes 2smart! Everymorning Paul gives us our marching orders. Where do you get yours?

Wow, an entire post, and no profanities?? My how you've grown.

[Guest Keith]

Wow, an entire post, and no profanities?? My how you've grown.

F**K Off!

[Guest 2smart4u]

F**K Off!

Ooops, I think we spoke too soon, he had a relapse.

[Guest Guest]

F**K Off!

FISH ON!!!!

Do you even realize how easy it is to push your buttons?

[Guest Guest]

After 8 years, Bush left office with a 1.5 trillion deficit. After the first 8 months of the Obama administration, 1.27 trillion has been added to the deficit. And that's before any ObamaCare spending is added in.

At this rate of spending, just 4 years of the community organizer will produce a 7.62 trillion deficit.

Is this the "hope", "change" and "yes we can" we've been promised?

Let’s bring back some old unanswered dumb threads that 2dumb4words has posted in the past. Looking back on this thread you can understand why he has the intelligence of a smart pet. Let’s look at the deficit, can a man that has been in office 8 months (at the time) create that much debt or was it a man that was given a surplus and decided to start 2 wars, create the economic collapse and show the world how ready we are for a natural disaster. Lol Bush come back we need you like we need an extra hole in the head.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Let’s bring back some old unanswered dumb threads that 2dumb4words has posted in the past. Looking back on this thread you can understand why he has the intelligence of a smart pet. Let’s look at the deficit, can a man that has been in office 8 months (at the time) create that much debt or was it a man that was given a surplus and decided to start 2 wars, create the economic collapse and show the world how ready we are for a natural disaster. Lol Bush come back we need you like we need an extra hole in the head.

Thanks for bringing this up again. BTW, since Aug. the deficit has gone from 1.27 Trillion to 1.4 Trillion.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for bringing this up again. BTW, since Aug. the deficit has gone from 1.27 Trillion to 1.4 Trillion.

Bush had nothing to do with right lol. So if you had it your way we'll be in a depression not a recession. Get a life, it's time to leave your mommy house.