Medicaid and Texas

[Cliff Beer]

I think the debate about whether a private health care system is "good" v. a national health system has to be refined with a "good for who" qualification. If you're poor and out of work, then a national health system is going to be better for you than the alternative (nothing). If you're a highly paid professional (with correspondingly high quality insurance) then it's likely a national health system is going to provide a lower level of care for you. Just my opinion based upon my own observations in my life.

As is the case in many national health countries, the higher paid folks engage supplemental (private) health plans to improve the quality/availability of care for themselves. I haven't heard of Brits, for example, travelling to the US for important health care procedures because the level of care in the UK is allegedly falling short (as suggested by Damian). At least none of my Brit family and friends do that - they would think that's a crazy idea.

On the topic of political partisanship, my crude response to that is to vote against the incumbent in any/all elections. Send a message to Washington that such partisan BS won't be tolerated.

 

[Nick]

.

As is the case in many national health countries, the higher paid folks engage supplemental (private) health plans to improve the quality/availability of care for themselves. I haven't heard of Brits, for example, travelling to the US for important health care procedures because the level of care in the UK is allegedly falling short (as suggested by Damian). At least none of my Brit family and friends do that - they would think that's a crazy idea.

.

Cliff,

In the UK I believe tax payers actually supplement the private health system. This may seem a strange statement but many off the doctors and nurses that work in the private sector have been trained by the NHS. This training is not cheap and has been paid for by tax payers.

 

[domtoni]

Doug, +1
Jim, wait and see. A Republican generic candidate could beat Obama today, according to the numbers published - I deleted them and could not find them.
Nick, thanks for making the post on the NHS.

I again go back to my point last year on Al's health care system debate that the German Private system is the best in the world, you start at 18 move to a Medicare type system at retirement (65), and keep it the whole time, taking it from employer to employer. The premiums are split 50/50 with the employer.

The hospitals are run as charities by either religious or educational organizations, and are efficient, clean, and have good, responsible people.

I think this would have been a very easy system to implement in the USA, far easier than an NHS.

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

Fourtunatlly, there is no such thing as a "generic candidate", the real Republican candidate will have to run on his past record and the expectaions of moderate Democrats all the way to tea baggers.

I'm fairly sure that can not be done!

 

[domtoni]

Jim,

Here is the clip:
According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, Obama would lose an election to "an unnamed Republican" — meaning any GOP opponent — by a 39 to 36 percent margin.

The president tallied his worst net approval rating ever in the poll, with 48 percent disapproving of how he's handled the job compared to just 44 percent who approve.

But the most dangerous news for the president politically may be what the poll indicates about his approval rating with the independent voters. Only 38 percent of independents approve of how he's done in office.

Overall, by a 48 percent to 40 percent margin, American voters say that President Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012.

 

[Jim Craik]

This is just another example of selfish Concervatives using half truth, out of context, criminally edited tapes and out right lies to try and hurt the Democrats.

And then they have the nerve to try and blame it on the Democrats.

These are the same liars who misled the public about Acorn with missleading, out of context, criminally eddited tapes (they are being sued over that one).

This sounds alot like the big lie a few weeks ago about "loans only to people who can afford them" LIERS, LIERS, LIERS!!!!!!!!!

You and Glenn Beck should be ashamed of your selfs.

I think its a fairly good sign that the best they can do is to make up stuff.

And you Domtoni contiue to believe their lies. When will you learn?

 

[Garry]

Dom...+1. As it stands now according to both ABC and CBS polls the President is in trouble. And so are the Republicans. 60% of the country are centrists and they are the real factor in any upcomming election. There has also been a drain of supporrt from Independents for Obama and they are the reason he was elected. However, a lot can change between now and the next elections.

Garry

 

[domtoni]

From Politico:

Now, more than a year later, I have not changed my mind about Palin’s political potential. This is not based on the polls — especially a recent one showing her in a 46 percent to 46 percent tie with Obama in a hypothetical 2012 face-off. I don’t believe such polls tell us anything meaningful.

Read more: Sarah Palin is at the top of her party - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

 

[Jim Craik]

Gee Domtoni, why did you edit out/remove your rant about the concervative who edited a tape to make the black government worker appear to be a raceist?

 

[Doug S.]

This is just another example of selfish Concervatives using half truth, out of context, criminally edited tapes and out right lies to try and hurt the Democrats.

And you........contiue to believe their lies. When will you learn?

+1, Jim!

This SHOULD have become evident recently in the circumstance where the FNN "edited" comments made by a government official and posted the inflamatory video online, causing that official to be unfairly pressured into resigning:

"Sherrod, appointed to her job last July, was asked to resign after conservative bloggers posted a video of her saying she didn’t initially give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago, when she was working for a farmers’ aid group. Sherrod said she used the story in her speech to the NAACP to promote racial reconciliation and that the edited video distorted her remarks.

Like the administration, the NAACP reversed its stance on Sherrod and called for her to be rehired.

The incident was the latest in a series of race-related brouhahas to garner national attention since Obama became the nation’s first black chief executive." [source: Associated Press]

This is an excellent example of why I constantly mention that news sources should be "unbiased", and if not, then the information they broadcast or post should be viewed with, as our esteemed Pete so generously calls it, acute observation: "The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."

<!-- google_ad_section_end -->As for your question regarding when "they" will learn, sadly, the answer is probably never.....those who are in the radical right are so headstrongly embroiled in what they sincerely believe is a battle for the future of our country that they cannot ".....see the forest for the trees", so to speak. Anything that does not agree with their radical views is suspect, regardless of how unbiased the source is, and anything that DOES agree with their radical views is gospel, regardless of how biased the source is. It is truly prejudice, in that they have "pre-judged" the veracity of the information based on the source b/c it coincides with their beliefs.

Now, we might all be guilty of that to some degree, regardless of our political orientation.....IMHO it takes considerable diligence to search out unbiased information sources, particularly in this day and age when what use to be a "news" source has become for all practical intents and purposes op-ed "propaganda" now.

As for the belief that the polls regarding Obama's approval rating predict a sure-fire defeat in the next election, I agree with Jeff Young's observation: just b/c a voter might not be totally in favor of the things Obama has done, that cannot be confused with who they will vote for. Sometimes the choice has to be between the lesser of the two evils...IMHO that is what cost McCain the last election (although the farcical Palin didn't help him any!!!).

The only poll that counts is going to be the one that is held in the voting booths in the next presidential elections, and IMHO the Republicans (who have really entrenched themselves in the radical right) really NEED to show some moderation in their choice of candidate in order to avoid further alienation of the voting public.

Just my $.02 worth.......

Doug

 

[Jim Craik]

Doug,

Once again, very well said, I wonder why, after posting his rant about this did Domtoni edit it out.

It could be that after reading what he had written, even he could see how rediculous this argument was. And that's saying something.

As for the next election,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, let it be Palin!

 

[Doug S.]

As for the next election,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, let it be Palin!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Hard to argue with that, Jim!

Actually, the only one I see having a ghost of a chance is Guiliani.

The one that scares me even more than Palin is Gingrich (didn't he get convicted, or plead guilty, to a felony? If so, he lost the right to vote....but can he still run for POTUS?).

Onward through the fog :idea:

Doug

 

[domtoni]

This is about health care and taxes. If you want to start a thead so we can go at it, please start on. I am looking forward to sharpening my mind. But let's make one rule, keep the conversation civil.

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni

The thread is Medicaid and TEXAS not taxes!

 

[Pat Buckley]

Doug -

I couldn't remember reading anything about Gingrich having a criminal record so I took a few seconds and did a search on the internet and still can't find anything to that effect.

Is this something that is just wishful thinking on your part?

Are you comfortable throwing out allegations of this sort without doing any kind of research?

Please correct me if my search was not effective.

Thanks,

Pat

 

[Jim Craik]

[edit] Ethics sanctions

On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The House ordered Gingrich to pay a $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a Speaker for ethical wrongdoing.<SUP id=cite_ref-washingtonpost.com_19-0 class=reference>[20]</SUP>
Eighty-four ethics charges, most of which were leveled by House Democratic Whip David Bonior, were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term. These included charges that he claimed tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Eighty-three of the 84 allegations were dropped.<SUP id=cite_ref-20 class=reference>[21]</SUP> Gingrich denied the charges over misuse of tax-exempt funds; however, he admitted to providing inaccurate statements during the probe over the college course and agreed to pay $300,000 for the cost of the investigation.<SUP id=cite_ref-washingtonpost.com_19-1 class=reference>[20]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-21 class=reference>[22]</SUP> The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.<SUP id=cite_ref-22 class=reference>[23]</SUP>

$300,000 fine! This may be what Doug was refering to. 395 to 28, sounds like it was one of the few things that was not voted along party lines!

 

[Doug S.]

Thanks, Jim....

Pat, it was a question....not a declarative statement. I knew I remember Gingrich had run afoul of the rules in some manner, was asking "didn't he......". IMHO, he should have been tossed....they tried to impeach Clinton for lying to congress (and, IMHO, it was over a matter of mutual consent between two adults and should have not been an issue over which Congress was entitled to grill him. I certainly would have refused to answer that type of questions, rather than lying to congress, had I been in the "hot seat").

Gingrich was part of that "Win at all costs" alliance with Tom Delay (who, I am ashamed to admit, represented the area of TX in which I reside).

There certainly MUST be some of you who remember that oppressive Republican majority and their strongarm tactics. Where were your protests then, I ask? Yes, it seems as if it is a double standard, OK for the Republicans to employ such practices, but let the Democrats obtain a similar majority and use the same tactics, and we can't scream loud enough, can we?

But, Pat, I must admit.....yes, in retrospect I suspect it was a bit of wishful thinking on my part. I really DO wish Gingrich had been convicted of a crime....perhaps that would prohibit him from seeking the POTUS position, as he has stated he is interested in doing. He's so delusional (IMHO, guys, IMHO!!) that he's scary!!!!! I believe he got off lucky with nothing more than a censure and a $300,000 fine (OK, here's another question--didn't the Republican party, or perhaps politically connected "friends" of Gingrich, hold benefit events to raise the $$ so that Gingrich would not have to pay the fine out of his own pockets? I seem to remember something of that sort happening, too...but, then, I've never had a great memory and I've slept since then :shy: ).

So, we're looking for a link to "Medicaid and Texas"....there you have it, Gingrich/Delay and the unspeakable embarrasment they brought upon my area of Texas, in which Medicaid financed services are offered.

I'm off to hang my head in shame for living in the same state as Gee-Dub and Delay!

One very mortified.....

Doug

 

[domtoni]

Jim,

The purpose of the article was to draw attention to the fact that Obama would lose to any generic candidate, and the study was done by a University. This may be a right leaning university, but how many of the Ivy league schools are left leaning. I left the whole article so you could draw conclusions. Actually, the study is not so different from the Rasmussen, Gallup, CBS etc polls I have seen in the past few months.

Regarding the "loans to people who can afford them", the BBC World Service interviewed a big shooter who commented on the bill and he said that the financial bill's most important feature was making sure people can verify income and pay for their loans.

I think the starter of this thread had Dubya in mind and misspelled Taxes as Texas !!

Beck has nothing to do with this.

I put your comments below.

This sounds alot like the big lie a few weeks ago about "loans only to people who can afford them" LIERS, LIERS, LIERS!!!!!!!!!

You and Glenn Beck should be ashamed of your selfs.

Here is the full article on the first paragraph about Obama losing to a generic Republican candidate. It includes the bits I edited out above :
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/sherrod-obama-vilsack-firing-panic-beck/2010/07/21/id/365275

 

[domtoni]

Gentlemen: Please refresh my memory, what did Gingrich do to warrant a fine of $300K?

 

[domtoni]

Here is one from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/opinion/22thu4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion