Another Bad Week For The Republicans/Democrats

Of course. I mean, Isn't it obvious ?
"A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin.

There are others, but that's the most famous one I could think of.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't you know. We do it all the time.
It's so much more comforting to live with lies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now Senator Kennedy has expired taking precious media time away from Republicans and their healthcare industry allies resulting in less time to spread their lies...how sad. The event is taking precious media time away from their drama queens, teabagers, et al.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The whole premise of this thread is as dubious as that statement. Kennedy, for all his liberal beliefs, was very adept at reaching across the aisle and reaching true compromise. His active presence in the Senate might have actually given compromise on healthcare a chance. Meaningful reform may well have died with him.

 

There's been no lack of "compromise", in this health care debate.

A better word would be capitulation. And since it's the wingnut right that has been capitulated to, another word would be disaster.

 

personally i wonder about all the future advancements that may not be discovered. this includes procedures AND medications if the u.s system were to change. in that sense, and i am sure i am not the only one who thought about this, i cannot see it changing in a drasticly altering measure.

i know that these things are\were discovered in other regions but tbh the vast majority, if not working in concert, were discovered in the u.s. that is my understanding. perhaps some will worry about stagnation in the field. i am not in medical field myself but i know much is taken for granted. sure it is easy if you are not sick and dying to cast negative shadow but once you facing death i am sure think differently.

there does need to be some changes done afa middle economic scale of patients.

 

The US has the best research universities and institutions on the planet.

Mostly government funded, largely socialist, of course, especially in medical research. There is no reason to change that.

The recent changes have been towards greater involvement of private industry in medical research - and the growing incidence of fraud, coupled with the declining rate of discovery (especially noticeable in older fields, where the comparison with earlier years is most pronounced), bode ill for that trend.

 

Mostly government funded? Can you support that?

~String

 

why dont you try to read the post in its entirety instead of taking shit out of context?

While continuing to grow substantially, the federal government’s relative share of biomedical research funding has declined from about two-thirds...

....in 1980 to less than half of the total spent today (link)


thats of course for all recipients. narrowing it down specifically to universities as iceaura did, we find.........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...."mostly govt funded"

now if iceaura's statement piqued your interest why dont you do your own research into the matter instead of trolling the poor bastard. that, dear mod, just shows bad frikkin faith and an abuse of power

i mean, this shit is common knowledge to anyone who went to college

"can you support that" my ass
to ice of all people

 

in order to preclude another distasteful troll at the remainder of dear old iceaura's fabulous post.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Democrats in general have a strong habit of reaching across the isle...not just Kennedy...wittness all the tax breaks in the stimulus bill, wittness the so called "death board clause" in the House Bill, all were accomodations to the Republicans by Democrats.

But in the end, there can be no compromise with the Republicans on healthcare reform. You know that, everyone knows that. The only healthcare reform acceptable to Republicans and their healthcare industry masters is reform that protects the coushy industry perks..and that will not help reduce healthcare costs nor improve quality which makes the bill unacceptable to Democrats.

 

Yes, the Democrats reach across the Isle, when they need political cover for their highly questionable legislation, and then when it goes south, they lay the blame on the Republican.

You are a prime example of this, as in your world A Republican has never done anything right and Democrat walks on water, and the second coming of Christ.

 

Really, there's no where to go from there with you. You have it in your mind that Democrats speak the word of God and Republicans are the Devil's minions.

 

If you pay attention Mad, I am calling for the Republican Party to return to its roots...back to the days of honest conservatism...remember William F. Buckley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

The Republican Party has gone seriously astray. I have it in my mind that politics and policy should have some basis in reality...a view shared by Buckley.

Views on modern-day conservatism

Buckley around 2000Buckley criticized certain aspects of policy within the modern conservative movement. Of George W. Bush's presidency, he said, "If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign."[64] He further said, "Bush is 'conservative', but he is not a 'Conservative', and that the president was not elected 'as a vessel of the conservative faith.'" Buckley would distinguish between so-called "lowercase c" and "Capital C" conservatives, the latter being true conservatives: fiscally conservative and socially Conservative/Libertarian or libertarian-leaning.[65][66]


While I did not always agree with Buckley, he was an honest and good man...a good Republican in every sense of what that word used to mean.

So when you say most of America is conservative...that is probably true. I consider myself conservative in the classical sense too. But is wrong to say that most Americans are Republican, and thank God for that.

The Republican Party of today and the dittoism that follows it is the most serious threat the nation now faces...perhaps more so than the Soviets ever posed.

Republican fanaticism and refusal to be grounded in reality and truth threatens not only our economic viability but the very freedoms we have traditionally enjoyed.

 

And just because I try and keep you guys honest, does not mean I don't get it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I think if Buckley was still around and in full possession of his intellect, he would have been proud of his son who quit the Republican Party.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

 

So once upon a time there were a few good conservatives, William F Buckley among them, but now every single Republican is a minion of Satan. Indeed, the corruption is so complete that there's no point in compromise with any Rebuplican. They are, after all, evil and more dangerous than thousands of nuclear warheads pointed a American cities, towns, and suburbs.

Well, let's see what a "good" conservative has to say about publically financed healthcare:

The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be president can offer less than he is offering, which is — of course — guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care.
Mr. Edwards’s primary complaint is that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. In a free society, one scans this datum in search of its component parts.

If health insurance were without cost, one assumes that everyone would have health insurance. A corollary of this is that everyone, in a society of allegedly free health care, would actually be paying the collective costs of health care. The political challenge lies in disguising the cost.

When a commodity is quantifiably measurable, yet universally available, like air, one can talk about its being “free.” Only people in submarines need to measure air, and to pay the cost of supplying it. Health care, unlike air, can’t be free, because doctors and nurses and drugs are not in infinite supply. So can we generate what amounts to a public subsidy by reducing the costs of health care?

To look that problem in the face, we search out relevant figures. One set of these reveals that the cost of health care for an American is twice what it is for a Western European. If in Germany it costs $100 per day per patient at a hospital, while a comparable hospital stay in the United States costs $200, one reaches for an explanation. Is it that American health care is twice as expensive because it is twice as comprehensive, twice as resourceful? Or is it simply that, for other reasons, doctors and nurses and drugs cost twice as much in the United States?

In any case, how do we go about reducing these costs? Either you pass a law that doctors and nurses and drug companies have to slash the cost of their services and products by one-half — a proposal nowhere hinted at by Mr. Edwards — or else we need to reduce the number of people entitled to receive that health service. How do you do that?

Not by going in the direction proposed by Candidate Edwards, but by going in the opposite direction. His proposal is that more people should be covered. But if more people are insured, they will increase their consumption of health care, and therefore increase the total U.S. expenditure on health care.

But John Edwards calls for something different — a fiscal frumpery by which the cost of health care is somehow dissipated. This is done by obscuring the agent by which health care is provided. It has frequently been noticed by social philosophers that from about 1943, when income taxes were first collected so to speak at the source, via withholding, the average worker does not think of himself as being taxed — because the instrument by which the money is taken is so automatic as to be more or less invisible. When an American worker is hired at $700 per week, he reckons his income not at $700, but at $500, which is the size of his paycheck.

Mr. Edwards speaks grandly about health coverage for 47 million people who do not now have it. But unless there is a diminution in the cost of health services, they will be paid for by somebody. If it is so that the 47 million without insurance are the identical 47 million who are the nation’s poorest, then it might be said that all we are really engaging in is more redistribution. There is a case to be made for this, and indeed, redistribution has been accepted for years. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all taxes, which means they are paying taxes that would otherwise be paid by the 95 percent of Americans whose tax rates are lower.

Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for increased taxes on the wealthy. They used to call that socialized medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. It crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an American doctor.
​

source

 

Yes, Buckley's intellectual abilities waned with his age. But essentially there is nothing in his arguement as he laid it out that I disagree. However, the healthcare issue has more than the two solutions he laid out in the article. Healthcare prices can be cut without government wage controls and be better addressed and controlled with free market solutions...good olde Supply Side economics.

If you increase demand as advocated by Edwards without an accompaning increase in supply, you have just made healthcare more expensive. The part missing from Buckley's agrument is the old Republican Supply side arguement, increasing supply. If the supply of healthcare providers is increased to exceed demand, market prices for healthcare services will decline. That is the critical factor Buckley overlooked in this article. And that is what is going to happen with healthcare reform, there will be a huge need to increase supply of healthcare goods and services which will lead for an examination of our healthcare supply processes and that is a good thing.

As I said, I don't always agree with Buckley. But he was intellectually honest. I always like to hear and read what he had to say.

 

The fact that the modern Republicans do not - any of them in Congress, any of them in Party leadership - even rise to that level of carefully phrased and essentially dishonest misdescription, is why no one interested in governing can afford to "compromise" (agree and join) with them.

I don't agree with the description of Buckley as an intellectual power, btw. His scholarship, arguments, and reasoning were not on a par with the Chomskys, or even the Vidals, whom he opposed. He just didn't think all that well. But he sure looks good compared with the modern "conservative" pundits we see trundling their flea circus of "ideas" from talk show to interview to Op Ed gig - (and how do they get hired?) - doesn't he.

 

Amen Ice, can you compare a current party leader like limbaugh, hannity, beck, levin with Buckley? There just is no comparison.

 

That's the first I've heard of a massive increase in the number of doctors being part of ObamaCare. What section of the bill is that in? Are they going to build more medical schools? Are they going to decrease standards for admission? Because, from what I've read, they can't even find enough candidates to fill all the primary care slots available now.