|
|
|
|
|
| | Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money Page 46 of 46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46) |
Thinking my earlier post about letting it all go down had nothing to do with either repubs or dems. They are both taking a long drive off a short pier and we are the ones stuck in the trunk.
Oh, I agree totally. Both parties are money hungry because our political system is fueled by donations and graft.
This was not a joke, just ask Greece, Ireland and all of the countries that have had their monetary policy taken over by the IMF.
The fight you are talking about won't be the same kind of fight I am talking about when it happens.
That's because the IMF is a big protection racket for the banks. The alternative to those countries that were "taken over" is Iceland who gave the middle finger to the bankers.
I pretty much agree with the rest, its too bad it took this much time and sqandered money for some of our people to wake up. Lets hope the rest of them do soon, or we'll be back in the bailout mode again as nothing's really changed | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 4/28/2011 6:17:38 PM | A friend of mine sent me the following that I was obliged to put here. It pretty much says it all, and keep these numbers in mind in Nov. '12.
Have you been following the push by Washington conservative politicians to repeal Obama Care? Wonder why it needs to be done? Are you a person who thinks the U.S. Health care system is falling behind the rest of the world? Check this out.
There are actually two messages here. The 1st is very interesting, but the 2nd is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U..S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
Check this last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is…a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt..........38%
Taft........................40%
Wilson ..................52%
Harding.................49%
Coolidge............... 48%
Hoover .................42%
F. Roosevelt.........50%
Truman.................50%
Eisenhower...........57%
Kennedy..............30%
Johnson...............47%
Nixon....................53%
Ford......................42%
Carter....................32%
Reagan.................56%
GH Bush............. 51%
Clinton ...............39%
GW Bush.............55%
And the winner is:
Obama............... 8%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me? | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/10/2011 3:32:19 PM |
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
There is no such thing as UN "International" Health Organization.....there is a "World Health Organization" otherwise known as WHO and the information claimed to be pulled from their study is unlikely as WHO does not provide disease specific outcomes.
In other words, this is all made up info with basis in nothing. In fact, I very much doubt there are any articles to back this up at Investors Business Daily, but yet another fanciful right-wing e-mail blast. | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/10/2011 4:53:04 PM | Prolly not as credible as a right wingers email but it comes from the WHO's website:
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Hey Paul,
If you had taken one minute to vet the source of the bs numbers then maybe you wouldn't have been "obliged" to post them. Show some integrity and apologise for making other people do your homework for you.
Stay out of the Kool-Aid Paul. Lmao!!!! | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/10/2011 6:00:19 PM | Hey schoochie
No need to vet anything....... those numbers are very real. I guess you missed the fact that the last set of percentages was about how many people with actual BUSINESS experience howdy doody had on his payroll............... nothing to do with health care.
You talk about cool aid, yet I have yet to read anything you have ever written negative about your fearless leader................
Here's a hint: When you see that numbers are from the "WHO", those are the ones that really need to be scrutinized.
Just for your personal information, since the health care "overhaul" that passed, my insurance rates went from $174.00/month for a major med PPO policy with Anthem/Blue Cross, to $392.00/month for the same policy......... Do you really want me to believe that costs have more than doubled, or is the truth that EVERYBODY is afraid of what will happen when the IRS is going to be in charge of enforcing whether you have the mandatory insurance? EVERYBODY is paying more, yet our "benefits" aren't even shceduled to begin until when???? And you think that forcing everybody to purchase a specific item is within the purvue of the govt??????
Paul K | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 1:44:55 AM | Yeah Paul,
You scrutnize the WHO but believe whatever the " United Nations International Health Organization"says. Hahahahhaha Nice try saving your credibilty. You quote data from fictitious sources. You expect me to take you serious?
I've never heard nothing but hate for Obama from you so save your comments about bias. You're just as guilty as I am. It's just that I'm not gonna be a hypocrite about it.
"In Obama's Cabinet, at least three of the nine posts that Cembalest and Beck cite -- a full one-third -- are occupied by appointees who, by our reading of their bios, had significant corporate or business experience. Shaun Donovan, Obama's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, served as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., where he oversaw its investments in affordable housing loans.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu headed the electronics research lab at one of America's storied corporate research-and-development facilities, AT&T Bell Laboratories, where his work won a Nobel Prize for physics. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in addition to serving as Colorado attorney general and a U.S. senator, has been a partner in his family's farm for decades and, with his wife, owned and operated a Dairy Queen and radio stations in his home state of Colorado.
Three other Obama appointees had legal experience in the private sector.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke spent part of their careers working as lawyers in private practice. Clinton and Vilsack worked as private-sector lawyers at the beginning of their careers, while Locke joined an international law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, after serving as governor of Washington state. At the firm, Locke "co-chaired the firm's China practice" and "helped U.S. companies break into international markets," according to his official biography. That sounds like real private sector experience to us.
Finally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm that advises international corporations on political and economic conditions overseas.
The occupants of the two remaining Cabinet posts cited in the chart do not appear to have had significant private-sector experience: Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
Obama's Cabinet has even more private-sector experience if you go beyond the nine. Two of the Obama appointees could be considered entrepreneurs -- the very people Beck would "unleash." Vice President Joe Biden, officially a Cabinet member, founded his own law firm, Biden and Walsh, early in his career, and it still exists in a later incarnation, Monzack Mersky McLaughlin and Browder, P.A. (The future vice president also supplemented his income by managing properties, including a neighborhood swimming pool.) And Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag founded an economic consulting firm called Sebago Associates that was later bought out by a larger firm.
It's also worth noting that if you examine a larger group of senior Obama administration appointees, you'll find that more than one in four have experience as business executives, according to a June study by National Journal. That compared with the 38 percent the magazine found eight years earlier at the start of George W. Bush's administration. That's at least three times higher than the level claimed by Beck.
Author of study "acknowledged fault in missing Salazar's business background." PolitiFact noted that "Cembalest acknowledged fault in missing Salazar's business background, saying he would have given him a full point if he had it to do over again" and that he "said any effort to address the topic is heavily subjective, and he expressed regret that his work had been used for political ends, saying that it was not his intention to provide fodder for bloggers and talk show hosts."
Chart accompanying study was circulated by conservative blogs. In a November 24 Forbes.com article about his study, Cembalest included a chart which compared the Obama administration's "Prior Private Sector Experience" to the appointees of presidents. After the chart was featured by Nick Schulz on the American Enterprise Institute's blog, it was picked up by numerous other prominent conservative blogs, including National Review Online's The Corner, The Washington Examiner's blog, Outside the Beltway, Big Government, Reason's Hit & Run, and the blog of House Republican Leader John Boehner."
Stay away from blogs who don't vet the crap they find on the Internet. Why don't you think for yourself, Paul and stop copy and pasting anything that bashes Obama. His cabinet has plenty of private sector experience. You too could have found that out itlf you'd just spent a minute vetting the lies you buy into. You're a Kool-Aid drinker and losing all credibility. | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 1:42:43 PM | Hey schoochie
So now all of those that you mentioned have had lots of private sector experience....... All nine of them..... two more if you count Biden and Orszag......... wow, I didn't realize the number was that high.
By the way, here is some interesting reading......... Maybe Bush 1 will finally have to eat broccoli..........
RICHMOND, Va.— About 20 minutes into Tuesday's hearings, Appeals Court Judge Diana Gribbon Motz told Liberty University lawyer Mathew Staver that she was surprised a certain topic had yet to come up: "the broccoli question."
"There is a lot of talk in the papers about if Congress can do this, it can require people to buy broccoli," Motz said.
"Yes," Staver agreed, "certainly the (judge) in this case in Virginia … said that."
Motz said she had a broccoli question herself: "Could the Congress prohibit people from buying broccoli, or to make it more real-world, prohibit people from buying trans fats, because of its bad effects?"
STORY: Judges hear arguments on health care law
Staver tried to turn the scenario around, saying Congress likely could limit a certain product, "but," he said, "to force the consumption of it is completely different."
"If you were to allow Congress to force the purchase of health insurance on the private market," he said, "you would therefore have to allow Congress to regulate the food industry to force certain kinds of food to be consumed."
Motz interjected, "I was asking about the flip side of that. Is there any constitutional problem with prohibiting people from purchasing broccoli or prohibiting them from purchasing trans fats? … Is there a constitutional problem with that?"
Staver: "Perhaps not. The entities that are involved in producing that are engaged in an activity … farmers growing broccoli. But the difference is that someone might choose not to eat broccoli and the government would say you must eat broccoli."
Knowing that you bow at the feet of howdy doody, I have no doubt that you would have no problem if he were to tell you, via legislation, that you MUST eat broccoli.
bon appetite..........
Paul K | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 4:57:37 PM | | ^^^^I think our government SHOULD MAKE people do what's good for them. So many Americans--especially in flyover country--are so ignorant! They just don't have a clue. And forget about all that constitution stuff those dumb, Faux News-watching Palinites are always spouting off about. I mean, hellooo?--this is 2011! We can't afford to let an old outmoded piece of paper written by some dead white male slave owners stand in the way, when we already know what's good and right and fair. Go Barry and Michelle--just do it!! | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 4:58:30 PM | The point in me posting about the cabinet member's private sector experience is to show you how dumb you look when you take a viral republican propaganda email and circulate it to non-republicans. Obviously you now know there are more than 8% of Obama's cabinet who have private sector experience. The viral propaganda emails are full of lies, as you have seen now. I'm glad to be able to point out the errors of your ways and the lies you spread. You're a compulsive liar. This isn't the first time you've come in here to spread lies after lie after lie. You'd lap up the propaganda Kool-Aid if it were in a toilet at an ampitheater. Then you try to go make everyone believe your bs.
I'm not sure what your "broccoli" argument is for. Your the only one here who just sucks up whatever you're told. You lost your credibility by spreading lies and now you want to post delusional stuff about "broccoli". Give up while you're behind. It's getting to be a little pathetic now.
The United Nations International Health Organization.....bwahahahahaha. That's all Ive got to say from now on whenever I hear you try to make a point.
Even more telling is how none of the other republicans here will call you out on your lies. They'd be on me like a chicken on a June bug if I said something false. But if a republican tells all aout lies, they think it's plausible and definitely not worth discrediting. When everyone huddles around a turd, they smell like crap. | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 5:09:42 PM | ^^^^^^^^
Yeah, I guess catching on to the analogy about the govt. forcing people to buy health care being about as enforceable as the govt. being able to force people to buy broccoli.............
Well, don't ya worry, I understand, it was very deep, so I understand that you didn't get it.
Paul K
PS Broccoli can be pretty good, just add some garlic salt, butter...... | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 5:29:54 PM | After everything I just said, all you take issue with is that I don't care about your broccoli story? Guess you're not the type to admit when you're wrong as a means to save your integrity. Apparently being a liar is fine with you.
No one Has ever made the correlation between broccoli and health care EXCEPT you. Only you would take two opposite needs and bring them together as if there is a similarity in the need for the two. Let me seeeee, one can save your life and the other "tastes good with garlic salt and butter". Hmmmmm I fail to see how these two are on any remote level together. Hence, why I think you're delusional. | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 5:30:45 PM | After everything I just said, all you take issue with is that I don't care about your broccoli story? Guess you're not the type to admit when you're wrong as a means to save your integrity. Apparently being a liar is fine with you.
No one Has ever made the correlation between broccoli and health care EXCEPT you. Only you would take two opposite needs and bring them together as if there is a similarity in the need for the two. Let me seeeee, one can save your life and the other "tastes good with garlic salt and butter". Hmmmmm I fail to see how these two are on any remote level together. Hence, why I think you're delusional. | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 5:49:08 PM | OK schoochie
You must have a very hard day working, because the point being made by the judge, one Motz and the lawyer, one Staver, was about the consitutionality of forcing people to buy health insurance, as is mandated in the "health care reform act" that howdy doody signed.......... I will keep it as simple as possible you that you might just be able to follow along. however, feel free to ask further questions, if necessary.
Judge Motz said to Atty. Staver, referring to the mandated purchase of health insurance by the "health care reform act":
""There is a lot of talk in the papers about if Congress can do this, it can require people to buy broccoli,"
Atty. Staver replied:
"
"Yes," Staver agreed, "certainly the (judge) in this case in Virginia … said that."
You see, they were discussing the consititutionality, that means whether or not is is constitutional, of the part of the "health care act" that mandates and forces people to buy health care insurance, and Judge Motz drew what is called an "analogy" to forcing people to buy broccoli, if they can be forced to buy health insurance. Actually, I enjoy brocolli, a little butter, garlic salt, sometimes some melted cheddar cheese........
You see, the issue, that means what they were talking about, was whether or not the legislative branch, that would be both houses of congress, could force people to buy something, in the real world case, that would be health insurance, in the analogy, that would be broccoli.
Let me know if further clarification is necessary.
Paul K
PS As far as being called names, such as "liar", I always consider the source before getting upset. I did think that there was a prohibition on name calling by those that manage this site. Not to worry, I am not bothered. | |
|
| Healthcare...now the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 10:37:59 PM | ^^^^^As I understand it, the government is using two Commerce Clause cases as authority for the idea it can force people to buy health insurance: Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzalez v. Raich (2005). I won't lay out the arguments for and against here, but I don't think the reasoning in Wickard would cut much ice here. But Raich sort of bothers me, if this goes to the Supreme Court.
Raich was the case where a disabled California woman had six marijuana plants. A friend tended to them, and she made various potions out of the pot. This was OK under California law. The issue was whether Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was adequate authority for applying a federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, to prohibit what Raich was doing.
None of the marijuana involved ever moved out of California. But activities within a state, even if they're not economic, come within the reach of the Commerce Clause if they have a substantial indirect effect on interstate commerce.
The Court watchers were really anxious to see how this turned out, because it raised an interesting question. Would the conservatives on the Court side with California out of support for federalism and a desire to limit the reach of the Commerce Clause; or would they favor federal control of marijuana out of concern for discouraging drug use?
What surprised a lot of them was how unwilling Justice Scalia seemed to limit the reach of the Commerce Clause. He voted with the majority, which found that growing and using medicinal marijuana had a substantial indirect effect on the huge interstate traffic in marijuana.
And because of that, Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was a valid reason to apply the CSA , trumping the California law that allowed Raich to grow and use the marijuana as medicine. IA lot of conservatives don't like the fact that Commerce Clause has been used since the late 1930's to extend federal control so far, at the expense of the states' independence. And Justice Thomas made that argument in his dissent in Raich.
Scalia seemed to say (although I should re-read it, because it's not easy to understand) that it's up to the people--and not the Court--to determine how far Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce extends. If that's right--and I think it is, from what I've heard other commenters say--could he take that same broad view toward the health care mandate?
No one knows, but I think the government likes what he said in Raich--and hopes he'd feel forcing people to buy health insurance is a legitimate use of the Commerce Clause. But somehow I can't see him doing that. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
46
of
46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
|
|
Home
login 
