Bush: I veto bills to ‘ensure that I am relevant.’
Bush: I veto bills to ‘ensure that I am relevant.’
Today in his press conference, President Bush attempted to justify his recent veto of an SCHIP expansion by explaining that he needs to issue vetoes in order to prove to people that he’s still the Decider:
That’s why the president has a veto. Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation, and the president can then use the veto to make sure he’s a part of the process. And that’s what I fully intend to do. I’m going to make sure. And that’s why when I tell you I’m going to sprint to the finish, and finish this job strong, that’s one way to ensure that I am relevant. That’s one way to ensure that I’m in the process. And I intend to use the veto.
Watch it:
Bush has issued four vetoes during his presidency, twice blocking stem cell research, withdrawal from Iraq, and now SCHIP.
UPDATE: Froomkin has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
253 Responses to “Bush: I veto bills to ‘ensure that I am relevant.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I am relevant, too. I feel ya.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:07 pmSprinting to last place.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:08 pmIt's better than signing statements. At least he gives Congress a chance to override, if they dare.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHow can the 24-percenters NOT see what an idiot this man is?
Ah well, I guess there are those who thought "Mama's Family" was funny...
October 17th, 2007 at 2:08 pmwow what a weird thing to say
October 17th, 2007 at 2:09 pmSprinting to the finish with the training wheels still attached.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pmYou gotta be kidding me! Bush is vetoing legislation to provide health care to children whose parents have been frozen out of the skyrocketing private health insurance industry BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO BE RELEVANT?????
Even if we all know it's true that Bush behaves like the snotty little kid who does annoying things "because I can", why is he admitting this to the American people? Can he truly not use his brain at all in the absence of Rove?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pmI think the issue of relevancy and President Bush was settled a long time ago.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pmApparently millions of sick/injured children in America are not "relevant" in this twisted a$$hole's opinion.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI guess actually working with Congress and the Senate to help pass some laws that might actually BENEFIT this nation would be irrelevant.
Relevent means you're going down in the history books as a worse president than Millard Fillmore, dude.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmHow can the 24-percenters NOT see what an idiot this man is?
Ah well, I guess there are those who thought “Mama’s Family†was funny…
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — October 17, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Hey! It was funny! But-only because it reminded me of all the people I grew up around....
As long as Bush is "relevent" then FU
October 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pm"Bush has issued four vetoes during his presidency, twice blocking stem cell research, withdrawal from Iraq, and now SCHIP."
And he's doing this in the interest of the country, because of his desire to do what's best for Americans -- right?
Let's see -- most Americans want stem cell research, most Americans want us to withdraw from Iraq, and most Americans want SCHIP funding.
He really is the president of a small minority, isn't he?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pmEmbarrassingly stupid. Again.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pmSo, he's opposed to curing disease, opposed to ending his fiasco in Iraq (resulting in over one million deaths and 4.5 million refugees, at a cost of $2 Trillion, and a gift to terrorists) and opposed to providing healthcare to poor sick children.
Anything else we need to know?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:18 pmI suspect that Randi Rhodes was attacked by minorities and was paid hush money to say that she “fell downâ€.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:18 pmEvery week Congress should pass a resolution or some legislation that funds something that promotes Bush as a knowledgable, conscientious, moral, and legally upright leader. Then, Bush has something to veto every week to show his relevance.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pmIn other words, "I'm just doing this cause I can-you're not the boss of me" This flipping idiot scares the crap out of me.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pmHow effing pathetic.
I AM so ashamed for my country.
He has no concept that being president is all about serving the people. None.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pmIdiot thinks 24%=relevance. And 51%=mandate.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pmBy relevent does that mean he is happy about his new Zogby/Reuters poll numbers of 24% ? Which is lower than Harry Truman when he left office.
Authoritarians believe that because Bush is at such a low approval he is doing a great job. And up is down and black is white.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pmRelevent means you’re going down in the history books as a worse president than Millard Fillmore, dude.
Comment by Race Condition — October 17, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Guess he is afraid of being a lame duck like Mallard Fillmore.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pmSeems like the central theme for Bush lately has been the "I am the President". I guess he knows the walls are closing in, and he doesn't like it much. Me I think it is more of the same idiotic stupidity we have seen from him. Basically placing his own legacy, and ego before the United States.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pmWay to go King George! Flexing your executive "muscles" by vetoing legislature concerning advancements in science, peace, and healthcare sure is a way to maintain your relevance in the "Worst President of All Time" discussion.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pmNot much of a leader, is he?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhat pisses me off the most is the smarmy tone he takes, like he thinks he's qualified to give me a lecture on how gummint is sposed to wurk.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pmSo, what Bush wants is the only thing in the world that is relevant. What about what 70 to 80% of the people in this country want? I thought that Bush worked for us. I guess I was wrong.
This man has seriously gone off the deep end. He is getting downright scary.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pmStem cells could save lives, Iraq withdrawl would save American lives and S-CHIP would save American children's lives.
Yup - relevant, all right. Relevant to the "culture of death."
October 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pmHe reminds me of Nixon. Nixon used to always refer to "the president" like it was somebody else. Dilusional.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pmBush is certifiable. When was any US president not relevant?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pmHOW ABOUT THE FLIP SIDE TO THAT COIN AND SIGN THE LEGISLATION... YOU DOPE.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pmDoes anyone else wonder at this man's sanity ? Interesting on Frontline last night how many staunch Republicans left the administration over the wire tapping. Guess there are some moral Republicans after all.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pmGeorge W. Bush personifies the most malevolent, irredeemable and unholy aspects of mankind. Not only is he wantonly destructive, purposefully dishonest and shamelessly unremorseful, he disgracefully defends his catastrophic decisions by hiding and perpetuating the devastating impact they have on the lives of defenseless human beings. Hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women and men, who have not harbored a harmful thought toward another human being, have been murdered, eviscerated and maimed as a direct result of George W. Bush being the president of the United States of America. And yet, his overriding priority is to prolong the inhuman carnage he has instigated, not to end it. George W. Bush is an indelibly chilling example of what man is capable of doing to his fellow man......the worst example imaginable.
IMPEACHMENT is the only means we have of STOPPING the CONSEQUENCES of the MADNESS of KING GEORGE!!!
October 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pmHe DID NOT block stem cell research. He merely pointed out that the fed's shouldn't fund new stem cell lines. The private sector is more then free if they want. I like this site, but tell the truth.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pmIn other words, "If I do not block the will of the people by vetoing those that represent them, I am irrelevant."
Truer words have never been implied.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pmfinish this job strong, that’s one way to ensure that I am relevant.
Oh, you are relevant alright, just not in a positive way.
Okay dittoheads, sheeples, trolls, ...etc., please defend this man, who just proclaimed that his ego is more important than a child's health.
No wonder he will go down as the. worst. president. EVER!
October 17th, 2007 at 2:33 pmAnd that coke is really working overtime for the Veto-in-chief. And I agree too. Worst President ever.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pmHhhmmm when ya have to use a veto to remain relevant...thats sad...
October 17th, 2007 at 2:35 pmDon't worry, George, rest assured, the sun will rise on the day after you leave office, and America will get to work cleaning up the damage you wreak in your vain attempts to avoid "irrelevance".
October 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pmI listened to the speech and it was humdrum as usual, but the question and answer periods have taken on a new life--very few soft slow balls for the decider these days.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:37 pmI do like to see him squirm, but I'm worried about what he might do, as childish as he is.
I was over at RedState and got the crap beaten out of me and then got banned, so it's nice to be back in the world of the sane.
Those guys are really nuts and probably count among that dismal 24%.
Comment by robbez_92107 — October 17, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
very well said.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pmNot much of a leader, is he?
Comment by Art — October 17, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
I once asked my boss (a good boss, actually) to explain to me his differentiation between "leader" and "manager". He started off by saying that leadership isn't always the easiest thing to define, but there's one clear way of telling who doesn't have it -- if nobody's following you, you aren't a leader. I would say this pretty much fits Bush.
He also said that a manager may not necessarily have much vision, but can keep the trains running on time. I don't think Bush is much of a manager, either.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pmBabara Bush is known for her meaness and petty vendettas, guess the acorn doesn't fall too far off the tree. This whole family has no ethics, morals or shame. I hope they enjoy Paraguay which will be the only place they will be wanted.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pmA shark closing in for the kill on an unsuspecting swimmer in the ocean is "Relevant."
How does it benefit the swimmer?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pmYesterday he was given time to announce his "changes" for Walter Reed. Lets' see the committee gave him the changes in April and it is October. Hope Washington Post reporters do an update to see if things have improved.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pmVictoria Jones reported on Thom Hartmann's program today that Bush stated that Iran cannot be allowed to even possess the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb. This statement is wrong on at least two counts.
First, as Hartmann pointed out, practically any high school student can gain knowledge of how to build a bomb by using the Internet. Is Bush trying to say that he will somehow ban Iranians from using the Internet?
But more importantly, Iran has never expressed any intention of building a nuclear bomb; instead, they have always said that they wish to build a nuclear facility to be used as a power source for their country.
Simply another example of fear mongering by this administration in order to achieve their nefarious ends.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pmrobbez_92107
Are you in Ocean Beach?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pmGallup Poll 10-7-07: satisfied with direction of country = 25%; dissatisfied = 73%
2-12-99: satisfied = 71%; dissatisfied = 26%
October 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pmRelevent means you’re going down in the history books as a worse president than Millard Fillmore, dude.
Comment by Race Condition — October 17, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Nixon is turning in his grave as we speak. He thought he was going to be the most hated president in history, and Old Tricky Dick wanted to be #1 at something.
I also think that Bushie will have Saddam-like statues erected at Insurance, Oil, and Defense Contractor companies in a tribute to his "relevance"
October 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pm[...] he needs to issue vetoes in order to prove to people that he’s still the Decider:
Um, actually, big Bush, I am one of the people. The legislative branch represents me. I am the decider, and I veto you.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:46 pmHey, did you know that GW claimed that he has actually seen the first plane hit the first tower on 9/11 just minutes before this photo was taken? That’s right, he didn’t say it just once, he said it twice - that he saw it live on TV.
Let that sink in real good.
Each time he was relating the story publicly, he caught himself, and through in the caveat that there was a TV in the holding area near the classroom, and that’s where he’d seen it live on TV.
HOW?
That is physically impossible. Why would there have been a live (open) broadcast feed of the twin towers on the morning of 9/11 in advance of the first plane strike? Clearly there wouldn’t have been, and wasn’t.
He saw it on a TV screen before he went into that classroom, but the screen he saw it on was in the back seat of the limo sitting next to Ari Fleisher.
The ONLY way that could happen is with foreknowledge and intricate planning, including a closed circuit video feed to Potus.
It happened just like that.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:46 pmirrelevant? no way. george will show everybody who's boss when he lands us on mars, just like he promised.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:47 pm"Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation..."
Ohmigawd, we can't let the legislative branch create and pass pieces of legislation. We can't let them run amok as though they were a co-equal branch of government, after all.
I think GWB mispoke: instead of relevANT and I think he meant arrogANT.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:49 pmThe president proclaims his right to violate laws by denying Congress information on what the U.S. military is doing - and the Post draws no inference on how the powers conveyed by the Military Commissions Act could be used.
Bush has added more than 800 “signing statements†to new laws since he took office. He is the first to use signing statements routinely to nullify key provisions of new laws. The American Bar Association recently declared that Bush’s signing statements are "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers." But the Washington Post portrays the signing statements as simply a gentlemanly difference of opinion between the president and congressmen. It neglects to mention that the president now claims boundless prerogative to what is the law.
And this is how the Washington Post and much of the Establishment media portray almost every government seizure of power. It is never a question of looming tyranny: instead, it is only a question of different perspectives on how best to serve the American public. Waiting for the Washington press corps to sound the alarm on Leviathan is like waiting for Bush to renounce his love of power.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003284714
"The Post says nothing about how the new law makes the president legislator, prosecutor, judge, and bailiff. As Yale law professor Jack Balkin notes, “The President has created a new regime in which he is a law unto himself on issues of prisoner interrogations. He decides whether he has violated the laws, and he decides whether to prosecute the people he in turn urges to break the law.â€
October 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pmHis latest approval numbers are at 24%...the lowest in US history. Congrats, you strong finish for last place is a sure thing, herr dubyah.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pmBush is like a pimp chasing a get away car full of whore's.....Most of his whores have left him, only the head madam chaney is left.....Time to impeach and lock these scum's up......
October 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pmIt sounds like Bush is trying to convince himself that he's relevant more than he's trying to persuade reporters, voters, or Congress.
Of course, most of us would prefer that Bush demonstrate his competence than his relevance.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pmGallup Poll 10-7-07: satisfied with direction of country = 25%; dissatisfied = 73%
2-12-99: satisfied = 71%; dissatisfied = 26%
Comment by Keith
Wow, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it!
October 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThis whole debate is about moving towards government controlled healthcare.
If we do this, where will Canadians go to get quality healthcare.
Can’t wait until a visit to my doctor is like a visit to the DMV.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Actually, it's not, you boob. It's about government-provided health insurance. You aren't very bright, are you?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pmComment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
If you want to talk about expanded healthcare (which is not even the point of this discussion), then I will happily wait in line for others, so that I can sleep at night because everyone else has equal coverage you sick, heartless, conservative.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pmCan’t wait until a visit to my doctor is like a visit to the DMV.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
You are an idiot. Single-payer systems have been PROVEN worldwide to deliver quantifiably superior health care at little more than half the cost we pay in the U.S.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pmjdc: "Can’t wait until a visit to my doctor is like a visit to the DMV."
Actually, what you are describing is more like socialized medicine, where the government not only provides the funding, but delivers the service. Nobody is proposing that. Thinking people know that the most efficient way to deliver healthcare is a single-payer scheme, but you evidently are too stupid to understand the distinction. I'm not surprised, since you also have demonstrated the belief that Reagan was a great president.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pm"Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation"
And heaven forbid they go on without asking the most unintelligible moron to ever occupy the Oval Office , his opinion.
How does this delusional simian not even remotely recognize his complete lack of ability ?
His limitations are limitless ............
October 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pm[1] Jerry Mazza's 10/2/06 Online Journal essay, "Desperate Measure From
Desperate Men" [And I might add, for desperate times. I'm talking about the US
Senate passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that discards key human
rights protections. This is an act of a desperate president, seeking to rally
support for his failed and brutal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by further rallying
the spineless and frightened Congress around the flag. The more Bush is
cornered by failure, the more he goes on the attack and flails fearful legislators
with the loss of their jobs if they're not "patriotic" enough.]:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1266.shtml
[2] Michael Sniffen's 9/29/06 Truthout/AP article, "Gonzales Cautions Judges
On Interfering" [In an unprecedented public statement, U.S. Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales warned federal judges to neither oppose nor interfere with the
extra-constitutional expansion of George W. Bush's presidential powers.]:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/093006Y.shtml
[3] Marjorie Cohn's 10/1/06 CounterPunch essay, "A Constitutional Shredding:
Rounding Up US Citizens" [Because the Military Commissions Act of 2006
governing the treatment of detainees was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone
noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S.
citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."]:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn09302006.html
[4] Richard Kim's 10/1/06 The Nation essay, "RIP, Bill Of Rights, RIP" [The
US now holds 14,000 detainees in prisons in Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan and
other undisclosed locations. 14,000 people who can be held indefinitely,
without a fair trial, by secret evidence they have no access or that may be obtained
by what most consider torture.]:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15
October 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pmBush is still relevant and he will continue to be relevant right up to the 2008 election and beyond. He is one of the main reasons that the modern conservative movement is over - he pretty much broke it like he's broken everything else he's touched.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:57 pmBush is like a pimp chasing a get away car full of whore’s…..Most of his whores have left him, only the head madam chaney is left…..Time to impeach and lock these scum’s up……
Comment by Witch1
That's a great visual. Thanks for the laugh!
October 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pmSo Ms Pelosi, why exactly is impeachment of this chucklehead still off the table again?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pmthat’s one way to ensure that I am relevant
The sociopathy of this man, rooted in his deep insecurity, is palpable and it's an embarrassment to this nation.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pmComment by StratRat — October 17, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Yup - "Nine square miles surrounded by reality."
October 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWhen the government controls the insurance, they control the care.
Support that.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThis whole debate is about moving towards government controlled healthcare.
If we do this, where will Canadians go to get quality healthcare.
Can’t wait until a visit to my doctor is like a visit to the DMV.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
We Canadians DO get QUALITY health care. Any Canadian can go to any Canadian hospital and get treatment - NO ONE GETS TURNED AWAY. If your RICH you can go to the US and get FASTER treatment BUT you have to be RICH. FASTER does NOT MEAN BETTER QUALITY. If your poor in the US and you get hurt in an accident your screwed.
BTW, the whole debate is NOT about health care, it's BUSH and his adolescent reasoning.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pmComment by hellinabucket — October 17, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Thanks, hellin - sometimes the doublespeak just gets to me.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pmAbout 28% relevant according to his new record in the polls!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWhen the government controls the insurance, they control the care. -- jdc
Support that.
Comment by Picklee — October 17, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Picklee, pelase don't expect the troll to engage with actual arguments. Those guys only deal in sound bites. But, boy, do they know their way around a sound bite, huh?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm"I would recommend buying a clean set of pliers so you can pull your own teeth after we get Hillary care.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007"
i'll pull your teeth for free.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pmBut, boy, do they know their way around a sound bite, huh?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — October 17, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Yeah, but when they try to chew and swallow those bytes, they choke up, and voila, btyehairballs all over the floor.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — October 17, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Heh, I'm just asking him to support how quality of insurance affects quality of healthcare. That is what he is suggesting, but there is nothing to support such a remark.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pmbtyehairballs ??
Or mebbe
bytehairballs?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pmI veto bills to ‘ensure that I am relevant.’
Too late, Mr. President, you are already irrelevant to many of us.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pmWhen the government controls the insurance, they control the care.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
We already have medicaid and medicare (both are forms of government insurance); now please explain how the government controls health care.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pmComment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
At least you've resigned yourself to the fact that we will have another President Clinton.....smart of you.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pmWow....
24% Approval!
Having Bush actively campaign for a Republican (or even mention the Republican Candidate's name in public) is the Kiss of Political Death.
These days, when Republican candidates running for office see a picture of President Bush or hear his name, do they make the sign of the cross and turn away?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pmHow much does health insurance cost?
Feel free to get some quotes.
For me? Less than a cost of a latte a day.
And remember, the idea of all insurance is to get it BEFORE the unthinkable happens. The Frosts' and Wilkerson's chose to take a chance and roll the dice. Now the taxpayers are bailing them out for their poor choices and subsequent tragic life events.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm"Bring it on" Bush.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pmWhile you're busy stroking your giant ego, trying to convince yourself that you're relevant, what you really are is a giant anchor tied around the neck of the entire Repub party.
So, go ahead andcontinue to drag the entire Repub party down with you, like you have been doing.
You were the Repub's wet dream for years. Now you are their demise.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
For me? Less than a cost of a latte a day.
So? Do you have a family of 4 and only make 45K/year? When you are in those shoes, let's see how you lack compassion at that point.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pmJust heard on Thom Hartman from a guest, Larry Scott, with VAwatchdog.org, that Bush also wants to screw with the VA pensions. Not so surprising as anything is possible with that cruel bastard. This backs up what I heard a few years back on abc news: Bush stated he wanted to change the status of some of the service connected disability VA pensions to non service connected and make it retro active. Having some experience with the VA hospital system, I could just imagine all those service connected Vets being reclassified to non service connected becoming homeless wheelchair and all. How cruel. I only heard that abc news bit one time... and I will bet the MSM was asked to pull it.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pmdid anybody here watch CHENEY'S LAW - FRONTLINE - PBS last night?
everything those criminals did was a direct attempt to make congress and the LAWS completely irrelevant...
secrets and lies, to do whatevery they wanted...
criminals.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pmWe treat half of Mexico for free.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Prove it.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pmSimply another example of fear mongering by this administration in order to achieve their nefarious ends.
Comment by Erroll — October 17, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
And who do you think is behind this fear mongering? AIPAC is right behind you. Will my children die for Israel? No way!, they're not Jews. Do I want peace between Jews and Palestinians? Yes, certainly, wholehartedly. Do we want a nuclear free ME? Start with Israel which has 200+ weapons of mass destruction including atom bombs. Then, we can talk!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pmWhen the government controls the insurance, they control the care.
I would recommend buying a clean set of pliers so you can pull your own teeth after we get Hillary care.
Comment by jdc
Are you saying that private for profit health insurance companies don't "control the care"? Can you tell me that you have never heard anyone tell you about the care someone they know needed that was denied by their for profit health insurance company? If you haven't, you don't get out much.
My sister lives in England. She has never been denied any kind of health care. She once had to wait a couple of months for elective surgery, but other than that, everything she has ever needed health-wise has been provided for her, free of cost to her. She does pay more taxes than we do, but like she said, "I would rather pay more money into taxes to live in a country that provides for me when I have a need (including food, clothing and shelter)" She has frequently told me that she feels like she is getting more than her money's worth.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pm#66 - I would love to see impeachment on Bush, but would we then have Cheney step up to the plate which is worse, because Cheney is smarter and if possible more paronoid.
Maybe it is better to just let Bush keep putting his foot in his ass without Rove or Bartlett to pull it out. Only 460 days left.
Gotta love those ratings go downnnnnnnnnnn!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pm“Fast Medical Care†is fairly important to me.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
So apparently your boast that Canadians go to the US for QUALITY health care is BS and you know it! Moron.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pmoh yea, had enough... this SCHIP bill contains much needed
funds for the military...
there needs to be more info about that...
i heard paul reikoff talk about it yesterday...
SUPPORT THE TROOPS ... SUPPORT AMERICANS ...
or don't...
October 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pmComment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Seriously, if they could afford health insurance, THEY WOULD. They weren't gambling, they simply could not afford it. Are 40 million Americans gambling with their lives every day? What ignorance.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pmFor me? Less than a cost of a latte a day.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Not everybody can afford a latte a day -- especially when it's a latte a day for each member of their family. And yes, people DO roll the dice. When you deal with having to pay for rent/mortgage, food, transportation, health insurance, day care, etc. and you can't pay for everything, you have to leave something out.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm“Fast Medical Care†is fairly important to me.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
in your case i suppose it is.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pmacute psychotic episodes require immediate medical attention.
katy
October 17th, 2007 at 3:21 pmdid not see it but I heard Kucinich's response...
Jan. '09, the minute these thugs leave office he would like to have them arrested.
Overhead Cost per $1
Private Insurance = 0.25 - 0.35 Cents
Medicare = 0.3 Cents
Comment by RemoveBush — October 17, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
sam seder played this game with a caller yesterday...
the doofus says, "uuh... well... i'd have to think about that..."
amazing...
October 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pmPrivate insurers are so inefficient. I thought you conservatives would be smart enough to realize that since you boast so much about government waste. The government isn't trying to make a profit, they are just trying to break even.
So which do you think, in the long run, will cost less: profiteering private insurance out of your pocket, or flat taxes?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pmFeel free to get some quotes.
For me? Less than a cost of a latte a day.
Comment by muckdog
If it costs you less than a latte a day, you are either very young or your employer pays most of the cost.
Try being over 50 and having a pre-existing condition. I was in that position some time ago and I could not find anyone who would insure me. I applied to every private health company I could find and they all turned me down for being over 50 and having a pre-existing condition. Please find me anyone over 50 who doesn't have any kind of a pre-existing condition.
Because of this, I now have a $600+ bill I have to pay to my doctor for four office visits to get a prescription refilled. Fortunately I can handle it and pay this bill. There are many people out there who can't.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pmYup - “Nine square miles surrounded by reality.â€
Comment by robbez_92107
I only ask because I am in 92117 (Clairemont).
October 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pm“Fast Medical Care†is fairly important to me.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Umm
They do sell Depends for those like you ............Or haven't you heard ?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pmsome folks veto to be relevant; others win the nobel prize.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:25 pmWe treat half of Mexico for free.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Prove it.
Comment by Dr. Matt — October 17, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
He can't. He is just some koolaid drinking jerk who listens to Rush and shoots his ignorant mouth off.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:25 pm....and the president can then use the veto to make sure he’s a part of the process. -GWB
The lame duck needs to be...cooked?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:25 pmkucinich - from his lips to the gods ears...
we'd all - conscientious citizens - like to see these criminals arrested...
and tried and convicted and sentenced and REMEMBERED...
SO THAT IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN...
but that's been said before too...
October 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pmugh...
We treat half of Mexico for free.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
What do you think about that?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pm“Fast Medical Care†is fairly important to me.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007
We should start with Walter Reed....
October 17th, 2007 at 3:28 pmsome folks veto to be relevant; others win the nobel prize.
Comment by cha cha cha — October 17, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Well said.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:30 pmWe treat half of Mexico for free.
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
What do you think about that?
Comment by Picklee — October 17, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
heh...
that struck me funny... reminded me of when i would
try to talk with my kids when they were little...
"how does that make you feel?"...
how appropriate...
October 17th, 2007 at 3:30 pm...
Feel free to get some quotes.
For me? Less than a cost of a latte a day.
Comment by muckdog
Can you feel the compassionate latte values yet?
I guess Muckdog, is michael, or a clone of.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm“I would rather pay more money into taxes to live in a country that provides for me when I have a need (including food, clothing and shelter)†She has frequently told me that she feels like she is getting more than her money’s worth.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 17, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I'm a full blown an unrepentant Socialist (the South American Chavez-Castro kind) and I predict that the future is ours to hold and to keep. Care to discuss it?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:33 pmWe should start with Walter Reed….
Comment by Xisithrus — October 17, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
What happened at Walter Reed is an example of what happens when Government services are privatized.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pmDOWN RIGHT STUPIDITY DOES NOT MAKE YOU RELEVANT YOU SORRY SACK OF SHlT!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:38 pmNow fan, don't suppress your feelings. Not healthy and all, you know..
October 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm#86 and #95.
No, I don't work a part-time job like the Frosts chose to do; and no, I didn't quit a job that had health insurance to take a job that didn't have health insurance like the Wilkerson's chose to do.
Who'd be dumb enough to do that?
Oh, the Frosts and the Wilkerson's.
By the way, they're covered by the current SCHIP program. No need to expand it to cover them. So, nobody is taking away their health care. Fiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pmBush: I veto bills to ‘ensure that I am relevant.’
Since when has immature , petulant and childish behavior been quantified as someone being "relevant" ?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pmI don't think he really knows the definition of the word "relevant"!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pmFeel free to get some quotes.
For me? Less than a cost of a latte a day.
Comment by muckdog
Can you feel the compassionate latte values yet?
I guess Muckdog, is michael, or a clone of.
Comment by Xisithrus — October 17, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Someone who makes 45K/year clears somewhere around $2500/month. A family of 4, of which two are children, would have to pay for out of pocket health insurance about $400-500/month for some rather 3rd rate, high deductible, personal coverage. If they wanted a better policy with reasonable deductibles and better coverage they could be paying easily upwards to 1K to 1.5K/month.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pmNo, I don’t work a part-time job like the Frosts chose to do; and no, I didn’t quit a job that had health insurance to take a job that didn’t have health insurance like the Wilkerson’s chose to do.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
So, according to your reich-wing "logic", a person shouldn't work unless they are employed full time with health insurance. Brilliant, you twit.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm"You don’t get turned away from American hospitals if you are poor."
Comment by jdc — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
This debate point is often used by people who argue that the health care system in this country is just fine, thank-you-very-much, and we don't need to change it.
It's true that if you show up in an emergency room anywhere in this country with an emergency condition, you will get treated. They can't turn you away.
But allow me to poke a couple of holes in this argument.
1) An uninsured person with an emergency is often a person who could have avoided it had he/she been able to afford regular doctor visits. Emergency room care is some of the most expensive care there is, and keeping a person healthy and out of the emergency room costs less for everyone in the long run.
2) Just because Joe Uninsured is treated in an emergency room doesn't mean he won't get billed. When Joe gets billed, chances are he can't pay. So then what? Medical expenses is currently the number one reason for bankruptcies in this country.
When Joe declares bankruptcy, the hospital and the attending doctors get stiffed. They have to make up for this loss by hiking their rates for those who CAN pay. This means insurance companies have to pay out more for claims. Which means they have to hike up premiums. Which makes health insurance unaffordable for yet another layer of people. Which makes for more avoidable emergency room visits. Can you see how this spiral is going?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pmFiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
"Fiscal conservatives" is an oxymoron. That is a fact.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pmI’m a full blown an unrepentant Socialist (the South American Chavez-Castro kind) and I predict that the future is ours to hold and to keep. Care to discuss it?
Comment by foreyes
I too am a socialist type. I believe that anything we need to survive should be taken out of the hands of the private sector (gas, electricity, healthcare). There is something fundamentally wrong with a country where corporations profit off of the basic necessities we need to survive.
I am not quite as optimistic as you about our future. I fear that Bush has brought us too far down the road of ruin for us to ever come back to a place where we once again care about our fellow man and our mother earth. Right now it looks like greed will win out in the end.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pmBy the way, they’re covered by the current SCHIP program. No need to expand it to cover them. So, nobody is taking away their health care. Fiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
How about ensuring that ALL CHILDREN be covered 1st , and then worry about rooting out the abusers ?
Create some humanity within yourself instead of only worrying about the bottom line ..............
BTW No one ever claimed the Wilkerson kid nor the Frost kids were going to have their medical coverage rescinded or removed ; that is a typical bullshit statement from the horseshit GOP and their equally full of crap backers.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAnd they say that impeaching this embarrassment would be DIVISIVE??????
October 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pmComment by Wayne — October 17, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
I agree that privatization is partly to blame for Walter Reed and that privatisation does not always mean cheaper and better, The two terms are not synonymous by any means.
A look at todays skyrocketing health care costs has not caused an increase in American productivity or longivity. Quite the opposite of its intent.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pmSo muckdog - wait until you are over 50 with a pre-existing medical problem and get laid off a job. You will find out very quickly that you can't get private medical insurance even if you can afford to pay for it. So what are you going to do then? Should you be left to fend for yourself and neglect your health because you can't afford to pay a doctor their cash rates?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI just realized that I have not publicly called Bush a moron in several days...
He's such a moron.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:51 pmFiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
That is what this is about a .02% increase. BTW when has the current admin become fiscally conservative?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:51 pmThat is what this is about a .02% increase. BTW when has the current admin become fiscally conservative?
Comment by Xisithrus
Don't hold your breath. muckdog doesn't answer questions that can't be answered by picking one of his RNC talking points.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pmFiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.
Comment by muckdog
Incorrect, sir. The folks you indicate (fiscal conservatives) want to do away with any service they believe the common citizen should provide for themselves like health coverage. Fraud and abuse are code words used to gather the talking points together and create a common enemy for the right side. Fraud and abuse is not the problem - Creating a society where childrens small health issues balloon into larger health issues as they grow older is the problem. It is far less expensive to provide care while they are healthy, than wait for the impending explosion of major diseases caused by the lack of access to health care.
We provide care to the armed forces, congress, poor people, civil service, etc...Why can't we provide the same care to our young people? What is wrong with a healthy citizenry?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pmO-H---M-Y---G-A-W-D.....what a freaking A-S-S-H-O-L-E!!!!
Buck Fush
October 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pmmuckdog doesn’t answer questions that can’t be answered by picking one of his RNC talking points.
great visual of duckmog at his computer, frantically thrashing through an eleven inch stack of paper on his desk, looking for RNC TP #3,297.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pmWhat happened at Walter Reed is an example of what happens when Government services are privatized.
Comment by Wayne — October 17, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
A few years ago, water was privatized in Bolivia by a president who spoke Spanish with an English accent and was controlled by Bechtel. He's currently living in Washington after being thrown out of power by the Bolivian people.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:01 pmSanchez de Losada will only return to Bolivia if the US government backs him up. Fat chance at best; will not happen, count on it!
Keep up the good work Fritz!
And don't let another day go by without shouting from the rooftops...
October 17th, 2007 at 4:01 pmGreat post's bilbobaggins and other's.......Blessings
October 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pmLooks like muckdog has left the building. The hard questions start coming and he skedaddles. I do love his moniker though. He surely is a dog that spends a lot of time in the muck.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pmHeh. I've seen two-year-olds make themselves "relevant" the same way: screaming NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
What a complete idiot.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pmFiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
You can't do both? Or is chewing gum, and walking at the same time too much for a simple minded republican?
October 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pmThere is something fundamentally wrong with a country where corporations profit off of the basic necessities we need to survive.
I endorse this statement. Anyone care to join me?
October 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pmFraud and abuse weeded out as it has been in Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, foster care. As it has been in the pharmaceutical and insurance companies ?
October 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pmThere is something fundamentally wrong with a country where corporations profit off of the basic necessities we need to survive.
I endorse this statement. Anyone care to join me?
Comment by Picklee — October 17, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
I do. This country is strongest when we stand together. Not to have all of us out for ourselves grabbing the all mighty dollar. We need to collectively determine to provide for all the basic necessities. Just like our roads, our water and other public utilities. We decided these are necessary for all.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:44 pm"Fiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system."
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
This is just another way of saying, "we would like to appear concerned and compassionate, but we also want to make sure we never spend any money on people who can't afford to buy elections for us." They will ALWAYS be able to find something in the system they can label "fraud and abuse" -- even if they have to make it up. Look at what they have done to the Frost and Wilkerson families. If you don't sell your home and move into a tent, you're defrauding the system. If you have children you clearly can't afford, you're defrauding the system. Etc. Etc.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:51 pmNonono, sprinting to Den Hague.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI fear that Bush has brought us too far down the road of ruin for us to ever come back to a place where we once again care about our fellow man and our mother earth. Right now it looks like greed will win out in the end.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 17, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
You're right bilbo. Evil seems to be winning over good. Now, which side are you on, the 'winning side" or the "right side"? Just asking , you know. I know which side I'm on!
October 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm#131: The liberals always bring up Iraq when talking about health care. It's apples vs. oranges. The government is constitutionally mandated to provide for the nation's defense. I know you don't think the war on terror is worth fighting, but both Democrats and Republicans have agreed on going into Iraq, and both Hillary and Rudy are talking tough on Iraq and Iran. So current military posture will continue post 1/21/2009, no matter if it's Hillary or Rudy.
So get over it.
The government is not constitutionally mandated to provide health care. It's a nice thing to do for those who are trying to get back on their feet. It's the wrong thing to do for those who "choose to abuse."
#133: BTW when has the current admin become fiscally conservative?
This administration has been a disappointment for fiscal conservatives. Especially when the GOP held Congress. But that doesn't mean fiscal conservatives have given up hope on holding down spending.
#135: Creating a society where childrens small health issues balloon into larger health issues as they grow older is the problem. It is far less expensive to provide care while they are healthy,
So, in your view, should we tax unhealthy foods? For example, refined grains, dairy products, meat, foods with high sugar and/or corn syrup, and high fat foods? Because most of our health issues later on in life are self-inflicted by a lifetime of poor nutrition choices.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pmBecause most of our health issues later on in life are self-inflicted by a lifetime of poor nutrition choices.
And there has been research done in microbiology that strongly suggests that your health is affected by the nutrition of your ancestors. The fact is that humans can live without a large portion of the unhealthy foods we have made in the last century. What this means for the health care problem is difficult to say. It seems plainly obvious that all humans should be given the chance to be cured of disease and common ailments.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:12 pmGuys in the white coats ... yup, that's the one.
Take him away!
October 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pmBush: That’s why the president has a veto. Sometimes the legislative branch wants to go on without the president, pass pieces of legislation, and the president can then use the veto to make sure he’s a part of the process. And that’s what I fully intend to do. I’m going to make sure.
Once again, Bush speaking to the American public as if they are a bunch of damned ignorant children and he's the teacher.
Next he'll be saying, "The big house where I live is called the White House because it is painted white."
October 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pmI endorse this statement. I also am in favor of a Single Payer System. From the Physicians for a National Health Program web site; "Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered."
Learn more at the PNHP web site.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pmMy dog sometimes eats her own shit and pukes on the back porch because she wants to be "relevant".
Reminds me of a certain Chimp hooting and flinging shit.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pmThe liberals always bring up Iraq when talking about health care. It’s apples vs. oranges. The government is constitutionally mandated to provide for the nation’s defense. I know you don’t think the war on terror is worth fighting, but both Democrats and Republicans have agreed on going into Iraq, and both Hillary and Rudy are talking tough on Iraq and Iran.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Provide for the defense of what? An attack that might happen in the future? You do not invade a country for an attack that MIGHT happen in the future. What a f-ing moron you are. For the 1076th time, Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. nor to their neighbors. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both said so in 2001. You and your moronic friends in politics STILL believe that Iraq has WMDs, and you STILL believe that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. And I don't give a f--k what the Democrats said about Iraq. All the pussies in Congress...Dems AND Republicans...have been proven wrong.
Remind me again why we are in Iraq. WMDs? Ummm...no. To spread democracy throughout the Middle East? We aren't supposed to be nation builders, per candidate George Bush in 2000. Save the Iraqi people from an evil man? We aren't supposed to be the police of the world, again per candidate Bush in 2000. Stabilize the Middle East? Bush has f---ed up things so badly in the Middle East that it will take generations to fix.
I would ask what Bush thought of the U.S. supporting and being very friendly with Saddam and Iraq in the past, but the moronic President can't even remember what was going on in 1981, so I doubt he couldn't remember any other time in the past.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm“Fiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.â€
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Yeah, I guess a 2 year old with a hole in her heart constitutes "fraud and abuse."
October 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pmHow about this for compassion:
One in eight Iraqi children now die before the age of five. One in four in Afghanistan.
Iraq now the #2 failed state in the world. Only Sudan is worse.
About 30% of Iraqi people now dead or refugees.
US now 40th in world in life expectancy. About 35th in providing healthcare.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pm#151: The last time I checked, Iraq and Afganistan were not part of the UNION
Neither were Japan and Germany in 1941. So is your position that we should always appease the aggressors?
#156: I guess a 2 year old with a hole in her heart constitutes “fraud and abuse.â€
Now you're making things up. As I mentioned before, nobody is attacking any children. yes, the Democrats are guilty of exploiting children for their political purposes. What's new? Remember Jimmy Carter trying to exploit his daughter on the anti-nuclear agenda back in the 1980 race? Or Hillary in 1993 with her Hillary Care agenda? Or John Kerry in 2004? Democrats have a long history of exploiting kids for political gain. Usually backfires. This one will, too.
As I mentioned, the Frosts and Wilkerson's qualify for the current SCHIP program. They're covered. Yes, they've made some extremely poor decisions in their lives that left them uncovered when tragedies hit.
Someone mentioned above that we should treat people at a younger age so that they don't have more complicated medical conditions later in life.
Shouldn't we also EDUCATE people how to take responsibility for themselves so that they're empowered to provide for themselves instead of relying on a taxpayer bailout?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pmIraq in 2003 was not the aggressor. We were. Every reason for the invasion and occupation was a known lie. Name one that was not.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pmUniversal healthcare is not a taxpayer bailout. It SAVES $ 250 billion every year administrative alone because it is far, far, far, more efficient.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:39 pmMuckdog,
Name another time in history where one country had to prove they were disarmed before they were invaded and occupied by a country that spends 500 times as much on their military.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:42 pmmuckdog,
An example of taxpayer bailout would be when Reagan deregulated the savings and loans resulting in their collapse. That taxpayer bailout cost $400 billion.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:45 pmIraq in 2003 was not the aggressor. We were. Every reason for the invasion and occupation was a known lie. Name one that was not.
Name one that *was* a lie. With proof, please. Not just your opinions. Remember, if Bush acted on bad information, that was not a lie. By definition.
#160: Universal healthcare is not a taxpayer bailout. It SAVES $ 250 billion every year administrative alone because it is far, far, far, more efficient.
Pull those numbers out of your arse? It would increase the cost of health care. Simple economics.
If 10 doctors have 100 patients, would costs and availability go up or down if the same 10 doctors now had 150 patients?
Follow-up: Part (a) If 1 of every 7 Canadian women coming to America for their maternity needs because they can't get appointments in Canada, where will they go once the Democrats implement universal health care in the US? Part (b) Where will American women go to have their babies once the Democrats force Universal health care on this country?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pmMuckdog, Muckdog. Here boy, here boy.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pmThe $250 Billion every year comes from Consumer Reports. The most any other country spends is half what the US spends administratively. Administration of Medicare is about 1/7th the cost of administration of private.
Where did you get the one in seven Canadian women coming to the US? Care to tell us that.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm#161: Name another time in history where one country had to prove they were disarmed before they were invaded and occupied by a country that spends 500 times as much on their military.
But Democrats claimed that Iraq had weapons!!! Are you calling them LIARS?
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From
a letter signed by Joe Lieberman (D), Dianne Feinstein
(D), Barbara A. Milulski (D), Tom Daschle (D), & John
Kerry (D) October 9, 1998.
"This December will mark three years since United
Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no
doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer- range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." Bob
Graham (D), Joe Lieberman (D), Harold Ford (D), & Tom
Lantos (D) December 6, 2001.
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire
agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered
into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its
weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to
permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward
developing nuclear weapons capabilities" Tom Harkin
(D) and Arlen Specter (RINO) July 18, 2002.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N.
sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not
and we will not let him succeed." Madeline Albright
(D), 1998.
"Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he
will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since
1983" National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (D), Feb
18, 1998.
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to
completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction,
and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." Barbara Boxer (D), November 8, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he
is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved
nuclear capability." Robert Byrd (D), October 2002.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a
threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.
He's had those for a long time. But the United States
right now is on a very much different defensive
posture than we were before September 11th of 2001...
He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear
capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads
yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think
our friends in the region would face greatly increased
risks as would we." Wesley Clark (D) on September 26,
2002.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation
of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the
past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think
that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued
armament programs." Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the
very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with
weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or
provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his
footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton
(D) in 1998.
"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his
involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed
in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
know all too well affects American security." Hillary
Clinton (D) October 10, 2002.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I
saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the
inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and
then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of
Defense William Cohen (D) in April of 2003.
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess
weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation
with a leader who has used them against his own
people." Tom Daschle (D) 1998.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to
America and our allies, including our vital ally,
Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has
sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and
biological weapons. He has already used them against
his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to
build more. We know that he is doing everything he can
to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he
gets closer to achieving that goal." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is
about national security. It should be clear that our
national security requires Congress to send a clear
message to Iraq and the world: America is united in
its determination to eliminate forever the threat of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." John Edwards (D)
Oct 10, 2002.
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with
Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." Dick
Gephardt (D) in September of 2002.
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and we should organize an
international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons
of mass destruction has proven impossible to
completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore
(D) 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." Bob Graham (D) December 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who
is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire
weapons of mass destruction." Jim Jeffords (I) October
8, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Ted Kennedy (D) September 27, 2002.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a
serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his
pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot
be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Ted Kennedy (D)
Sept 27, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the president of the United
States the authority to use force - if necessary - to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security." John F.
Kerry (D) Oct 2002.
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept
them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He
has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these
weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to
lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction
and the issue of proliferation." John F. Kerry (D)
October 9, 2002.
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We
all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is
miscalculating America’s response to his continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction. That is why the world, through the United
Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice,
demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons
of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has
been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
John F. Kerry (D) Jan 23, 2003.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." Carl Levin (D) Sept
19, 2002.
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical
weapons, biological weapons, and the development of
nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United
States." Joe Lieberman (D) August, 2002.
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994,
despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and
dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that
Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing
nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has
actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N.
inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about
biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable.
In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and
later, against its own Kurdish population. While
weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998.
There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to
pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." Patty Murray (D) October 9, 2002.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to
all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology
which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Nancy Pelosi (D) December 16, 1998.
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on
highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons
inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological
agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several
dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as
the means to continue manufacturing these deadly
agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the
highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas
and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery
shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And
Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter (reg D) in 1998.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current
world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction." John
Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons
capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against
Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly
weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the
Middle East." John Rockefeller (D) Oct 10, 2002.
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
October 17th, 2007 at 6:55 pmAdministration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think
there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He
has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the
mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate
demands of the United Nations, the Security Council,
the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." Henry Waxman (D) Oct 10, 2002.
The democrats were lied to, by Bush and his handlers. That much is now clear, and has been admitted and proven. Nice try, you're wrong again.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pmb) Where will American women go to have their babies once the Democrats force Universal health care on this country?
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
they will go to exactly the same places they now go, except they won't lose their homes and livelihoods.
sure must suck to be you, and always wrong.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:03 pm#165
What? You don't know how to use The Google? Are you waiting for a government program to do internet searches for you? President Bush would veto that, you know.
Canada's Expectant Moms Coming to US to Deliver
Mothers in British Columbia are having a baby boom, but it's the United States that has to deliver, and that has some proud Canadians blasting their highly touted government healthcare system.
"The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years," said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. "In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment."
October 17th, 2007 at 7:04 pmIf 10 doctors have 100 patients, would costs and availability go up or down if the same 10 doctors now had 150 patients?
you are a simpleton. more patients that will be covered=more doctors who will be paid.
you're so stupid, it's amazing you remember to breathe.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pm“The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years,†said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. “In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment.â€
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
The Cato Institute? A group of professional rightwing liars? That's your source?
LOL! You are as gullible as you are clueless! That's very funny.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pmName one that *was* a lie. With proof, please. Not just your opinions. Remember, if Bush acted on bad information, that was not a lie. By definition.muckdog
Just because the administration SAYS it was "bad information" now doesn't mean that it WAS. They certainly did not tell us it was questionable sole-unreliable-sourced at the time. The 2 in the Jan 2003 SOTU speech: Iraq trying to acquire yellowcake from Africa (known to be poor forgery 11 months before the speech--the reason it was taken out of other speeches) and aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons (known 11 months prior to be precisely for conventional weapons).
meeting in Prague was a lie.
Mobile weapons labs was a lie.
stockpiles of 500 tons and 32,000 liters, and 28,000 liters was a lie.
Ties to al Qaeda was a lie. Shack in the North was a lie. Drones was a lie.
Ready to launch in 15 minutes was a lie. Iraq and 9/11 were used so many times in same sentence that half the US came to believe Iraq had a part in 9/11. Saddam kicked out the inspectors was a lie. Saddam didn't account for previous WMD was a lie. Saddam was a threat was a lie. Greeted like liberators was a lie. War will virtually pay for itself was a lie. It's not about oil was a lie. We don't want permanent bases was a lie.
Now you name one pre-war reason that was not a lie.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm#167: The democrats were lied to, by Bush and his handlers
In 1998? Prove to me that Bush influenced Democrat statements in 1998. Go ahead. It must suck for you to be so stupid, eh?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:09 pm#172: You're into the conspiracy stuff, eh? That explains a lot. Bush acted on info that was believed to be accurate. It was provided by the CIA and also other government intelligence agencies (both domestic and foreign).
Everyone thought he had WMDs. Nobody thought there was any doubt of it in 2003.
Nobody lied. Get over it.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:12 pmI'm with Muckanus. If you don't have insurance you should be shot. But 3 questions:
October 17th, 2007 at 7:13 pm1) If the constitution has nothing about heathcare, than why all the health regulations? For example, meat inspections and the CDC, why should my tax $ go to the CDC, according to you its not a government concern?
2)Was the polio vaccinations unconstitutional, it was government provided health care?
n 1998? Prove to me that Bush influenced Democrat statements in 1998. Go ahead. It must suck for you to be so stupid, eh?
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
so 1998 is the same as 2002? thanks for proving how stupid you are, again.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm“The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years,†said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. “In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment.â€
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Guess you missed the part where this is only for some rare specialties, and that the Canadians STILL PAY FOR IT, even though they spend 1/2 of what the US does and still cover EVERY CITIZEN!
You do realize that many American Insurance companies have been using foreign countries for years for their treatments right? That it doesn't go just one way?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThe third is why are repug against the middle class? What do you consider middle class?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pmEveryone thought he had WMDs. Nobody thought there was any doubt of it in 2003.
Nobody lied. Get over it.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
No everyone did not, and yes he did lie, that's been proven by an internal investigation of the Pentagon that show the OSP under Rumsfeld intentionally misrepresented intelligence to FIX THE FACTS!
He LIED - GET OVER IT!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pmSome democrats---not all---believed what they were fed by the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon. Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to believe the expert weapons inspectors who were actually in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003 trying to find the WMD? Wouldn't that make a hell of a lot more sense?
They told the White House they could find nothing, had run out of places to look, and for them to please tell them where they should look. The White House ordered them out of the country.
Writers at the CATO institute are paid by the health industry who are making trillions of dollars off their inefficient system.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pmNobody lied. Get over it.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Bush lied. Get with it. he's still lying, every day, every time he shoots his mouth off. he lies even when he doesn't need to. he has led his life that way, as a lying bullshitter. raised by lousy, heartless parents, sent off to schools where he was laughed and jeered at, failed ina ll business attempts, bailed out by daddy time and again. A fraud, a failure, and a liar, lifelong. get a clue, you idiot. If he had not been lying, we would have won that "war".
October 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm#167: The democrats were lied to, by Bush and his handlers
In 1998? Prove to me that Bush influenced Democrat statements in 1998. Go ahead. It must suck for you to be so stupid, eh?
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Well STUPID, it does such for you, and what sucks even more is YOUR PROJECTIONS!
Sorry, but the inspector general says you're a big fat idiot!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pmwhere did you go, suckdog? did you run away in the face of facts that prove how full of shit you are? or did you run out of repig lying points? you've been soundly defeated, so i understand your scampering off to lick your wounds, and your balls.
LOL! what a fool!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:21 pmIf the yellowcake from Africa was not a lie, then why did Tenet insist that it be taken out of previous speeches. Condi Rice admitted it was false, but she added that only people "down in the bowels" of National Security knew that it was false. Everyone knows that it was based on a very poor forgery from letterheads stolen from the Niger embassy in Rome. But you will not find this story in the "liberal media".
October 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pmWhy did Bush veto SCHIP? Because he could. He vetoed this for one reason, to remind the subjects that he is King and has all power to rule. His day will come.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pm#62. MCMetal "His limitations are limitless" Wow! Says it all to me; perhaps you could turn that into a bumper sticker?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:32 pmTranscript of ElBaradei's U.N. presentation March 7, 2003:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/
October 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm#176: I'm sorry your parents had to raise a mentally handicapped child. I called you "stupid" and I apologize. I realize you're doing the best you can. Take a look at the previous post of #166 and see if you can identify comments made in 1998. If you can't, then perhaps our discussion is over.
Unless you're claiming that President Bush entered a time machine, went back to 1998, and caused those Democrats to lie about Iraq. Is that your position?
#177: Guess you missed the part where this is only for some rare specialties, and that the Canadians STILL PAY FOR IT, even though they spend 1/2 of what the US does and still cover EVERY CITIZEN!
1 of 7 patients is "rare" in your book? Hmm... Well, it's not "the majority" but it still is a big number. So if Canada can't send them to America for their medical needs, what will Canada do? And since universal health care restricts patients access to medical care (Canada, England, et al), where will you go when you need an appointment?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:44 pmUnless you’re claiming that President Bush entered a time machine, went back to 1998, and caused those Democrats to lie about Iraq. Is that your position? Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
You referring to 1998, when the US bombed them and got access to shutting down their capacity to have WMDs? Or are you suggesting Bush used the time machine to say that in 2002 Saddam had snuck those capabilities through a time vortex?
While we're at it, lets destroy all of the Germans for their Nazi Nuclear program!!!
hehe, what a stupid comment muck, this is even more stupid than your usual!
1 of 7 patients is “rare†in your book? Hmm… Well, it’s not “the majority†but it still is a big number. So if Canada can’t send them to America for their medical needs, what will Canada do? And since universal health care restricts patients access to medical care (Canada, England, et al), where will you go when you need an appointment? Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
That's better than the 1 out of 6 Americans that HAVE NO CARE even though we spend twice per capita than they do!
Where's your 'citation' on the of 7 seek care in the US? Come on, I'm waiting ;)
October 17th, 2007 at 7:48 pmPull those numbers out of your arse? It would increase the cost of health care. Simple economics.
If 10 doctors have 100 patients, would costs and availability go up or down if the same 10 doctors now had 150 patients?
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
but you're forgetting a key factor in this equation. Insurance. Assuming that you have universal healthcare when those 10 doctors now have 150 patients, you eliminate the middleman (profiteering insurance companies).
Yes; it is simple economics, isn't it?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:50 pmSo if Canada can’t send them to America for their medical needs, what will Canada do? Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Spend more on their healthcare? Instead of the 1/2 of what we currently spend for significantly FEWER services? Lets also not forget all of the COPAYS that the US patients have to have, and the deductibles. Sorry but if they spent 75% of what we spend per capita - they'd have everything they need!
And since universal health care restricts patients access to medical care (Canada, England, et al), where will you go when you need an appointment? Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Same place US patients go, other countries like Thailand and Mexico!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:50 pmThe costs go down, and the availability also go down. Those are called directly related variables in mathematics.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm1 of 7 patients is “rare†in your book? Hmm… Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
How STUPID do we know muckdog is? Because it's not ONE OUT OF SEVEN PATIENTS, it's ONE OUT OF SEVEN DOCTORS send ONE PATIENT to the US!!! Out of ALL OF THEIR PATIENTS!!!
BAHAHA, muckdog, you look like an idiot with that claim!!!
Where did you get THAT STUPID LIE FROM?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pmMuckdog,
I lived in Britain for 12 years and had an appendectomy, three emergency room visits, broken nose with overnight stay, root canal, many free dentist visits, many free optometric visits, no deductible and no co-pay. So don't you tell me what they are like. I know a hell of a lot better than you what they are like. If the US's system was so great, we would not be ranked 35th in the world in providing healthcare.
I see from your website that your main interests are "24", "Lost", "Heroes", and all the hot babes on Fox News. Real intellectual I am wasting my time with!!!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:54 pmSorry, but the surveys in Canada show that most Americans seeking healthcare did so because they got SICK when they were here! Even then, it was 1/2 of 1 percent!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Here you go, son, go educate yourself!
Stop spreading lies, you look like a moron when you do that! Unless you prefer to look like a moron?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/21/3/19?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=canada+elective&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
October 17th, 2007 at 7:57 pmHaha, woohoo, go RHF!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:58 pmbut you’re forgetting a key factor in this equation. Insurance. Assuming that you have universal healthcare when those 10 doctors now have 150 patients, you eliminate the middleman (profiteering insurance companies).
But those new patients aren't paying for their insurance. Where will the money come from? Don't say "Iraq," because both Hillary and Rudy are pro-Iraq war.
Is there a guarantee that replacing the insurance middleman with the government middleman will be less expensive? Last I looked, government programs had their own inherent overhead. Replacing a for-profit with a non-profit doesn't necessarily save a large margin of money.
In addition,when the government guarantees paying for something, costs go up.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:01 pmPull those numbers out of your arse? It would increase the cost of health care. Simple economics.
If 10 doctors have 100 patients, would costs and availability go up or down if the same 10 doctors now had 150 patients?
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Insurance companies add 30% to the cost of providing health care alone, and lack of prompt early care access adds even more. Providing universal healthcare would likely decrease costs on the order of 35-40% from what it currently is for those paying. So you could save everyone 35-40% and keep the same quality (we know you're a cheap selfish child), or you could spend the same you currently do, and have 35-40% BETTER healthcare for the country!
Imagine that! We'd be spending twice what the Canadians do, but we all know you wingnuts will cheap out like you've done with public education to excuse throwing the baby out with the bathwater! You people HATE IT when something works, so you try to starve it to death! You really are sickos!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:04 pmBut those new patients aren’t paying for their insurance. Where will the money come from? Don’t say “Iraq,†because both Hillary and Rudy are pro-Iraq war. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Duh, you really are stupid, aren't you? When those people without insurance go to the hospital, most of that is picked up by taxpayers already - or were you so stupid you didn't know that? And prelim healthcare is MUCH CHEAPER than emergency rooms!
Is there a guarantee that replacing the insurance middleman with the government middleman will be less expensive? Last I looked, government programs had their own inherent overhead. Replacing a for-profit with a non-profit doesn’t necessarily save a large margin of money. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
BAHAHA, that's one of the stupidest things you've ever written! People have corrected this LIE of yours before, yet you persist in repeating it - proving exactly how stupid you are! Medicare is already government run insurance and it has a 3% overhead, compared to 30% for PRIVATE insurance. Profit DOES cost more, why? Because it's INSURANCE, and NOT MANUFACTURING! You can't drive down costs you don't own! For someone that PRETENDS to be a capitalist, you KNOW NOTHING of capitalism!
In addition,when the government guarantees paying for something, costs go up. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Again, a baseless claim! Medicare destroys your premise, and shows your ignorance!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pmBut those new patients aren’t paying for their insurance.
Of course they are, through taxes. And because the profiteering insurance companies are out of the picture, the taxes aren't as bad to begin with anyway. In fact, they would be much less than what you'd normally pay for private insurance. And guess what? The working class can afford that!
Where will the money come from? Don’t say “Iraq,†because both Hillary and Rudy are pro-Iraq war.
Whenever we get out of Iraq, will be the day real tax breaks come.
Is there a guarantee that replacing the insurance middleman with the government middleman will be less expensive?
Why wouldn't it? The government isn't there to make money, just break even with itself.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:09 pmMuckdog,
We already told you that the overhead for Medicare is about 1/7th the overhead for privates.
I already told you that Consumer Reports said we would save $250 billion each year administratively alone by switching to single-payer. I can only tell you. I cannot understand it for you!!!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:09 pmI already told you that Consumer Reports said we would save $250 billion each year administratively alone by switching to single-payer. I can only tell you. I cannot understand it for you!!!
Comment by Keith — October 17, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
That's definitely ONE jack@ss that you can't make drink!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:10 pmStill waiting for the apology muckdog for your LIE about the number of patients going abroad for healthcare!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:11 pmNot only is it saving more money, but it's moral. Private insurance can turn you down on anything because they want to maximize profits and appease their shareholders.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm#195 "but the surveys in Canada show that most Americans seeking healthcare "Comment by republicans hate facts — October 17, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Isn't this wrong? Shouldn't it be Canadians seeking healthcare?
October 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm#195 “but the surveys in Canada show that most Americans seeking healthcare “Comment by republicans hate facts — October 17, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Isn’t this wrong? Shouldn’t it be Canadians seeking healthcare?
Comment by Keith — October 17, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Yes, sorry, I didn't proof read my post.. Thanks for the catch!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:13 pmNot only is it saving more money, but it’s moral. Private insurance can turn you down on anything because they want to maximize profits and appease their shareholders.
Comment by Picklee — October 17, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Exactly! Whiners like wingnut muckdog are always talking about Canadians getting 'delays' in healthcare, but in the US the problem is the number of people that are DENIED healthcare - even when they have health insurance!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pmComment by Keith — October 17, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Haha. Isn't that also why Americans were always going to Canada to fill prescriptions? Because it's WAY CHEAPER.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pmrepublicans hate facts,
You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:15 pmComment by republicans hate facts — October 17, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
I'd prefer a delay over a denial any day.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:15 pmAnd while we're on the topic of 'quality of healthcare', there are lots of Americans sent abroad these days for treatment because of the superior prices and quality!
The reality is muckdog lives in a world that doesn't exist in a delusion of his own making!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:17 pmI’d prefer a delay over a denial any day.
Comment by Picklee — October 17, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Those are the options, but the GOP prefers denial (AS ALWAYS!).
October 17th, 2007 at 8:18 pmStudy showed that 18,000 Americans die every year due to no healthcare. None of the other top forty countries have a single citizen without healthcare.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:19 pm#200: Why wouldn’t it? The government isn’t there to make money, just break even with itself.
Well, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the government has employees that receive salaries and benefits. And there are buildings that these people work in. So while the government isn't making money, the people who work for the government do. And there are other costs. Agreed?
#201: We already told you that the overhead for Medicare is about 1/7th the overhead for privates.
Is Medicare a financially sound government program? Is that your position?
If Medicare is headed for financial problems, how does that save money?
(And don't answer "Iraq.")
#202: I already told you that Consumer Reports said we would save $250 billion each year administratively alone
Consumer Reports? LOL. Was that article next to what kind of washing machine they rated best? C'mon.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pmSpeaking of healthcare, Susan Orr should die.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/17/susan-orr/
October 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pmStudy showed that 18,000 Americans die every year due to no healthcare. None of the other top forty countries have a single citizen without healthcare.
Comment by Keith — October 17, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Yeah, that's because 'the culture of life' has been busy ensuring lots of death!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pmrepublicans hate facts,
You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.
Comment by Keith — October 17, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Indeed! And this plant thinks she's an 'expert' on economics and politics - how sad is that?
October 17th, 2007 at 8:21 pmI've read of people traveling to Beijing to get stem cell therapy. Hopefully, they will have perfected it by the time I get really old.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:21 pmIf you go to his website, you see that he is not an expert on anything other than fantasy football and hot babes.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:22 pmAgreed?
Agreed. But I would call that overhead, and as RHF has already pointed out, MediCare only has a 3% overhead. 10 times less than private insurance. We can say that government insurance would thus be 10 times cheaper than private. Agreed?
Is Medicare a financially sound government program? Is that your position?
It will be when we have universal healthcare.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:23 pmWe can say that government insurance would thus be 10 times cheaper than private.
Excuse me, 10 times cheaper *on overhead costs* than private.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pmYou're only pissed because you know that it will work, and when it does, you'll have to wait in line, fair and square like everyone else.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pmIt appears that in order to be a Democrat who wants universal health care, you have to suspend some economic realities.
Again, just a warning from our friends in Canada
* The average wait between being referred to a specialist and receiving an elective operation was 18.3 weeks in 2006, up from 17.8 the year previous.
* The time between being referred by a general practitioner and seeing a specialist grew to 9.2 weeks from 8.8 weeks in 2006, while the second stage of waiting — between seeing the specialist and getting the operation — edged up from nine to 9.1 weeks.
* Waits in the internal medicine specialty, gynecology, urology and radiation oncology were all up by varying amounts.
From the National Center for Policy Analysis.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:28 pmPicklee,
When Consumer Reports said a savings of $250 billion every year, I believe they were saying cutting administrative costs in half---from $500 billion to $250 billion. I think that is approximately correct. I don't think you can cut the costs from $500 billion down to $50 billion.
This only works if we are talking about Kucinich's single-payer plan---not the plans of any other candidate.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:32 pmYou’re only pissed because you know that it will work, and when it does, you’ll have to wait in line, fair and square like everyone else.
It'll work. It'll just work poorly. And people will be unhappy with it.
People with money will always get a doctor when they want one.
It'll be the middle class and lower who are waiting in 18 week lines.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pmThere are many countries with single-payer where the waits are less than in the US. There are more patients, but you don't waste hours trying to figure who can have what and who pays what percentage of what.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pmOh, and your taxes will go up. There's that.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pmMuckdog,
You are only believing right-wing horror stories. You have not experienced what the other top forty countries in the world have. Germany has had single-payer universal coverage for 120 years!!! Go ask them if they want the US system. Don't you think it strange that no other country in the world wants the US system?
October 17th, 2007 at 8:37 pmDoes this mean that Bush wasn't revelant at any time during his first 5 years? (I just wish to hell he wasn't).
Besides that, I find this to be an odd and unsettling "justification" for ever issuing a veto.
In fact, Bush's news conference today caused questions to be asked about his stability as a person. I know this has been said for quite some time in the blog world but even a whisper campaign in MSM is very telling.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:41 pmOh, and your taxes will go up. There’s that.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
It SAVES 250 billion f'ing dollars each and every f'ing year adminif'ingtratively-alone.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:41 pmSorry, I left out the s in adminif’ingtratively-alone.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:44 pmThose other countries have a much higher tax rate than we do.
Much higher. You can Google the rates.
With universal health care, you would take home less pay. So try to figure out how you'd make do with an increased tax bite. You can find a tax calculator online where you could plug in a higher marginal tax bracket and how that would affect your income and monthly take home pay. (ie, would $500 more a month affect you? $1000 a month? Put some numbers on it, and see if it would matter or not).
Also, check out the financial livelihood of those folks in those other countries. Home ownership. Autos. Net worth. Etc.
And count me a skeptic when it comes to a government program "saving money."
I've read in the local newspapers about government projections being off by factors of 200-300%. And more. I'm being conservative. (Of course I am).
Enjoyed the discourse. Don't mind the occasional tease if you don't. We are all in this together and just believe that there are different ways of getting there.
Cheers.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:50 pmIt SAVES 250 billion f’ing dollars each and every f’ing year adminif’ingtratively-alone.
But the costs go up. If there are 40 million more people making dr appointments, getting treatment for asthma, diabetes, blood pressure, etc etc etc.
So lets assume Consumer Reports knows health care like they know washing machines, and pretend we save $250B in admin, but how much do we spend in doctors fees, buildings (accommodations for more patients), equipment, prescriptions...
Quick math shows that $250B in savings divided by 40 million in new patients leave $6250 per patient per year before the savings runs dry.
Not a big margin of savings, I'd bet. Heck, bet ya a large soda on that.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:55 pmThose other countries have a much higher tax rate than we do. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Not true.
Much higher. You can Google the rates. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
You should do the same, but don't forget to include sales tax, local and state taxes when you compare rates!!!!
Also, none of that is relevant to HOW MUCH THOSE COUNTRIES SPEND ON HEALTH CARE - as they are ALL LESS THAN US!
With universal health care, you would take home less pay. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
That depends. If you are spending money on healthcare, that's distorted. If your company has to pay less on healthcare, they might increase your wages.
So try to figure out how you’d make do with an increased tax bite.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Yet it would COST LESS than it does now.
You can find a tax calculator online where you could plug in a higher marginal tax bracket and how that would affect your income and monthly take home pay. (ie, would $500 more a month affect you? $1000 a month? Put some numbers on it, and see if it would matter or not). Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Oh, did you miss the part where it's 2% (that's the current proposals) for you and 7% for your employer? Wow, big bump, $200 a month if you're making $10000 a month in revenue!
Also, check out the financial livelihood of those folks in those other countries. Home ownership. Autos. Net worth. Etc. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Why don't you!
And count me a skeptic when it comes to a government program “saving money.†Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Your skepticism doesn't change the facts, just proves your stupidity!
I’ve read in the local newspapers about government projections being off by factors of 200-300%. And more. I’m being conservative. (Of course I am). Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
We're talking about programs that already exist. You must be referring to the 300% increase in healthcare costs in recent years? Still you've got nothing to excuse your ignorance - how pathetic!
Enjoyed the discourse. Don’t mind the occasional tease if you don’t. We are all in this together and just believe that there are different ways of getting there.
Cheers.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:5 pm
It wasn't discourse, it was you posting lies, getting corrected and still proving what an idiot you are in the end despite the facts, figures and realities!
Look up 'quality of life' sometime in those other countries! Your NATIONALISM is very 1930s, very distorted, and VERY STUPID!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:55 pmOh, and that's assuming government projections of costs are accurate.
LOL. Not a great track record there, my friends.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:55 pmRHF lied.
Caught him/her. Tax rates are higher elsewhere. Try a google search.
Do you know how to use Google, RHF? Are you waiting for a government program to do your Google searches for you?
I don't want to call you stupid, RHF. I don't know if your parents had to raise you as a mentally handicapped child or if you had to go to a public school and are just a little behind. Hard to tell. But I wish you well.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:04 pmOrganizations with far more resourses than you or I have done "standard of living" studies for many decades now. You sound like you did not know this. From 1945 until 1981 the US was always #1, then for some strange reason in the 1980"s we began falling behind the rest of the world.
Recently I saw a study of the cities around the world with the highest standard of living. Of the top 36 cities, only 2 came from US: #28 Honolulu and #29 San Francisco (Holy left-wingers, Batman). All the others came from countries most definitely to the left of the US, even when they have a "conservative" leader.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:14 pmThe US has local, state, and federal income taxes, plus FICA, plus sales taxes, plus property taxes.
Clinton only raised taxes on singles with $150,000 per year or more and the largest corporations. He took us from record deficits to record surpluses.
When I tell French people that some Americans are working for $6 per hour and zero benefits---they think I cannot possibly know what I am talking about.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:19 pmWith universal health care, you would take home less pay.
But what you're failing to factor in is that you don't have to pay for medical costs OUT OF YOUR POCKET. You make it sound like we weill have to pay taxes AND medical bills; no. Just taxes. And as we've discussed, the government overhead is lower than private anyway.
We are all in this together and just believe that there are different ways of getting there.
Cheers.
There may, yet, be hope for you. A great discourse, hope to hear from you more.
Cheers.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pmA great discourse, hope to hear from you more.
Cheers.
Comment by Picklee — October 17, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
What are you, masochistic? I'd have more fun banging my head against a wall.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:39 pmHe is relevant as pig sheeit.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:02 pmUnless you’re claiming that President Bush entered a time machine, went back to 1998, and caused those Democrats to lie about Iraq. Is that your position?
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
1998? Oh, that is classic.
I've got an update for you, dude. In 2001, months before 9/11, both Powell and Rice said that Iraq had been contained, they were not threat to their neighbors, they were not a threat to the U.S., the sanctions were working, and while Saddam wanted to restart his WMD program, he did not have the capability. Powell declared the sanctions a success, and even said that they were being adjusted so that they would remain effective.
Now what was it you were saying about 1998?
Remind us, Muckey, the last time another country attacked us which resulted in us declaring war on that country.
Oh, and I'll give you your lie.
Don Rumsfeld, 2003: "We know where the WMDs are."
Don Rumsfeld, 2006: "I didn't say that. I said we knew where the SUSPECTED sites were."
Not only that, if we knew where the WMDs were, why didn't the administration direct the weapons inspectors to those sites? Oh, that's right. Bush had a date with destiny in the form of invading a country that was of no threat to us. The inspectors would have ruined his plans.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:22 pmEasy people, I wasn't condoning him or inviting him over for tea.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:27 pmOh, and that’s assuming government projections of costs are accurate.
LOL. Not a great track record there, my friends.
Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Actually medicare has had a remarkably accurate track record, as long as bush doesn't threaten the jobs of the actuaries!
But don't let reality cloud your partisan foolishness!
RHF lied.
Caught him/her. Tax rates are higher elsewhere. Try a google search. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
muckdog lied, try a google search - son!
Do you know how to use Google, RHF? Are you waiting for a government program to do your Google searches for you? Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Are you, because you apparently didn't do the search I sent you off as your assignment!
I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your ONE IN SEVEN PATIENT LIES - what's wrong, too much of a pansy to admit you're a liar?
I don’t want to call you stupid, RHF. I don’t know if your parents had to raise you as a mentally handicapped child or if you had to go to a public school and are just a little behind. Hard to tell. But I wish you well. Comment by muckdog — October 17, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Hey, I spent the whole thread posting statistics and links, what did you do? POST A LIE that I caught you in, and then you're too retarded to admit it! Poor little liar!
Maybe your momma shouldn't have given you Meth during your homeschooling lunch breaks so you wouldn't be hungry - it made you STUPID son!
October 18th, 2007 at 12:16 amSo to summarize muckdog, when you are smart enough to tell the difference between 1 in 7 doctors and 1 in 7 patients, we won't laugh our @sses off at your stupidity! Ok junior!?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:18 amAlcohol damages the brain. In case of heavy drinkers the damages are significant and decrease the person's ability to function cognitively.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:28 amElecting a former drunk for President is very irresponsible and has drastic consequences.
Can it be seen now?
Amazing that the way Pres Bush sees himself as being relevant, is blocking others' initiatives, instead of offering anything of substance himself.
"I am only relevant when I am in the way" -that's the new motto of his administration.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:40 amPres Bush wants to be about as relevant as a speed bump now.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:51 amHere you go muckdog, this should keep you busy for a while!
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2002/cantaxadv_e.html
October 18th, 2007 at 1:13 am>Can’t wait until a visit to my doctor is like a visit to the DMV.
Yours isnt already? Mine is, except they have better magazines in the doctors lobby. Oh, and the phramacutical reps dont get to cut in line at the DMV..
October 18th, 2007 at 3:31 am>“Fiscal conservatives just want to make sure that before SCHIP is >expanded, that fraud and abuse are weeded out of the system.
Muckdog are were you as concerned about dealing with fraud in iraq before we funded the "surge"?
October 18th, 2007 at 3:39 amBush Sr. hates broccoli.
Bush Jr. hates peace, genetics, and healthy children.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:59 amWhat else is this madman going to do to maintain his "relevance?" Truly a frightening time.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pmgood heavens, this man has no shame.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pmIf America were to veto Bush, would he finally recognize that citizens are relevant?
Actually, the mechanism for vetoing Bush is EMPEACHMENT . . . unfortunately, the so-called Democratic leadership doesn't recognize its constituents' relevance.
What do we have to do Pelosi? We elected you all . . . you know what we want . . . isn't that a sufficiently relevant mandate for our representatives to fight for?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pmIt all boils down to this. We have an EGO MANIAC RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. He is more worried about h is legacy, than he is about anyone or anything else.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm