Obama gives birth to some genuine hatred

[Totenkopf]

I don't personally agree with everything Obama does (auto bailout for example...and the Canadian gov is as guilty) but...Radical lefties? How so? (*spills coffee*) All of those who you just named are still considered quite in the center (if not slightly to the right) just here in several parts of Canada.

 

(*Fears your part of Canada is waaaay to the left* ) Actually, what I'm referring to is that the democrat party skews too far to the left for my tastes and consequently so do its choices for the presidency. I'm sure all three of them would likely also be considered center-left/center-right by the marxists that ran Cuba, the USSR and GB's Labor Party. But I digress. Problem is likely that the American public isn't as to the left as Canada or Europe, so our perceptions of "left" vs "right" are going to be colored by that. In the case of Obama, I look at the many people who've wielded an influence over his thinking and that are in his circles and decidedly don't see centrists.

 

Higher taxes? As to what I've heard and read (correct me if I'm wrong) the initial intent was people making more than $250K would pay a small additional percentage on the excedent of $250k... (on the first 250K everyone pays the same according to salary level - I imagine the whole is subject to applicable deductions, right? ....an xtra 3% on the excedent of $250000k for someone who makes 255000k under that policy is what... $150? Peanuts if you ask me unless you make several billions. At that salary level, it won't stop me from buying "that" car and even less from eating...I won't even really see the *** difference...and if I do, it means I have far bigger problems...living in an organized society implies some concessions for the general interest). Now, it maybe a little higher for everyone too but someone's got to pay for that debt and inherited s*** too...

 

Part of the problem with the whole $250K figure is that it became a sliding one depending on who was doing the talking and to whom they were doing it. Still, and it may surprise you, but I support means testing and am not in principle against removing the FICA cap. B/c, while the top earning people pay more than twice a % of income taxes vs their share of the revenue, I figure that if a guy draws a salary (not total compensation mind you as that might involve capital gains) of $500K to $2+mil/yr, that person should have to pay the same FICA rate as the schmuck earning a mere $25-50K/year. That Congress would've wasted that money too is secondary at the moment.

 

 

As for health care, funny, there was an article yesterday in the francophone papers saying that 85% Canadians were in favor of keeping a public funded health system (I'll try to check English language papers to link it here - even sexchange surgery is "free" ). I don't know whether to laugh or cry almost every time I see comments concerning the Canadian health care system in US media.

 

Ditto complaints about America. Claims that the US system is only 37th or so in the eyes of WHO mean nothing b/c of it's infatuation w/nationalized health care systems. Don't know about you, but I'd rather receive care in America than some of the 3rd world countries that beat it out according to the WHO. Also, polls here indicate that a similiar % of Americans are happy or content with their current private coverage.

 

 

You don't want to see the caricatures I was getting in my e-mail from all around the world (including clients) when Bush was re-elected...he proved to be totally ignorant of foreign politics and mentality. The perfect example of US hegemony. Complete disregard towards any other system, culture, history, mentality or whatever.

 

I can imagine, but sure, if you still have some of them send them to me in pm if you'd like. I doubt they'd be worse than anything I've already seen. Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced he didn't understand foreign politics so much as that he didn't make them manifest in his decision making process.

 

"9-11". He didn't maintain 90% his whole first term anyway. No president does. Your graph clearly demonstrates that the 90% approval quickly dissipated.

 

I find it funny that someone unjustly crucified could get a 90% approval ranking no matter the circumstance. People on the left did not root for Bush to fail. He did that on his own. I did not root for him to fail. I was stupid enough to vote for him. Compassionate conservative sounded good to me.

 

Yea, I really hated the Clinton years. A prosperous economy, low unemployment, and shrinking national debt really is a downer after awhile.

 

Hmm.......no one on the left wished to see Bush fail? You'll pardon me for not believing that. As I recall a loud chorus of leftists constantly polluted the airwaves (Constitutionally their right) with claims that he wasn't even their president. I'm sure that when FDR finally went to war w/Japan and Germany he probably had higher approval ratings from even his opponents. Only natural that Bush got high ratings initially for his initial rhetoric. However, it was merely a snapshot of his 8 years and didn't last long. Frankly, compassionate conservative sounded alarmingly fuzzy and borderline democrat to me.. But, like you I imagaine, I voted for the lesser of two percieved evils.

 

As to Clinton.....amazing how he pulled an "economic miracle" out of his hat w/o any help.

[Tommycat]

As opposed to the burden now only being on those that pay insurance premiums.

No, as opposed to STATES deciding for themselves if they want to add a health care system to their budget. I have no problem with individual states providing health care. Not supporting a national health care system does not equate out to "screw the poor and uninsured." I just see it as overkill.

 

The Fed is too clumbsy and inefficient. Think about it like this.... Would you want all hospitals run like the VA hospitals?

[Jae Onasi]

The only problem with that is a situation like what we're seeing in WI. IL isn't paying their Medicaid bills, so a lot of providers have to stop taking it. We're seeing a huge influx of people moving into the border counties of WI just to get onto WI Medicaid, and it's putting a strain on our system as a result. If some states had full coverage and others didn't, the states providing full coverage would see an influx of people with very high-cost health problems who can't get coverage anywhere else.

 

I still think they should just expand Medicare (not Medicaid, which sucks for coverage) to everyone. Yes, the cost would go up for all of us, and yes, it would have to be fully funded, but it's a system that's already in place, it pays pretty decently (though some would argue otherwise), and we docs understand it.

[El Sitherino]

The truth is that there are false issues being created by agenda pushers on all sides, many quite possibly working together in order to exploit their bases. Politicians, political commentators, they don't care about the truth because it doesn't suit their ability to make gain. CNN only exists to make FOX News more money and vice versa, they all share each others interested parties.

 

By and large people are idiots and refuse to look into something further for themselves, all these people yelling about America becoming socialist are rather ignorant about what actually constitutes socialism and are just rallying behind a side familiar to them in yet another "us vs. them" scenario. People feel better when they think they're on a side in a fight because they have a purpose to do other things they otherwise probably wouldn't do, they're eager to please and take all opportunities to do so without any pre-planning. It doesn't matter if we get a master linguist in the White House, so long as people are so simple minded as to think words can only mean one thing, a president will always stir a pot with something they say.

[mimartin]

States do a wonderful job of being financial responsible, just look at California.

 

Not supporting a national health care system does not equate out to "screw the poor and uninsured." I just see it as overkill.

Never wrote or implied it did. I wrote that the current systems screws those responsible and those that can afford insurance today. It also screws those that the big insurance industry describes as uninsurable.

 

Countries with Universal Health Care

 

Argentina

Austria

Australia

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

Chile

China

Cuba

Costa Rica

Cyprus

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

New Zealand

Oman

Portugal

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Spain

Sweden

South Korea

Sri Lanka

Ukraine

United Kingdom

 

Even Afghanistan and Iraq have universal health care that is being provided by American tax payers.

 

Yet, in 2002 U.S. spends more on heath care than any other country. U.S. citizens spent $5,267. per capita on health care while Switzerland spent $3,446. per capita.

 

Seems we should get more bang for our bucks.

 

 

Infant Mortality Rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.

 

1. Singapore 2.31

2. Bermuda 2.46

3. Sweden 2.75

4. Japan 2.79

5. Hong Kong 2.92

6. Macau 3.22

7. Iceland 3.23

8. France 3.47

9. Finland 3.47

10. Anguilla 3.52

11. Norway 3.58

12. Malta 3.75

13. Andorra 3.76

14. Czech Republic 3.79

15. Germany 3.99

16. Switzerland 4.18

17. Spain 4.21

18. Israel 4.22

19. Slovenia 4.25

20. Liechtenstein 4.25

21. South Korea 4.26

22. Denmark 4.34

23. Austria 4.42

24. Belgium 4.44

25. Guernsey 4.47

26. Luxembourg 4.56

27. Netherlands 4.73

28. Jersey 4.73

29. Australia 4.75

30. Portugal 4.78

31. United Kingdom 4.85

32. New Zealand 4.92

33. Monaco 5.00

34. Wallis and Futuna 5.02

35. Canada 5.04

36. Ireland 5.05

37. Greece 5.16

38. San Marino 5.34

39. Taiwan 5.35

40. Isle of Man 5.37

41. Italy 5.51

42. European Union 5.72

43. Cuba 5.82

44. United States 6.26

 

You have to be kidding me Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. according to the CIA’s website.

[Tommycat]

Those numbers can be skewed quite a bit depending on your agenda... Quite frankly it has more to do with culture than medical availability. DC has a free healthcare plan available yet has an infant mortality rate in the 14 per 1000 range.

[Lord of Hunger]

I love how the left keeps bringing up Universal Health Care as the end all solution to our problems. Has anyone considered the fact that Universal Health Care might not be suitable to the USA considering that the US is far bigger than a lot of other countries in population? Sure, China can pull it off...with our money AND theirs combined.

 

Private insurance corporations are not the problem. It's the fact that they can deny people insurance based on stuff like preexisting conditions that's the problem. Even with everyone paying taxes there is a limit to what the government can do.

 

And while there should be public options to compete with the private ones, why should those options come from the Federal Government? Again, we are moving away from Federalism, the system that makes this country great. We have to have the Federal Government handle everything when they are supposed to be dealing with issues of commerce, foreign affairs, and maintaining infrastructure. Once the states are back on their feet, let them each offer their own varying systems of healthcare, education, and social policy, and people can move to wherever has the options they like the most. If Oregon wants universal health care, let them. If Texas wants private insurance, they should go for it. Why do we need a single standard? Isn't the beauty of America the fact that there is diversity?

[mimartin]

Those numbers can be skewed quite a bit depending on your agenda... Quite frankly it has more to do with culture than medical availability. DC has a free healthcare plan available yet has an infant mortality rate in the 14 per 1000 range.

Talking about attempting to skew the facts, the only people that qualify for DC Healthy Families Insurance Program are

DC Healthy Families covers children, adolescents under age 19 who live alone, pregnant women, and parents/guardians. [/Quote]

Has anyone considered the fact that Universal Health Care might not be suitable to the USA considering that the US is far bigger than a lot of other countries in population?

Yea, we are way too big.

[Tommycat]

Talking about attempting to skew the facts, the only people that qualify for DC Healthy Families Insurance Program are

I fail to see how those requirements would negatively impact infant mortality. Neonatal care is available yet the infant mortality rate is much higher than places that don't. Which as I was pointing out shows that infant mortality would still be high because of the culture rather than availability of health care.

[Totenkopf]

States do a wonderful job of being financial responsible, just look at California.

 

I'll see you and raise you the federal govt. Last I checked, even CA wasn't in the hole $8+ trillion.

 

Never wrote or implied it did. I wrote that the current systems screws those responsible and those that can afford insurance today. It also screws those that the big insurance industry describes as uninsurable.

 

The solution, however, is NOT to raze the current system to the ground and reinvent the wheel, but rather to incentivize "big insurance" to cover pre-existing conditions and pursue a parallel track of massive tort reform. Wait.... given how much the trial lawyers give to the democrats, that ain't likely to happen anytime soon. Even a "public option" is bad b/c you can't compete w/the federal govt when it's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer seems like a quaint concept to the govt. They'll merely charge artificially low premiums and then force tax payer bailouts of the system when they run into trouble. I didn't find BO's example of the USPS vs UPS & Fedex to be an inspired choice. First, it was a very imperfect comparison and second, given the >$7 bil shortfall of the USPS, doesn't do much to make one comfortable with the idea of govt control....even limited as in the case of the USPS.

 

 

Yet, in 2002 U.S. spends more on heath care than any other country. U.S. citizens spent $5,267. per capita on health care while Switzerland spent $3,446. per capita.

 

Seems we should get more bang for our bucks.

 

Yeah, well that's not too surprising. Look at how much $$ is thrown per capita at education in this country and then where we rank globally. Obviously, throwing $$ at a problem isn't the solution.

[mimartin]

Obviously, throwing $$ at a problem isn't the solution.

Never said it was. Throwing money at the problem is what we do now. Only now we are throwing only the money of a select few at it. If an uninsured show up at an emergency room they are not turned away for no insurance. They are treated. The health care provider does not eat the cost. If they did they would go out of business. The cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to the insured. Then the insurance companies passes that cost on to the premium payers. So now only those responsible enough to purchase health insurance are throwing money at the problem.

 

I took an ambulance ride last year. First time, I have ever called an ambulance for myself. Two months later I got a bill for $3000 for a two block ride. I walked down the stairs and got in the ambulance myself. They did no test beyond checking my heart rate and the ride was less than a mile (yes, I pay city ambulance tax for my business). My insurance company paid $1000 (my deductible and co-pay were already paid during my overnight stay in the hospital). That left me with a bill for $2000 for a 2 block taxi ride.

 

My stepdad, who was dying of cancer at the time, also took a ambulance ride that month. He was covered by Medicare and a Medicare supplement. He was only billed $750.00 for a 2 mile ambulance ride. I also assure you they did more for him than checking his heart rate.

 

Which as I was pointing out shows that infant mortality would still be high because of the culture rather than availability of health care.

Documented proof?

 

You also understand that prenatal care begins before the pregnancy? If someone has a condition and it is left untreated until they know they are pregnant to qualify for insurance of last resort, then the fetus early development could be subject to that condition.

[Totenkopf]

Never said it was.....

 

Actually, that statement wasn't aimed at you. More an observation that spending lots of money doesn't guarantee great results. I think that many, if not most, people agree that the system isn't perfect. As in many things, the disagreement is over how to remedy the problems that plague it.

[Darth Avlectus]

States do a wonderful job of being financial responsible, just look at California.

 

Oh yeah, HA-HA. Very funny, Texan-boy. (Don't let that huge hat yer wearin' blow off in the wind! )

 

Well, you are a bit correct. Largely b/c we've had governor after governor that was a either #$%^ing moron if not a greedy treacherous swine. Took a sharp turn with Gray Davis, Ahnuld's predecessor. Davis was recalled. In spite of currently having a "republican" in office, the state still manages to remain largely far-left. However the money problems have been growing and worsening since long before this.

 

I'll tell ya what though, we, CA, used to be one of the biggest economies alone. Dag-nabbit!

[mimartin]

However the money problems have been growing and worsening since long before this.

I’m of the opinion that being careless and downright criminal with other people’s money (tax payer money) is an equal opportunity thing. The left does it, but so does the right. See the national debt under a Republican Congress control with a Republican President as an example of the right doing the same thing. I’m a financial conservative, but neither party represents me.

 

So my only question is what I want them wasting our money on.

[Lord of Hunger]

 

Watch and learn that the whole Democrat vs. Republic system is BS.

[Q]

Well, we've got a Democratic president, so now all we need is a Republican-controlled congress and we'll end up with a budget surplus like we had in the '90s.

 

So, here's hoping that the Democrat-controlled congress falls flat on its face and gets voted out in 2010.

[jrrtoken]

So, here's hoping that the Democrat-controlled congress falls flat on its face and gets voted out in 2010.

Here, here; I'm getting quite tired of the ardently unamusing Pelosi-Reid Consortium.

[Lord of Hunger]

Yes, replacing one group of absolutely corrupt people with another group of equally corrupt people in yet another election where we give them lots of money and beg them to do things for us when they don't even care about our welfare makes a lot of sense.

[Darth Avlectus]

I’m of the opinion that being careless and downright criminal with other people’s money (tax payer money) is an equal opportunity thing.

 

I agree.

 

The left does it, but so does the right. See the national debt under a Republican Congress control with a Republican President as an example of the right doing the same thing.

Oh I never said that republicans were any more innocent of that charge. Thank you for your forthright honesty, though.

 

I’m a financial conservative, but neither party represents me.

 

That trait is rare amongst elected officials nowadays. That in mind, I'm just not sure how the feds are going to do any better than the states, either.

 

(BTW, that's very refreshing to know about you--I thought there was some kind of resonance about your posts that I liked. )

 

So my only question is what I want them wasting our money on.

 

Well, I don't know of any state that is any more "green conscious" ad nauseum than CA. I'd like some skepticism towards some of these so-called 'energy saver' or "greenpack" devices before we would even think about subsidizing them for consumers. To start at least.

 

 

Here, here; I'm getting quite tired of the ardently unamusing Pelosi-Reid Consortium.

 

You'll be delighted to know that at least Reid has pissed off a lot of people in NV and they're about to cut his legs out from under him.

 

Pelosi...:-/ I'm afraid there are far too many schmuck people that absolutely love and adore her here in CA. *gets queezy feeling* So we're stuck with her, unfortunately.

 

"ZOMG! She's such a humble and real american with her medium sized home! She wants to have a barbecue with us! ZOMG! She really likes us and cares!"

 

--What the media didn't tell you is that home is in San Francisco...not a cheap area, even for CA. Probably is inviting more 'celebrity' status folks over there than little people on top.

 

Yes, replacing one group of absolutely corrupt people with another group of equally corrupt people in yet another election where we give them lots of money and beg them to do things for us when they don't even care about our welfare makes a lot of sense.

 

Lookit, I hear ya. However, people have been trying for years now to get another party up in there besides the broken and dysfunctional 2 party system. It's still a work in progress until enough people begin to give a %$^@. Only then in the face of undeniable dissatisfaction with it, will we see if the elected officials truly are doing as 'the people' wish or if it is tyranny. Methinks there are too many smart people with the 2 party system "herding the cattle" for that to happen anytime soon.

[Tommycat]

Documented proof?

 

You also understand that prenatal care begins before the pregnancy? If someone has a condition and it is left untreated until they know they are pregnant to qualify for insurance of last resort, then the fetus early development could be subject to that condition.

 

Documented proof for speculation? Or do I really need to tell you it's speculation on my part. When talking about events in the future, it's awful difficult to get documented proof. I base it on the current mentality of a majority of people in the US. We as a country are different than other countries out there. In general we have a more independant mindset. Even with healthcare available people still don't go to the doctor. Look how hard it is to get someone WITH INSURANCE to go visit their doctor when they are experiencing signs of a stroke. Every day people with life threatening illnesses go without treatment even though they have insurance.

 

Edited to add:

Keep in mind that when talking about infant mortality, we also have to look at other factors such as drug use, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a host of things that just come down to a bad mother having a child. Drug use is especially important as the US leads in cocain experimentetion(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/06/stoned_nation_international_st.php).

 

Then we have African Americans which have an infant mortality rate of 14.1 per 1000(wow... same as DC... not a correlation, just coincidence).

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Well, we've got a Democratic president, so now all we need is a Republican-controlled congress and we'll end up with a budget surplus like we had in the '90s.

 

So, here's hoping that the Democrat-controlled congress falls flat on its face and gets voted out in 2010.

 

Yes, replacing one group of absolutely corrupt people with another group of equally corrupt people in yet another election where we give them lots of money and beg them to do things for us when they don't even care about our welfare makes a lot of sense.

 

yes let me rephrase that with some help from my friends digital underground

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

[mimartin]

Documented proof for speculation?

 

Guess work, got it.

 

The U.S. ranks 40th in annual alcohol consumption per person according to the World Health Organization.

1. Luxembourg

2. Ireland

3. Hungary

4. Moldova

5. Czech Republic

8. Germany

10. Britain

11. Denmark

12. Spain

17. France

36. Australia

40. United States

46. Italy

51. Japan

89. Mexico

 

 

Under smoking Prevalence (using adult males), the U.S. ranks 115

35. Cuba

37. Japan

38. Greece

44. Lithuania

55. Hungary

71. Germany

78. Netherlands

83. Austria

90. Israel

91. Italy

92. Czech Republic

93. Denmark

95. Belgium

99. Morocco

101. Ireland

104. Norway

108. Switzerland

111. Finland

112. Iceland

115. United States

118. New Zealand

 

As to cocaine use, you are correct the U.S. ranks number #1 with 2.8% Annual prevalence. However…

 

2. Spain 2.7

4. England 2.4

5. Canada 2.3

 

 

 

 

 

Remote Medical Care is a nonprofit health care provider started to bring modern medical care to third world countries. Now 65% of their services are provided to Americans. Glad to see them doing this, but sad to see there is so much need in America with our current system.

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

 

The brutal truth about American's healthcare

At least the English can get a good laugh at the yanks misfortune and stupidity.

[Tommycat]

Your numbers seem a bit off. The data I have seen shows the US as having 16.2% Cocain use 73.6% Tobacco use, and 91.6 Alchohol. I'm just pointing out that seeing as how we are the highest harmful substance users there could be an alternate explanation for the Infant mortality rate.

 

To be able to claim it's lack of healthcare we really have to see a breakdown of CAUSE OF DEATH for the infants. And judging by the leading cause being Birth Defects, it COULD be true. It could also be lack of training on how to deal with certain defects. Again, pointing to the 14.1 rate of DC with it's Healthy Family program leads me to believe its the latter.

[True_Avery]

I'm left wondering exactly what certain people expect when they repeatedly, in public and in private "mock patriots" and express a desire to see their own country fail.

 

At a loss, here.

I do not see many people express "desire to see their own country fail". I see people who hate the president, politicians, media, political parties, agendas, extremists, cowards, and so on but I've seen very few who simply want the country to go up in flames and go down catastrophically.

 

Mocking patriots is one thing. Mocking "patriots" is another, as I do not consider someone who waves a flag and says the pledge to be a patriot. I consider them to be a nationalist, and the extremists to be dangerous nationalists.

 

On that note, you'll have to define to me what a "patriot" is to you. Personally, someone who openly calls themselves a "patriot" is not a "patriot" to me. To me, it is a title that is earned and given; not taken. And even then I don't think it gives them the right to proclaim themselves better citizens than everyone else. Humility is a key part of what makes a "patriot" to me, or in general makes me respect them enough to put them on a higher tier. And even then I wouldn't ever call them a patriot or consider them one, since I'd rather see them as a better person than a better citizen.

[Q]

Well, you should have gone to the trouble of stating such conveniently semantic distinctions a month ago, then.