posted on September 2, 2007 03:19:21 PM
I truly do not understand how lindak can be so ignorant and she seems to be proud to flaunt it with her repetitive posts. No one here is suggesting that the US copy Canada's system because it wouldn't work, but lindak has that thought firmly planted in her brain, believes it is the only solution others have called for, and continues to argue it endlessly leading me to believe that she suffers from some learning malfunction.
Instead of spending her retirement years bashing other countries perhaps she could explore some of her own facilities that may offer her assistance such as reading comprehension for senior citizens. It's never too late to try to improve basic skills and maybe if she sought help she wouldn't be so bitter and frustrated when trying to communicate with others because she'd be able to grasp what they've been saying to her all along.
posted on September 2, 2007 06:28:25 PM
"""I truly do not understand how lindak can be so ignorant and she seems to be proud to flaunt it with her repetitive posts """
That's why I think linduh is a paid goon for the bushit righties. NO NORMAL person could keep saying the same old proven lies over and over again without being paid.
posted on September 2, 2007 06:37:29 PM
One of the GREAT things about living in American is we get to decide for ourselves just what we'll spend our own time doing, even in retirement. Delusional liberals don't get to tell us what to do. LOL
I'll always argue against failing socialist health care programs in other nations. I'll fight against the elections of those like hillary who constantly proposing more and more socialistic programs and increasing those like SCHIPS to those who could pay for it themselves.
kiara and her ilk don't have control over that. LOL So she can 'offer' all the suggestions she'd like to...won't be changing how American's feel about a national, socialistic health care program.
Someday, she might be on one of their long, long wait lists. She might suffer pain and want it dealt with in a timely manner. She might experience getting cancer and have to wait for it to be dealt with. THEN and only then, it appears, will she understand how all those under these poor systems feel. Until then....she'll never grasp what they've suffered under the canadian, UK, French or Germany programs. And maybe she never will, even then.
posted on September 2, 2007 06:59:52 PM
Wonderful!!!
edwards is turning into a controlling communist now. FORCING care upon citizens??? brother.
Yep, it's the wacko liberal mindset - cradle to grave BIG BROTHER taking care of you and NOW FORCING YOU, from birth to death, to do as THEY tell you to do.
Sure goes along with their cradle to grave care they want everyone to have.....pure socialism...but now with a NEW kick added by edwards. WOW!!! FORCED to see doctors.
==========================
Edwards backs mandatory preventive care
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 2, 6:30 PM ET
TIPTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.
"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."
He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.
Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.
"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.
The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?"
"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."
Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.
Edwards, who has been criticized by some for calling on Americans to be willing to give up their SUVs while driving one, acknowledged Sunday that he owns a Ford Escape hybrid SUV, purchased within the year, and a Chrysler Pacificia, which he said he has had for years.
"I think all of us have to move, have to make progress," he said. "I'm not holyier-than-thou about this. ... I'm like a lot of Americans, I see how serious this issue is and I want to address it myself and I want to help lead the nation in the right direction."
He said he would not buy another SUV in the future.
The Ford Escape, the first hybrid SUV on the market, gets an estimated 36 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway.
============================
Pure socialism....with a communist 'kick'. BIG BROTHER in charge of your life from cradle to grave in EVERY way. Now in your medical care too. tsk tsk tsk
posted on September 2, 2007 07:00:17 PM
linduh, why do you insist that the U.S. can't do anything right?
No faith in your own country? How un-American!
IF government doesn't function properly...why hasn't 6 years of god bushit fixed the problems ??????
LOLOLOL!!!!
I KNEW , linduh, you wouldn't have an answer for THAT !
Thank you for admitting that bushit's administration is a failure !
posted on September 2, 2007 07:41:03 PM
Lindak is projecting her bipolar disorders on others again while wishing illness and pain on those who disagree with her. It's almost as if she resents any that do good deeds for others to make the world better, while she works tirelessly for the devil, spreading hatred and propaganda daily.
Census data shows increase in uninsured, yet no distinction made between Americans and non-citizens.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/29/2007 2:10:07 PM
It’s like a broken record – the same push for socialized medicine using misreported data from the same government institution. Only this time, the data used is more current.
“But there was bad news on this front [the poverty front] as well,” said NBC “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams August 28. “The number of Americans without health insurance has gone up from nearly 45 million in 2005 to 47 million Americans last year.”
Williams was wrong. According to the U.S. Census Report, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006,” a little more than 10 million of those uninsured are not citizens of the United States or roughly 22 percent of the total.
CBS “Evening News” took it one step further. The network went to Arlington County, Va., to what is “listed in the census report as one of the richest counties in country.” But the report didn’t mention it also has a relatively high percentage of immigrants, nearly 28 percent, that make up the county’s population.
“It's the highest number of uninsured Americans in 20 years – 47 million without health insurance and dozens of them come in every day to the free clinic in Arlington, Va.,” said CBS correspondent Wyatt Andrews of the Census statistics. “For house cleaner Mariah Carvealio, who makes $8,000 a year, the clinic is her only option. What if this clinic did not exist?”
What CBS and NBC did not report is that the number of uninsured in household incomes of less than $25,000 annually actually decreased – from 14.5 million in 2005 to a little less than 14 million in 2006. So, more of the poorest in the United States are actually getting health insurance coverage.
What else did they leave out?
Those who live in households with income above $50,000 annually (households above the national median income of $48,201) make up almost 18 million of the uninsured. That means 38 percent of the uninsured in this new report could most likely afford coverage, but chose not to have it. That 18 million of the uninsured constitutes most of the 2.1-million person increase in the uninsured from 2005 to 2006.
The liberal Democratic presidential hopeful frontrunners are already taking advance of the misreported data and incorporating the universal health care message in their campaign rhetoric.
“It was an outrage then and with 10 million more people uninsured today, it is an even deeper outrage today,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a statement. “Yet, the uninsured have been invisible to this president, but if I’m President, they will not be invisible to me. From day one of my campaign, I have committed to ensuring that every American has quality, affordable health insurance coverage.”
According to the Associated Press, Sen. Barack Obama called the numbers “a betrayal of the ideals we hold as Americans.”
Former Sen. John Edwards parroted a similar message. “We simply cannot stand by while tens of millions of our fellow citizens go without the necessities of life,'' Edwards said to Bloomberg News on August 29. “We need truly universal health care and a national effort to eliminate poverty.”
Left-wing voices in the media have been incorrectly touting U.S. Census Bureau numbers to make the case for universal health care, including Michael Moore in his movie “SiCKO.”
posted on September 2, 2007 09:09:30 PM
More liberal LIES - tsk tsk tsk
ABC Attacks Bush for Threat To 'Cut' Children's Health Insurance
'World News' misrepresents president's promised veto as a funding cut, ignoring $5 billion expansion.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/27/2007 1:05:51 PM
The title for a segment about children’s health insurance on “World News” August 26 might as well have been “Bush Hates Uninsured Children.”
“ABC’s Kate Snow reports tonight on a fierce debate over whether the White House is now trying to dramatically cut the program. It’s part of our series – ‘The Uncovered,’” said ABC “World News” anchor Dan Harris.
“Dramatically cut?”
That’s simply not the case.
Bush wants to expand the $25 billion program by $5 billion a year, but without providing a gateway to socialized medicine, but “World News” did not include that in its report.
“The program is going beyond the initial intent of helping poor children,” Bush said in a speech July 10. “It’s now aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care.”
Both houses of Congress passed its own version to expand the entitlement program State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and will attempt to iron out the differences between the bills in conference.
The Senate plan would increase spending $35 billion over five years, from $25 billion to $60 billion.
The House would add $50 billion over five years.
Should Congress reconcile its differences and move forward, the bill would be subject to a Bush veto.
“Over the past decade, state governments across the country have gradually expanded who’s eligible for the children’s health insurance program,” said ABC correspondent Kate Snow.
Indeed, state governments have expanded the program. The broadcast pointed out that a family earning as much as $73,000 annually in New Jersey would be eligible for coverage under the expanded SCHIP legislation.
According to the U.S. Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines, to be living below the poverty line, a family of four would have to have a household income of $20,000 – far below what the SCHIP legislation would cover. For a family of eight, the household income would have to be $33,600 a year to be considered below the poverty line – an income far below the $73,000 benchmark set by the pending SCHIP legislation.
“We've got a ready-made program here that’s working,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) a proponent of the $35 billion expansion. “We shouldn’t change something that’s working.”
The report did not include anyone from the House or the Senate who voted against the massive increase passed by Congress, nor did it explain how much Congress wants to “dramatically increase” the program – $35 to 50 billion over five years.
“World News” also left out the enormous tax increase that would be required to pay for SCHIP expansion – a 156-percent tax increase on cigarettes, and a more than 20,000-percent increase on cigars (up to $10 per cigar).
posted on September 3, 2007 05:02:27 AM
linduh, why do you insist that the U.S. can't do anything right?
No faith in your own country? How un-American!
IF government doesn't function properly...why hasn't 6 years of god bushit fixed the problems ??????
LOLOLOL!!!!
I KNEW , linduh, you wouldn't have an answer for THAT !
Thank you for admitting that bushit's administration is a failure !
posted on September 3, 2007 06:20:09 AM
What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: January 17, 2007
The human mind isn’t very well equipped to make sense of a figure like $1.2 trillion. We don’t deal with a trillion of anything in our daily lives, and so when we come across such a big number, it is hard to distinguish it from any other big number. Millions, billions, a trillion — they all start to sound the same.
More on the Economics of the Iraq War:
The analysis by Scott Wallsten and Katrina Kosec is available here. Since it was published, they have increased some of their cost estimates.
The analysis by Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz appeared in the Milken Institute Review and is available here.
Likewise, some of their cost estimates — like those covering health care and disability payments for veterans — have risen since the article appeared.
At the outset of the war, William Nordhaus, an economist at Yale, wrote an essay examining why countries typically underestimate the cost of wars.
The 9/11 Commission "War With Iraq: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives" (pdf) Scott Wallsten's Web Site Linda Bilmes's Web Site Joseph Stiglitz's Web Site Article From "The Milken Institute Review" by Bilmes and Stiglitz (pdf) "Soldiers Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan: The Long-term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and Disability Benefits" by Linda Bilmes "Struggling Back From War's Once-Deadly Wounds" (Jan. 22, 2006)
The Nation's Investment in Cancer Research The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.
For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign —
a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.
Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.
The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.
All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another:
The war in Iraq.
In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so.
These estimates probably would have turned out to be too optimistic even if the war had gone well. Throughout history, people have typically underestimated the cost of war, as William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, has pointed out.
But the deteriorating situation in Iraq has caused the initial predictions to be off the mark by a scale that is difficult to fathom. The operation itself — the helicopters, the tanks, the fuel needed to run them, the combat pay for enlisted troops, the salaries of reservists and contractors, the rebuilding of Iraq — is costing more than $300 million a day, estimates Scott Wallsten, an economist in Washington.
That translates into a couple of billion dollars a week and, over the full course of the war, an eventual total of $700 billion in direct spending.
The two best-known analyses of the war’s costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war. They include a number of indirect costs, like the economic stimulus that the war funds would have provided if they had been spent in this country.
Mr. Wallsten, who worked with Katrina Kosec, another economist, argues for a figure closer to $1 trillion in today’s dollars. My own estimate falls on the conservative side, largely because it focuses on the actual money that Americans would have been able to spend in the absence of a war. I didn’t even attempt to put a monetary value on the more than 3,000 American deaths in the war.
Besides the direct military spending, I’m including the gas tax that the war has effectively imposed on American families (to the benefit of oil-producing countries like Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia). At the start of 2003, a barrel of oil was selling for $30. Since then, the average price has been about $50. Attributing even $5 of this difference to the conflict adds another $150 billion to the war’s price tag, Ms. Bilmes and Mr. Stiglitz say.
The war has also guaranteed some big future expenses. Replacing the hardware used in Iraq and otherwise getting the United States military back into its prewar fighting shape could cost $100 billion. And if this war’s veterans receive disability payments and medical care at the same rate as veterans of the first gulf war, their health costs will add up to $250 billion. If the disability rate matches Vietnam’s, the number climbs higher. Either way, Ms. Bilmes says, “It’s like a miniature Medicare.”
In economic terms, you can think of these medical costs as the difference between how productive the soldiers would have been as, say, computer programmers or firefighters and how productive they will be as wounded veterans. In human terms, you can think of soldiers like Jason Poole, a young corporal profiled in The New York Times last year. Before the war, he had planned to be a teacher. After being hit by a roadside bomb in 2004, he spent hundreds of hours learning to walk and talk again, and he now splits his time between a community college and a hospital in Northern California.
Whatever number you use for the war’s total cost, it will tower over costs that normally seem prohibitive. Right now, including everything, the war is costing about $200 billion a year.
Treating heart disease and diabetes, by contrast, would probably cost about $50 billion a year. The remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations — held up in Congress partly because of their cost — might cost somewhat less. Universal preschool would be $35 billion. In Afghanistan, $10 billion could make a real difference. At the National Cancer Institute, annual budget is about $6 billion.
“This war has skewed our thinking about resources,” said Mr. Wallsten, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative-leaning research group. “In the context of the war, $20 billion is nothing.”
As it happens, $20 billion is not a bad ballpark estimate for the added cost of Mr. Bush’s planned surge in troops. By itself, of course, that price tag doesn’t mean the surge is a bad idea. If it offers the best chance to stabilize Iraq, then it may well be the right option.
But the standard shouldn’t simply be whether a surge is better than the most popular alternative — a far-less-expensive political strategy that includes getting tough with the Iraqi government. The standard should be whether the surge would be better than the political strategy plus whatever else might be accomplished with the $20 billion.
This time, it would be nice to have that discussion before the troops reach Iraq.
posted on September 5, 2007 10:56:32 AMNOW you're aware that what I said WAS correct.
No, Linda you were not totally correct. Your statement made it appear private insurance was illegal throughout Canada - meaning all provinces - which is not the case.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 5, 2007 07:44:46 PM
More than HALF don't allow it.
And don't blame me because you don't know what YOU'RE talking about.
LOL I have repeatedly said that they ARE coming around to using our way....private insurance, to deal with the problems they face and CAN'T deal with in the public system.
THAT should have informed you that SOME were.....because I said they WERE. It was kiara who denied it. YOU'RE just confused once again, ld.
sadly that appears to be your MO lately...but you blame everyone except yourself for your own failings to grasp the written word.
posted on September 5, 2007 08:13:52 PMTHAT should have informed you that SOME were.....because I said they WERE. It was kiara who denied it.
Lindak, it's been a few days since I've kept track of this topic so please show me exactly what you claim I supposedly denied as I do not see it. And that means showing a link with my very own words quoted.
posted on September 6, 2007 06:34:54 AM
Lindak, I notice you are unable to supply the link to what you claim I said because it doesn't exist, so don't use me as your scapegoat after you've displayed your ignorance.
So your words go right back to you.
"sadly that appears to be your MO lately...but you blame everyone except yourself for your own failings to grasp the written word."
posted on September 6, 2007 10:11:00 AM
I see Kiras alarm went off in her computer again as soon as Linda posted,simply amazing...I should have an alarm clock that worked this well
I thought "the written word" was the Bible......not that I ever read it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you look like your passport photo, you probably need the trip
[ edited by classicrock000 on Sep 6, 2007 10:14 AM ]
posted on September 6, 2007 02:06:13 PMMore than HALF don't allow it.
Yeah, but there are some provinces that do allow private insurance so your claim that is it illegal in Canada is wrong.
LOL I have repeatedly said that they ARE coming around to using our way....private insurance, to deal with the problems they face and CAN'T deal with in the public system.
If that is true, Canada is adopting our way of private insurance, then how can you keep claiming that the United States will adopt Canada's way of government sponsored healthcare. If we do adopt Canada's system,it will allow the citizens to have private healthcare coverage based on your reasoning that Canada is now considering allowing it.
Get a grip Linda you dont have a clue on what you are talking about. You are worried about something that has not even happened yet and once again your own statements don't support your arguments.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 6, 2007 08:41:09 PM
"I see Kiras alarm went off in her computer again as soon as Linda posted, simply amazing...I should have an alarm clock that worked this well"
Yeo, same ol' same ol'. I'm beginning to believe she and sybil sit in the dark, lurking - just waiting for my return.
posted on September 6, 2007 10:17:09 PM
Linda, ya big dummy! I left this topic on the 2nd and just got back to it last evening - you're here 24/7 waiting and you've always got Classic peeking out from under your skirt so he can divert the topic so you don't have to account for all your lies.
You trained him well but then what else do either of you old geezers have to do all day?
posted on September 6, 2007 11:48:00 PM
Gee, Kiara, the minute you post there's classless and linduh right on your heels! They must just sit and wait until you post so they can post non-answers to your facts
I guess they must be the Gate-Keepers, the ones who decide how many times and when others should post Maybe it's all they have LOL!
posted on September 7, 2007 06:46:11 AM
Classic, I've got a few decades of work ahead of me yet while you've settled on being lindak's vendio slave - everyone needs some recognition in life and I guess that's your calling. Enjoy! It amuses me seeing you peeking out from under her skirt trying to sass Mingo and me!
Maybe it's all they have LOL!