I'm seriously considering voting for Obama...

Are you trying to quote me?

I wasn't talking about Iraq... :huh:[/quote]

 

Are you trying to quote me?

I wasn't talking about Iraq... :huh:[/quote]

You are presenting us with a false dilemma. Those are not the only two choices we have. Socialized medicine is the worst road this country can take. As I have mentioned before, neither the poor nor the elderly are the problems when it comes to health care. They have medicare and medicaid respectively. The problem are the working poor who are employed by small businesses that cannot afford to offer health care. One solution would be to allow these companies for form themselves into a consortsium and purchase a health care program as a group. This would bring the cost of offering health care it employees down to more affordable levels.

 

Alright, the quotes have gotten all screwed up... I don't know who's talking to who. :hihi:

 

You're wrong again...surprise!

Bush won in 2000 because the vote was so close in Florida it came down to whether people were intelligent enough to push a pin through a small hole. They weren't...:hihi: (and these are the same people who have figured out global warming and how to run our economy :huh

Many will vote against the Republicans because they want something different. The Democrats need to be careful and not to intepret this as the people wanting them. The people just don't have a legitimate third option. Remember...a Democrat-led Congress has a lower approval rating that George W.

 

Unless McCain wins, which would clearly happen only because 'muricans are racist. :nope:

 

I have to laugh out loud when people say that the American healthcare system is so bad.

You are saying this at a time when socialized healthcare around the world is failing miserably en masse. Patient care outcome rates are way below the success rates in US hospitals in virtually any of these countries.

Bob Graham, back in 2004, had an excellent plan to incorporate preventative care by targeting age groupings without burdening service providers with a bunch of record keeping overhead. His plan would have worked pretty well, but was totally ignored by the far left.

If we go to a nationalized healthcare single payer system like Obama is truly pushing, you will witness the quality of healthcare in this country go down the toilet.

Yes, Obama has stated to far left Democrats that he wants a single payer system. If that happens, get ready for a least restrictive matrix that will tell us what services we can use and how long it will take to get those services.

In other words, responsible folks who currently have good private insurance, will now have to deal with restrictions based on governmental formulas of how they can be treated, and which will further strip the decision making abilities of doctors.

You will see guys like Al Gore fly out of the US to bypass this new system while the rest of us get less for ourselves while paying much more. Paying much more for the unemployed or welfare populations that historically have higher incidents of diseases caused from drug abuse, alcohol abuse, smoking, reckless sex and crappy eating habits.

 

Great!...and if they do hold the majority of the positions, I want them held to the same standards they currently complain about.

I want definitive ending dates for everything. If war is supposed to only take 21 days then I guess we should have answers to the economy, health care, the end of affirmative action, end to unemployment, no more poverty, etc....all by...let's say...April 2009. :thumb:

I don't want to hear four years of..."Well we're still trying to dig ourselves out of the mess the Republicans put us in." and the other typical comments we're used to hearing from them.

If they have such a marvelous plan and they take control...I want IMMEDIATE answers.

 

depends what you consider "so bad"


here #37
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

an explanation

http://unitas.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/ranking-of-world-health/

"The United States outspends the world and ranks near the top in average health measures, but fails to deliver good health care to a large proportion of its population and distributes the cost relatively unfairly, according to the report’s measures, leaving it at number 37 in the rankings.

Using the measure ”health life expectancy” — that is, life expectancy minus years of sickness and disability, there are counties in the United States where Native American children at birth can look forward to only about 50 years of health life on average, while some Asian minorities in suburban New York can expect more than 90 years of healthy life, Dr. Murray said."

"The new rating system bases national scores on five measures, and in producing a ranking takes into account the financial resources it has available.

The five measures used are: overall level of health or life expectancy; health fairness or life expectancy as measured across various populations within a country; responsiveness or how well people rated performance of their health care system; fairness in responsiveness among different groups in the same country; and fairness in financing among different groups, which looked at what proportion of income is devoted to health care."

while none of the countries above the US have a larger population (somewhat misleading since there are only 2 or three of these) several have "socialized" programs and are large countries.--germany, france, uk, italy and canada.

it is unacceptable to spend so much money per capita yet leave so many pockets of people with poor healthcare.

cut the spending. provide bare bones coverage to everyone. individuals can get their own private policy on top.