Your Republican Nominee for 2012

[Captain Obvious]

Na that wasn’t Nostradamus, it was the Mayans and their Mesoamerican Long Count calendar that has the end date of 2012.

It notes the end of the 13th cycle. That date is supposed to mark the return of the Mexican god Quetzalcoatl who, according to Mayan mythology, is to destroy the wicked and usher in the end of the world. The name means backward redneck female with long plumage. She will come from the north carrying a message of complete ignorance and stupidity, and will have many followers in pickup trucks with gun racks.

I second the premise that the Mayans predicted 2012 is the end of the world due to a Palin ticket. Not some short mexican god with bad skin. But if she was topless, I would vote for her.

Perhaps a topless Palin / Ann Coulter ticket. Hot and crazy, you pick which is which.

[DavidofColorado]

Paul palin 2012. But I think the reign of the dems will end in 2010. We can't afford the dems any longer. A real advantage for the people is if nobody controls everything.

[Shea]

Paul palin 2012. But I think the reign of the dems will end in 2010. We can't afford the dems any longer. A real advantage for the people is if nobody controls everything.

We can't afford a Republican ticket either. It's time for real change, with real hope...

Terrell/Medlicott '12

[DavidofColorado]

We can't afford a Republican ticket either. It's time for real change, with real hope...

Terrell/Medlicott '12

Sign me up for a bumpersticker.

[puckstr]

Yeah, look who we elected President

WE?

[JustSomeDude]

Yeah, look who we elected President

Take a good hard look...

[Shea]

WE?

I am blaming everything on you Steve.

[puckstr]

I am blaming everything on you Steve.

[Snowman]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

Are these people becoming so desperate to promote their views that they would take a living will provision that was originally instituted by a republican president and twist it into the concept of a "death panel"?

[Shea]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

Are these people becoming so desperate to promote their views that they would take a living will provision that was originally instituted by a republican president and twist it into the concept of a "death panel"?

People are genuinely scared of government control and take even the slightest hint of it and blow it out of proportion. Now, that being said, Dr. Emmanual's comments on the "value" of people based on age, and his position in the government, generates some "not so fresh" feelings in me personally.

But Palin is just being alarmist. There are far more things to be concerned about in the health care legislation (costs, coverages, control, the basic underpinning of liberty) then this trumped up crap.

[JustSomeDude]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

Are these people becoming so desperate to promote their views that they would take a living will provision that was originally instituted by a republican president and twist it into the concept of a "death panel"?

Actually, the Q&A by RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR is what is twisting the actual issue at hand. While you may like to think of Sarah Palin's "death panel" in a literal sense for the shear amusement of trying to debunk it, she is using shock language to present a valid point. That is - who makes treatment decisions, specifically when some one of an advanced age requires some sort medical intervention to extend life?

There is no question the gov't will apply actuary tables to see whether or not there will be a return on their investment (the cost of certain treatments). Take Obama's own words when asked directly what will occur when some one who has the "spirit" to live is faced with necessary care to extend life...

OBAMA: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.

He leaves out one critical option... direct payment. If a person has the money to pay for a procedure directly, or doesn't have the money and opts to go into debt anyway for a specific procedure, that is their right. However, under some of the Gov't run health care options currently being considered, there would be no way to make a direct payment for services. In fact, it would likely be impossible and/or illegal. In that case many people, specifically the elderly, would have end-of-life decisions (meaning, whether or not a life extended procedure/treatment would be granted) made by the government.

Maybe you think those decisions should be defined by law. I do not. And in that case, we can just agree to disagree.

[Snowman]

Actually, the Q&A by RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR is what is twisting the actual issue at hand. While you may like to think of Sarah Palin's "death panel" in a literal sense for the shear amusement of trying to debunk it, she is using shock language to present a valid point. That is - who makes treatment decisions, specifically when some one of an advanced age requires some sort medical intervention to extend life?

There is no question the gov't will apply actuary tables to see whether or not there will be a return on their investment (the cost of certain treatments). Take Obama's own words when asked directly what will occur when some one who has the "spirit" to live is faced with necessary care to extend life....

How is this any different than for profit insurance companies denying medical procedures using guidelines of care created by the insurance companies for the insurance companies
in order to make larger profit margins to satisfy their shareholders?

OBAMA: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.

He leaves out one critical option... direct payment. If a person has the money to pay for a procedure directly, or doesn't have the money and opts to go into debt anyway for a specific procedure, that is their right. However, under some of the Gov't run health care options currently being considered, there would be no way to make a direct payment for services. In fact, it would likely be impossible and/or illegal. In that case many people, specifically the elderly, would have end-of-life decisions (meaning, whether or not a life extended procedure/treatment would be granted) made by the government.

Maybe you think those decisions should be defined by law. I do not. And in that case, we can just agree to disagree.

Where have you read that under the governments plan you won’t be able to pay out of pocket for any procedure? Right now if you have the money I know you can find a doctor to do anything to you. (see Octomom…)

All the arguments I have seen so far against the proposed government plan (as it has currently been presented) are the same arguments I hear against the private insurance system we have in place.

You say the government’s plan will make choices that should be left between you and your doctor. Right now private insurance companies tell doctors which tests and procedures they will pay for under guidelines of care created by and for the insurance companies themselves.

You say under the government’s plan you will not be able to choose your doctor. Right now most insurance companies have lists of doctors, who have agreed to follow the private insurance companies guidelines of care in order to be placed on that list. Those Doctors who believe these guidelines are not adequate are not placed on this list then you cannot choose them. (without substantial added cost to the plan)

You say the government’s plan you will take away your right to choose whichever insurance plan you want. Right now most people can’t afford private insurance that isn’t offered by the company they work for. And if they can it is almost always much cheaper for to use the one or two options given by their company plans.

I’m just like you. I want the right to choose like anyone else. I want to choose my doctors, my hospitals and the type of care I want for myself. All of which are now heavily regulated by the private insurance companies in order to make profit for their shareholders.

So tell me how we are better off?

[MikeG]

Fact Check?? That's straight from the Obama campaign! More credible to fact check via Eric Cartman

[Horsman]

Na that wasn’t Nostradamus, it was the Mayans and their Mesoamerican Long Count calendar that has the end date of 2012.

It notes the end of the 13th cycle. That date is supposed to mark the return of the Mexican god Quetzalcoatl who, according to Mayan mythology, is to destroy the wicked and usher in the end of the world. The name means backward redneck female with long plumage. She will come from the north carrying a message of complete ignorance and stupidity, and will have many followers in pickup trucks with gun racks.

That is some scary shit boyz.... Lock and Load....


"And lead us not into temptation, But deliverance us from evil."

[The Black Knight]

Well that's all I needed to know, she's got my vote

[whitebrad]

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC, but i was just like, who are these people (Terrell/Medlicott--see post above)...

googled it and the top option was
Your Republican Nominee for 2012 - Page 2 - Colorado Sportbike ...



little bit freaky....

[vort3xr6]

How is this any different than for profit insurance companies denying medical procedures using guidelines of care created by the insurance companies for the insurance companies in order to make larger profit margins to satisfy their shareholders

They don't refuse medical procedures to satisfy shareholders. They choose not to back certain procedures because of risk of going into litigation.
Democratic lawyers COUGH (John Kerry and John Edwards) who thrive off taking insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to court for risky procedures that do not always work.

Where have you read that under the governments plan you won't be able to pay out of pocket for any procedure? Right now if you have the money I know you can find a doctor to do anything to you. (see Octomom.)

True. But now if you have the money to pay for any medical procedure out of pocket, you are most likely in the top 2% of the tax payers in this country who will be taxed EVEN FURTHER to pay for the health care of the poor. Who do you think is paying for medicaid and insurance for veterans? Not you.

All the arguments I have seen so far against the proposed government plan (as it has currently been presented) are the same arguments I hear against the private insurance system we have in place.

Except the private insurance system works under free market capitalism without regulation and through competition. The regulation already at hand is what is causing the insurance companies to make so much money. Bring in a government plan that is cheaper and demand falls causing costs to rise and eventually they will throw in the towel. The real travesty is the workers who will be FORCED into the plan. Under the reform, any small business that does not provide insurance to it's employees is forced to pay 8% of AGP.
Most companies pay around 18% in health care costs already. HMMMM...they are going to drop their insurance and just pay the 8%. Then the government will have so many people on their health care plan that they will not have enough money to pay for it. End game, raise taxes exponentially.

You say the government's plan will make choices that should be left between you and your doctor. Right now private insurance companies tell doctors which tests and procedures they will pay for under guidelines of care created by and for the insurance companies themselves.

If the choices were left up to the doctor than your health care costs would be through the roof. The doctor is out to do one thing, make money. The insurance companies regulate what can and cant be done to control costs. It is the same as a business employer letting his lowest employee have the company credit card with no limit. Cost control is a fundamental aspect of any business regardless if it is health care or not. Remember, you are a number not a person, thus extremely expendable.

You say under the government's plan you will not be able to choose your doctor. Right now most insurance companies have lists of doctors, who have agreed to follow the private insurance companies guidelines of care in order to be placed on that list. Those Doctors who believe these guidelines are not adequate are not placed on this list then you cannot choose them. (without substantial added cost to the plan)

You will be able to choose your doctor under the government plan, but your doctor will most likely not choose you depending on the insurance. If anybody has delt with the government, extracting money is like pulling teeth. These doctors will stick with their private insurance companies for safety and reject the plan the government offers. Plus most doctors make a lot of money so if they accept the reform plan, they can see their OWN money used to treat low level patients.

You say the government's plan you will take away your right to choose whichever insurance plan you want. Right now most people can't afford private insurance that isn't offered by the company they work for. And if they can it is almost always much cheaper for to use the one or two options given by their company plans.

The government will take away your right to choose whatever plan you want but they will take away your right to select a certain level of insurance because the new plan requires you to be over a minimum package. Gone are the days where people who don't get sick too much can have lower health care costs and high deductibles. You will be forced to purchase into a minimum plan so that your health costs are comparative to everyone else. Also under this plan, you will be paying nearly the same amount as a 72 year old person. A 20 year old person who usually pays $800 a year, will be forced to pay as much as $2500 per year where a 72 year old person would pay a maximum of $5000. Fair?? no. So yes the government will take away that right to choose plans that fit your lifestyle. You have to remember that democrats always look in the best interest of the sick, poor, injured, and hungry before looking after the best interest of everybody else or the country.

I'm just like you. I want the right to choose like anyone else. I want to choose my doctors, my hospitals and the type of care I want for myself. All of which are now heavily regulated by the private insurance companies in order to make profit for their shareholders.



So tell me how we are better off?

Well you are like just about anybody else who believes that all big companies are profit mongering scum buckets who are out to screw you. These companies operate on basic principles of free market capitalism and if you want to choose the hospitals and type of care you want for yourself. Look elsewhere cause Obama doesn't have it for you. You are better off when you realize that government regulation deteriorates a capitalistic economy.

[JustSomeDude]

How is this any different than for profit insurance companies denying medical procedures using guidelines of care created by the insurance companies for the insurance companies
in order to make larger profit margins to satisfy their shareholders?

Where have you read that under the governments plan you won’t be able to pay out of pocket for any procedure? Right now if you have the money I know you can find a doctor to do anything to you. (see Octomom…)

All the arguments I have seen so far against the proposed government plan (as it has currently been presented) are the same arguments I hear against the private insurance system we have in place.

Snowman-

1. In your entire argument you claim there there would basically be no difference between our current system of private insurance and with putting the system under government control - with the one exception that 46 million uninsured will miraculously be covered by the government. First, that number is a gross misrepresentation since it includes millions of illegal immigrants, and millions more who voluntarily opt not to carry health insurance (with some analysts putting the actual number of those who are unable to pay for insurance below 20 million). I don't consider 6.25% of the population being uninsured an "unsustainable problem"... call me kooky.

By creating universal health care for the sole purpose of masking the true costs from the uninsured (since as you state - everything else would be the same anyway), we will dramatically reduce the quality of care as medical visits become abused/overused as a result of this new "free" service that is now available to all members of the public - no questions asked.

2. The ability for those who choose to pay direct for treatment/procedures may ultimately be eliminated if a true single payer system is established. As for "where have I read that"... look at Europe. The example is already available for you to examine if you choose.

As a result of the single payer system under the soft-socialist forms of Government in eastern Europe, there is no way of paying direct for drugs and/or medical treatment. This is why many foreigners travel to America for critical procedures/treatment, because even if you have the money, you still have to wait in line like everyone else (even in an emergency). Got a problem and need to see the doc now? "Tough shit - wait in line like everyone else." In your world I realize that may be defined as "fairness", in mine, that is patently unfair.

Yes, Obama currently states that single payer is not what he plans to propose in his legislation, but rest assured, full government control of health care will be the ultimate outcome of this "overhaul". There will simply be no practical way for private insurers to compete against a government plan.

Perhaps you love the incompetence and inefficiency at the emmissions control center, the DMV, the code enforcement office, the post office, the road repair crews, and all other government run institutions. Perhaps part of your of ideology of "fairness" is to bring that same incompetence and inefficiency to the doctor's office. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. (Funny that Obama praises the private sector in this regard... http://bx.businessweek.com/fedex-cor...77c8d90fff86d/)

3. Lastly, if you feel so strongly about Government control of health care, why should it stop there? Why shouldn't the Government define our basic needs as "rights" under the Constitution, such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation, etc.? We can eliminate all private property, trade, and transportation, and put it all under the control of the Feds. Honestly -- why is health care more important than food?

[JustSomeDude]

Post Office & Health Care...

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/11/...th-care-plans/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-53038002.html

[*GSXR~SNAIL*]

How should we handle all the sniveling, I got a sneeze and a cough so I'm going to the doctor for any and everything people out there? You know, the ones that abuse our health care system and drive our rates up. Compare those folks to those that won't go unless it's a true emergency.

How do we treat those that smoke, drink, don't exercise regularly, and eat all the crap they can compared to those that do eat the right things along with some good exercise and don't smoke or drink?

Certainly, not in all cases but in many it's these folks that have driven up our rates and got us to where we are now. The pure abuse of stuffing your damn face and smoking cigarettes and then complaining about some related health issue...f'ing duh!

Do we charge those that abuse the system more with this new plan? Or do we spread the abuse democratically so everyone can share in the cost?

Just curious...

[Mental]

How should we handle all the sniveling, I got a sneeze and a cough so I'm going to the doctor for any and everything people out there? You know, the ones that abuse our health care system and drive our rates up. Compare those folks to those that won't go unless it's a true emergency.

How do we treat those that smoke, drink, don't exercise regularly, and eat all the crap they can compared to those that do eat the right things along with some good exercise and don't smoke or drink?

Certainly, not in all cases but in many it's these folks that have driven up our rates and got us to where we are now. The pure abuse of stuffing your damn face and smoking cigarettes and then complaining about some related health issue...f'ing duh!

Do we charge those that abuse the system more with this new plan? Or do we spread the abuse democratically so everyone can share in the cost?

Just curious...

My usual sarcasam aside, this is a real concern for me. I am have been on the goverments health care for the last 18 years. We have these hypercondriacs that clog sick every day. Either they just don't want to go to work, or they are bored spouses who just want someone to pay attention to them (either becuase they aren't getting it at home or they are drama king/queens). We have mandated exercise programs but a ton of the old heads refuse to take part and always manage to have a waiver come test time. The smoke to much, eat nothing but crap and wonder why they feel bad all the time, so off to the Dr they go.

The cost are a real problem, but the bigger issue for me is simply the time. On the rare occasion I actually need to be seen by a Dr, I have to wade through these folks to get to them. A buddy of mine in Canada is an industrial welder and a giant iron pipe rolled onto his pinky, crushing it. rather than lose a whole day's pay waiting forever, he tapped up the nub and went back to work, he saw the dr that afternoon to get stitched up. We call him 2 thumbs Tom now.

I would agree our current system is crap, but I don;t have any answers and I would love to hear some opinions on how either solution handles the ones who want to intentionally or unintentionally abuse this system.

[vort3xr6]

How should we handle all the sniveling, I got a sneeze and a cough so I'm going to the doctor for any and everything people out there? You know, the ones that abuse our health care system and drive our rates up. Compare those folks to those that won't go unless it's a true emergency.

How do we treat those that smoke, drink, don't exercise regularly, and eat all the crap they can compared to those that do eat the right things along with some good exercise and don't smoke or drink?

Certainly, not in all cases but in many it's these folks that have driven up our rates and got us to where we are now. The pure abuse of stuffing your damn face and smoking cigarettes and then complaining about some related health issue...f'ing duh!

Do we charge those that abuse the system more with this new plan? Or do we spread the abuse democratically so everyone can share in the cost?

Just curious...

Obama's plan will restrict the ability to charge more for people that abuse themselves. You as a healthy individual would pay the same as a person who smokes, drinks, and is obese. I cannot stand how many lies are coming from the democratic party about this plan and then they turn around and say republicans are lying when they stand up and say no.

[IT WASN'T ME!]

Noblesse Oblige:

In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty.

You right wing top 2%ers should stop being so stingy. You are over payed (even after taxes) and under worked. You should happily help the system that allows you to be so fortunate.

[JustSomeDude]

Noblesse Oblige:

In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty.

You right wing top 2%ers should stop being so stingy. You are over payed (even after taxes) and under worked. You should happily help the system that allows you to be so fortunate.

Socialsm... equal poverty for all. Yippeee!