Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
02:03 AM on 06/23/2009
Canada health care is so HORRIBLE that their heart attack death rates declined rapidly after 1994.

"Researchers at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) found that deaths from heart disease fell by 30 per cent between 1994 and 2004, from 36 per 10,000 the first year to 25 per 10,000 a decade later. "
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/06/22/heart-disease-deaths.html?ref=rss

Thank God the United States doesn't do as the Canadians do.

And, thank God some of our representatives want us to continue doing as we are doing now.

Otherwise, we would live much longer and healthier lives.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rosal
JUSTICE always wins
02:07 AM on 06/23/2009
And at a lower cost!
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
03:59 AM on 06/23/2009
The simple question is:

Where are all the dead Canadians, Swiss, Brits, French, Germans, etc., etc.?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rosal
JUSTICE always wins
01:58 AM on 06/23/2009
How many millions the MSM collect for advertisement from the Health Insurance Business for Profit, Pharma, etc? Enough said.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LemonMeringue
Happy Birthday, Steve Jobs - Feb. 24th
01:55 AM on 06/23/2009
Just one reason I don't get my news from television. It's useless.

TV news betrayed us for 8 years. They haven't turned the corner yet.

I miss Walter Cronkite. Days when they just read the news. I don't need the reporters to tell me what to think about the news. Just the facts.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LemonMeringue
Happy Birthday, Steve Jobs - Feb. 24th
01:44 AM on 06/23/2009
They're still doing the bidding of people like this:

http://wonkette.com/401811/a-childrens-treasury-of-stupid-bush-in-china-pictures

WHAT TOOLS!
01:22 AM on 06/23/2009
Peace love and openness will get you nowhere. Time to open the ammo stocks and let these republicans know exactly what we think of them.
01:45 AM on 06/23/2009
I fail to see the logic of this comment. It appears that you are suggesting that a Democrat White House, with large Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress is being held in check by the Republican minority. How so? If the Democrats really want this, they can merely do it, assuming they can control the votes of their own party line. The Democrats do not need any Republican votes to pass any legislation. Therefore, isn't an attempt to pass the blame to Republicans somewhat naive?

My personal belief is that politicians are far more interested in re-election than doing anything they truly stand for. None of them want a single party decision, because if the results are bad, that one party gets all the blame. Any talk of bipartisanship is not out of hope to represent the majority.......it is simply a method for sharing the blame.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StellaRay
02:09 AM on 06/23/2009
Well DesertRat, we are somewhat held in check by the Republican minority. Here's how. The democrat majority in the house is irrelevant if not backed up by the senate. And even if we get Franken seated, finally, a truly working majority would assume we could get all 60 votes on say, health care. That's unlikely. Therefore, we would need a few republican votes, as the republicans needed us to go to war in Iraq.

Having said that, I don't disagree that most politicians are "far more interested in being re-elected," than anything else. With the exception of a few, who knows what the hell else they stand for?

And it is not the fault of the loathsome GOP that the democrats can't seem to come together to push the democrat agenda through. Frankly, I'm disgusted with the lot of the democrat senate right now. And I'm beginning to agree with you that all this bipartisanship stuff is just a way to avoid the blame if it doesn't work out.
01:16 AM on 06/23/2009
Diane, Diane, Diane. Why do you keep doing this to yourself. You're following in the same footsteps of the others from network news thinking that they want to be investigative journalist but with a brain no bigger than Ms. California in your approach, research, and knowlege. Just stick to morning news where we're still waking up with one java filled not really hearing a word you said, nor care. Maybe you and Katie C. and Ms. Brown can all go back to basic Journ 101 and learn the meaning, 'Who, what, where, how and why'. No, not about a topic but why you think you're a journalist.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
balthus
01:14 AM on 06/23/2009
Democrats are already behind the eight ball on health care reform because they didn't effectively frame the issue as a human one; i.e. simply and repeatedly stating that NO American should have to worry about losing their home, their savings, or their life because they can't afford health insurance.

Instead, they've gotten into an argument about the cost of various programs. Funny how costs never mattered when something as important as an unnecessary war had virtually every Senator and Congressperson - of both parties - reaching for their freedom fries, checking their lapel pins and signing off on a trillion dollar expenditure.

If Democrats want to win this thing, they've got to grow a set, stop arguing costs and start highlighting a few horror stories of what happens when you lose your job, your insurance and serious illness strikes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StellaRay
01:22 AM on 06/23/2009
Bravo balthus! Man, you said a mouthful here.

You are so right on about the dems strategy. They have agreed with the republicans that the cost of health care reform is the main point, rather than the well fare of our citizens. (although, as you pointed out, they had no problem signing off with the republicans on a trillion dollar expenditure for a useless war.)

All of us need to cut and paste balthus's post and send it to our hapless, week kneed democrat representatives.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rosal
JUSTICE always wins
02:04 AM on 06/23/2009
They are not weak kneed, they are co-rrupt, same as their counter parts. It$ all about money. I finally get it. And I am a liberal to the left of Le nin!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:01 AM on 06/23/2009
"NO American should have to worry about losing their home, their savings, or their life because they can't afford health insurance."

This kind of thinking is part of the problem.

OK, no one should lose their life. Though I'd oppose paying for liver transplants for active alcoholics, and multiple organ transplants for the very old and frail, like that. (Rationing does happen and will continue to happen.) MAYBE some people should not lose their homes. Though a lot of people have "homes" they couldn't afford from the get-go and have bailed on health insurance as a result. Don't see why I should subsidize them if I kept my house payments reasonable AND bought health insurance. But SAVINGS? What do people think savings are FOR these days? How can you have savings when you don't have health insurance? You are simply pushing your health care costs onto people who pay for insurance, while "saving" money for what--your kids' inheritance?? Not interested in subsidizing your kids or your RV retirement while I'm paying for health insurance, thanks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StellaRay
01:06 AM on 06/23/2009
People, I'm beginning to think the best way to get universal health care is to stop buying health insurance. I have read several posts from people stating they have done just his. Because the truth is, we are not yet so uncivil of a country that we kick our sick to the curb if they can't pay.

In fact, I have a friend who was recently diagnosed with lung cancer (although she never smoked a cigarette in her life) and had no insurance, because she could not afford it. The hospital cut the costs for her surgery by well over half and set up a very reasonable payment plan for her.

Meanwhile we pay $1500 a month for our family of three (with a $5,000 deductible) because we are self employed. And I don't know how much longer we can do it. Perhaps the only way our congress--- swimming in their tax payer provided 5 star health care benefits till death---will understand is when we all default because we just can't do it anymore.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:49 AM on 06/23/2009
You brought up one of the things that makes me livid about the whole system in this country--the fact that costs are always higher for people who have insurance. The medical providers figure if an insurance co. is paying, they can be greedy. But then this is what drives up our premiums and deductibles and makes the list of non-covered services longer every time we renew, though certain sectors always try to lay blame exclusively on patient debt, especially that of the un- and underinsured. Then the equally ugly flip side of this filthy coin is that even though the overall cost is lower to the uninsured, they still have to pay much more out of pocket than someone who is insured.

You say your friend's payment plan is "very reasonable", and maybe it is, although in my experience what the hospital considers "reasonable" very often is NOT for the patient. I have seen people beg for a lower amount each month because they are barely even managing "the basics" only to have a customer "service" rep chide them that they should know that amount is too small and badger them into paying more, otherwise they'll be sent to a collection agency. Disgusting.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:31 AM on 06/23/2009
You may well be right. The system has always shifted costs of care to those with insurance. You pay for people who prefer their BMW over health insurance; people who truly can't afford health insurance; illegal aliens who use the system without charge (or ID in many cases); and people with Medicaid whose payments fall far below the costs of providing care. At least a single payer system wouldn't mask these transfer payments.
12:46 AM on 06/23/2009
This is how America's healthcare system fails many millions of patients - http://rxvette.blogspot.com
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StellaRay
12:30 AM on 06/23/2009
Anyone remember Sawyer's fawning interview with Michael Jackson after his first child molestation trial? I'll never forget it because I had just read Maureen Orth's penetrating expose of the whole trial in Vanity Fair. It was pages long, well supported with fact, and as creepy in its conclusion as Mr. Jackson's face.

This woman is no different than the blondes on Fox news. None of them, including Ms. Sawyer, do their research. They are masters of the easy question, the hyberbolic question, the idiotic question.

"So my potato chips are un-American? Oh please. Are you really telling me that this woman, on the top of the broadcast journalism pile for years now, couldn't come up with a question that was more helpful or clarifying to the healthcare debate than this?

Please, dear God, never let me know how much this woman makes a year to be so useless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RonRutherford
12:29 AM on 06/23/2009
You mean she asked questions the opposition actually wanted to see asked? No wonder Media Matters is furious.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:41 AM on 06/23/2009
The opposition is worried about potato chips? I guess the opposition is as shallow as her questions.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StellaRay
12:48 AM on 06/23/2009
No, Ron. We mean she asked the questions that feed the media's beloved, ratings pumping horse race. It's not that the questions she asked were wrong (accept that really stupid but highly quotable question about potato chips). It's that ALL her questions represented the opposition.

Why not a question about the latest polls that say a huge majority of Americans want a public option? (her collegue Robin Roberts showed her up good here). Why not a question about how America, this "super power" is 37th in the world in health care efficacy? Why not a question about how the republicans intend to staunch the ever escalating costs of health care? Really, I could go on and on.

Do you really think health care would be an issue if our current system was anywhere near working? If you are under 60 and therefore years from Medicare, I promise you your tune will change. Only by that time we will be so behind the 8 ball you'll get half what you would get if we faced the music today.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LemonMeringue
Happy Birthday, Steve Jobs - Feb. 24th
12:02 AM on 06/23/2009
You know, Diane, not all Americans are stupid.

When you slant the questions like that, WE NOTICE

No credibility left, none at all.
12:25 AM on 06/23/2009
"You know, Diane... No credibility left, none at all."

Like she had any anyway, after that "meat locker" stunt she pulled years ago...
12:01 AM on 06/23/2009
"The administration, meanwhile, has repeatedly expressed its openness to all ideas"

Sam, doesn't your keyboard burst into flames when you type this? Isn't there a smell of sulphur in the air?

Yes, indeed the administration and many in Congress have repeatedly said this. But it's an outright, barefaced, egregious lie. What's true is that they have done all in their power to suppress any mention of single-payer Medicare For All. Their phony "openness" claim has been contraverted by some very obvious facts, like Obama's refusal to allow any presentation of single-payer at his White House summit, or the arrest of the Baucus 13. Or even the inclusion of one - one! - single-payer advocate alongside 20 witnesses crowing in chorus for the insurance companies at the Kennedy/Dodd Senate hearings.

By repeating the claim without pointing out that it is false, you give it currency, and add to the blizzard of lies preventing any serious discussion of real healthcare reform. This kind of thing enables the distortions broadcast by ABC.

We even have the spectacle of Howard Dean insinuating on TV that "public option" is the same thing as single-payer, and many confused people thinking it is. Sad, sad.
11:59 PM on 06/22/2009
"...before playing a video of Newt Gingrich warning about "government bureacrat[s]" telling the public what type of coverage it can and cannot receive. "


That would be terrible, compared to the insurance industry bureaucrats who currently tell the public what type of coverage it can and cannot receive.
12:20 AM on 06/23/2009
At least the government bureaucrat wouldn't earn a bonus for refusing treatment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:39 AM on 06/23/2009
You are kidding, right? The government employees do get bonuses for such things. Although, in reality, it is the health insurance bureaucrats who run the government programs NOW. No one mentions this. Medicare farms out the coverage and payment decisions to big health insurance companies and always has.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RonRutherford
12:31 AM on 06/23/2009
Yes, and the government making those decisions except with other people's money will be so much better.
11:50 PM on 06/22/2009
I still haven't forgiven Sawyer for her "interview" of the Dixie Chicks back when they were getting roasted for saying they were ashamed that W came from Texas. "But ashamed?" asked Sawyer. She was just shocked and horrified that anyone could be ashamed of W.
Tool is only one of a couple four-letter words that describe her.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RonRutherford
12:32 AM on 06/23/2009
If that's the worst form of right wing bias you can point to, I don't even know where to begin. The fact it bothered you so much you remember all these years later is even more puzzling. Nothing was wrong with her question.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:44 AM on 06/23/2009
by then, most Americans were ashamed of w
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StellaRay
01:45 AM on 06/23/2009
What was wrong with her question, Ron, was her supposition that it was SHOCKING that anyone would be ashamed of Bush. Journalists are supposed to ask the questions without letting us know their opinion.

And I bet you plenty, that Diane Sawyer is no fan of GWB's today. I bet you plenty that she'd have all kinds of fancy words for her distress at the decisions he made. I'd really like to interview her on this. I'd really like to hear how she changes as swiftly as the wind does. Because I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt, she would.

Anyone out there in the media world who can get an interview with Sawyer? If so, please ask her if she's still "shocked" that anyone would be ashamed of Bush.