Healthcare deserves its own thread

[Scott Campbell]

sorry, I lost it there. help me.

Tivo.

[bobblehead]

I'm a little tired of hearing about consulting your physician if your erection lasts longer 4 hour during prime time tv.

That has always confused me. I take no drugs. Should I still be consulting my physician when that happens???

Call your Doctor???

I'm calling a press conference if that happens.

Hell with the press, I'm kicking the wife outta the house and calling 4-5 of my ex's

[bobblehead]

Ok, I sucked it up and watched

Next, go check out Michael Moore's unbiased "Sicko."

Dude........Are you trying to lose all semblence of credibility or are you making a joke?

I am serious. You should definitely check out the film. It will broaden up your narrow mind a bit.

I'll let it slide. I watched farenheight 911, was sickened by about 6 facts being wrong in the first 15 minutes, still watched it all though. See the problem with Moore, and people who run around calling consevatives "narrowminded" and "idiots" is they lose all credibility. Moore may have made about 5-6 good points in 911, he may have made more in sicko, but I'll never know because in order to hear his good points I gotta put up with being belittled and demeaned, and then sift thru the propagandist bullshit.

I actually watched inconveniant truth too. When I watched it I said he should have stopped after the graph...the last 2/3 of the movie was a glorified bush bashing. Then I found out the truth on his graph. While it was neat and all, it didn't point out that thruout the graph co2 levels TRAILED the temperature hikes during the times when glaciers were melting. That little fact he never pointed out pretty much shoots his entire theory in the foot, and when I found it out, I could no longer take anything he says credibly, not that I took him too seriously when he kept spouting his propaganda the whole time anyway.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm

from the link:
==================

Even if every example of the current impact of CO2 driven temperature rise could be disproved, one stunning visual from the movie remains to haunt the viewer with doubts. Gore shows us two lines - one plotting temperature over the past six hundred and fifty thousand years, the other plotting atmospheric carbon dioxide. They appear to rise and fall with a synchronicity that would be the envy of many an aquatic acrobat. If temperature and carbon dioxide really have shown such a strong correlation over the centuries, isn't it still probable that CO2 drives temperature? This is possible, of course, provided that the CO2 rises coincide with or slightly predate the rises in temperature. Correlation is sensitive, but not specific - it can pick up a whole range of possible causes, but cannot prove causation. On the other hand, as we have all learned by now, if a sensitive test is negative, it can rule out a potential cause. Lack of correlation rules out proximate causation. Is CO2 inducing this global fever?

Probably not.

That is, not if you trust the ice core records that Gore speaks so highly of in his Oscar-winning Powerpoint presentation. The Antarctic melting during the third glacial termination (210-225 thousand years ago) show that the CO2 rise lagged behind the temperature increase by about 800 years. An article by Fischer in Science reported a lag of 400-1000 years during all three glacial interglacial transitions on record. A later analysis using argon - which has been shown to correlate with temperature as well as the standard oxygen isotopes and would be less prone to inaccuracies in timing - confirmed the previously reported findings. That kind of a lag is easy to miss in charts covering hundreds of millennia, but it is hard to dismiss as insignificant on a practical level. The Fischer article states that the generally observed correlation between CO2 and temperature rise and fall is "connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere". In other words, the ocean acts as an enormous organism that exhales carbon dioxide during warming periods of earth's history, and absorbs it during periods of cooling. Caillon et al report that "this confirms that CO2 is not the forcing [that is, the causative factor] that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation". (Caillon, N. et al, Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731; Fischer, H et al, Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714).
====================================

Now that you have hopefully read this is your narrow mind broadened up a bit, or is al gore still being sincere?

[PackFan#1]

I'll let it slide. I watched farenheight 911, was sickened by about 6 facts being wrong in the first 15 minutes, still watched it all though. See the problem with Moore, and people who run around calling consevatives "narrowminded" and "idiots" is they lose all credibility. Moore may have made about 5-6 good points in 911, he may have made more in sicko, but I'll never know because in order to hear his good points I gotta put up with being belittled and demeaned, and then sift thru the propagandist bullshit.

I actually watched inconveniant truth too. When I watched it I said he should have stopped after the graph...the last 2/3 of the movie was a glorified bush bashing. Then I found out the truth on his graph. While it was neat and all, it didn't point out that thruout the graph co2 levels TRAILED the temperature hikes during the times when glaciers were melting. That little fact he never pointed out pretty much shoots his entire theory in the foot, and when I found it out, I could no longer take anything he says credibly, not that I took him too seriously when he kept spouting his propaganda the whole time anyway.

Anytime a liberal expose a truth, conservatives seek to discredit it by calling it propaganda. Conservatives have always been in favor of obliterating truths. An ignorant society is easier to exploit than a well informed one.

What is propaganda? Fox News!

[texaspackerbacker]

Just viewed the PBS Frontline episode on this.

My perspective on health care has changed greatly since 1994 when Billary tried to pass it through Congress. My wife was diagnosed with MS. The treatments alone cost $1800-$2000 per month. I have seen far too many friends run to the point of bankruptcy because of drug costs and hospital bills.

I am prefacing this as saying I am on the whole conservative. But, we are at a point in our country that reform is needed on all fronts.

The approach we need will not happen overnight, but MUST be done:
1.) Tort reform (malpractice laws have to be more stringent, far too many large payouts have been given, plus the burden to the judicial system is enormous)
2.) True portability regardless of income status or medical condition.
3.) Provide health care to all citizens in its most basic form. If one wants to have a private room at a hospital or other elective add-ons, they can purchase a supplemental plan.
4.) Regulation to a certain degree is necessary regarding drug manufacturers. I have seen first hand the amount of money companies have thrown at doctor's just to prescribe their medication. My sister has also through her pharmacy. The drug companies are providing kickbacks to doctor's for prescribing certain drugs. Same goes for procedures. My crappy insurance only covered $400 for a $2000 MRI on my knee last month. Considering a Japanese hospital can only charge $100, something appears a bit wrong. I can deal with a happy medium here.

I do not want the government involved. But when we have the current free market system falling flat on its face, something needs to be done.

This is an EXCELLENT plan here by Digitaldean. I like it --from the conservative side; Ziggy likes it--representing the fairly reasonable portion of the left. I doubt that Obama or Hillary or other big time Dems would go for it, as they are out to socialize the whole shibang in a massive government takeover. However, this is something that would be good for people, and equally important, sellable to people.

[Scott Campbell]

Anytime a liberal expose a truth, conservatives seek to discredit it by calling it propaganda. Conservatives have always been in favor of obliterating truths. An ignorant society is easier to exploit than a well informed one.

What is propaganda? Fox News!

Hmmmmmm.


Hmmmmmm.


You wouldn't happen to be an "Extreme" Liberal - would you?

[bobblehead]

I'll let it slide. I watched farenheight 911, was sickened by about 6 facts being wrong in the first 15 minutes, still watched it all though. See the problem with Moore, and people who run around calling consevatives "narrowminded" and "idiots" is they lose all credibility. Moore may have made about 5-6 good points in 911, he may have made more in sicko, but I'll never know because in order to hear his good points I gotta put up with being belittled and demeaned, and then sift thru the propagandist bullshit.

I actually watched inconveniant truth too. When I watched it I said he should have stopped after the graph...the last 2/3 of the movie was a glorified bush bashing. Then I found out the truth on his graph. While it was neat and all, it didn't point out that thruout the graph co2 levels TRAILED the temperature hikes during the times when glaciers were melting. That little fact he never pointed out pretty much shoots his entire theory in the foot, and when I found it out, I could no longer take anything he says credibly, not that I took him too seriously when he kept spouting his propaganda the whole time anyway.

Anytime a liberal expose a truth, conservatives seek to discredit it by calling it propaganda. Conservatives have always been in favor of obliterating truths. An ignorant society is easier to exploit than a well informed one.

What is propaganda? Fox News!

Interesting, living proof of your own point...did you read the piece on global warming?? He didn't expose a truth, he TOLD A LIE. CO2 emmissions trailed global warming, not vice versa.

I just told you I watched 911, I watched an inconveniant truth, and you dismiss me as ignorant. Did you watch farenHYPE 911?? Do you ever watch fox news?

Again, I know it is easier to call me names and be irrational, but lets debate the facts. I don't know many people who would call Moore unbiased. What would you say if I told you that Rush Limbaugh is unbiased and makes great presentations?

I really wish I could drag liberals like you into an intellectual argument so you would have to confront facts instead of calling conservatives names and race baiting.

[bobblehead]

Just viewed the PBS Frontline episode on this.

My perspective on health care has changed greatly since 1994 when Billary tried to pass it through Congress. My wife was diagnosed with MS. The treatments alone cost $1800-$2000 per month. I have seen far too many friends run to the point of bankruptcy because of drug costs and hospital bills.

I am prefacing this as saying I am on the whole conservative. But, we are at a point in our country that reform is needed on all fronts.

The approach we need will not happen overnight, but MUST be done:
1.) Tort reform (malpractice laws have to be more stringent, far too many large payouts have been given, plus the burden to the judicial system is enormous)
2.) True portability regardless of income status or medical condition.
3.) Provide health care to all citizens in its most basic form. If one wants to have a private room at a hospital or other elective add-ons, they can purchase a supplemental plan.
4.) Regulation to a certain degree is necessary regarding drug manufacturers. I have seen first hand the amount of money companies have thrown at doctor's just to prescribe their medication. My sister has also through her pharmacy. The drug companies are providing kickbacks to doctor's for prescribing certain drugs. Same goes for procedures. My crappy insurance only covered $400 for a $2000 MRI on my knee last month. Considering a Japanese hospital can only charge $100, something appears a bit wrong. I can deal with a happy medium here.

I do not want the government involved. But when we have the current free market system falling flat on its face, something needs to be done.

This is an EXCELLENT plan here by Digitaldean. I like it --from the conservative side; Ziggy likes it--representing the fairly reasonable portion of the left. I doubt that Obama or Hillary or other big time Dems would go for it, as they are out to socialize the whole shibang in a massive government takeover. However, this is something that would be good for people, and equally important, sellable to people.

I agree, this is a very good post. I think the solutions I put on my "utopia" post would solve a lot of this. I think tort reform needs to be a lot different than capping verdicts, but reform is in order.

[bobblehead]

I guess pointing out that al gore is pretty much full of it is a thread killer.

[MJZiggy]

I thought it was cause we all agreed on something for a change. I think it blew everyone's mind...

[bobblehead]

I thought it was cause we all agreed on something for a change. I think it blew everyone's mind...

LOL, that probably is true too.

[PackFan#1]

Conservative don't want free universal health care because, in their narrow-minded, egoistic view of the world, they think it would pave the way for communism.

Guess what? France, Britain, Canada, among others, provide free universal care and they're not turning into unions of soviet social republics!

Conservatives are all about me, and not we. Hey, I am Bob Dole and I'm getting paid millions by drug and health insurance companies, so who gives a fuck about those who cannot afford health treatment? Conservatism should change its motto to this: finding pleasure in other people's pain; only in America!

I quote the scientist Peter Kropotkin (don't agree with some of his anarchist ideas): "In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle – has had the leading part."

[Scott Campbell]

Tank?

[bobblehead]

yea, I shoulda looked at the total number of posts and realized it, I never respond to that chain yanker, so whether it is him or not, I guess I'll stop responding to this one.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tank?

I think you've got something there, Scott.

I will respond to him, though, as he has shown more testicular fortitude in his posts--albeit thoroughly wrongheaded--than most of the rest of the gonadally challenged leftists.