samran Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) At the end of the day Ulysses - stripping away the touchy feely stuff - universal health care is good econmics. I do not claim to be an economist or anywhere close to it, but I do know that there are respected economists that disagree with you and I do find it difficult to believe that we can afford to switch to it when we are well on our way to going broke. I would be all for it, if the economy was thriving, but it is not. Unfortunately what is needed is an athema to the average American's way of thinking on this particular issue. At the end of the day a good system means you spend a smaller % of GDP on health expenditures. You can't afford not to do it. If you don't start now, the cost later down the track is even higher. You already have really good government health care - in the military, for Medicare recipients and I think thanks to Bush, for kids. But you really need everyone in the system to lower the risk pool, and lower the premiums per head so to speak. And (unfortunately in the US context) you need government to cap medical costs in the same way they regulate other monopoly utilities like electricity. But getting government doing this will have the Doctors union (ie the AMA) and their political representatives on both sides of politics having a massive fit. Edited October 31, 2012 by samran 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 #1494 Hmmmm, wasn't it you that started this sidetrack, LOL. Naughty me. I'm sure a mod will be along shortly to chastise me. We;ve done well to stay on topic this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I still think Christie has gone rogue and can't be controlled anymore. He may win re-election in N.J., but the only Presidential administration he'll be sitting in will be Hilary Clinton's. You might be surprised. The big middle of America loves the straight talk of Christie. Romney is going to lose and after that the republican party will go through a lot of soul searching (generously assuming they might have a soul) and someone like Christie might be just what the spin doctor ordered. Yes I think I agree with you. He's the first straight talking Republican who shows he's not afraid to reach across the aisle in a long time. And, his actions portend where he thinks the wind is already blowing, and it's not from Boston.... Does this mean that Obama supporters will stop calling Christie names based on his weight? I think Christie's praise shows the country what a principled man he is. As he said yesterday, he doesn't care one bit about presidential politics now, his state has been devastated. Christie's trust level with the American people must be shooting through the roof. His praise of Obama shows he can be trusted, including on the other things he has said about Obama as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 On Fox vs. MSNBC, yes both are clearly biased, but Fox takes the bias to an almost unbelievable extreme that MSNBC does not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Hurricane Sandy may serve to remind voters that Romney and his sidekick Ryan would both slash FEMA funding and disaster relief. Romney is not alone on reducing the role of FEMA. Obama's proposed cuts to FEMA for the upcoming budget sequester included the following : Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program - $8 million State and Local Emergency Programs (non-defense) - $183 million State and Local Emergency Programs (defense) - $5 million United States Fire Administration and Training - $4 million Salaries and Expenses (non-defense) - $75 million Salaries and Expenses (defense) - $7 million Disaster Relief - $580 million Emergency Food and Shelter - $10 million Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program - $3 million National Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund - $3 million http://www.whitehous...s/stareport.pdf pages 94-96 Cute. You do realize that the President does not control spending. The House of Representatives has control over spending Bills and the House is controlled by the GOP. FEMA is still protected from new funding cuts that other agencies now face. Under an agreement from last year’s debt-ceiling deal, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund is exempt from the Budget Control Act’s spending caps. And FEMA is also able to carry over unspent money from one year to the next, which boosted its disaster relief coffers from $7.1 billion to $7.8 billion this year. - Politico Here's a fact check: Thge proposed Obama administration proposed a 3% budget curtailment for 2013 in order to satisfy House demands for a budget reduction. The Tyan budget plan would see an immediate 23% cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Oh great, the 'blame the media' group is out again. None are so blind as those who will not see. im a Brit so dont really care who wins, but if we are talking lies here , i have never heard such a bias news channel as fox , which has pushed me away from that romney guy , who seems to be a clone of GWB IMHO, ...and i feel that any national news channel that was so obviously bias would be banned in the UK. REally? With the election and superstorm dominating the news, I must have missed where the BBC was banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Ryan is for radical cuts and fixed amount Spartan BLOCK GRANTS to the states for things like Medicare and FEMA. Romney picked Ryan because he likes Ryan's severe (and irrational because the math doesn't work) conservative budget ideas. That's another reason Romney is literally running from reporters now who want to ask him about his views on FEMA and nothing else, and Ryan is being hidden away in non-critical states. The biggest decision Romney has made to date as the (scarily) potential next president is his pick of VP. He picked Ryan. An inconvenient political liability now. Romney made a big mistake picking Ryan, another reason he will lose. Ryan's chances of ever being president is probably also going to be damaged by this adventure. Edited October 31, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 On Fox vs. MSNBC, yes both are clearly biased, but Fox takes the bias to an almost unbelievable extreme that MSNBC does not. You mean like unbelievable extremes of bias like when Chris Matthews of MSNBC said that Obama gave him chills running up and down his leg and that it was his duty to get Obama elected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) On Fox vs. MSNBC, yes both are clearly biased, but Fox takes the bias to an almost unbelievable extreme that MSNBC does not. You mean like unbelievable extremes of bias like when Chris Matthews of MSNBC said that Obama gave him chills running up and down his leg and that it was his duty to get Obama elected? This is pointless doing a point by point. I watch both widely and the overall impression there is no comparison. Fox is by far much more extreme, much more constantly and consistently. Anyway, it's hard to be scientific about such things, so let's just say it's a matter of subjective opinion and that is my opinion. Edited October 31, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 And here is the topic about the storm: http://www.thaivisa....in-eastern-u-s/ Events around the storm which may affect the election are on-topic, but let's make sure they do not overshadow the discussion. For example, voter turnout would be relevant, but global warming probably not. Perhaps, but Governor Cuomo says it is. He has raised the issue several times making the point that this is a subject that has to be discussed and that has not been taken into consideration by the campaigns. And now the role of the barrier islands has come into play. Under the Ryan budget proposals, funding for projects such as the support of the NJ barrier islands would be cut or would disappear. These barrier islands helped to spare NJ from more severe damage than was sustained. This just might explain why NJ governor Christie has had ants in his pants. Governor Cuomo also made the comment , that it now seems that they have a 100 year flood event every 2 years. I'm a pain aint I? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Fox is by far much more extreme, much more constantly and consistently. Nonsense. MSNBC is much more biased than Fox News. Fox News has lots of programming that is not biased at all including 8 hours of hard news during the daytime. MSNBC is pretty much non-stop propoganda. Edited October 31, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Does this mean that Obama supporters will stop calling Christie names based on his weight? I think Christie's praise shows the country what a principled man he is. As he said yesterday, he doesn't care one bit about presidential politics now, his state has been devastated. Christie's trust level with the American people must be shooting through the roof. His praise of Obama shows he can be trusted, including on the other things he has said about Obama as well. Yes, for sure he will be taken more serious from now on, and I also hope the weight jokes cease. I agree with everything in your post, except about the politics. If anything, he's shown me how smart and astute he is to throw Romney under the bus (well, push him down in the aisle), in order to further his own future. And, yes, unlike Romney, he is a guy who doesn't change his tune every 5 minutes and stands for something. Politics is a nasty business, and the guy has balls. He is a serious contender for 2016 if the far right of the party doesn't drive him out over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) He could lose a few lot for his own health and his image but I think he wouldn't be helped politically to be actually fit. However, I think the public would be OK with a fat president (not the first) and the majority of Americans can certainly relate to him in that way! I think at his current weight or more people would be focused a lot more on his VP pick than usual. This may sound funny but Obama is rather an ectomorph and I think this adds to the public impression that he is a bit too cool and aloof. Obama is a mid-range ectomorphic mesomorph. This means that he is mainly ectomorphic tending toward mesomorphy putting him moderately close to the middle of the somatotype triangle. http://www.mysomatot...00#Barack Obama Edited October 31, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I see a lot of misplaced concerns, Homosexuals worry about their concerns and professorial welfare clients worry about losing their benefits. None of the liberals seem to worry about the fact that my grandchildren will have to pay for the excesses of the government spending money that they don't have. Surely people, even liberals, can see that the economy cannot continue to spend money that simply isn't there. I too would like to have Obama's government paid health care. The problem is that this will cost too many jobs. Employers will refuse to hire more employees because employers will have to pay for this health care. The government already spends huge amounts of money for health care for illegals and people who can't pay for their own health care. Why punish employers? Health care is insanely expensive partly because of scum bag lawyers who sue doctors. Unfortunately we choose to elect these leaches. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baloo22 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Oh great, the 'blame the media' group is out again. None are so blind as those who will not see. im a Brit so dont really care who wins, but if we are talking lies here , i have never heard such a bias news channel as fox , which has pushed me away from that romney guy , who seems to be a clone of GWB IMHO, ...and i feel that any national news channel that was so obviously bias would be banned in the UK. Then I guess you would be banning the BBC (Bent Broadcasting Corporation)! A few months ago I was watching them do a segment on Mitt Romney. The BBC mouthpiece spewed her crap for a while and then they went for some "unbiased" commentary from an American source; Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. Of course, BBC neglected to inform their viewers that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is the chairperson of the Democrat National Committee! And I'm positive that the editors at BBC knew exactly who Debbie Wasserman Shultz was and that the failure to inform viewers was deliberate. BBC is as biased and crooked as any American media, if not more! They just do it with a different accent! Next BBC will do a segment on Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and for more "unbiased" commentary, they will turn to Mr. Tony Abbott! Then they will show some photos of slain Egyptian Iraqi Syrian bodies (as evidence of war crimes), aw heck; who cares where the photo came from, it suits our purpose, so put it up! We're BBC! And we're counting on you to be stupid enough to believe us! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 .Of course, BBC neglected to inform their viewers that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is the chairperson of the Democrat National Committee! Debbie Wasserman Shultz certainly does not have a close relationship with the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Fox is by far much more extreme, much more constantly and consistently. Nonsense. MSNBC is much more biased than Fox News. Fox News has lots of programming that is not biased at all including 8 hours of hard news during the daytime. MSNBC is pretty much non-stop propoganda. I just had six days off thanks to the muslims throwing rocks at, er, other rocks and stuff, so I got to give both a good grilling, as I didn't mind the holiday but I didn't fancy making the trip. Chris Matthews is like O'Reilly, a loudmouthed bore. I don't know if Fox have a lesbian on speed like Rachel Maddow, I doubt it, they aren't hot on the gay thing, are they? They both appear to have a "team" for breakfast that interrupt news with jibes. For actual uninterrupted news I'd say MSNBC gets it. For the level of faux hysteria that's used, Fox wins by a country mile. Edited October 31, 2012 by Chicog 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Faux hysteria on Fox. You nailed it. Thank you. Edited October 31, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osiboy Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Fox is by far much more extreme, much more constantly and consistently. Nonsense. MSNBC is much more biased than Fox News. Fox News has lots of programming that is not biased at all including 8 hours of hard news during the daytime. MSNBC is pretty much non-stop propoganda. im starting to get ''into this'' now ,.......i have never heard of msnbc, but if they are left of the reps its prob a good thing ,...in my eyes anyways, #koheesti; quoted some guy named mathews , never heard of him either ,or the quote,...... nonetheless , i would like to say , if anyone or party opposes a healthcare system that is free for all on the point of delivery , how can that be a bad thing in ANY country, the NHS is NOT free, tax pays for it, ... do the reps think a rich man is more worthy than a poor man ? is a truck drivers lfe worthless or just not as worthy as say ...a BANKER ? , maybe all the supporters of the present system admire the thai system where some tourists are left to die if no proof of insurance is proven , ....i think the US should be leading the world concerning this , but to be honest i think the US days of leading by example have long gone,...mostly due to selfish greed among the elitists . Edited October 31, 2012 by osiboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Oh great, the 'blame the media' group is out again. None are so blind as those who will not see. im a Brit so dont really care who wins, but if we are talking lies here , i have never heard such a bias news channel as fox , which has pushed me away from that romney guy , who seems to be a clone of GWB IMHO, ...and i feel that any national news channel that was so obviously bias would be banned in the UK. Then I guess you would be banning the BBC (Bent Broadcasting Corporation)! A few months ago I was watching them do a segment on Mitt Romney. The BBC mouthpiece spewed her crap for a while and then they went for some "unbiased" commentary from an American source; Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. Of course, BBC neglected to inform their viewers that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is the chairperson of the Democrat National Committee! And I'm positive that the editors at BBC knew exactly who Debbie Wasserman Shultz was and that the failure to inform viewers was deliberate. BBC is as biased and crooked as any American media, if not more! They just do it with a different accent! Next BBC will do a segment on Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and for more "unbiased" commentary, they will turn to Mr. Tony Abbott! Then they will show some photos of slain Egyptian Iraqi Syrian bodies (as evidence of war crimes), aw heck; who cares where the photo came from, it suits our purpose, so put it up! We're BBC! And we're counting on you to be stupid enough to believe us! Funnily enough, Sky do the same thing, only they call them an "Election expert" or something. It's amazing what news organisations will do when they have an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) I too would like to have Obama's government paid health care. The problem is that this will cost too many jobs. Employers will refuse to hire more employees because employers will have to pay for this health care. I'm always concerned when I read statements like this. Not very well thought through. I'd like for you to explain the mechanics of how all this happens. Not high level statements - a well thought out step by step on how lowering the average risk profile of the entire US patient pool somehow raises premiums. Also by definition - you can't have the government paying for insurance if the employer is paying for it Edited October 31, 2012 by samran 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 .Of course, BBC neglected to inform their viewers that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is the chairperson of the Democrat National Committee! Debbie Wasserman Shultz certainly does not have a close relationship with the truth. Perhaps, but I bet she counts her lucky stars she doesn't have a name like Reince Priebus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johpa Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Maybe the days of that kind of liberalism are over, for good, but when these horrible systematic injustices still exist, I don't think they SHOULD be over. The decline of the modern concept of liberalism in the US is the core concept of Chris Hedges' book The Death of the Liberal Class. Hedges has become one of the leading, and one of the last, intellectual writers regarding this issue which makes mockery of the concept that somehow Obama is some sort of liberal. What has really happened is that the "left" and the Democratic party in the US have moved to the center and the GOP has moved to the extreme right. As Hedges notes in his book, the only Marxist you are likely to meet on a US university campus would be in the English Department. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 .... Romney picked Ryan because he likes Ryan's severe (and irrational because the math doesn't work) conservative budget ideas. ... I thought he picked Ryan because he mistook him for Eddie Munster. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osiboy Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Oh great, the 'blame the media' group is out again. None are so blind as those who will not see. im a Brit so dont really care who wins, but if we are talking lies here , i have never heard such a bias news channel as fox , which has pushed me away from that romney guy , who seems to be a clone of GWB to IMHO, ...and i feel that any national news channel that was so obviously bias would be banned in the UK. So you should tune in to MSNBC then! Whether you are a Brit or not is irrelevant, as we will all suffer if the US goes down again. as im very ignorant concerning US politics,...what do you mean by ''goes down again'' ?.......there is world recession happening , especially in the west , and as far as i can remember it started way before obama got power .......so many things i dont understand about economics too , how about - why it suits the thais to have a strong currency but not the chinese ??........cos im flumoxed ! no idea what so ever . Edited October 31, 2012 by osiboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I too would like to have Obama's government paid health care. The problem is that this will cost too many jobs. Employers will refuse to hire more employees because employers will have to pay for this health care. I'm always concerned when I read statements like this. Not very well thought through. I'd like for you to explain the mechanics of how all this happens. Not high level statements - a well thought out step by step on how lowering the average risk profile of the entire US patient pool somehow raises premiums. Also by definition - you can't have the government paying for insurance if the employer is paying for it The bottom line is that employers will be expected to pay a big chunk of the premium. The government already already pays more for health care than most other governments pay for socialized health care. If I were an employer, I would have a huge problem paying for my employees health care insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Well, you know what they say, when the USA gets a cold, the world gets pneumonia. However that is changing now somewhat as there are multiple centers of influence. Read Fareed Zakaria about that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osiboy Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Maybe the days of that kind of liberalism are over, for good, but when these horrible systematic injustices still exist, I don't think they SHOULD be over. The decline of the modern concept of liberalism in the US is the core concept of Chris Hedges' book The Death of the Liberal Class. Hedges has become one of the leading, and one of the last, intellectual writers regarding this issue which makes mockery of the concept that somehow Obama is some sort of liberal. What has really happened is that the "left" and the Democratic party in the US have moved to the center and the GOP has moved to the extreme right. As Hedges notes in his book, the only Marxist you are likely to meet on a US university campus would be in the English Department. i like this statement , the UK often follows/copy US ideas politicaly ,and as a concequence both countrys now have parties claiming to be the most "center" and there seems to be less and less of any party standing up to be counted for what they USED to stand for......its all about votes and numbers ! Edited October 31, 2012 by osiboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) People curious about MSNBC, you can stream it here: http://www.zahipedia...snbc-live-news/ I have been using this link http://blog.livenews...rockinroosters/ but it is down now. When it works (usually), its better than zahi. Edited October 31, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) I too would like to have Obama's government paid health care. The problem is that this will cost too many jobs. Employers will refuse to hire more employees because employers will have to pay for this health care. I'm always concerned when I read statements like this. Not very well thought through. I'd like for you to explain the mechanics of how all this happens. Not high level statements - a well thought out step by step on how lowering the average risk profile of the entire US patient pool somehow raises premiums. Also by definition - you can't have the government paying for insurance if the employer is paying for it The bottom line is that employers will be expected to pay a big chunk of the premium. The government already already pays more for health care than most other governments pay for socialized health care. If I were an employer, I would have a huge problem paying for my employees health care insurance. no "bottom line" cop outs please. How did you get to the bottom line? Edited October 31, 2012 by samran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts