Is anything his fault?

[icenine]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I think in Mrs. Soptics case, she was dead regardless of any medical intervention. Placing the blame on Romney is ludicrous and represents just more of Obama's aggressive and immoral smear tactics that define his campaigns back to the Illinois state-house.

Like I said before, people have thrown all sorts of lies at the President, so now the right is upset that he fights back using the same tactics. I do not care what he does as long as the Tea Party is kept out of the White House. How was your day in big government San Diego?

[icenine]

I do know the particulars of her case......however catching cancer early is the key and going to the doctor for preventative check ups can save your life. My brother died of prostrate cancer less than a year after he found that he had it...it was already outside of the prostrate and in his body. Being a contractor for KBR in Iraq and spending alot of time there he missed regular check ups. If a doctor had been able to find it out early enough from regular exams he may still be alive today. I would not take such a cavalier view towards check-ups Bhunter.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by mezz

Using big letters isn't going to make you right. I don't know when you lived in Canada, but things may have changed since the 1950's up there.

I've got some current connections up there and live there for a good portion of each year. My spouse is a medical practioner in a Canadian city (not the same one you lived in) and a close friend's wife is a lawyer for the government run health corporation in the same city. Stuff happens pretty much daily in the Canadian medical system that would end up the substance of malpractice lawsuits stateside... and people die that probably shouldn't all of the time.

All I know is that if I get seriously ill while in Canada (and I feel at the time that I'd like to live a little longer) then I'm probably going to insist on being flown down to the US (like pretty much anyone up there who can afford to do so does). I've just been lucky with my health so far and am grateful for it.

Allright small letters then but it is still bull shit. I have family in just about every province because there are only about 45 families there with my surname. Those who are not direct family are cousins descended from a 3X Great Uncle, got a big farm in North Ontario, so I pretty well know what is going on in the health care scene. My second cousin was Chief Justice of the Alberta Supreme Court until he retired and another (who oddly enough has exactly the same names, christian and surname) is a crop scientist in Saskatchewan and my older sister lives in BC. Nieces and nephews in Ontario and Quebec. Sis is set for a pacemaker on the 24th - free.

However you just keep on with your manure spreader and speculation and complete lack of factual evidence. And yes, if you happen to get ill while up there do fly back here, no good reason why the Canadian taxpayer should look after you. Funny thing is that a few years back Florence said "If I ever need to be hospitalized take me up to Canada" - she has been in one down here and was not a happy camper.

If the system there is so bad why does your spouse practice there? As to the lawyer friend the only government run health corporation is the SinglePayer insurance corp, all else is either private or city/province owned hospitals. Doctors are all private. Canadian law is at least as stringent as here if not moreso, any malpractice would bring rather swift retribution. I don't recall hearing of any cases where the patient awaiting an amputation had to take a sharpie and write "This one" on the bad limb and "Not this one" on the good limb as happened in Florida.

As to anyone flying down here for care that would be limited to millionaires given the exhorbitant rates charged here. The SinglePayer plan does fly people down in instances where the condition is so rare in Canada that it simply does not pay to tie up a bed for the treatment. That happens because Canadians are so much healthier, look up the stats sometime.

I had recent experience of our local hospital and was not impressed, saying it is inefficient is being kind. That was all the running about I had to do when I tore a meniscus. It would all have been done at one hospital in Canada. Apart from things wearing out I take no prescription medications.

[icenine]

[QUOTE=mezz;116138 I've just been lucky with my health so far and am grateful for it.[/QUOTE]


Do you have health insurance Mezz? I am curious forgive me for being nosy...but your lucky comment makes me wonder. You say you were born in the sixties so you must be at an age when you will need to see a doctor for routine exams. Even if you pay a monthly premium for insurance, you must have some respect for the Republican concept of individual responsibilty, as passed by both Romney and later on Obama in the form of the mandate.
If it works to plan your premiums may come down. Anyway how can you hate Obama so much if passed a plan originated by Romney, your boy?

[mezz]

Originally Posted by icenine

Anyway how can you hate Obama so much if passed a plan originated by Romney, your boy?

There are almost infinite reasons not to like Obama... and for starters I usually don't like people I don't trust.

They'd have to throw someone pretty bad against Obama for me to not vote against him in 2012. I can't even think of any liberals that could sway me... maybe Al Gore. He's just as big of a liar as Obama, Obama's just more slippery. Anyway Romney/Ryan is a ticket which is a good match to counter the perfect storm that Obama has brought upon the economic fortunes of this country. If people fail to see that, they will unfortunately for the rest of us who do, insure the country gets what it deserves.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by CarlV

On KCBS I heard this pizza place guy whining that he was going to have to raise his pizza prices 8 cents due to ACA.
If that is all it is, I don't know any real people that would complain at 8 cents for the help's health care plan, certainly not me.


Carl

That's because you're not a Republican.

If you were, eight cents would be the straw that broke the camels back, your last dime minus two cents....the Anihilation of America and everything she stands for. You would be loading up on thousands of dollars worth of guns-n-ammo, screaming "OBAMA HATES PIZZA!!!!" You would be renting a bus to tote all of your friends all the way across the country at great expense to protest the loss of that eight cents with a bunch of teabags glued to your head and a fife sticking out your ass tooting "It's a Grand ol' Flag" in 3/4 time.

In short, it's YOUR eight cents and "No Welfare Queen is going to take it away from me!!!" and you don't care how big an ass you have to make of yourself to keep it.

Dave

[beej]

Originally Posted by mezz

There are almost infinite reasons not to like Obama... and for starters I usually don't like people I don't trust.

They'd have to throw someone pretty bad against Obama for me to not vote against him in 2012. I can't even think of any liberals that could sway me... maybe Al Gore. He's just as big of a liar as Obama, Obama's just more slippery. Anyway Romney/Ryan is a ticket which is a good match to counter the perfect storm that Obama has brought upon the economic fortunes of this country. If people fail to see that, they will unfortunately for the rest of us who do, insure the country gets what it deserves.

What specifically has been the perfect storm. . . upon the economic fortunes? Seriously, what were the policies that were so catastrophic?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mezz

There are almost infinite reasons not to like Obama... and for starters I usually don't like people I don't trust.

They'd have to throw someone pretty bad against Obama for me to not vote against him in 2012. I can't even think of any liberals that could sway me... maybe Al Gore. He's just as big of a liar as Obama, Obama's just more slippery. Anyway Romney/Ryan is a ticket which is a good match to counter the perfect storm that Obama has brought upon the economic fortunes of this country. If people fail to see that, they will unfortunately for the rest of us who do, insure the country gets what it deserves.

Originally Posted by beej

What specifically has been the perfect storm. . . upon the economic fortunes? Seriously, what were the policies that were so catastrophic?

Really. I would like to know as well.

You know what I don't like, Mezz?

People who try so adamantly to disown the disasters THEY played a large part in creating and pin it on the next guy, before he even has a chance to take office.

If you don't like people who spread lies, how in the hell can you stand the Republican Party?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mezz

There are almost infinite reasons not to like Obama... and for starters I usually don't like people I don't trust.

Why don't you trust him? Be specific.

They'd have to throw someone pretty bad against Obama for me to not vote against him in 2012. I can't even think of any liberals that could sway me... maybe Al Gore. He's just as big of a liar as Obama, Obama's just more slippery.

You do realize that this is nearly incoherent, don't you?

Anyway Romney/Ryan is a ticket which is a good match to counter the perfect storm that Obama has brought upon the economic fortunes of this country. If people fail to see that, they will unfortunately for the rest of us who do, insure the country gets what it deserves.

So, it's Obama's fault that he came into office with the economy losing 700,000 jobs per month and we're now adding jobs?

So, it's Obama's fault that the US automobile industry was on the verge of collapse in January 2009 and now they're getting stronger and stronger?

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, it's Obama's fault that he came into office with the economy losing 700,000 jobs per month and we're now adding jobs?

So, it's Obama's fault that the US automobile industry was on the verge of collapse in January 2009 and now they're getting stronger and stronger?

John

So now we hear a couple of the themes, as repeated by John who has demonstrated an affinity for passing along DNC talking points, that will be spewed by the Dems between now and November. Let's deal with at least one of them here: the auto "bailout".

First, one must remember that the "crisis" facing the auto industry was not necessarily one of their own making, was not related to some dramatic failure of the company's operations. In fact, Ford Motor company managed to dodge the "crisis" almost entirely. The crisis was lack of credit in the marketplace.

Access to liquidity in the credit marketplace was severely constrained in going into the second half of 2008. The lack of liquidity was the result of almost $500 Billion in write-offs that the financial industry was taking due to failures in the residential mortgage industry. Central to this crisis was the Federal government under Clinton, and enforced by Reno, threatening lenders who didn't ignore their own underwriting requirements and approve mortgages for those who couldn't afford them. Later, regulators under the watch of Congress failed to see what was happening in the market and exercise their regulatory authority.

Although the campaign rhetoric about Obama saving the auto industry may be effective with some of members here, anyone familiar with more than just the headlines of the 2009 auto bailout would know that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, for several reasons:

The choice in 2008-2009 was not bankruptcy versus no bankruptcy; instead, the choice was between precedent-driven bankruptcy and White House-driven "pre-packaged" bankruptcy. The rule-of-law versus rule-of-czar.

The taxpayer bailout was not applied to the “American auto industry”—instead, it was applied only to the two failed companies, GM and Chrysler, bypassing companies that had been sufficiently prepared for the downturn, including Ford, Honda of America, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and others.

Orderly, rule-of-law bankruptcy might have led to continuing operations under restructuring for GM or Chrysler, in which case many auto-making jobs would have remained in Michigan. Alternatively, orderly bankruptcy might have led to a shutdown of GM or Chrysler and an open auction of assets—probably to surviving companies—in which case car buyers would have shifted to surviving companies’ products and auto-making jobs would have migrated to those same survivors.

The notion that the White House should intervene with a specially designed bankruptcy process, thereby sidestepping rule-of-law bankruptcy, originated in the Bush White House in 2008, not in the Obama White House in 2009. A more honest name for the program would therefore be the “Bush-Obama Bankruptcy/Bailout” for Detroit’s two failed auto companies.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...te-house_N.htm

Chrysler is no longer a company with majority US ownership. As part of the rule-of-czar bankruptcy process, Fiat was encouraged - some might suggest begged - to purchase Chrysler. Remember also that GM's Hummer division is now also under Chinese ownership. Ownership of these two companies was, therefore, outsourced.

Ironically, top-down economics was the de facto remedy applied to “save” GM and Chrysler—but in this case “top-down” was the government-knows-best notion that political wisdom, trickling down to displace a century of evolved bankruptcy case law, was supposedly a superior alternative for the two failed companies. Top-down economics, the politicians’ version of “intelligent design,” directly rewarded GM and Chrysler with special-interest life support—instead of indirectly rewarding their surviving competitors with new customers and the necessary additional workers. As a result, this resident of Detroit can confirm that the culture of GM - which led the company to its most recent financial and competitive demise still firmly entrenched in the company's DNA. This is not a good thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...rs-ceo-speech/