Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 30 pages
This is why I’ve always been skeptical of self-described “political junkies.” Those most immersed in the daily thrust and parry of the game don’t always have the distance to understand why we engage in it.
Pretty well nails it.
We are promising patients insurance, but that doesn't guarantee access to care - and cutting the quality of the care at the same time.
More insured people trying to see doctors, but many doctors are leaving the system, an inability to appeal a government IPAB decision (unless you make contributions to a politically connected PAC)....what could go wrong?
It is weird how the priorities go in the US. Heath care being single payer is dangerous but guns for all is good.
If expectations of salaries change, then GPs would be able to see the same or fewer patients
Salary scales for high-end specialists will function differently.
"First, Congress should return to a five-day workweek and commit to “regular order.” Leadership should schedule votes on Fridays and Mondays to accommodate a more ambitious legislative agenda....
Second, joint caucuses should be scheduled at least once a month...
Third, end the Senate practice of “holds.” Members of both parties have abused this practice, which is now tantamount to a veto.....
Fourth, initiate weekly meetings at the White House and quarterly weekend meetings at Camp David. Regular engagement between the president and leaders of Congress is necessary..."
My solution - hospitals and the government should give scholarships and tax benefits for those that agree to become GP's.
I will always remember the moment when Dems switched their banners from health care reform, to health insurance reform - without comment or explanation, in the middle of the public push for a new law - as one of the great Orwellian political moments of my lifetime.
Half the doctors of the future wouldn't be good enough to get into medical school today? And doing this while pushing down doctors' compensation? Might not work that well.
Half the doctors of the future wouldn't be good enough to get into medical school today?
Take away the Republican obstructionism and we'd have a far better functioning ACA, immigration reform, appointments that got filled without gratuitous delay, and an end to the obsession with eviscerating the budget. But most of the ACA website problems would exist on their own, and the official unemployment figures if anything don't reflect the degree to which unemployment is a persistent cancer in today's economy.
She does have the last one at least partially right. Take away the Republican obstructionism and we'd have a far better functioning ACA, immigration reform, appointments that got filled without gratuitous delay, and an end to the obsession with eviscerating the budget. But most of the ACA website problems would exist on their own, and the official unemployment figures if anything don't reflect the degree to which unemployment is a persistent cancer in today's economy.
Canadian doctors are not civil servants, but in a very real way their salary is set by the system. Canadian doctors make a lot less than US doctors (and as a side bonus generally face higher tax rates), Bbut they still make very good money.
I have a good friend who completely rational in every way -- except when it comes to Mr. Obama. She insists that there's nothing wrong with the healthcare.gov website, that unemployment isn't really as high as the numbers indicate, and if there's anything wrong in DC at all, it's because of Republican "obstructionists". All of it. And she says all this with a straight face, with the fervor of a true believer.
It's not politics. It's religion.
When you cut doctor's medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, they will have to see more of these patients/hour to break even. Seeing more patients means less time/patient and perhaps an incomplete diagnosis - which can lead to worsening of missed conditions - lowered quality care.
In my case, if I lived outside the US (especially in the UK), revlimid (the drug that took me from high risk to the ability to deal with an autologous stem cell transplant) was not covered under NICE for over three months after I was diagnosed. Could velcade have worked? Maybe, but if it didn't I was going to be dead.
You know, mentioning Marx four times in the first three paragraphs, including the sub-headline, then at least twice more in the article including the conclusion, along with a picture flanking the pope in order to say "oh, not REALLY, but.." is enough passive-aggressiveness to make the article almost too irritating to read.
This happens with government any time a radical program is instituted
It's not "radical" in the way that the mouthbreathers are claiming, but it's "radical" in the sense that nothing like this has ever been attempted on a national level.
vaccines cause autism, or that the moon landings were faked.
unless you explicitly call out the nuance while using it so.
I love how you just throw that "radical" in there without thinking, Morty.
Pshaw. Everyone knows it's the other way around -- vaccines are faked, & the moon landings caused autism.
Or you're a teenage mutant ninja turtle.
Perfectly willing to clarify (although I think it's obvious from the context of the discussion) that I was not using "radical" in a substantive political philosophical sense, but in a government/bureaucratic structural/institutional sense. And then of course what's radical here in the USA may not be radical elsewhere
I'm confused by this civil exchange of thoughts and clarification of points.
Take this politeness to the computer game OT thread!
What would it take to make Americans take Francis' critique of capitalism seriously? Is it even possible legal?
What would it take to make Americans take Francis' critique of capitalism seriously? Is it even possible?
The continued (and inevitable) erosion of the average standard of living effectively insures it, though I have little to no hope the frustration with the oligarchs gets expressed constructively via the ballot box.
I'm interested in how this critique, this *radical* evisceration of the alter of deified capital, could possibly percolate within the US and become something more powerful than "something the Pope said that made Business Insider gasp."
Short of some kind of huge, dislocating war or natural disaster, I don't think it's possible.
without fail, the party out of power constantly harps on the fact that the unemployment rate isn't the 'real' rate because it doesn't include those who have just given up on finding a job, period. so they mewl about how bad life is under the other guy's rule.
but the MINUTE their guy gets into the Oval Office, both sides do backflips - now those in power forget that "shadow unemployment rate" ever existed, while the other guys suddenly rediscover this issue they had forgotten for years.
The people who sincerely listen to -- no, heed -- what the Pope says are serious and devout Catholics, and they tend to be quite conservative people. If conservative people in the US and worldwide were to take what the Pope has said (and, let's fervently hope, will continue to say) seriously, then that could have real and important political effect.
I guess what I want to know is if this same rhetoric of left-leaning critique of capitalism will gain more traction with the "alternative right" we've heard so much about, or if this too will be buried under the heading "class warfare by the takers against the Masters of the Universe."
As a born cynic and pessimist, that's my assumption as well. I suspect the American masses are too far away from actual poverty and suffering, buffered by rank consumerism enough to mollify the rank failure of their democracy, and too in thrall of "the prosperity gospel" and the self-righteous satisfaction of "deserving to be well off" to listen to a silly old pontiff.
Speaking again of cynicism, I think it's going to be very - almost shockingly - easy for a majority of human beings, Christian or not, to ignore the Pope's pleas for sanity in this particular arena.
Hasn't the Bible, particularly the New Testament, been saying pretty much all of this for quite a few centuries now?
What the Pope said is basically century old Catholic social thought. Rerum Novarum dealt with this over 100 years ago.
I'm hopeful that, if only 20% of the "Reagan Democrat" crowd, meaning working class Catholics, come back to Team Blue, it will make it virtually impossible for a Republican to be elected president
That only benefits the world if "Team Blue" actually moves to some sort of economic policy that takes the concerns of working class human beings seriously.
As it currently stands, "Team Blue" is only the lesser of two evils because rather than attempting to advance the causes of Mammon in the world vigorously it preaches a "Mammon is too powerful to be countered, even if we were interested in doing that rather than taking their campaign donations in droves."
Haven't you said repeatedly you're in favor of the dole? Are you slagging the Dems for keeping your own favored policy?
I can't see the Catholic Church as revitalizing itself so easily.
Are you aware, Good Face, of the number of people on welfare and assistance now compared to twenty years ago? Of who was president when those rolls were cut?
I don't think oligarchs -- and let's face it, we live in an oligarchy today -- make compromises because polite discussion causes people generally to believe in common fairness and justice. I think oligarchs make compromises because they're afraid. It doesn't have to be fear of physical violence, it might be because politicians fear the loss of office and perks. I'm hardly the first to say it, but Republican officeholders fear their base. Until that becomes true for Dems and the liberal base, improvements will be agonizingly slow.
Is there a single person here who doesn't view "the dole" as anything more than a necessary evil?
In July, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claim and said the federal government could regulate employers under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
“We find that the employer mandate is no monster; rather it is simply another example of Congress’s longstanding authority to regulate employee compensation offered and paid by employers in interstate commerce,” said the appeals court based in Richmond, Va.
Liberty University appealed again to the Supreme Court, arguing that the justices should rule directly on the constitutionality of the employer mandate. On Monday, the court turned down the appeal without comment.
RUSH: I was doing show prep last night, usual routine, and I ran across this -- I don't even know what it's called, the latest papal offering, statement from Pope Francis. Now, I'm not Catholic. Up until this, I have to tell you, I was admiring the man. I thought he was going a little overboard on the common-man touch, and I thought there might have been a little bit of PR involved there. But nevertheless I was willing to cut him some slack. I mean, if he wants to portray himself as still from the streets where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic. If he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican, okay, cool, fine. But this that I came across last night totally befuddled me. If it weren't for capitalism, I don't know where the Catholic Church would be.
Let me give you a hint, Rush. Mark 11:15-17
Rev. James David Manning, pastor of Atlah World Missionary Church who believes the president was born in Kenya, claims that Carey’s family has called for a paternity test to determine whether the woman’s 15-month-old daughter was fathered by the president.
While Carey’s family has indeed asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to look into the fatal shooting, the only source for the claim about the family’s request for a paternity test seems to be additional videos posted online by Manning.
He also links to a Change.org petition purportedly set up by Carey’s sister asking for more investigation, but that too fails to mention a paternity test.
Eric Sanders, an attorney for the Carey family, has said police violated their own policies by firing at a moving car after they said the woman refused to stop at a security checkpoint, turned around and tried to flee, knocking down a Secret Service agent and a bicycle rack.
But he stopped short of suggesting that authorities had deliberately targeted Carey or that she might have had a connection to Obama.
That only serves as proof of a conspiracy and cover-up, according to Manning.
“No one has come to the aid of this slaughtered woman, which means they are protecting something that they feel is far more important, and that’s the hardcore, incontrovertible evidence and that which is being protected is Barack Hussein Obama,” Manning said, adding: “Case closed.”
Manning, who has previously hosted a woman on his program who claimed that Obama had traded gay sex for cocaine as a teenager and bummed cigarettes without offering thanks, isn’t the only source for the “love child” theory.
A website called What Does It Mean? claims that Russian authorities have developed intelligence showing that Obama fathered Carey’s child during an emergency dentist visit May 18, 2011.
According to the theory, Obama had gone to New London, Connecticut, to address the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy but needed dental work after a portion of a pistachio nut shell became lodged in one of his molars.
The president met Carey, who worked as a dental assistant for the local dentist he saw, and struck up “an almost immediate friendship” with her.
She became pregnant following the affair, the website claims, but refused the president’s instructions to have an abortion due to her Christian beliefs.
The site claims that encrypted electronic communications intercepted by the National Security Administration show that an elite hit squad was dispatched to kill Carey.
This same squad also attacked the U.S. Navy Yard in September and in June killed American journalist Michael Hastings and detectives investigating his death, according to the conspiracy theory.
Just in case the theory wasn’t convoluted enough, the site also claims that Obama engaged in the extramarital affair because his wife, Michelle Obama, was in fact born a man.
A website called What Does It Mean? claims that Russian authorities have developed intelligence showing that Obama fathered Carey’s child during an emergency dentist visit May 18, 2011.
This may possibly be the greatest sentence I have ever read.
Obamacare Is Here To Stay
Winds were calm in the capital on Monday, except in the immediate vicinity of the White House, where gale-force exhalations were blowing out of the West Wing.
After the administration’s claim Sunday that star-crossed HealthCare.gov had been repaired with “private sector velocity,” and the site’s relatively smooth functioning on Monday, Obama administration officials moved with aerospace-sector velocity to celebrate meeting their self-imposed deadline.
“We feel confident about the site working now as it was intended,” Jennifer Palmieri, the White House communications director, told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on Monday morning, following the claim by Jeffrey Zients, who led the Web site turnaround, that “night and day” improvements had been made.
Press secretary Jay Carney announced that the site had weathered 375,000 visitors in the first 12 hours of Monday. He called it “significantly improved” and said it was functioning “effectively for the vast majority of users.” Carney spoke of a “vast improvement” and said the White House had reached its goal that “the vast majority of users are able to access the site and have it function effectively.”....
Conveniently, figures leaked Monday indicated that 100,000 people signed up for insurance on HealthCare.gov in November, quadruple October’s dismal result. Democratic lawmakers came out of hiding and spoke of the improvements with a spirit that had eluded them in the weeks since the Web site crashed on launch.
But the real gauge of HealthCare.gov’s improvement was Republicans’ response — or lack thereof. When the House returned from Thanksgiving recess on Monday afternoon, the GOP speakers on the floor essentially ignored the Web site, instead returning to their earlier denunciations of Obamacare overall and President Obama in general.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.) yammered on about the employer mandate. Rep. Ted Poe (Tex.) likened the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran to the 1938 Munich pact. Rep. Michael Burgess (Tex.) complained about the health-care exchanges. And Rep. Joe Wilson (S.C.) criticized Obama’s job-creation record. The issue that had been the Republicans’ rallying cry for the previous eight weeks suddenly vanished.
Carney was right not to claim victory. The rollout of Obamacare this fall, particularly the president’s broken promise that people who like their health plans would be able to keep them, have damaged Obama’s credibility, probably permanently. Many people — including young voters who disproportionately supported Obama — have lost their catastrophic-coverage plans and now must pay significantly more to get new, bigger plans. And it’s still not certain that the health-care exchanges at the heart of the law will be viable.
But fixing the Web site after its embarrassing launch means that opponents of the Affordable Care Act have lost what may have been their last chance to do away with the law. And supporters can rule out the worst-case scenario: Obamacare isn’t going away. Even some conservatives have begun to tiptoe away from an opposition to the law that looked much like sabotage.
Last week, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a Senate candidate, told a local radio station, Z Politics, that “a lot of conservatives say, ‘Nah, let’s just step back and let this thing fall to pieces on its own.’ But I don’t think that’s always the responsible thing to do. .?.?. I think we need to be looking for things that improve health-care overall for all of us. And if there is something in Obamacare, we need to know about it.”
Political conventional wisdom has it that in a purple state, such as Virginia, support for gun-safety legislation is best played down. As manager of Mark Herring’s campaign for attorney general, I got a lot of advice. One of the things I heard most frequently was that we should soft-pedal his strong record and advocacy for sensible gun legislation. It would hurt us outside of Northern Virginia and wasn’t a voting issue within the Beltway, I was told.
Like much conventional wisdom, this was wrong — and we not only ignored this advice but did the opposite. There were stark differences between Herring and his Republican opponent, Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), on gun safety. Obenshain opposed comprehensive background checks and opposed closing the gun-show loophole. He opposed former governor Douglas Wilder’s landmark “one-gun-a-month” legislation. Obenshain also made a habit of voting for such irresponsible proposals as allowing guns in bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.
In short, Obenshain has opposed every constructive proposal to help reduce gun violence.
We knew this would open an opportunity for us to draw an effective contrast; public polling showed widespread support for sensible gun-safety laws, as did our own polling. Hence, more than a year out from Election Day, dealing with gun violence was a fundamental messaging point for Herring. And when the primary was over, and Herring and Obenshain met in their first debate, he drew a sharp contrast with his opponent on guns. We would prosecute that case throughout the fall campaign.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 6.5085 seconds, 66 querie(s) executed