Poll: Healthcare Insurance

[Rev BS]

http://www.upworthy.com/a-senator-tr...o-well-for-him

A smirky (I know it all) Senator is taken down by a well respected Canadian doctor. The exchange is somewhat of a replay in the AP forums.

[Rev BS]

Kind of tee me off, not from the dog bite but that I had to allocate funds from my Massage Fund to my Emergency Fund. The initial visit to the Emergency Room was a total $115. The breakdown, $45, Rabies & Tetanus vaccine, $35 in pain medication & antibiotics (stardard practice, should have rejected them), and $35 for other costs. Subsequently there are 3 booster shots for rabies & 2 more for tetanus. An additional $125 roughly, so that means a grand total of $240. Meaning I am out of about 3 trips to my favorite massage joint where you can get severe pampering (bath like your mother use to give you, scrub & shampoo) bj in the tub, pedicure/manicure, massage, & sex. Or in reverse order, up to you. So sick to my stomach.

Then I google for similar rabies outcome in the US, I am getting $3000, $6000, $12000, $1800, that's what different people had to pay under different circumstances. I can't give you all the accumulated information right now because I have to go walk the damn dog right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/up...t&emc=rss&_r=0

"What really differentiates the US from other countries is the high price we have long paid for medical care, not big differences in how doctors are treating their patients. ".

"Just this week, the CBC reduced its long term forecasts for spending in the Medicare program, one of several recent reductions, that means the program's solvency is looking safer than it has in years. ".

[Esten]

Ben Carson is an interesting guy, but it doesn't take long to realize he is a religious ideologue who allows religion to guide his political views. He supports a flat tax because of biblical statements that everyone should "tithe" and if we question it, we are presuming we know better than God. That kind of rigidity doesn't lend itself to solving many of today's problems. He assumes what he sees as basic truths can be extrapolated into how a country and society should work, but the world is diverse and complex, and his solutions are too narrow and simplistic. He seems oblivious to how big business and the top 1% now control and receive so much of the country's economic output. Carson's views would protect millionaires and billionaires, increase economic inequality, and promote family values over individual freedom. Not surprisingly, the (Fox News affiliated) Wall Street Journal has published articles like "Ben Carson for President". He'd be a disaster, but fortunately that's not going to happen.

[SteveC]

Did you watch the video? No where in this video is gay marriage even mentioned. Most people would say that promoting Judeo-Christian faith and strong families is very rational.

Sorry, forgot to include the first of the two videos which go together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byMkr8998xo

I agree that strong families can be a good thing, I just have a wider concept of what a family is than Carson. And I believe in freedom of religion too, any religion, or no religion. Just sad to see too many of those claiming to be christians spend too much time hating other people, which I doubt is the true christian message.

[Dccpa]

Someone just sent me this. Not the words of a rational man.

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Marxist Plot To Impose The 'New World Order'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C10mFuErI1I

Did you watch the video? No where in this video is gay marriage even mentioned. Most people would say that promoting Judeo-Christian faith and strong families is very rational.

[SteveC]

Someone just sent me this. Not the words of a rational man.

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Marxist Plot To Impose The 'New World Order'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C10mFuErI1I

[SteveC]

Big difference between initiating or welcoming and organizing, but thanks for clarifying.

I think Dr Carson will seek the Republican nomination, but if he doesn't or when the draft movement fails it's quite possible he could run as an Independent. You are the only person I know of that has even considered a 3rd party run. Let me ask you this, did Ron Paul have any conservative donors in 1988 or how about Gary Johnson in 2012?. Sure they did. Did anybody think they would win?. Nope.
The degree of support would depend on the popularity of the mainstream candidates.

I can certainly see how you arrived at your conclusion but where I think your theory is flawed is in the assumption that 3rd party candidates think they can win. In reality most if not all 3rd party candidates are ringers or have other motives. For example in 1968 a Democrat Governor from Alabama named George Wallace ran as an Independent, Wallace openly admitted his goal was to get enough Electoral votes to force the election into the House of Representative where because of the one vote per state rule he thought he could be a "power broker" in the selection of the President. Wallace carried five states and picked up 46 Electoral Collage votes but it wasn't enough because most of his votes came from the Democrats, Republican Richard Nixon waltzed to the White House with 301 Electoral votes, 31 more than needed to win.

I've read that Herman Cain's internal polling suggested he could have taken as much as 40 percent of the Black vote from Obama. So how many Black votes could a Black Republican or a Black 3rd party candidate pull away from a White (female) Democrat candidate? Twenty-Five percent of the Black vote would probable be enough to put a Republican in the White House.

Steve, if we want to continue this discussion we should probably move it to another thread because we're way off topic here. My apologies to Tiny12.

Fair enough, I didn't look at it from the perspective of him being a spoiler candidate. As a keen follower of US political history I should have done, my mistake.

[Esten]

Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to elicit another response? Politicians (whether liberal, conservative, socialist, communist or fascist) care about POWER. All other concerns are secondary.

Tres, slow down and read more carefully. I did not prioritize motivations, I simply noted there are other motivations. You are welcome to prioritize them. But even if a motivation is secondary, does not make it irrelevant.

Also, you seem to imply that the desire for power and to be re-elected are at odds with doing good. Simply not true as a broad generalization. In fact I would say these motivations more often converge than collide. It's a mixed picture. But people who make sweeping generalizations that all politicians are corrupt and out to screw people, may think they are being insightful but really they are only displaying their ignorance.

[Tiny12]

Steve, if we want to continue this discussion we should probably move it to another thread because we're way off topic here. My apologies to Tiny12.

Feel free to continue the dialog, here or elsewhere. I for one am learning something from it. Carson is a doctor, and many of his public statements are about health care.

[Punter 127]

Just to clarify, when I say "he has organised it" I meant that he either initiated it or most certainly welcomed the initiative. If he didn't want it to proceed surely he would have rejected it? His silence speaks volumes. But who are we kidding, the only way he'll stand is as a Republican. Or do you disagree with my assertion that conservative donors wouldn't waste their money on a third party candidate from the right? That's the essence of my point.

Big difference between initiating or welcoming and organizing, but thanks for clarifying.

I think Dr Carson will seek the Republican nomination, but if he doesn't or when the draft movement fails it's quite possible he could run as an Independent. You are the only person I know of that has even considered a 3rd party run. Let me ask you this, did Ron Paul have any conservative donors in 1988 or how about Gary Johnson in 2012?... Sure they did. Did anybody think they would win?... Nope.
The degree of support would depend on the popularity of the mainstream candidates.

I can certainly see how you arrived at your conclusion but where I think your theory is flawed is in the assumption that 3rd party candidates think they can win. In reality most if not all 3rd party candidates are ringers or have other motives. For example in 1968 a Democrat Governor from Alabama named George Wallace ran as an Independent, Wallace openly admitted his goal was to get enough Electoral votes to force the election into the House of Representative where because of the one vote per state rule he thought he could be a "power broker" in the selection of the President. Wallace carried five states and picked up 46 Electoral Collage votes but it wasn't enough because most of his votes came from the Democrats, Republican Richard Nixon waltzed to the White House with 301 Electoral votes, 31 more than needed to win.

I've read that Herman Cain's internal polling suggested he could have taken as much as 40 percent of the Black vote from Obama. So how many Black votes could a Black Republican or a Black 3rd party candidate pull away from a White (female) Democrat candidate? Twenty-Five percent of the Black vote would probable be enough to put a Republican in the White House.

Steve, if we want to continue this discussion we should probably move it to another thread because we're way off topic here. My apologies to Tiny12.

[SteveC]

I refer you to my post of 12/1/13 re progressive. I was charitable with 'looney' a rights violated is evil.

Don B.

Ayn Rand. When you said 'rights violated is evil' I thought we were going down that route. Hope you're happy there, I don't think we share any common ground to even start a discussion on this topic.

[SteveC]

No, I did not say he would run as and independent, he (Carson) says at this time he's an independent, his words as reported by the Washington Times, not mine. (sorry the quotation marks were inadvertently omitted). I'm sure the "Draft Ben Carson for President Committee" is Republican based. But you're the one that said "he has organised" it, and I still don't know if that's true. However anybody can be drafted by any party even without being a member of the party, and of course your not required to accept the nomination.

Just to clarify, when I say "he has organised it" I meant that he either initiated it or most certainly welcomed the initiative. If he didn't want it to proceed surely he would have rejected it? His silence speaks volumes. But who are we kidding, the only way he'll stand is as a Republican. Or do you disagree with my assertion that conservative donors wouldn't waste their money on a third party candidate from the right? That's the essence of my point.

[Don B]

Don B: By the way, how would you define a 'looney progressive'? Or is just that some hackneyed phrase that you just threw in there without thinking about it?

I refer you to my post of 12/1/13 re progressive. I was charitable with 'looney' a rights violated is evil.

Don B.

[Tres3]

Of course they want to get re-elected, but many if not most politicians also want to make a positive difference for their constituents and country.

Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to elicit another response? Politicians (whether liberal, conservative, socialist, communist or fascist) care about POWER. All other concerns are secondary.

Tres3.

[Punter 127]

You serious? Are you saying he'd enter the election for President as an independent and not as a Republican? That has to be a joke right? Even Perot with all his money couldn't make it. Do you think conservative donors would waste their money on a third party candidate from the right? A disingenuous statement at best. Ridiculous. And if he didn't organise the committee, or be intimately involved with its organisation, he's sure being quiet about it.

Agree that the debate should be debated civilly, but my perception of the initiators of the trash talk is very different from your's.

No, I did not say he would run as and independent, he (Carson) says at this time he's an independent, his words as reported by the Washington Times, not mine. (sorry the quotation marks were inadvertently omitted). I'm sure the "Draft Ben Carson for President Committee" is Republican based. But you're the one that said "he has organised" it, and I still don't know if that's true. However anybody can be drafted by any party even without being a member of the party, and of course your not required to accept the nomination.