The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[richardhutnik]

A guy who lives in United States goes to Wales to save around 90% off costs of nasal surgery, compared to what the costs are in the United States:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/26/ch ... tml?hpt=C1

Other costs are a lot cheaper, even factoring in health care costs.

- Rich

[orangeblobman]

yea but he can no go to wales to get dentist surgery because they all have bad teeth HAHAHA

[mugzi]

Heres why I have no respect for your viewpoint Dick. You're a broken record, theres not a single post where you don't denigrate the GOP, yet YOU NEVER have choice words for the democrats.

I dont hide the fact that Im conservative, but I will call out the party when they fail.

Your schtick is tired Dick, your a closet, self loathing liberal who hides behind a "libertarian" facade.

[richardhutnik]

yea but he can no go to wales to get dentist surgery because they all have bad teeth HAHAHA

Cue drum punch. I guess we need an attempt at a bit of levity... even if it failed miserably in this thread.

- Rich

[tuckerfor3]

Heres why I have no respect for your viewpoint Dick. You're a broken record, theres not a single post where you don't denigrate the GOP, yet YOU NEVER have choice words for the democrats.

I dont hide the fact that Im conservative, but I will call out the party when they fail.

Your schtick is tired Dick, your a closet, self loathing liberal who hides behind a "libertarian" facade.

Mugzi:

I don't know how you do it. I'd need a shower after every post. The hypocrisy on this board is incredible. You would think the entire House was Republican. So many posts in these forums, aside from those discussing culture, art and sport, eventually wind up singling out the right-wing, or Republicans, or Conservatives as the cause of all mankind's ills. How can one have an honest discussion in light of that?

Before the decade that saw Republicans control the House (95-06), the Dems controlled it for 40 years! The Iraq War was approved by a vote of 296-133. You have the Getihners, Dodds and Rangels - tax cheats!!! ...breaking the law, yet continuing to craft and vote on financial regulation. Is this not true? Can anyone dispute these things? Still, in the end, it's pick your scarecrow: Bush, tea-baggers, etc. How intellectually dishonest.

Neither the Left or Right is totally blameless, nor is either the complete cause of what's wrong in this country. It takes two to tango. Plenty of blame to go around. When people start acknowledging that, then we can start to have real, rational discussions about the state of American politics.

And THEN we can start to right the nation's course.

Just my .02. Back to work...

[orangeblobman]

yea but he can no go to wales to get dentist surgery because they all have bad teeth HAHAHA

Cue drum punch. I guess we need an attempt at a bit of levity... even if it failed miserably in this thread.

- Rich

thanks man

[mugzi]

I was starting to believe no one else could see through the BS on this board. Thank you for your input Tucker.

But be careful, now that you've posted on this thread be prepared to be attacked by Dick Hutnik the resident libtard.

Your right there's enough blame to go around on both sides of the political spectrum, the only issue as I see it is no one on this thread Hutnik, Wingo, Duetta, etc, have the stones to question their own parties agenda.

This administration is scary, Obamacare, cap and trade, amnesty for illegals, their agenda would be sad if it wasnt so frightening. Why do we need a bill to regulate CO2 when its an invisible, intangible substance based upon a Global Warming THEORY that many scientists even doubt is real?

And amnesty is ridiculous. We need to secure our borders bottom line. How many fanatics have slithered into this country through Mexico waiting for orders to do harm on our soil? I have no problem with LEGAL immigration. But to give all these people who snuck over here illegally a free pass is asinine. The dems want to do it so they gain more voters, so they can have a permanent majority.

We all come from relatives who emigrated here, but most of our ancestors did so the right way.

[duetta]

April 23, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
Ending the Slavery Blame-Game
By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.

Cambridge, Mass.

THANKS to an unlikely confluence of history and genetics — the fact that he is African-American and president — Barack Obama has a unique opportunity to reshape the debate over one of the most contentious issues of America’s racial legacy: reparations, the idea that the descendants of American slaves should receive compensation for their ancestors’ unpaid labor and bondage.

There are many thorny issues to resolve before we can arrive at a judicious (if symbolic) gesture to match such a sustained, heinous crime. Perhaps the most vexing is how to parcel out blame to those directly involved in the capture and sale of human beings for immense economic gain.

While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23gates.html

[richardhutnik]

People end up posting from their view of things, to support their views, and their partisan opinion of things. This is what goes on in this forum. Don't expect anyone to be objective in their views, because they won't be.

Also, what tends to happen when guys get into power is they end up passing very similar laws that benefit special interests and the money (Deficits didn't matter when Dubya was in power, but now they do). This happens over and over. And then the game goes further where you end up with one side saying the other side is completely at fault, and you have networks like Fox News, and Drudge, who end up beating the Democrats are all evil. Of course, with smaller ratings, you have MSNBC ending up feeling they need to be the liberal version of Fox News and do this or that.

- Rich

Also, I did fail to see Mugzi's post, because Mugzi is now in my killfilter, where he will remain. This wasn't due to a difference in opinion about things, but the fact of the whining over and over to get off his ****. Apparently Mugzi feels that only people who either agree with him or toss him softballs, need apply.

Mugzi:

I don't know how you do it. I'd need a shower after every post. The hypocrisy on this board is incredible. You would think the entire House was Republican. So many posts in these forums, aside from those discussing culture, art and sport, eventually wind up singling out the right-wing, or Republicans, or Conservatives as the cause of all mankind's ills. How can one have an honest discussion in light of that?

Before the decade that saw Republicans control the House (95-06), the Dems controlled it for 40 years! The Iraq War was approved by a vote of 296-133. You have the Getihners, Dodds and Rangels - tax cheats!!! ...breaking the law, yet continuing to craft and vote on financial regulation. Is this not true? Can anyone dispute these things? Still, in the end, it's pick your scarecrow: Bush, tea-baggers, etc. How intellectually dishonest.

Neither the Left or Right is totally blameless, nor is either the complete cause of what's wrong in this country. It takes two to tango. Plenty of blame to go around. When people start acknowledging that, then we can start to have real, rational discussions about the state of American politics.

And THEN we can start to right the nation's course.

Just my .02. Back to work...

[richardhutnik]

yea but he can no go to wales to get dentist surgery because they all have bad teeth HAHAHA

Cue drum punch. I guess we need an attempt at a bit of levity... even if it failed miserably in this thread.

- Rich

thanks man

Welcome. I thought it was too much into the stereotypical camp actually, but hey, you do what you can.

[mugzi]

Funny Im on Hutniks ignore list yet he still cant resist responding to my posts.

[HarthorneWingo]

Heres why I have no respect for your viewpoint Dick. You're a broken record, theres not a single post where you don't denigrate the GOP, yet YOU NEVER have choice words for the democrats.

I dont hide the fact that Im conservative, but I will call out the party when they fail.

Your schtick is tired Dick, your a closet, self loathing liberal who hides behind a "libertarian" facade.

Mugzi:

I don't know how you do it. I'd need a shower after every post. The hypocrisy on this board is incredible. You would think the entire House was Republican. So many posts in these forums, aside from those discussing culture, art and sport, eventually wind up singling out the right-wing, or Republicans, or Conservatives as the cause of all mankind's ills. How can one have an honest discussion in light of that?

Before the decade that saw Republicans control the House (95-06), the Dems controlled it for 40 years! The Iraq War was approved by a vote of 296-133. You have the Getihners, Dodds and Rangels - tax cheats!!! ...breaking the law, yet continuing to craft and vote on financial regulation. Is this not true? Can anyone dispute these things? Still, in the end, it's pick your scarecrow: Bush, tea-baggers, etc. How intellectually dishonest.

Neither the Left or Right is totally blameless, nor is either the complete cause of what's wrong in this country. It takes two to tango. Plenty of blame to go around. When people start acknowledging that, then we can start to have real, rational discussions about the state of American politics.

And THEN we can start to right the nation's course.

Just my .02. Back to work...

Hey. Dems who voted for Iraq war are to blame. So are dems that voted for financial deregulation.

I have no problems admitting these things. That said, "conservatives" - in lock step - continue to stand with the health insurance company; continue to stand with Wall Street; and continue to stand for escalating wars around the world.

Who are you going to run against Obama in 2012? Romney? Palin? Polenty? Jindal? Bachman? lol.

[tuckerfor3]

Heres why I have no respect for your viewpoint Dick. You're a broken record, theres not a single post where you don't denigrate the GOP, yet YOU NEVER have choice words for the democrats.

I dont hide the fact that Im conservative, but I will call out the party when they fail.

Your schtick is tired Dick, your a closet, self loathing liberal who hides behind a "libertarian" facade.

Mugzi:

I don't know how you do it. I'd need a shower after every post. The hypocrisy on this board is incredible. You would think the entire House was Republican. So many posts in these forums, aside from those discussing culture, art and sport, eventually wind up singling out the right-wing, or Republicans, or Conservatives as the cause of all mankind's ills. How can one have an honest discussion in light of that?

Before the decade that saw Republicans control the House (95-06), the Dems controlled it for 40 years! The Iraq War was approved by a vote of 296-133. You have the Getihners, Dodds and Rangels - tax cheats!!! ...breaking the law, yet continuing to craft and vote on financial regulation. Is this not true? Can anyone dispute these things? Still, in the end, it's pick your scarecrow: Bush, tea-baggers, etc. How intellectually dishonest.

Neither the Left or Right is totally blameless, nor is either the complete cause of what's wrong in this country. It takes two to tango. Plenty of blame to go around. When people start acknowledging that, then we can start to have real, rational discussions about the state of American politics.

And THEN we can start to right the nation's course.

Just my .02. Back to work...

Hey. Dems who voted for Iraq war are to blame. So are dems that voted for financial deregulation.

I have no problems admitting these things. That said, "conservatives" - in lock step - continue to stand with the health insurance company; continue to stand with Wall Street; and continue to stand for escalating wars around the world.

Who are you going to run against Obama in 2012? Romney? Palin? Polenty? Jindal? Bachman? lol.

Conservatives are not in lock-step with the health insurance industry. There are reps, left and right, bought and paid for by the healthcare industry, but most conservative voters would've rather we first tried interstate competition and capping malpractice rewards, etc. Could we not have tried that before ramming through an unpopular 2500-page bill that socializes the best health care in the world? Or could it be that Mr. Obama was just trying to put the government in control of an additional 1/6th of the US economy?

By the way, since we are already experiencing a nursing shortage and since many doctors who could continue practicing for a few years will retire, rather than deal with the new government bureaucracy and all that entails, perhaps you can tell me where we're going to get the extra doctors and nurses to care for 35 million extra people entitled to Health Care within the next couple of years? ChiaRx? Spread the seeds on and watch them grow?

And frankly, you're last line totally proves my point. How can one have a serious discussion of the issues with someone who carries on like an unpaid spokesman for the Democrat Party. Who will you vote for in 2012? Obama again? A man who, like George Bush, thinks that the way to get out of a financial hole is to dig a deeper one? THAT's the real lol.

[HarthorneWingo]

Conservatives are not in lock-step with the health insurance industry. There are reps, left and right, bought and paid for by the healthcare industry, but most conservative voters would've rather we first tried interstate competition and capping malpractice rewards, etc. Could we not have tried that before ramming through an unpopular 2500-page bill that socializes the best health care in the world? Or could it be that Mr. Obama was just trying to put the government in control of an additional 1/6th of the US economy?

By the way, since we are already experiencing a nursing shortage and since many doctors who could continue practicing for a few years will retire, rather than deal with the new government bureaucracy and all that entails, perhaps you can tell me where we're going to get the extra doctors and nurses to care for 35 million extra people entitled to Health Care within the next couple of years? ChiaRx? Spread the seeds on and watch them grow?

And frankly, you're last line totally proves my point. How can one have a serious discussion of the issues with someone who carries on like an unpaid spokesman for the Democrat Party. Who will you vote for in 2012? Obama again? A man who, like George Bush, thinks that the way to get out of a financial hole is to dig a deeper one? THAT's the real lol.

1. Republicans, in lock step, voted against health care reform. Now, you are correct, there were democrats that also voted against it too ... "blue dog" or dixiecrats. But it still passed. The democrats are a big tent and we have room for debate, unlike republicans. Breaking down the interstate barriers to healthcare would very little to improve competition because states would engage in deregulation competition in order to attract the most insurers to their state. One state, e.g. Delaware, would come up with the most attractive set of laws which would permit the insurers to continue doing what they have been doing ... screwing over sick patients if it cut into their profits and all the companies would establish their home offices there. So that would have no effect unless you addressed that particular problem. As for "malpractice reform," what you really mean to say is "caps on awards," right? Well, it's been already acknowledge that even if we did that - and to my dismay, Obama would have sat down with repugs to accomplish that - it would only reduce "costs" to about 5%. Insignificant.

2. There is a shortage of primary care doctors. Let's be accurate about what we're discussing. Well, why is that? Because primary care physicians make the least amount of money. Who controls what they make? The insurance industry. If we had a single payer system, we could control that better and give "incentives" to medical school students to become primary care doctors. By extension, med school students turn away from primary care because their tuition so high ... they feel the need to specialize.

3. On the contrary, your comparing Obama with Bush on their contributions to the deficit proves my point. Over $11 billion of the $13 billion debt was given to us courtesy of Bush .. who was given a surplus by the Clinton Administration. Obama had to spend the stimulus money because our financial system was on the verge of collapse ... I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you. Have you ever heard of The Great Depression? Japan's Lost Decade? Do you know what lessons were leaned from those economic conditions?

As for 2012, there are certainly things about Obama's administration that I'm not happy about. He's not perfect. But that doesn't mean that he isn't head and shoulders over any ... ANY ... of the nimrods you'll be running. He is.

[richardhutnik]

Conservatives are not in lock-step with the health insurance industry. There are reps, left and right, bought and paid for by the healthcare industry, but most conservative voters would've rather we first tried interstate competition and capping malpractice rewards, etc. Could we not have tried that before ramming through an unpopular 2500-page bill that socializes the best health care in the world? Or could it be that Mr. Obama was just trying to put the government in control of an additional 1/6th of the US economy?

By the way, since we are already experiencing a nursing shortage and since many doctors who could continue practicing for a few years will retire, rather than deal with the new government bureaucracy and all that entails, perhaps you can tell me where we're going to get the extra doctors and nurses to care for 35 million extra people entitled to Health Care within the next couple of years? ChiaRx? Spread the seeds on and watch them grow?

And frankly, you're last line totally proves my point. How can one have a serious discussion of the issues with someone who carries on like an unpaid spokesman for the Democrat Party. Who will you vote for in 2012? Obama again? A man who, like George Bush, thinks that the way to get out of a financial hole is to dig a deeper one? THAT's the real lol.

Any industry will find any politician who take its donations and support them, and give them money to spend money their way.

In regards to health care, are you saying the other should be done? Should we have MORE people without health coverage so that we can cover everything? You know, have the medical industry and big pharma get in the pockets of politicians and drive up costs, causing even more to go without health coverage, because we lack medical professionals? I think that is problematic. Actually we could end up just bankrupting hospitals, because you end up increasingly relying on emergency rooms to take people who didn't get preventative care. Maybe then we can go on a full spiral to have health care that is completely worse than Cuba, according to the WHO.

As far as having any serious discussion, so long as people here get ramped up and see those they disagree with as not just wrong, but also evil or dangerous, I don't think you will get anything. On another note, considering what this forum is, you have a second reason why it is doubtful there will be much serious, because it is a basketball forum, written by people who have a hunger for booty pics.

- Rich

[richardhutnik]

On another note, anyone care to comment that Obama's health care plan is a lot like what Nixon had proposed? http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/09 ... a-v-nixon/

Anyone here who hates Obama want to call Nixon a "communist" also because Obama's plan is less extensive than what Nixon had proposed? Also, how about calling Romney a "socialist" also, because Obama's plan is like what Romney set up in Mass.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

Ah, that crossover ain't shyt.

[tuckerfor3]

Conservatives are not in lock-step with the health insurance industry. There are reps, left and right, bought and paid for by the healthcare industry, but most conservative voters would've rather we first tried interstate competition and capping malpractice rewards, etc. Could we not have tried that before ramming through an unpopular 2500-page bill that socializes the best health care in the world? Or could it be that Mr. Obama was just trying to put the government in control of an additional 1/6th of the US economy?

By the way, since we are already experiencing a nursing shortage and since many doctors who could continue practicing for a few years will retire, rather than deal with the new government bureaucracy and all that entails, perhaps you can tell me where we're going to get the extra doctors and nurses to care for 35 million extra people entitled to Health Care within the next couple of years? ChiaRx? Spread the seeds on and watch them grow?

And frankly, you're last line totally proves my point. How can one have a serious discussion of the issues with someone who carries on like an unpaid spokesman for the Democrat Party. Who will you vote for in 2012? Obama again? A man who, like George Bush, thinks that the way to get out of a financial hole is to dig a deeper one? THAT's the real lol.

1. Republicans, in lock step, voted against health care reform. Now, you are correct, there were democrats that also voted against it too ... "blue dog" or dixiecrats. But it still passed. The democrats are a big tent and we have room for debate, unlike republicans. c One state, e.g. Delaware, would come up with the most attractive set of laws which would permit the insurers to continue doing what they have been doing ... screwing over sick patients if it cut into their profits and all the companies would establish their home offices there. So that would have no effect unless you addressed that particular problem. As for "malpractice reform," what you really mean to say is "caps on awards," right? Well, it's been already acknowledge that even if we did that - and to my dismay, Obama would have sat down with repugs to accomplish that - it would only reduce "costs" to about 5%. Insignificant.

2. There is a shortage of primary care doctors. Let's be accurate about what we're discussing. Well, why is that? Because primary care physicians make the least amount of money. Who controls what they make? The insurance industry. If we had a single payer system, we could control that better and give "incentives" to medical school students to become primary care doctors. By extension, med school students turn away from primary care because their tuition so high ... they feel the need to specialize.

3. On the contrary, your comparing Obama with Bush on their contributions to the deficit proves my point. Over $11 billion of the $13 billion debt was given to us courtesy of Bush .. who was given a surplus by the Clinton Administration. Obama had to spend the stimulus money because our financial system was on the verge of collapse ... I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you. Have you ever heard of The Great Depression? Japan's Lost Decade? Do you know what lessons were leaned from those economic conditions?

As for 2012, there are certainly things about Obama's administration that I'm not happy about. He's not perfect. But that doesn't mean that he isn't head and shoulders over any ... ANY ... of the nimrods you'll be running. He is.

1.) Healthcare passed by 3 votes. Can you find a single poll that showed the public favored ObamaCare? The Republicans and Democrats who voted against it were doing the will of the people. A rarity, but technically it is the case.

"The democrats are a big tent and we have room for debate, unlike republicans."

- That's why you (you say "we", maybe you're a spokesman or something) ram bills that takeover chunks of the economy when well over half the country doesn't want them? In regards to Delaware Corporations, etc., funny how you think that the issues created by allowing interstate competition can't be addressed by the Senate and Congress. No... instead, just takeover the whole industry instead! And yes, a savings of 5% on a national scale (IDK if that's correct but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), is still significant. Capping awards would also greatly help slow the growth of the caste of legal John Edwards' that uncapped awards have brought upon us, as well as help keep premiums down.

Let me also mention, as far as the Healthcare Industry screwing over sick patients... know anybody that's been to a VA lately? Here's an example of government medical: 55 vets at 3 clinics exposed to Hepatitis B & C via endoscopic procedure http://www.vawatchdog.com/09/nf09/nfjun09/nf062709-1.htm.

2.) You don't address the issue of the exodus of older doctors leaving the field rather than deal with the new red tape, malpractice insurance issues, etc. that come with ObamaCare. Nor do you address the nursing shortage. Here's your medical future: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64663. You'll be lucky if you get to see a Physician's Assistant in person without a wait.

3.) The Stimulus prevented a Great Depression? HA! The worst is yet to come! Because of Republican and, drum roll... Democrat fiscal malfeasance (Fannie and Freddie, anyone?), our economy is still a deck of cards. How many jobs has the Obama stimulus saved or created (lol) so far? How much do we owe to the Chinese? The Saudis? I suppose you believe when Newsweek tells you we're in the clear. No, the collapse is inevitable. Do YOU know what lessons were leaned from the economic conditions were mentioned? Bush didn't. Obama surely doesn't. And neither, obviously, do you or anyone who supports government interventions with taxpayer money.

Instead of taking it on the chin and taking the hit now, Bush and Obama have passed that debt down to our children and grandchildren. Cause they are all cretins, laying the groundwork for the people who do the deals on Wall Street. They are in bed together, regardless of party. You cannot admit this. Democrats Uber Alles.

I'd suggest you consider being a little bit more WARY of your own party as well. Kinda naive, dare I say, dangerous, to treat political parties like sports teams. And btw, I'm nobody's party hack. And I'm pretty sure I never said anything about being a Republican. That's your assumption. Frankly, I could give a crap about Jindal or Palin or any of them but, you keep throwing down the rose petals for Mr. Obama if it makes you happy.

Anyhow, thanks for the spirited debate.

[tuckerfor3]

On another note, anyone care to comment that Obama's health care plan is a lot like what Nixon had proposed? http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/09 ... a-v-nixon/

Anyone here who hates Obama want to call Nixon a "communist" also because Obama's plan is less extensive than what Nixon had proposed? Also, how about calling Romney a "socialist" also, because Obama's plan is like what Romney set up in Mass.

- Rich

Ricardo:

Good points. Frankly, no - I have no problem with anyone calling Nixon a communist or Romney a socialist. That's fine with me.

As to your points about ObamaCare, no, of course I don't want more people without coverage. That's silly. But regarding coverage, well, not everyone will be covered. It's estimated 10 million people will fall through the cracks of this thing anyway. Are the people who are telling us we MUST cover everyone, content to leave behind 10 million Americans? Further, it was disingenuous of the Administration to tell the public costs won't go up when economists for the Dept. of Health and Human Services just released a report stating that the Medicaid cuts in the bill may not be sustainable:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-22-health-care-costs_N.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

As far as having any serious discussion, so long as people here get ramped up and see those they disagree with as not just wrong, but also evil or dangerous, I don't think you will get anything. On another note, considering what this forum is, you have a second reason why it is doubtful there will be much serious, because it is a basketball forum, written by people who have a hunger for booty pics.

I concur and will strongly take this under advisement (what was I thinking?!?!)

[duetta]

By the way, since we are already experiencing a nursing shortage and since many doctors who could continue practicing for a few years will retire, rather than deal with the new government bureaucracy and all that entails, perhaps you can tell me where we're going to get the extra doctors and nurses to care for 35 million extra people entitled to Health Care within the next couple of years? ChiaRx? Spread the seeds on and watch them grow?

When my physician retired a few years back, he specifically told his patients that he had grown tired of fighting with insurance companies. He personally told me a story of how infuriated he became when coming across a story citing United Health Care's huge profits.

As for your larger points, I'll be brief. We need to double the number of available seats in medical and nursing schools ASAP. Right now, these numbers are artificially constrained. There are plenty of young Americans with excellent grades who would LOVE to get into medical school, and make a living helping Americans, while joining the top 2%-5% of American wage earners - and are currently not getting in, due to the artificially low number of seats that are made available in order to mollify the AMA.

The health care bill was imperfect - but that's what happens when lobbyists get to own both parties in Congress. Free speech, my petunia. This kind of money doesn't lead to freedom of speech, it leads to freedom to corrupt - and in this regard, both parties are guilty.