What can the democrats learn by the loss of Cockley

[GroundedSailor]

I'd rather have a beer with McCain than Obama. McCain would have much more interesting stories about his time in Vietnam.

Your post should read:
McCain would have much more interesting lies about his time in Vietnam.

I wouldn't waste my time socializing, never mind having a beer, with an opportunist like McCain.

 

[BoberFett]

Argh I was in the middle of a long reply toyou, after complimenting your questions, and hit the wrong thing and it's lost. I'll try to say something later.

... and nothing of value was lost.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That's me (and at least 60%, 80% if you include those who hold a neutral opinion, of all Americans)!

That may be true, in which case we will all pay for it on our hides.

After Global Labor Arbitrage has transformed us into the next India, being overpopulated and impoverished, we can all backslap ourselves about how wonderful the free market is.

 

[senseamp]

They should learn to finish what they start, and not water it down for compromise alone. Going to be hard to get liberals out to vote if they keep selling out.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why should I felt different, as far as I know, There is NO Private Insurance up in Canada and they are Single player system. If there is private insurance, then it is NOT a single payer system.

OK, that's undestandable. I doubt that an American system would outlaw private health care. Those people seeking it might still have to pay into the public system, but if they want to spend money on it I'm sure they would be free to do so.

I said I want some form of tort reform, not outlaw it. The problem is the primitive damage, which has no limit, which is added onto the actual damage to the doctor in question.
If tort reform mean nothing then how come all these lawyer and up in arms against it? Must br doing something right..,

The term you're looking for is "punitive damages" not "primitive damages".

In general punitive damages are only awarded to punish tortfeasors for their reckless or knowingly purposeful bad behavior. Punitive damages are used as a warning to other people not to make the same mistakes and to make sure that the wrongdoer really gets the message.

For example, if you are a business and you know that food is contaminated with E.coli or is otherwise poisonous and you sell it anyway, you could be subject to punitive damages in the resulting wrongful death lawsuits (if not criminal liability).

As far as I know, punitive damages are not real common in medical malpractice (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Rather, I think what the tort reformers support is to reign in money for pain-and-suffering--which is legitimate compensation for people who have been injured.

I really wish that legal laymen would keep out of these sorts of debates; they have no idea WTF they are talking about. The can only express some sort of generalized anger at "evil greedy" lawyers (while ignoring that they too want to be compensated for the work they do in their field).

I don't claim to be an expert myself, which is why I really don't have much of an opinion on the issue other than that injured people should be able to seek compensation for their injuries and that Tort Reform is nothing other than a red herring distraction in the health care debate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They should learn to finish what they start, and not water it down for compromise alone. Going to be hard to get liberals out to vote if they keep selling out.

I'm sure the Reps will be devastated if you do that.

 

[nick1985]

From the way that retard pelosi has been talking the last 24 hours, they havent learned anything.

 

[Linflas]

80% of the people are happy? What planet are you living on?

Most of those people are either paying more than they would pay under socialized medicine and/or live in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance coverage.

You think 80% of the American populace is happy with the current system and their health insurance? Are you mad? Except for free market dogmatist wackos, government employees, and the wealthy, most are terrified.

As for that small percentage of people who are happy with their current insurance, they'll be even happier when their bill decreases under real socialized medicine. Perhaps they'll be even happier when the nation's economy improves as a result.

This planet:
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics:
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics released its latest poll on American’s attitudes on a variety of issues including health care reform and the current health care system. Here are some of the key findings related to people’s personal health care coverage:
•
84% of people surveyed said the quality of their personal health insurance was either excellent or good.1
•
83% of people surveyed said the quality of care they receive is either excellent or good.2
The University of Texas/Zogby International:
The University of Texas/Zogby International released a poll on American attitudes on healthcare reform -- including satisfaction with health care, opinions of potential reform legislation, and how to potentially pay for health care for the uninsured. The poll included this finding:
•
84% of people are satisfied with their health care.3
1 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, July 21-22, 2009.
2 Ibid
3 The University of Texas/ Zogby International Poll, June 18-22, 2009.
The Washington Post:
The Washington Post released a survey focused on health care on June 22. The survey demonstrated that the public is extremely satisfied with their own personal health plan.
•
81% of people are satisfied with their health insurance coverage.4
•
88% of people are satisfied with the quality of care they receive.5
The New York Times:
The New York Times released a survey focused on health care on June 21. While there was much made about the public’s split on issues, one thing was clear – they are satisfied with their own coverage.
•
77% of people are satisfied with the quality of their own care.6
•
77% of people said that basic medical care under covered by their health insurance is affordable.7
Democracy Corps:
Democracy Corps released their latest poll on health care reform. One finding from the polling shows people are satisfied with their own insurance.8
•
72% of people are satisfied with their own health insurance coverage vs. 75% in 1993 – not a significant change.
•
76% of self-identified independents are satisfied with their coverage as are 72% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans.
Gallup:
According to one of Gallup’s most recent health care surveys, Americans give a high approval rating for the quality of care they personally receive as well as a high approval rating of their personal health care coverage.
•
“Among all Americans, 83% say the quality of healthcare they receive is either ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’ Only 16% say it’s either ‘only fair’ or ‘poor.’”9
•
“Americans are only a bit less positive about their own healthcare coverage, with 67% describing the coverage they now have as excellent or good.”10
•
Gallup’s conclusion: “At the same time, [Americans surveyed] are pleased with the quality of medical treatment in the country, and are mostly satisfied with their own healthcare quality, coverage, and costs.”11
4 The Washington Post, Survey, June 18-21, 2009.
5 The Washington Post, June 18-21, 2009.
6 The New York Times, June 12-16, 2009.
7 The New York Times, June 12-16, 2009.
8 Democracy Corps, “The Health Care Reform Debate”, June 15, 2009.
9 Gallup.com, “Americans Rate National and Personal Healthcare Differently”, December 4, 2008, http://www.gallup.com/poll/112813/Americans-Rate-National-Personal-Healthcare-Differently.aspx, Accessed on June 3, 2009.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
CNN/Opinion Research Poll:
CNN asked Americans in a recent poll about how they viewed different aspects of health care for their families and themselves. Those surveyed had a very high satisfaction rating of their personal health insurance.
•
In March 2009, 73% of Americans were satisfied with their own health insurance coverage.12
o
In November 2007, the satisfaction rating was 69%.13
Employee Benefits Research Institute:
The Employee Benefits Research Institute is known as a leader in helping to develop “sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education.” According to EBRI’s 2008 Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey:
•
93% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were satisfied with the quality of coverage they received through their health plan (including 31% extremely satisfied).14
•
93% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were satisfied with their plan.15
•
86% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were likely to stay with their current plan.16
(Note: The EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey is an online survey of privately insured adults ages 21-64. A traditional private health care plan is defined as a broad range of plan types, including HMOs, PPOs, other managed care plans and plans with a broad variety of cost sharing arrangements as well as no deductible or deductibles that are below current thresholds that would quality for HSA tax preference, and do not have an HRA-based plan.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

In my mind we SHOULD be helping you. It's not people in your situation that I object to, but a system which encourages women to have children as a financial reward, making fewer funds available to help those in genuine need while at the same time becoming prohibitively expensive.

Would you be willing to advocate government-funded and encouraged abortion for poor women? It's easy to say that you oppose the poor having children, but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is on this issue?

I'm all for government-funded and encouraged abortion and also for requiring women on welfare to be on birth control. I also support government funding for tubal ligations. Money spent on birth control for the poor is probably one of the best, most cost-effective, money-saving policies the government could implement. (Compare the cost of welfare, K-12 education, and criminal justice costs for a child born into poverty or born as a crack baby compared to the cost of birth control, sterilization of the mother, or abortion.)

 

[MotF Bane]

Excellent post Linflas.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Private and/or insurance is mostly outlawed in Canada. Some clinics do some procedures but mostly they are very limited. I think it's unjust and outrageous that anybody tolerates that from their government. Apparently most other social systems don't have that, though--that illegality that is in Canada for private access.

I wonder how many Canadians would rather have the American system. I have not spoken to one yet who would exchange the Canadian health care system for the American system. Perhaps it's time for a poll.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What figures do you have in your possession which shows that health care profits account for the difference between what other nations pay and what we do?

I don't have the figures, but then again I'm not a professional advocate in this field nor a paid intellectual.

However, you don't need figures to be able to realize that having a horde of middlemen involved in the health care system must be very expensive. Who do you think is paying for the insurance companies' existence? Who do you think is paying doctors' office's and hospitals' medical billing specialists? Who do you think is paying for insurance brokers? Who do you think is paying for those receptionists who check to see that you have health insurance? Who do you think is paying for businesses' insurance plan benefits managers?

We're not merely spending money on profit for insurance companies but also to employ a huge number of paper-pushers. We need to study what other nations are doing and to then adopt the best aspects of their systems.

When you don't come up with the answer, that might just lead you to wonder just why things are different here than France besides private insurance.

Could you please elaborate on what you're trying to get at?

Why are things different in the U.S.? Could it be that the populace was indoctrinated with free market dogma which may have been good policy in decades past or may have worked by accident in decades past but no longer works well in today's more complex world? (There are reasons why Southeast Asia is advancing and the U.S., which has failed to evolve and adapt, is declining.)

 

[shiner]

I wonder how many Canadians would rather have the American system. I have not spoken to one yet who would exchange the Canadian health care system for the American system. Perhaps it's time for a poll.

I know several that would.

In fact I know of several families who live in the Sault Ste. Marie area who cross the border into Michigan for healthcare frequently. One of the famialies is even a husband/wife team of two surgical nurses.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This planet:
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics:
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics released its latest poll on American’s attitudes on a variety of issues including health care reform and the current health care system. Here are some of the key findings related to people’s personal health care coverage:
•
84% of people surveyed said the quality of their personal health insurance was either excellent or good.1

It's difficult to take those alleged results seriously without seeing the exact wording of the questions that were asked and also information about who exactly was polled. What if the polls were asked of people who earn over $80,000/year in secure white collar jobs?

Also, note that none of those questions asked people how they felt about the cost and affordability of their health insurance. (I wonder why?) Why didn't those polls ask people whether they fear losing their health insurance or being unable to afford their health insurance?

What if we polled people who actually make serious use of the health care system? People who have needed cancer treatment, etc.? It's one thing when a healthy young person says, "yeah, I'm satisfied" and another when a sickly fifty-five year old says it.

My guess is that rather than providing a brilliant, reasoned explanation as to why the current American system is superior to other nations' systems, Linflas just copied and pasted all of that from a free market dogmatist website.

Linflas, why not explain to us without reference to dubious and out-of-context polls why the American system is superior to other nation's systems?

Those polls don't seem to address how the American system is better when Americans spend 17% of their GDP on health insurance while leaving tens of millions uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their health insurance while also having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year and while having businesses being burdened by insurance costs and concerns.

Please tell us how the American system is superior to other nations' systems when those nations spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health insurance while having 100% coverage, near-zero medical bankruptcies, a more content populace, and businesses that aren't burdened by health insurance costs and concerns.

Why not just come out and address those issues so that you can provide a really convincing answer, a home run answer, that will shut everyone up? If you can do that the Republicans and the insurance companies would probably pay you.

 

[TehMac]

This augment is unpersuasive to me. Obama is far from socialist and over 70% want a socialist public option which Obama fails to deliver. Add in surge in Afghanistan, a private forced insurance, Bush-era detainee policies reinforced, nixing climate summit, windfalls to bankers, etc it's crazy to claim that the new administration is run by a gang of socialists.

You don't seem to understand--obviously Obama isn't a blatant socialist, he can't afford to be right now. But his massive government spending and his previous voting record in the Senate betray his true intentions.


Now, I'm not saying he is to blame for this mess, but a good deal of it follows squarely on his shoulders. Plus, Socialism has little to do with foreign policy--Lyndon Baines Johnson undoubtedly inflated the government to massive proportions, expanding on the previous policies of FDR, yet he also fought off the communists in Vietnam (or tried to--but didn't understand anything about war and so was almost directly responsible for costing so many Americans their lives).

For me, the issue isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about personal freedom, the freedom to keep what you earn, and the freedom to protect your property from those would try to take it away from you.

I despise both major parties, but the democrats have done more to erode the concept of wealth. Their overall attitude is one of spitefulness and arrogance, and coupled with the fact that some of the wealthiest men in Congress are democrats, doesn't endear me to their position at all.

The fact that Obama promised this massive bailout and stimulation of various businesses has clearly not been working at all, while it has only drove the U.S. deeper into debt is a clear refutation of people like Paul Krugam's and John Keynes' economic thinking (if you can call it that). This coupled with his own blind faith in his own policies spells disaster, and I think other Americans are beginning to think the same thing.

The democratic party has been taken over by juveniles like Dave McOwen who base their opinions on sentimentalists and poets like Marx and Che rather than professionals like Milton and Laffer. Many people I know were staunch democrats back in 1963.

They have since started voting Republican because the democratic party has become morally and intellectually corrupt to them. It's a shame more Americans don't realize this, but I think they're starting to.

One thing I found interesting was how quickly the democrat party is now cannibalizing itself, everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. It took the Republicans around 10 years to get to this point, and the democrats have achieved it in less than one.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I know several that would.

In fact I know of several families who live in the Sault Ste. Marie area who cross the border into Michigan for healthcare frequently. One of the famialies is even a husband/wife team of two surgical nurses.

What is their income? Would you describe them as upper class or upper middle class? Of course wealthy people might desire more care and faster service than what the government would offer. Perhaps they would prefer the American system; well-to-do people's wanting what's best for themselves while screwing over everyone else is nothing new. I bet that we could find 10 or more Canadians who wouldn't want the American system for everyone that does.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Would you be willing to advocate government-funded and encouraged abortion for poor women? It's easy to say that you oppose the poor having children, but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is on this issue?

I'm all for government-funded and encouraged abortion and also for requiring women on welfare to be on birth control. I also support government funding for tubal ligations. Money spent on birth control for the poor is probably one of the best, most cost-effective, money-saving policies the government could implement. (Compare the cost of welfare, K-12 education, and criminal justice costs for a child born into poverty or born as a crack baby compared to the cost of birth control, sterilization of the mother, or abortion.)

Go for it.

 

[shiner]

What is their income? Would you describe them as upper class or upper middle class? Of course wealthy people might desire more care and faster service than what the government would offer. Perhaps they would prefer the American system; well-to-do people's wanting what's best for themselves while screwing over everyone else is nothing new. I bet that we could find 10 or more Canadians who wouldn't want the American system for everyone that does.

A bit of a mixture. Wouldn't exactly call the family of two nurses and their 3 kids wealthy. One family might be considered upper class, but the other 4 or 5 I know would be strictly middle middle class.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

For me, the issue isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about personal freedom, the freedom to keep what you earn, and the freedom to protect your property from those would try to take it away from you.

The problem is that under the Republicans' leadership (as well as that of the Democrats) eventually you won't earn much to worry about keeping. You might earn what workers in India and China earn and then you can worry about keeping that.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Go for it.

Oh, of course no one could win an election while publicly supporting that since Americans are infected with religious insanity, but that doesn't mean that it isn't something rational people should advocate and support.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A bit of a mixture. Wouldn't exactly call the family of two nurses and their 3 kids wealthy. One family might be considered upper class, but the other 4 or 5 I know would be strictly middle middle class.

Do they understand that if they ended up unemployed that they would have to fit the bill for health insurance themselves?

It's easy to say that you'd rather have the American system if you foresee that your employer will pay for your family's health insurance. It's harder to say that if you contemplate having to pay for it yourself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do they understand that if they ended up unemployed that they would have to fit the bill for health insurance themselves?

It's easy to say that you'd rather have the American system if you foresee that your employer will pay for your family's health insurance. It's harder to say that if you contemplate having to pay for it yourself.

Hey, here's an idea. Why not consider health insurance as part of a temporary unemployment benefit, and having a subsidized "assigned risk" insurance pool for those who are unable to get coverage due to past illness?

 

[dmcowen674]

84% of people surveyed said the quality of their personal health insurance was either excellent or good.

So what do you call your country of nearly 20% left out?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So what do you call your country of nearly 20% left out?

Dave?

Ok, seriously. Call your representatives, and urge them to get together with people who are experts in health care. There is still time. Have them propose something which oriented towards improving the standards of care, and a safety net for the unemployed/rejected for prior illnesses.

Then when there is something besides hackery offered more people will support it, and the Reps will become irrelevant

 

[Ozoned]

And the dems must define what they want, what they stand for, and sell it to the American people

I am not going to call you a dumbass, because I know you are a smart guy.

But this is what I am going to say about your dumbass post:

Brown told everyone who he was, what his positions were, and how he would vote on current issues.

Cockley lost because she told people what she was, what her positions were, and how she would vote on current issues.

The liberals showed everyone what they are selling, and a lot of people don't want it.