Pelosi's Approval Ratings And Obama

The previous post was about party identification. I as much as that is a popularity contest anymore, due to so many Independents, here are some numbers worth thinking about.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released this afternoon found that the approval of how Pelosi is doing her job as speaker has dropped from 51 percent in January to 46 percent in March to 39 percent now.

In the new survey, conducted Thursday through Sunday while Pelosi was embroiled in controversy over how much she was told about waterboarding of terrorist suspects, 48 percent of respondents said they disapproved of her performance.

Given the way Obama is sending money and expanding government, which polls show Americans don't much like, his average approval numbers (they aren't off the charts, as the media would have you believe) stand a good chance of tanking as things play out.

Also, as Michael Steele pointed out here, Obama is going to have to raise taxes on more then the rich to pay for his nonsense. And the hidden taxes through his policies (Cap and Trade, Greenhouse gas regulation) are all going to hit people where it hurts - in the pocketbook. That more than anything can fuel a Republican resurgence, provided Republicans are smart enough to capitalize on it.

... Obama will have to raise taxes to pay for his massive top-down government explosion.

Comments

[Mark Turner]

I have asserted similarly in posts on various conservative blogs. Remember the major GOP victory in 1994 was not due to dissatisfaction with Clinton directly, it was due to dissastisfaction with Democratic congressional leadership at the time. I suspect that Pelosi and Reid will be increasing liabilities for Obama as time progresses -- could play a major factor against the Dems in 2010 congressional elections. Obama's approval ratings -- among likely voters anyway -- are decent but not extraordinary, and Clinton's weren't much worse in 1994.

[anon]

That may be true, but so far the GOP hasn't offered any real alternative message and they've let themselves be caracatured as the 'party of no' and have been pretty well out maneuvered by Obama.

He will continue to promise candy to those who can't afford it, continue to demonize the successful, continue to demonize any business larger than the corner dollar store and so far this populist crap is playing very well.

America has changed, nobody cares about the deficit anymore as long as they are benefiting from it in the here and now.

The only chance the GOP has for 2010 to even begin to regain some lost ground is if the stimulus totally fails and the economy is still in crisis, and even then, given Obama's abilities as a huckster and the GOP's failings, that still might not be enough to turn Congress back over to the Republicans.

It may just be that true conservatives really are fighting a losing battle and that the character of this nation has so changed over the past 20 years that fiscal responsibility and accountability are quant buzz words but no one in reality cares to see them implemented.

[liseli kizlar]

And our birth certificates do not just "wear out"; I have real copies of my grandparents birth certificates that can be read just fine. I even have some older belonging to my great grandparents. This information doesn't "get lost" in the system; it's how they keep track of you. Besides, in the 1960s there was a huge effort to copy all that paper onto files called "microfiche"; you can find them at any local library if you want to know what they look like

[LCB]

It's true that the character of the nation has changed to some extent in the last 20 years. I agree with that. I think what we're seeing now is those who can and those who do moving to states with lower taxes and those who can not and do not.

But human nature does not change, and the American capitalist model is based on human nature. I try to be optimistic. Because if this endeavor fails in America, it fails for the whole world. The small government model was an exception. In most of the world power rests in the hands of an elite few, an oligarchy, and that's where we are headed. Obama's stimulus is nothing but a slush fund from which he can dole out favors to his supporters and enhance his power.

[anon]

I agree, but I really fear that we've simply let things slide too much in too many areas and that is something that is to be blamed on both parties, though probably the more fundamentally destructive forces have been those of liberalism...we can always change environmental policy, business policy, military policy, etc. but once the social fabric and basic underpinnings of a society [merit vs. entitlement, self sufficiency vs. a hand-out, Shakespeare vs. Hip Hop, moderation vs. excess] have been effectively marginalized or destroyed, there is no going back, there isn't even any rolling back without a serious collapse.

I believe a serious collapse is only a matter of time, how much time, that depends on the world economy and how wrong or right the current set of fixes is.

[seekeronos]

"--- Given the way Obama is sending money and expanding government, which polls show Americans don't much like... ---"

Once the coffers of "Big Gummint" are open to dole out favours to the able, and subsistence to the unable... there is no going back, short of a total collapse and a return to some sort of dark-age period of chaos.

Representative Republics constituted by wise men, and maintained by wise students of history are an altogether rare thing.

State Despostism by One or by the Few is a far more common and typical situation that has haunted us since the days of King Nimrod (Sargon the Great)... and likely ever since Adam and Eve were banished from Eden's paradise for their presumption that they too could be like God, knowing all things.

[seekeronos]

Our only true hope is that of the One True King who shall reign in righteousness and truth:

"Come, O King Jesus".

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Given the way Obama is sending money and expanding government, which polls show Americans don't much like --"

Which polls are those, Dan? If your angry rant against Pelosi has any basis in fact, we should see equally dismal Obama numbers, right? I mean, if its policy and agenda the public opposes, and not the superficial media portrait of either candidate, we should be seeing a solid push back on said policy more than any individual candidate.

Support for health care reform, for instance, is strong.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/02/11/poll-shows-strong-support-for-obama-health-care.html

And of course, Obama's own favorability ratings are all admirable
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php

While the GOoPer cable news minions have done an excellent job of smearing the House Speaker, they haven't moved the ball on the economy, the environment, or health care. And don't even get me started on Iraq - a field of battle the GOP appears to have completely abandoned.

In 2010, you guys still won't have anything to campaign on except "We're not Democrats".

[Anon]

Universal health care sounds great...of course almost everyone is going to say that yes, everyone should have access to health care.

However, when the majority of Americans who do have health care find that they are paying more for less...that is unless they're already unemployed and poor...then you will push back.

Unfortunately though, the push back won't occur until the new system is already in place and people see what they're getting for their money.

In the same way that the half of the country that pays taxes will eventually realize that they are not getting all the freebies they've been promised and are, one way or the other, paying more not less to the government.

There is not really that much of a correlation between a president's popularity rating and the popularity of his polices, this was true of Reagan, Clinton and to some extent also of Bush.

If the stimulus works as advertised the GOP is dead for at least 10 years, if not, then we'll see.

Pelosi smeared herself, she clearly and obvioulsy lied about what she knew, which makes her just as culpable as John Yoo or Dick Cheney.

[cindi]

They only people winning under Obama are those that want something for nothing. If my son (who is in college) was not able to support his studies by hard work and scholarships, he would not be there. We are not wealthy by any means. Our son understands hard work will increase his opportunities in not only the private sector, but in scholorships. He worked and has achieved beyond any expectations. What wants to make me puke, those that believe the goverment owes anyone anything.

The House Speaker is a liar, but some ass ----- still defend her. Obama, he is another different city. Someone give him a clue. He has taken the down laiden to the extreme while eliminating what has made this country great.

Hand outs are not what make us great, hard work is what works. Unions suck, maybe at one time they were good, but they have grown to the point of greed.

PS iSLAMA WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ. As an American you should have pride in that. Pussy

[IslamoLlama]

"-- However, when the majority of Americans who do have health care find that they are paying more for less...that is unless they're already unemployed and poor...then you will push back. --"

I think you grossly underestimate the amount of money Americans currently pay for health care. I'm looking at several thousand dollars a year and I'm a young, desk-bound professional. The guy working construction with the wife and 2.3 kids and the heart condition? How much do you think it costs to cover him?

Check the bottom line at any of the Big 3 auto companies. Health care benefits for retired workers are absolutely burying the budget at those firms. Hell, check the books at my local business. We've seen 10-20% increases in premiums every year since I joined the firm.

The reason you've got so many Americans clamoring for a public option is that private firms are absolutely butchering the pocket books of individuals and businesses.

"-- PS iSLAMA WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ. As an American you should have pride in that. Pussy --"

ZOMG! We've been winning in Iraq for seven years! Does that mean we can look forward to seven more years and another $1 Trillion worth of victories? So nice to know the fiscal hawks who spent the last three months shitting bricks over the Obama budget don't mind keeping the $12 billion / month tap open in the endless Iraq victory parade.

[anon]

There is no reason to believe that Obama's plan will do any better. The idea that electronic medical records are going to save enough money to pay for extending health care to more millions is a PIPE DREAM. It's not going to happen, the savings are totally over inflated.

If we want to bring the cost of health care down while extending coverage to millions more people then VERY hard choices are going to have to be made, and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of health care workers are going to be hurt.

The UAW health benefits are insane, that's why they have helped break the back of the auto industry. The demographics in this country no longer support these kinds of entitlements, virtually free health care for senior citizens is simply not sustainable over time based on population growth estimates.

We cannot afford the safety net that we already have in place, thus, it is illogical to think we can afford to expand it.

Either doctors/hospitals/nurses/aides/labs/radiology centers are going to have to take serious, serious cuts in what they are paid for procedures, malpractice insurance is going to have to be severely curtailed, or health care on the patient's end is going to have to be rationed, exactly the samse way HMO's already ration it. There is no other way, believing that 'savings' will pay for all of these new people or that no health care workers will lose jobs or hospitals close etc, is not realistic if the goal is to REDUCE the cost of health care and not just give it to more people.

I don't under estimate what people pay for health care, I simply don't believe that Obama can cut the cost of health care for most people who already have insurance without recouping the money elsewhere via taxes or via service reductions. I don't think his math works.

[Nishner]

The US's Per Capita Health Care costs are 1.5 to 2X other those of other industrialized nations who also deliver health care that's as good or better than ours while covering a much larger % of their population. Yes, there's gonna be some hard choices but since all other industrialized nations have pulled it off, maybe we can too.

[anon]

Yeah, I know that our health care costs double what it does in every other industrialized nation. Yes, that is scandalous and pathetic.

However, comparing the U.S. to Europe isn't exactly apples to apples. We have much more geographic distance to cover, and many more people spread out over vast territory, we also have a huge underclass that no other EU country comes close to, and oh yeah, they're all single payer systems.

Obama claims that he doens't want single payer system, which is basically what the rest of the industrialized world has, single payer with private insurance add ons for rich people. Now, I don't believe him, I think that is exactly what he does want and he sees this as the first step to nationalizing health care. But, based on his own proposal, there is no way the math works. The math is just as fuzzy as the idea that the Iraq War was going to cost $50 billion. It is pretend math used to lull the country into complacency and by the time the real cost comes through, its too late.

How can anyone think that expanding coverage without any reasonable plan to curtail costs or making meaningful change in the infrastructure and delivery system is going to result in bringing U.S. costs in line with Europe?

If we were to go to a single payer system that drastically cut the $$ being paid out to health care providers and drastically cut the number of health care workers and/or their salaries and drastically curtailed medicare, then MAYBE we would reduce costs by 25-30%.

But, none of that is on the table, so that makes Obama's health care plan smoke and mirrors.

[North Dallas Thirty]

The other thing not mentioned is the fact that the US is truly the only country in which a) medical malpractice lawsuits are not severely curtailed or capped and b) "loser pays" is not a requirement of our legal system.

Want to see healthcare costs drop? Institute "loser pays", in which malpractice lawsuits that fail require the loser to pay all legal costs for both parties. You'll be amazed at what happens when leftists like Johnnie Edwards can't go jury-shopping at other peoples' expenses anymore; Rielle will be going to far less expensive hotels, for starters.

[Nishner]

So although Single Payer systems deliver just as good or better health care at substantially lower costs, we should somehow fight any effort to install that system here.

Most of those single payer systems have as many or more doctors per capita than does the US.

Bringing our health care system's administrative costs inline with those of the rest of the world would save hundreds of billions of dollars.

[anon]

Um, do you have any concept of the economic turmoil that moving to a single payer 100% government run system would cause?

Good lord, Democrats were appoplectic over the idea of the auto industry putting any UAW member out of work, the health care industry is MANY times larger than the auto industry, I think its close to 25% of the GNP.

What is going to happen to the thousands of people that work at HMO's and insurance companies or to the thousands of people that work at what would become duplicative labs, hospitals and clinics?

If the government absorbs all of these workers then unless their pay is cut there won't be ANY SAVINGS!

It is easy to spout soundbytes about single payer systems and so forth and to wring one's hands about the uninsured...who by the way..many are uninsured either for short periods of time or because they choose not to carry insurance due to the high cost, not because they "can't get it"...

Much more difficult to figure out how to make changes to such a large system that is so entwined into business and government.

[SacTownMan]

I'm always amazed when the subject of healthcare pops-up here. The trolls throw out the "per capita" crap and then proceed to compare the US to the rest of the world.

Anon touches on the fact about the population demographics like the homeless, population density and illegal aliens (opps sorry I meant to say "undocumented migrants").

I've worked in healthcare treating cancer patients for more than 20 years. As recently as March I presented a talk at a conference in Florida on my specialty area.

The quality of our healthcare is second to none. At a talk I gave in Inverness Scotland in 2005 I shared the process we use to treat Head and Neck cancers in which we have the majority of our patient undergo a PET/CT that is used in the treatment planning process. The attendee's were shocked that we were using such an advanced screening process and commented that they must wait for 2-3 months for access to the few PET/CT scanners that were even available. Not one of the clinics represented from England, Austrialia or Ireland had such a resource available.

The thought that EMR will be some magic bullet is ridiculous!

Consider the fact that we are losing new doctors in this country at an alarming rate. We produce about 15,000 to 16,000 new doctors per year in our medical schools.

http://www.slate.com/id/2217146/

At the current ratio of 390 patients per doctor we would need 128,000 new doctors to treat the massive influx of patients! You do the math!

Maybe you want our system to be more like Canada where it may take months to get something as simple as a CT scan. Problem is the Canadians aren't too happy with it!

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/klaus071204.htm

Imagine the wait from adding 50 million uninsured (1/3 of which are illegal!) 50 million new patients with only 13,000 new doctors coming on board each year.

Government involvement in healthcare is insane! Just look at the post office or the railroads!

[lala]

Number 1. There is a shortage of GP's in this country. The first thing a single-payer system will do is limit the ability of a person to skip the GP and go directly to the specialist. There will be gateways. And long waiting times.

[templar knight]

Any sane person would realize that the only way health care costs in the US could be brought into line with other countries would be massive cuts in wages and salaries of doctors and nurses, rationing care, or a combination of the two. To even say that adminstrative cost savings could pay for universal health care is silly. And if you think Americans got mad at high gas prices, just wait until they can't get health care they've been used to getting without having it rationed or having to wait for hours in doctor's offices. I almost feel sorry for the Democrats if they get their health care plan passed. I said almost.

Add massive increases in auto prices to massive increases in energy due to cap and trade, and mix it with health care reform, and you have a recipe for the biggest turnover in Congressional history, with the Democrats swept out of office in a massive replay of 1994. Sweet, baby, sweet.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- There is no reason to believe that Obama's plan will do any better. The idea that electronic medical records are going to save enough money to pay for extending health care to more millions is a PIPE DREAM. It's not going to happen, the savings are totally over inflated. --"

EMR is the tip of the iceburg. Once you can track how medicine is performed and delivered, you can move towards optimizing treatment. The current medical system is riddled with inefficiencies and EMR is the best tool for finding and eliminating waste.

And, again, I'm not sure what your alternative is? NOT using EMR? Staying as fragmented and disorganized as possible? It seems your only complaint is that the progressive solution doesn't solve the problem as quickly or aggressively as you'd like it. And yet we all know how you feel about the evils of government regulation.

So you want a lighter government touch that has bigger, faster results? And maybe a pony?

"-- If we want to bring the cost of health care down while extending coverage to millions more people then VERY hard choices are going to have to be made, and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of health care workers are going to be hurt. --"

You say that like hard choices do not already occur on a daily basis. The guy who has to pay out-of-pocket for chemo? The son that has to pay exorbitant fees for the drugs that keep his mom or dad alive. My roommate - my absolute quintessential example - who can't afford to start a small business because he's got a heart condition and absolutely requires health care coverage in case he has a heart attack, and no private insurance career will cover him.

These are your hard choices. Can you afford to pay $10k for a kidney transplant? Is six more months to live worth the six figures it costs to keep a loved one alive? How do you pay the ER bills after a car wreck and still send your kid to college? What does your small business do when the insurance premiums go up another 15% next year?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Government involvement in healthcare is insane! Just look at the post office or the railroads! --"

ZOMG! You're right! Both of those institutions have been highly effective and remarkable cost efficient!

Tell you what, ask the post-Civil War south what it could have used a lot of during the whole "War of Northern Aggression" thing. Let me know if they don't list "More and better railroads." :-p

[North Dallas Thirty]

"So although Single Payer systems deliver just as good or better health care at substantially lower costs, we should somehow fight any effort to install that system here."

If it's "just as good", why is it impossible to hire good employees in the UK, Canada, or any other such place that has it without providing them employer-paid health insurance?

EMR is the tip of the iceburg. Once you can track how medicine is performed and delivered, you can move towards optimizing treatment.

Translation: You can start denying services, requiring people to get clearance to see specialists, putting wait times on treatments, and mandating that they use generic drugs instead of brand-name.

You know, all those things that Obama Party members insisted were "wrong" and "evil" and "heartless" when HMOs and other managed-care organizations were doing them.

Or you can do like the current Obama Party-run single-payer system, aka Medicaid, does, and simply stop paying doctors. Of course, then you'll have to mandate that doctors work for the government in order to keep them around.

What's really funny about this, IslamoLlama, is that if healthcare companies were only motivated by profits, as you whine and scream, they would have already eliminated these inefficiencies because doing so would vastly improve their margins. But you're expecting us to believe that a government of lazy welfare leftists who can't even run the Social Security database correctly or stop their own plans like Medicare and Medicaid from getting ripped off to the tune of tens of billions of dollars annually are going to do better.

"My roommate - my absolute quintessential example - who can't afford to start a small business because he's got a heart condition and absolutely requires health care coverage in case he has a heart attack, and no private insurance career will cover him."

29 states have high-risk pools for exactly this purpose. Go ahead and enroll; your friend will get the government-subsidized and provided healthcare that all of you leftists want to impose on the rest of us.

[North Dallas Thirty]

These are your hard choices. Can you afford to pay $10k for a kidney transplant? Is six more months to live worth the six figures it costs to keep a loved one alive? How do you pay the ER bills after a car wreck and still send your kid to college? What does your small business do when the insurance premiums go up another 15% next year?

(shrug) That's the cost we all have to pay so that your leftist Obama Party lawyers' lobby can have big houses and fancy cars.

How about you leftists start telling your lawyer friends that we're not paying for their lawsuits any more? They'll have to get used to that anyway, since when you impose government-rationed healthcare on the rest of us, they won't be able to sue the government. Why not skip a step and cap malpractice lawsuits now and institute "loser pays"?

[Nishner]

NDT = Corporate Mouthpiece.

Love it when supposedly penny-pinching conservatives rally behind an inefficient, incredibly expensive system that largely exists through the power of its corporate lobbyists and PR machine. Even funnier to believe conservatives actually buy into all that "choice" BS.

The health insurers are apoplectic over the idea of a public option in Obama's health care plan because they know it spells doom for their gravy train.

Health care IS rationed - duh. We need a system that gets rid of the rationing.

We can have better health care at significantly lower cost. Really.

[lala]

Everyone's greedy. We have to stop that. Time to let the government run everything. We all know that government people are honest and content with low salaries.

[North Dallas Thirty]

LOL....Nishner, you and your fellow leftists can't even run your own socialized medicine scheme that already exists, even though you and your Obama Party already put in your so-called "recordkeeping system".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/

Heck, you can't even get doctors to participate in your rationed-care single-payer system, also known as Medicaid, because you demand they accept idiotically-low payments to give rationed care, and then you don't pay them.

http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/note-to-medicaid-patients-the-doctor-wont-see-you/

You've failed already at government care, leftist. But since you and your Obama Party want the money going to you instead of to private industry, you're taking the classic route of outlawing the competition.

[anon]

Government run health care will get rid of rationing? Yep, and all little children will have ponys and everyone will grow up to be a gazillionaire if they eat their vegetables.

There are only two ways to control costs, either you find a way to bring the cost of X down or you control the amount of X that is available. That's it folks.

My doctor has used EMR for years and I can tell you that they are just as inefficient as paper because their value for tracking information and maximizing treatment and blah, blah, blah is ONLY as good as the information that is contained within them, and if the doctor of physicians assistant doesn't input the right info..then bingo...while its super cool like 21st century that you can see your record or your MRI on the computer screen in the doctor's office and even the scans of the notes...the quality and efficiacy are still variable based on human error.

Like I said, electronic medical records is not going to save anything close to the money Obama claims it will and that isn't even accounting for the BILLIONS in real money it will cost to upgrade all these systems across the country and train people how to use them.

PS...the 'railroads' used to be operated by private companies, back in the day when the trains ran on time and were clean and pricing made sense and lots of people actually rode on trains....just sayin.

If you're touting Amtrak as something for the health care system to aspire to, you need to do some more research.

[Nishner]

Thanks for making my point - the current health care system is broken and needs to be redesigned from the bottom up. And thanks also for that info on the state's High Risk Pool - nice of you to point out that commercial insurers only real interest in health insurance is how much profit they can make.

Nice that you guys are satisfied with a health care system that leaves ~50 million uninsured, has chronically spiraling prices, offers ever shrinking for the insured, and the includes at no cost the constant threat that if you actually use your insurance, you'll lose it.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"And thanks also for that info on the state's High Risk Pool - nice of you to point out that commercial insurers only real interest in health insurance is how much profit they can make."

Yup. And if you were smart, you would realize that that profit is what allows them to employ millions of people, pay their suppliers, and otherwise add value to the economy. Sort of like you want to do with these government "stimulus checks", only it doesn't involve taking money from people and giving them nothing in return.

This has nothing to do with you wanting to provide "better service", Nishner; it's the fact that the grasping octopuses that make up your Obama Party want every ounce of the billions of dollars that Americans spend annually on healthcare. Their intention is to do exactly what they did with Social Security -- divert hard cash from peoples' paychecks that they can spend now in exchange for an IOU to be paid back at an unspecified future date when and if they feel like it, wholly subject to change, and uncollectible if you die.

You worried about the uninsured? Why don't you ask your billionaire buddies Buffett and Soros to pay for it? In fact, why don't we impose a 100% tax on income above $250k for all Obama Party members, with every bit of it going to providing free housing, free healthcare, free cars, and the like for Obama's illegal-immigrant aunt, Octo-Mom, those who choose big houses and expensive cars over healthcare for their children like the Frost family, and all the other people for whose "causes" you libbies try to soak the American taxpayer.

[Nishner]

And if you were smart you'd realize it's that allegiance to profit that drives insurers to deny health coverage, jack up rates to unaffordable levels, etc. to generate profit - because bottom line, their profit is more important than your health.

Fact remains we pay 1.5 to 2 times what other industrialized countries do for a product that isn't any better. Our administrative costs are also 1.5 to 2x as much per capita. There's litterally 100's of billions of dollars of wasted spending there. I thought conservatives lovvvvvvvved cutting waste.

[anon]

You don't get it, you're looking for a quick fix and there is no quick fix for health care.

There is also no way that Obama's plan is going to save the money he says it will. Ask the HMO's how much money they ended up saving by offering preventative care for nominal fees, especially for seniors.

There is also no reason to believe the government will do a better job of rationing health care than insurance companies, because everyone getting the gold standard of all the health care, expensive tests, chemo and new treatments you want is N E V E R going to happen.

What is going to happen is this:

-the uninsured will have minimal health care...though I wonder who these millions really care since all seniors have medicare and all poor people have medicaid..where are these 40 million people?

-the rich will all move to private plans, siphoning off the best doctors

-the middle class and upper middle class, the people who already have good private health care will see their health care coverage DECLINE by a significant margin.

-independent private practices will cease to exist because the government reimbursement won't cover their costs...it is already this way w/medicare and medicaid.

Neat. Can't wait. What a great idea.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"And if you were smart you'd realize it's that allegiance to profit that drives insurers to deny health coverage, jack up rates to unaffordable levels, etc. to generate profit - because bottom line, their profit is more important than your health."

Duh. My health is my concern; their business profit is their concern. But you know what's great about our current system? I can choose. If they jack up prices, I can walk. If they provide crappy services, I can take my business elsewhere.

Under ObamaCare, my care will still be denied, my taxes will be jacked up to unaffordable levels, etc., all so that Obama and the left can give away freebies to his criminal illegal-immigrant aunt -- but I will have no choice in the matter. In addition, the Obama Party can't even track Social Security numbers to the point of being useful, but you expect me to believe that they can manage medical records?

Finally, if our healthcare is so bad, why is it that so many of the people in the socialist paradises that you worship come HERE to get tests, treatment, etc.?

http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=51253&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

[SacTownMan]

"Fact remains we pay 1.5 to 2 times what other industrialized countries do for a product that isn't any better."

Another expert on American heathcare chimes in with one of the favorite troll talking points!

In an effort to enlighten another brain dead moonbat let me again state that as someone that actually works treating cancer patients in this country your generalzation about "..isn't any better" is based on no real experience and is in fact a statement that shows your stupidity in an area you know nothing about except what you read at Daily Koz!

The fact is innovation and cutting edge treatment modalities cost money. Private enterprise is responsible for most of the advances in drugs and new treatment options available to Americans. Using per capita stats or the "same as" argument to disparage the profession that I and others have chosen is a sign of of a thoughtless idiot!

If you like the mythical "cheaper healthcare" available in some "industrialized nation" somewhere else feel free to move there. I'll even help by donating to your one way ticket!

Government involvement in healthcare means less access to cutting edge treatments and drugs. Limiting physician pay will simply drive more to retire early diluting the talent pool even furthur.

I do more in one month to save the lives of critically ill Americans than a loser like you will do in your entire lifetime!

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it troll!!

[Nishner]

If our health care is so good, why do we rank so low?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Duh, your health is their concern. They'll be happy to insure you as long as it's good. Try walking once you get sick with something serious. That's why those state high risk pools exist, cause commercial insurers only care about profit.

And Americans are also flocking overseas for dental and medical work as well.

Your distortions about Obams's plans seem to come straight from the insurers playbook. You know, the insurers that chant choice, choice, choice but don't want a public option in the health plan.

Again, our health care system is more expensive than another system, leaves over 40 million uninsured while delivering care that ranks just above Slovenia.

But it's good enough for you.

http://allcountries.org/health/usa_health_care_2008_nyt.html

[templar knight]

Hmm...another moonbat, lefty expose of the health care system just prior to universal health care being voted on by the Congress. What a coincidence. And in that report the lefty goons admit that there is no more than $50 billion a year in wasted admin costs, so where are the huge savings to come from?

I wouldn't believe one thing these partisans say, myself, as it's quite obvious that this study is one in the same as some of the others that showed how great the Soviet medical care system was back in the 1980s. I didn't believe it then(I was proven to be right), and I don't believe it now. Just more lefty propaganda, along the same lines as the reports from Mexico that purported to show 90% of firearms used by drug lords in Mexico came from gun dealers in the US. We know that study was printed as fact by the face-up-Obama's-ass media even though it has proven to be nothing more than a fairy tale cooked up to justify gun control in the US.

All one has to do is look at the mess in California and realize that the whole country is headed the same way unless we derail these goons now running our country. And that means stopping everything they try to do, including health care reform, as it will be easier to stop it now than to fix the mess they will make later. An ounce of prevention...now that is reform I can get behind.

[Nishner]

Yeah, Doctors are so worried they actually support national health insurance:

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

[templar knight]

Sure, we're supposed to believe the same idiots who told us how great the Soviet medical system was, how drug lords in Mexico obtained 90% of their guns from legal dealers in the US, and how honest an election Obama ran. And what did I hear about the NYT killing a story on Obama and ACORN right before the election? Yeah, I would sure believe face-in-Obama's-ass reuters. You're comical, nish.

[anon]

Just don't say you weren't warned, so please don't act surprised when "medicare for all" turns out to be a big clusterf***k bureaucratic Kafkaesque nightmare that doesn't end up saving any money and ends up reducing the quality of health care for the vast majority of Americans who have jobs but aren't rich.

Whenever people continue to circle back to their same talking points instead of addressing the facts and arguments that are before them it is a sure sign that its a 100% ideological argument devoid of any desire to look at all the facts.

Arguing with liberals about universal health care is exactly the same as arguing with conservatives about the Iraq War....pointless.

But, if I were you I'd be getting my list of excuses ready for why things won't turn out like you say they will.

I'm sure there will be a way to blame it all on [gasp] those horrible, sickening immoral perverts who actually earn enough money to foot the bill for all the freebies you want to give away...the evil business community.

Do they not teach people in civics anymore than THE MONEY THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO SPEND COMES FROM TAXES and only people who make money pay taxes.

[templar knight]

I see there was another typical moonbat ploy in the survey. The Reuters headline says that doctors support universal health care, yet the doctors were asked whether they favor a national health insurance plan. Hmm...more moonbat trickery here. You can believe absolutely nothing a lefty tells you...nothing, the truth is not in the sorry bastards.

[SacTownMan]

Still another clueless troll trots out the old biased report from the World Health Organization's report from 2000 to "prove" their talking point that American healthcare is somehow inferior to that of other "industrialized countries.

This report from the America loving folks at the UN is one of the biggest piles of crap ever produced on accessing quality. Read the following link from the Cato Institute for some enlightenment. It should be expected that a braindead troll like Nimrod would cite it as some sort of "holy grail" to try and disparge American healthcare. It is used by those that know absolutely nothing about healthcare but love to spout out their "I told you so" talking point like this asshat!

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236

I really love the higher ranking of Costa Rica.

So Nimrod did you actually READ the report? Please keep your half-assed expertise to yourself, you simply show your self to be a partisan hack and do nothing to furthur the discourse on the state of healthcare in this country.

Gotta love someone that knows nothing about the delivery or actual quality of American healthcare trying to come accross as an expert on the subject.

You're better off sticking to wearing your cute little aluminum hats and sitting around with your half-wit friends bitching about Bush, Bush, Bush and his evil controlled demolition of tower 7!!

Leave the discussion of improving American healthcare to those that actually KNOW something about it!

What a tool!!

[Nishner]

"It is time to publicly admit that the health care system in America is broken. Costs are rising at an unacceptable rate—more than doubling over the last 10 years, which is nearly four times the rate of wage growth. Too many patients feel trapped by healthcare decisions dictated by HMOs. Too many doctors are torn between practicing medicine and practicing insurance. And 47 million Americans worry what will happen to them or their children if they get sick."

Liberal spiel? Nope - that's what the Republicans say in their "The Patients' Choice Act".

Conservative Senator - and MD - Tom Coburn is one of the authors.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Of course the system needs updating. But perhaps you ought to read through to Coburn's solution instead of just quoting his opening.

[Dee]

Posted by: liseli kizlar | Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Actually birth certificates can wear out. Mine did along the creases and folds until it was hanging in tatters.

[Dee]

Posted by: SacTownMan | Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 04:34 PM

Do you also consider the CDC to be made up of brain dead moonbats?

Per the CDC, in a report dated October 2008, using data from 2004, the last year that data was available for all countries, the United States was tied with Poland and Slovakia in the 29th position of infant mortality. Japan, Sweden, Spain, France, Germany, Australia, England and Wales and Canada all had lower infant mortality rates than the US. Additionally, the US ranking gets worse as time goes by. We were 12th in 1960, 23rd in 1990 and then 29th in 2004. All of these countries have some form of universal health care.

And the CIA. Do you also consider the CIA to be made up of brain dead moonbats?

The CIA 2009 estimated life expectancy report ranks the US as 50th out of 224 countries rated. Again, Japan, Sweden, Spain, France, Germany, Australia, England and Wales and Canada outrank the US.

The Organisation for Co-Operation and Development, which I imagine you would consider to be a brain dead moonbat what with it being based in France and all even though the US is a member, found that the US has the highest health care expenditure per capita at $6,000.00.

The next two highest, Norway and Switzerland come in at a per capita cost of about $4,000.00. A full $2,000.00 less in per capita health expenditures than the US.

We do have an edge on innovation but as you noted that area of health care is expensive. Therefore many have no access to such care because they have the misfortune to be unemployed or underemployed and without insurance.

So let's summarize here. The US spends much more on health care costs yet is behind not just a few but MANY countries in infant mortality and life expectancy. The US has innovation on its side which is expensive and available only to the well off.

So the only thing the US has going for it in health care is not available to millions and so expensive that even those who have insurance still cannot afford all of the over and above insurance costs and are potentially forced to file bankruptcy and/or lose their homes.

Oh yeah! We got it going ON! USA USA USA!!!