Date: September 13th, 2005 7:17 PM Author: Orchid hospital dragon
umm, hello, Congress could have went for democrats too, from the vantage point before the November election. 2004 election had congressman and senators too.
Date: September 13th, 2005 7:30 PM Author: Orchid hospital dragon
Are you kidding me? It could've easily happened? And had Kerry won, odds would've been even higher of Democratic prevalence in Congress (riding his coattails). So one had to consider the very real possibility that his plan couldve gone through.
prescription bill is bad. kerry's would've been far worse.
Date: September 13th, 2005 7:33 PM Author: wild dysfunction theatre
"It could've easily happened"
No, it couldn't have. You need now to face up to the reality that you voted for the wrong reasons. The chances that Kerry would have spent as much on new health care per year as Bush spends on Iraq (what is it now - $100 billion?) were always nil.
Again, look to 1993 - nothing happened.
And anyhow, the American health care system is broken. Health care spending as a percentage of GDP is higher here than in other developed nations. What is Bush's plan to address this fact?
Date: September 13th, 2005 7:37 PM Author: Orchid hospital dragon
You are totally clueless, honestly. You just asserting, without evidence, that "it couldn't have happened" doesnt make it so. It could've. And it would've cost trillions and been an absolute disaster. Kerry's tax policies were also dumb.
Greater spending is no indication of failure. People all over the world come here for treatment. There is a reason. Our care is high quality. Spending more for quality is legitimate.
Date: September 13th, 2005 7:45 PM Author: wild dysfunction theatre
"Our care is high quality."
And yet, most of our health indicators, like life expectancy or infant mortality, or access to prevantative care, suck. Those are facts, not hyperbole.
And yes, I am asserting that Kerry would not have been able to nationalize health care. People are about supportive of that as they are of social security reform. Not going to happen in this country. It was apparently a useful bugbear for the RNC during the '04 election cycle, though...
Date: September 13th, 2005 7:47 PM Author: Orchid hospital dragon
Well many areas in which the US is inferior in health are due to obesity. A hospital can't really force you to lose weight though, however good it is.
He wasnt proposing actual nationalization of healthcare, but he was proposing paying to insure all the uninsured, which would've been absolutely disastrous. Look at our Medicaid/Medicare budgets now, even. Terrible.
Date: September 13th, 2005 7:55 PM Author: wild dysfunction theatre
The uninsured already have to be treated at hospitals when they get sick. A smart, targeted program to cover preventative health care for the uninsured might actually save the country a lot of money over the long-term.
Date: September 13th, 2005 8:00 PM Author: Orchid hospital dragon
No they don't. Only for emergency care, like getting hit by a bus. Elective things (and heart surgery, etc. is considered elective) don't have to be paid for by hospitals, by law.
It wouldn't save the country money to give preventative care to uninsured people compared with just not giving them anything, unless they are utterly destitute (in which case preventative and other care would be good, for a limited time).
Date: September 13th, 2005 8:21 PM Author: wild dysfunction theatre
"Only for emergency care, like getting hit by a bus."
If you have a heart attack, or a diabetic necrosis, the hospital is going to crack your chest open or saw off your leg, respectively. Heart surgery is not "elective" in many situations.
"It wouldn't save the country money to give preventative care to uninsured people "
Of course it could. For example, if we could identify people with diabetes early on, and give them some amount of health advice/preventative care, we could save assloads of cash later on.
Date: September 13th, 2005 10:16 PM Author: Orchid hospital dragon
thats exactly what i said. emergency care. much care is elective.
how would that save the public money? we wouldn't pay out for preventative OR regular care. so preventing problems that might result in bigger expenditures later wouldnt matter, since the public wouldnt be covering those later expenditures either.
Date: September 13th, 2005 7:49 PM Author: aromatic low-t feces
agreed, it's depressing
I was hoping to see thousands adn thousands of dead niggers floating plus a couple thousand faggots from french quarter. the numbers so far are fuckin disappointing, I hope there are thousands more even if we're not hearing about them
Date: September 15th, 2005 10:40 PM Author: aromatic low-t feces
i can only hope feds are shoving dead niggers into the lake..otherwise i dont know why more werent killed, this fucking storm is a disapointment, i hoped for tens of thousands of niggers dead