[afx114]

Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?

[afx114]

Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?

[afx114]

Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?

[afx114]

Medicare insures the un-insurable, so of course it is going to cost a lot and lose money. The idea is that if you expand that and have everyone throwing into the pool, the people who don’t always need the service are subsidizing the people who are actually using it. This is the very definition of insurance, is it not?

Have you ever shopped at Costco? When you buy in bulk, costs go down. If you have 300 million people throwing into the insurance pool rather than 40 million, costs will go down for everybody.

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn’t a bill about funding research — it is a bill about paying for medical care. The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When’s the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard? Most of the breakthroughs in cancer, stem cells, HIV, Alzheimer, etc, are happening in universities, not corporations. This bill has nothing to do with funding for universities or even corporations doing research. Yet another straw man scare tactic.

Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it’s made that industry even stronger.

[afx114]

Medicare insures the un-insurable, so of course it is going to cost a lot and lose money. The idea is that if you expand that and have everyone throwing into the pool, the people who don’t always need the service are subsidizing the people who are actually using it. This is the very definition of insurance, is it not?

Have you ever shopped at Costco? When you buy in bulk, costs go down. If you have 300 million people throwing into the insurance pool rather than 40 million, costs will go down for everybody.

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn’t a bill about funding research — it is a bill about paying for medical care. The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When’s the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard? Most of the breakthroughs in cancer, stem cells, HIV, Alzheimer, etc, are happening in universities, not corporations. This bill has nothing to do with funding for universities or even corporations doing research. Yet another straw man scare tactic.

Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it’s made that industry even stronger.

[afx114]

Medicare insures the un-insurable, so of course it is going to cost a lot and lose money. The idea is that if you expand that and have everyone throwing into the pool, the people who don’t always need the service are subsidizing the people who are actually using it. This is the very definition of insurance, is it not?

Have you ever shopped at Costco? When you buy in bulk, costs go down. If you have 300 million people throwing into the insurance pool rather than 40 million, costs will go down for everybody.

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn’t a bill about funding research — it is a bill about paying for medical care. The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When’s the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard? Most of the breakthroughs in cancer, stem cells, HIV, Alzheimer, etc, are happening in universities, not corporations. This bill has nothing to do with funding for universities or even corporations doing research. Yet another straw man scare tactic.

Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it’s made that industry even stronger.

[afx114]

Medicare insures the un-insurable, so of course it is going to cost a lot and lose money. The idea is that if you expand that and have everyone throwing into the pool, the people who don’t always need the service are subsidizing the people who are actually using it. This is the very definition of insurance, is it not?

Have you ever shopped at Costco? When you buy in bulk, costs go down. If you have 300 million people throwing into the insurance pool rather than 40 million, costs will go down for everybody.

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn’t a bill about funding research — it is a bill about paying for medical care. The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When’s the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard? Most of the breakthroughs in cancer, stem cells, HIV, Alzheimer, etc, are happening in universities, not corporations. This bill has nothing to do with funding for universities or even corporations doing research. Yet another straw man scare tactic.

Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it’s made that industry even stronger.

[afx114]

Medicare insures the un-insurable, so of course it is going to cost a lot and lose money. The idea is that if you expand that and have everyone throwing into the pool, the people who don’t always need the service are subsidizing the people who are actually using it. This is the very definition of insurance, is it not?

Have you ever shopped at Costco? When you buy in bulk, costs go down. If you have 300 million people throwing into the insurance pool rather than 40 million, costs will go down for everybody.

And how is a public option going to stifle innovation? This isn’t a bill about funding research — it is a bill about paying for medical care. The majority of research happens in universities, many of which are public. When’s the last time you heard of a corporation coming up with a breakthrough in something other than a drug to make your weiner hard? Most of the breakthroughs in cancer, stem cells, HIV, Alzheimer, etc, are happening in universities, not corporations. This bill has nothing to do with funding for universities or even corporations doing research. Yet another straw man scare tactic.

Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it’s made that industry even stronger.

[afx114]

Having a lawn in the desert is dumb. Move to Pennsylvania if you want a lawn.

[afx114]

Having a lawn in the desert is dumb. Move to Pennsylvania if you want a lawn.

[afx114]

Having a lawn in the desert is dumb. Move to Pennsylvania if you want a lawn.

[afx114]

Having a lawn in the desert is dumb. Move to Pennsylvania if you want a lawn.

[afx114]

Having a lawn in the desert is dumb. Move to Pennsylvania if you want a lawn.

[afx114]

I would argue that Obama is losing support because he’s not been transformative enough, not because he’s been exposed as a “leftist ideologue.” He ran on being the spearhead of a movement of “out with the old, in with the new” and what we’ve ended up with is more of the same. This frustrates his supporters and the majority of the independents that voted for him, hence his falling poll numbers. Of course those on the right think that he’s going to far, but the majority who elected him are being let down by him not doing enough. I think he will realize this after giving “bipartisanism” a chance and adjust course, so I’m not going to write him off just yet.

[afx114]

I would argue that Obama is losing support because he’s not been transformative enough, not because he’s been exposed as a “leftist ideologue.” He ran on being the spearhead of a movement of “out with the old, in with the new” and what we’ve ended up with is more of the same. This frustrates his supporters and the majority of the independents that voted for him, hence his falling poll numbers. Of course those on the right think that he’s going to far, but the majority who elected him are being let down by him not doing enough. I think he will realize this after giving “bipartisanism” a chance and adjust course, so I’m not going to write him off just yet.

[Author]

Posts