FYI- you all HAVE to watch the replay of the Daily Show from today. he goes OFF on the "elitist" controversy and it's freaking hysterical.

 

Edited April 15, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Cindy McCain's website is grabbing recipes word for word from the Food Network and presenting them as her own.

scandalous

Cindy McCain's website is grabbing recipes word for word from the Food Network and presenting them as her own.

well, at least they came from a good site. Cant go wrong with the Food Network.

Didn't someone say in one of the other threads that this election would prove once and for all which side the media is on, or something like that?

John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

Didn't someone say in one of the other threads that this election would prove once and for all which side the media is on, or something like that?

 

yea i read that in the Washington Post. It's a total bs story. Kinda of like when i hear some far right winger b**** about how FOX news is liberal.

 

that op-ed proves nothing.

 

side note: Milbank is a fairly far left journalist. used to work for the New Republic

Edited April 15, 200818 yr by mr_genius

Didn't someone say in one of the other threads that this election would prove once and for all which side the media is on, or something like that?

 

oh no they didn't, Doughnuts?

Frontline on PBS tonight is doing what you might consider "Sicko for Smarties", an intelligent comparison and look at the pros and cons of the various national health care systems out there. Not just a look at the positives, it also looks at the negatives of each system and tries to come up with an idea of how they come out on balance.

Unlike Sicko, "Sick Around the World" isn't afraid to talk about the problems in other countries. In England, the film notes, patients frequently wait for elective services; in Germany, physicians are unhappy that they don't get paid more; in Japan, the government's hyper-aggressive price controls have led to chronic underfunding. And yet the new film also puts these drawbacks in their rightful context. Every system the film portrays has its problems, but overall each one seems to deliver a better total package than the one in the U.S.

 

The most interesting case study is probably Taiwan. A few years ago, when Taiwan decided to revamp its health care system, it studied other countries to determine which system might work best. Its conclusion? A single-payer system--one in which the government insures everybody directly--made the most sense.

 

Virtually alone among health care commentators in the U.S.--a category that includes me--Paul Krugman has been touting Taiwan for a while. The film makes it easy to see why. Today, the people of Taiwan have guaranteed access to health care--and, according to the film, it's very good health care. There are no chronic waiting lists, like you find in Britain, and the care is very advanced. Among other things, Taiwan is among the world leaders in establishing electronic medical records--an innovation that should significantly improve care by keeping doctors and nurses better informed about patient histories and, no less important, avoiding potentially dangerous drug interactions.

 

Reid and Palfreman note, rightly, that the Taiwanese system isn't as foreign as it seems: We actually have a similar program here in the U.S.--for the elderly. It's called Medicare.

Medicare is expensive as hell though. It wouldn't be so bad if something was done about the rising costs. That was one of the unintended consequences of Medicare (I'm not an economist, so I forgot how exactly that happened).

Frontline on PBS tonight is doing what you might consider "Sicko for Smarties", an intelligent comparison and look at the pros and cons of the various national health care systems out there. Not just a look at the positives, it also looks at the negatives of each system and tries to come up with an idea of how they come out on balance.

 

I'm watching this and so far it's been very one sided, and simplistic. It almost completely ignores issues such as high taxes, the fact that malpractice is limited in these countries, ect.

 

It's a pretty bad frontline special.

I'm watching this and so far it's been very one sided, and simplistic. It almost completely ignores issues such as high taxes, the fact that malpractice is limited in these countries, ect.

 

It's a pretty bad frontline special.

I thought you guys were all about limiting malpractice settlements?

I thought you guys were all about limiting malpractice settlements?

 

totally for it. is that part of Obama's plan? it's the best way to lower cost.

totally for it. is that part of Obama's plan? it's the best way to lower cost.

Except for when you do the math. Via the Non-Partisan CBO.

More-recent studies have reached similar conclusions. A 2003 study that examined state data from 1993 to 2002 found that two restrictions--a cap on noneconomic damages and a ban on punitive damages--would together reduce premiums by more than one-third (all other things being equal).(11) And based on its own research on the effects of tort restrictions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the provisions of the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003 (H.R. 5) would lower premiums nationwide by an average of 25 percent to 30 percent from the levels likely to occur under current law. (The savings in each state would depend in part on the restrictions already in effect there.)

 

Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

 

premiums for all physicians nationwide rose by 15 percent between 2000 and 2002--nearly twice as fast as total health care spending per person. The increases during that period were even more dramatic for certain specialties: 22 percent for obstetricians/gynecologists and 33 percent for internists

 

A full analysis of the reasons for the recent rise in premiums is beyond the scope of this brief. But the available evidence suggests that higher costs for insurers (particularly from increases in the size of malpractice awards), lower investment income, and short-term factors such as cyclical patterns in the insurance market have all played major roles.

 

More-recent studies have reached similar conclusions. A 2003 study that examined state data from 1993 to 2002 found that two restrictions--a cap on noneconomic damages and a ban on punitive damages--would together reduce premiums by more than one-third

 

if it's raising costs, it's raising costs. why not cut the limits? if insurance companies are overreacting, tie tort reform to insurance costs.

 

a reduction in premiums by 1/3 is huge

 

on a side note, countries like Germany, which the program shows as a success, have people making 52,000 euros (or about $80,000) pay 42% income tax rates. The US would have to go with even higher rates than that, as our costs are higher. 50% income tax rates for a $80,000 salary could be necessary. There needs to be an honest discussion on universal health care and what it will actually cost.

 

I'm not even against universal health care. i just don't think the Dems are being honest about things.

Edited April 16, 200818 yr by mr_genius

Caption this Photo:

 

 

totally for it. is that part of Obama's plan? it's the best way to lower cost.

I'd suggest that preventative care is the best way to lower health care costs.

 

Caption this photo:

 

Except for when you do the math. Via the Non-Partisan CBO.

 

 

I took a medical malpractice class a year ago and found (at least from what my data suggested) that medical malpractice suits have little to do with the costs of healthcare. Instead, it's the wasteful, inefficient practice of the industry that are mostly to blame. The actual percentage of malpractice cases where a person was killed or seriously injured that make a claim is less than 5%. And in states where caps have been enacted haven't seen a reduction in their malpractice insurance. Meanwhile, 98,000 people are killed each year due to medical error.

 

The problem isn't the malpractice cases. The problem is with the healthcare industry.

Just askin'.

What if Hillary Clinton released her income tax records showing relatively unremarkable (by senate standards, where almost everyone is fairly wealthy) income and said that Bill files separately and he's a private person so he wouldn't be releasing his?

 

I do not think she'd get a very easy ride from the press since Bill now makes all the money and it's against his sources of income that any potential conflicts of interest or sources of embarrassment would likely arise.

 

So why does John McCain get to pull the same stunt with his wife? I was thinking of this when I saw McCain's tax return release today since I know McCain is actually an extremely wealthy man. His wife is reportedly worth more than $100 million because she is the heir to her father's beer distributorship, which played a key role in McCain's political rise. And if you note down on his disclosure page it states that "In the interest of protecting the privacy of her children, Mrs. McCain will not be releasing her personal tax returns."

This was pretty humorous:

Wow.

 

 

 

What is missing from this graphic?

Wow.

 

 

 

What is missing from this graphic?

Damn Liberal Media.

 

 

/green not necessary, I hope.

Is this what the elite republican leadership REALLY thinks of the American people?

 

 

Leaked ABC's Stephanopoulos interviews John McCain:

 

big piece in the nytimes...anyone care to discuss it?