Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 113

Thread: Some Obvious FOX News Bias That Made Me LoL

  1. #81
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4490030]Not exactly.

    But I don't expect to have a rational debate with someone such as yourself about a ragingly aggressive Anti-Collectivist that operated during the Cold War. Same as I don't expect a rational debate about media bias from someone who takes every word teh LA Times says as pure fact, source and sight unseen, ignoring bias, incoplete and omission-ridden reporting, and the like throughout our modern media.

    I have no doubt in my mind, that if I went to say, any random Occupy, Democrat Party or DailyKOS/Netroots gathering, and asked "who was worse? Joe Stalin, or Joe McCarthy?" the percentages who replied McCarthy would be higher than thise who say Stalin.

    Fact is, what McCarthy feared during the Cold War, many on today's left (IMO) would find tame. There is a meaningul portion of the left who want more collectivism, more socialism, more communism, i.e. More State Power in all Forms, in our Federal policy.

    In 50 years, Represenative King (I think it was King) will be the enxt McCarthy, for his hearings on Islam.

    And everyone will still think Iran Contra was horrible, but no one will remember wht Fast a& Furious was......

    :dunno:[/QUOTE]

    What is irrational about arguing that socialized medicine does not make a country the USSR?

    What is irrational about arguing that Joseph McCarthy was not a great American?

    And you're debating me, not the folks you "imagine would answer a question a certain way." Stalin is worse than McCarthy, because Stalin is worse than pretty much everyone who ever lived. McCarthy is an American politician that happened to use fear mongering tactics for self aggrandizement.

    You can't just call people communists and collectivists, when they're obviously not. That's what you're doing. I'm a collectivist because I want to return American tax policy to one that reflects the majority of American tax policy in the 20th century (you know, around the same time we were fighting that Cold War agains the communists, LOL!)?

    I'm a collectivist because I'm for socialized medicine?

    Speaking of McCarthy, checkout this, this is your writing about me:

    [QUOTE]If circumstances were different, like a good compassionate enlightened collectivist, you'd probably be happy to simply have me arrested as an enemy of the people. Or just put a bullet in my head, if no one was looking. For my own good, of course, and the good of all people, determined, as always, by the collectivist in charge. No shortage of violent collectivists doing just that, for the "greater good", throughout history.

    Sorry to dissapoint you my little Collectivist friend. But I don't work by your rules, nor am I interested in debating someone who does not respect the individual on the same old worn out grounds, listening to the same old collectivist talking points yet again. [/QUOTE]

    Talk about fear mongering. I want to kill you? That's news to me, Fish.

    But that's what you do here. I'm an evil collectivist "who would gladly kill you" because I've asked you to explain how a country practicing socialized medicine, like say Germany or the UK or Canada, is suddenly Soviet in nature.

    Keep throwing around terms like collectivist, soviet and communist to describe all positions to the left of you.
    Last edited by SafetyBlitz; 06-13-2012 at 09:58 AM.

  2. #82
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4489832]What kind of illness/sickness did she have?

    How long was her treatment?[/QUOTE]

    She had a heart valve issue. She was in the hospital for weeks. This is not a one off. There is a policy in place in NY that allows for this type of thing. The hospitals have a system put together to process these folks and get them medical cards. It was all very organized and clear cut.

  3. #83
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4490427]What is irrational about arguing that socialized medicine does not make a country the USSR?

    What is irrational about arguing that Joseph McCarthy was not a great American?[/QUOTE]

    In general I'd say the whole argument for European Style Socialism is a bit irrational as we watch Europe crumble under their debt burden. More irrational is to emulate a system in which high unemployment and low social mobility is the norm. More locally it seems irrational for citizens to elect politicians from a party that controls the most indebted and failing states in the Union. Go through the list. New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, all dominated by liberal Democrats for years. All are in decline. In New York and New Jersey we have two politicians attempting to change the way things have been done and repair the situation. Cuomo has governed as a relatively fiscally conservative Democrat (this was my hope for Obama when he was elected) as has Christie in NJ. This has begun to stem the bleeding. In California and Illinois we have the same old Obama style Democrats in charge and those two just continue to decline. More taxes, more regulations, a continuing exodus of companies and wealthy individuals. It is a disaster. Why would anyone want to emulate that nationally? It does not make any sense.

  4. #84
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4490427]What is irrational about arguing that socialized medicine does not make a country the USSR?

    What is irrational about arguing that Joseph McCarthy was not a great American?[/QUOTE]

    State Mandated Socialized Medicine makes us more collectivist and less free, and works to removes personal responsabillity and accountabillity from our society.

    Joe McCarthy's premise, that we had Communist/Collectivists in the US working to further the aims of our Cold War enemies ideology (or worse), and that stopping them was of vital National interest, was 100% correct. His methods, of course, can be debated.

    But as I said, I would never expect a Collectivist to agree with these things. The Collectivist prefers to be less free (and less personally responsible) in their policy beliefs, and they support Collectivism and their Socialist/Communist brethren, and hence obviously hate anyone who would dare to work against it openly as McCarthy did.

    I always find it interesting that the Collectviists love FDR and loathe McCarthy, when one interned an entire ethnic group in time of War, and the other did far far less.

  5. #85
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    I made a rather serious edit, so I'll wait to respond till you have time to do the same.

  6. #86
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490448]She had a heart valve issue. She was in the hospital for weeks. This is not a one off. There is a policy in place in NY that allows for this type of thing. The hospitals have a system put together to process these folks and get them medical cards. It was all very organized and clear cut.[/QUOTE]

    First off, good for her that she got taken care of, and hope she continues to have healthcare opportunities.

    Few questions though, is that only for NY?

    Who ends up paying for her treatment btw?

    Because in a socialized system, everyone, including her, would have paid some. In our system, that burden falls squarely on those who actually have insurance, and their rates go up.
    Last edited by SafetyBlitz; 06-13-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  7. #87
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4490457]I made a rather serious edit[/QUOTE]

    Yes, yes you did.

  8. #88
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4490498]First off, good for her that she got taken care of, and hope she continues to have healthcare opportunities.

    Few questions though, is that only for NY?

    Who ends up paying for her treatment btw?

    Because in a socialized system, everyone, including her, would have paid some. In our system, that burden falls squarely on those who actually have insurance, and their rates go up.[/QUOTE]

    In the broad sense I'm glad that someone got the help they needed. Who wouldn't be? That does not however consider the unintended consequences of the action. Your premise that in Socialized Medicine everyone shares the burden is untrue. The same group of people paying now will be paying under any system. 40% of the population does not work currently. Of the 60% that do work a portion do not make enough money to have any tax liability.

    This is why Obamacare does not work. The cost of insuring the uninsured passed to the same group that had been paying previously. The cost is driven up to those that already had been burdened with high costs. There are systems or ideas that can work but no one has proposed them. Your concept of UK style healthcare is not feasible in the US without a VAT. Only a consumption "healthcare" tax can possibly ensure that everyone is paying in to the system. That doesn't even begin to address the inherit problem with socialized medicine as far as declines in quality of care which is the primary concern.

    In a bubble, without partisanship, I could create a fair model for healthcare in America. One in which we have a combined hospitilization/basic care plan which is paid for through a small consumption tax. This would cover major hospitalization illness as well as funding government or "free" clinics throughout the country. Then people would be able to purchase insurance to get access to private doctors and hospitals.

    The only way nationalized care can work without killing quality of care is to provide an incentive to purchase additional private insurance which would increase convenience and quality of care for those that purchase it.

    The problem with this scenario? Government often takes good ideas and expands them to ruin. For example what starts out as a basic hospitilization/preventive care plan would over time evolve in to more and more coverage and more and more taxes. It would lead to the decline that the original concept intended to avoid. That's how government always works.

  9. #89
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,180
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4490498][B]First off, good for her that she got taken care of, and hope she continues to have healthcare opportunities.
    [/B]
    Few questions though, is that only for NY?

    [B]Who ends up paying for her treatment btw? [/B]

    Because in a socialized system, everyone, including her, would have paid some. In our system, that burden falls squarely on those who actually have insurance, and their rates go up.[/QUOTE]


    LOL, who cares who pays, as long as everyone from the 3rd world can come for free to get health care?

  10. #90
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4490638]In the broad sense I'm glad that someone got the help they needed. Who wouldn't be? That does not however consider the unintended consequences of the action. Your premise that in Socialized Medicine everyone shares the burden is untrue. The same group of people paying now will be paying under any system. 40% of the population does not work currently. Of the 60% that do work a portion do not make enough money to have any tax liability.

    This is why Obamacare does not work. The cost of insuring the uninsured passed to the same group that had been paying previously. The cost is driven up to those that already had been burdened with high costs. There are systems or ideas that can work but no one has proposed them. Your concept of UK style healthcare is not feasible in the US without a VAT. Only a consumption "healthcare" tax can possibly ensure that everyone is paying in to the system. That doesn't even begin to address the inherit problem with socialized medicine as far as declines in quality of care which is the primary concern.

    In a bubble, without partisanship, I could create a fair model for healthcare in America. One in which we have a combined hospitilization/basic care plan which is paid for through a small consumption tax. This would cover major hospitalization illness as well as funding government or "free" clinics throughout the country. Then people would be able to purchase insurance to get access to private doctors and hospitals.

    The only way nationalized care can work without killing quality of care is to provide an incentive to purchase additional private insurance which would increase convenience and quality of care for those that purchase it.

    The problem with this scenario? Government often takes good ideas and expands them to ruin. For example what starts out as a basic hospitilization/preventive care plan would over time evolve in to more and more coverage and more and more taxes. It would lead to the decline that the original concept intended to avoid. That's how government always works.[/QUOTE]

    40% of the adult population or are we speaking the total population?

    [url]http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/germans_confused_over_us_healthcare_debate[/url]

    [QUOTE][B]Germans Confused Over U.S. Healthcare Debate[/B]

    Their public healthcare system reached a record surplus of $5.28 billion last year and is one of the oldest systems in Europe
    By: Miriam Widman
    March 14, 2012 -- BERLIN -- As the Republican presidential candidates try to outdo each other over criticizing the Obama administration’s healthcare plan, several German healthcare officials who watch the debate in the United States are in disbelief as to why the American public doesn’t want a national plan.

    Their reactions come as the German public healthcare system reached a record € 4 billion ($ 5.28 billion) surplus for 2011.

    "For me as a German, what I cannot understand is that you make the question of health insurance an ideological question,” said Wolfgang Zoeller, a Bavarian politician who has spent the last 22 years in the German parliament or Bundestag.

    Americans talk about whether having a national health plan “is going in the direction of Socialism or Communism,” Zoeller said in an interview in the Bundestag. The nearly 70-year-old politician said he’s far from being a Socialist, noting that he had recently voted to reduce bureaucratic problems surrounding Germany’s inheritance tax.

    “For me the question of a national health insurance is a humane question. I would like that every person, regardless of his or her age, income, pre-conditions or financial possibilities, be helped if they are sick.

    “Otherwise you have the famous phrase: Because you are poor, you have to die earlier. And I don’t want that,” Zoeller said.

    Germany has one of the oldest public healthcare systems in Europe and while the rules can get complicated, it’s based on a simple principle: If you make more money, you pay more into the system. The premiums are based on a percentage of your income. That’s why, as the economy booms here, the national insurance system is producing strong surpluses, Zoeller and others say.

    Under the German scheme people who make less than the equivalent of $58,212 per year are required to have health insurance on the public plan. Those earning more than that can insure themselves on the national health plan -- and pay the top rate -- or they can opt for private insurance which is mainly for high wage earners and self-employed people.

    Still most Germans are on the national plan, though many complain that they get second-class service compared to those with private insurance, which pays doctors more.

    The legal requirement that people be insured – which is under attack by many in the United States – is accepted in Germany – not only by left-leaning parties, but by pro-capitalist ones. The current German health minister, Daniel Bahr, is a member of the pro-business Free Democratic Party and strongly supports the system.

    “Not every S is about socialism,” said Ann Marini, a spokesperson for the Statutory Health Insurers in Germany.

    “It’s not a socialism principle. It’s a solidarity principle,” she said. The idea is that everyone is in a big pool and feels connected to the community, she said. Marini said it’s really tough for people in Germany to understand the debate in the United States.

    “In Germany we have a society that has certain rights and responsibilities for each of its members,” while in America it seems that there’s a strong tendency toward individualism.

    “You (in the U.S.) have risks but you also have opportunities….but for us it’s clear. Health is a risk that cannot be placed on the shoulders of the individual.”

    Marini is even more confused as to why Americans don’t accept a national health plan because she views the United States as a much more religious society than Germany, where people may be a member of a church, but hardly ever go.

    She notes that most religions teach people to “love their neighbors” as a central part of what spiritual life is about. When this principle has such a central religious function – and the United States is so religious – “then why can’t you get it across that people should contribute a bit to support others, for example in health insurance.”[/QUOTE]

    I found that, but I wanted to see if their 4 billion euro surplus was correct:

    [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/german-health-insurers-have-26-billion-cash-sueddeutsche-says.html[/url]

    [QUOTE]Politicians and insurers in Germany are debating how to use almost 20 billion euros ($26 billion) of health-care funds, after the country’s public health insurers generated a surplus of 4 billion euros in 2011, Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported.
    Politicians are suggesting lower premiums or abolishing payments for medication, while insurers want to keep the money as reserve for years with deficits, the newspaper said.
    [/QUOTE]

    Here's an article on comparing their system to the UK system, albeit somewhat focused on how British could get healthcare while in Germany, but a lot of it is just a straight comparison:

    [QUOTE]As one would expect of the richest country in Europe, Germany offers high quality healthcare, from primary care through to high-tech hospitals and good provision for chronic disease and old age.
    It all dates back to Otto von Bismarck, the “Iron Chancellor” who established Germany’s social welfare system in the 1870s. He was reported to have said it was immoral to benefit from sickness, and that “insurance should be on the mutual principle (so that the healthy pay as much as the sick) and no dividends or profits should be derived by private persons”.
    One could argue that these high-minded principles exist more in the imagination than reality. But Bismarck’s broad idea of a range of statutory health insurers, independent of providers, competing against each other, holds good. Insurers (also known as sick funds or mutuals) are financed by contributions from employers and employees.
    COMPARISONS WITH THE NHS
    The “Bismarck system” operates across most of Europe, including Austria, Netherlands, France and Switzerland, all with well-rated healthcare. The NHS’s “Beveridge system,” free at point of use and taxpayer funded, may be much loved by the British people, but arguably does not match the Bismarck system in medical outcomes and aspects of patient satisfaction.
    In Germany, you don’t wait 18 weeks from referral for joint replacement. Equally, “Bismarck” countries largely avoided the high hospital infection rates in NHS units in the Noughties.
    Waits in Germany remain close to nonexistent – even if economic pressures apply, as with all Western countries with ageing populations. And care for the chronic sick and elderly is regarded as far better than in Britain. If you suffer cancer or need certain operations, your insurer may have to pay for a lengthy stay at a salubrious “rehab centre” in the Black Forest. That is not in the NHS book.
    YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR
    With Germany spending 11 per cent of its (considerable) GDP on healthcare, one would expect good health outcomes. They are respectable, with life expectancy at 77 for men and 83 for women. The yardstick of a nation’s healthcare efficiency, infant mortality, is four per 1,000 live births, a satisfactory figure for a country with high numbers of less well-off immigrants.
    GERMANY FEELS THE SQUEEZE
    The German state is as vulnerable as the UK, America or other European states to the problems of mounting healthcare bills. Indeed, it is particularly exposed because of a shrinking and ageing workforce, and falling birth rates.
    That is why Chancellor Angela Merkel defied heavy opposition to push through wide-ranging changes to the state health system in 2010. One aim was to limit ever-rising taxes on employers (who to that point jointly funded the system through equal contributions). That represented a barrier to taking on staff, in turn aggravating unemployment.
    Another aim was to throw the onus of meeting rising healthcare bills on insurers, and ultimately, policyholders.
    WHAT THE CHANGES MEAN
    From January 2011, employers have to pay 15.5 per cent of their income towards healthcare. (The previous rate was 14.9 per cent). This is a huge proportion of income by comparison with other countries, but it should be remembered that the cover is for cradle-to-grave service.
    But the 15.5 per cent employers’ rate is fixed in law and frozen long term. The sums raised are ultimately distributed among scores of state registered health insurers, many quite small and trade-union based. The idea is that by freezing the employers’ income-related contribution rate, the onus falls on insurers to cope with future cost rises. Insurers will either increase premiums – arguably the most likely scenario – or slash overheads and tighten efficiency.
    SHOP AROUND
    As with all insurance-based health schemes, the individual needs to weigh up premium against benefits. As a German government spokesman puts it: “The premium, which has to be paid by all members of a health insurance fund, is a transparent price signal. It allows the insured to compare the price and the benefit package and choose the fund with the best price-performance ratio.”
    Some relief exists for people trapped in an insurance fund that hikes premiums unreasonably. If the average additional premium exceeds two per cent of a policyholder’s income, the individual is reimbursed by the state. To avoid bureaucracy, compensation is paid indirectly, by lowering the income-related contribution rate of the person in question. To cover these costs, €2 billion has been made available until 2014.
    If a health fund has to levy an additional premium, or increase its premium, it must notify its members of their right to cancel their membership. Members are allowed to leave their old fund and join a new one within two months of an additional premium coming into force.
    COMPULSORY PURCHASES
    Since 2007, expatriates in Germany, along with every German citizen, have been obliged to buy cover with a registered insurer.
    The problem is that an expat who travels widely on business almost certainly also needs international medical insurance. The individual is thus doubly insured, an expensive option.
    The element of compulsion applies even in a case of an EU expatriate, say, who is living in Germany for a short spell. He or she still has to buy cover from a German insurer, but may not wish to drop existing cover. This would seem the only way of guarding against becoming uninsurable for any chronic condition that occurs when German state cover lapses, and the expat policyholder wishes to move to his home country, or elsewhere.
    PLAYING FAIR?
    Is the system anti-competitive, as it excludes foreign insurers? Probably, except that exceptions may be made for expatriates with high-level comprehensive insurance. If you earn more than €4,000 a month, you can take out private insurance and drop state-approved cover. Your policy needs to be at least as thorough as German public health insurance, which includes provision for chronic disease and elderly care.
    The German embassy in London describes the question of using foreign insurers as “complex”. A spokesman said: “A British national working in Germany can, in principle, take out private health insurance in the UK, but would have to prove to his employer in Germany that his health insurance covers the mandatory minimum the German public health insurance would cover.”
    As well as matching German state insurance in terms of benefits, the employer would need a certificate by the employee’s British health insurer guaranteeing that this was the case. “Without this certificate, the employer would automatically be obliged to register the employee with a public health insurer.”
    The spokesman added: “One important factor where private health insurance has to match public health insurance in Germany is an adequate old-age provision.
    “Foreign insurance companies that want to offer private health insurance in Germany usually start a German business to provide services that are in full accordance with the German Insurance Contract Act, such as AXA Germany.”
    INTERNATIONAL PREMIUMS
    Expats on higher salaries, or those who want wider geographical cover, may find it cheaper to buy international private medical insurance.
    As ever, premiums vary by around 100 per cent, but no two plans are ever strictly comparable. Among the least expensive in a list of insurers provided by Stephen Walker, of Medical Insurance Services in Brighton, is AxaPPP.
    A 25-year-old man can get comprehensive cover for a year from Axa for 789 (budget plan, covering in-patient only, is 617). Other providers under 1,000 for a year’s cover for the same individual are InterGlobal at 890 (budget 581) and IMG at 915 (budget 470). The IMG premiums include a 15 per cent starter discount.
    For a couple 34 and 31 in Germany seeking comprehensive cover, annual premiums under 2,000 come from AxaPPP at 1,943 (budget 1,519) and IMG because of a 15 per cent starter discount. IMG’s Global Select plan is 1,928 (budget 1,047).
    Also competitive is Aviva International Solutions. For the couple 34/31, its comprehensive plan costs 2,522 a year (budget 1,766). The annual premium for Bupa’s Classic is 3,967 (budget 2,156).
    PROOF OF THE PUDDING?
    If the Merkel reforms work, the chancellor can thank her 19th century predecessor for bequeathing a system that makes competition possible.
    Mrs Merkel needs success because the reforms prompted a steep fall in her poll ratings. She was roundly attacked by opposition parties, trade unions and insurers. They claimed the reforms were aimed more at raising money than cutting costs.
    But Germany has at least made a serious attempt to tackle a problem that is afflicting every Western nation. Each is trying a different approach. That’s a sure sign that no one nation has the answer to the spiralling health costs of an increasingly greying and demanding populace.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/8572290/Expat-guide-to-Germany-health-care.html[/url]

    There's a lot to unpack in these, but strictly speaking, a 4 billion euro surplus for 2011, after certain reforms, looks like a healthy, functioning 70 year old healthcare system that costs the Germans less as a % of their GDP than us and insures more - lower infant mortality rate too, fwiw. But they've got a somewhat hybrid system in that they still have private insurance, with 'cadillac' coverage so-to-speak that operates in a free market for those with high incomes.

    It sounds good to me.

  11. #91
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [CENTER][B][SIZE="6"]Vote[/SIZE][/B]

    [IMG]http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/images/20thc/Bismark.jpg[/IMG]

    [B][SIZE="6"]For President![/SIZE][/B][/CENTER]

  12. #92
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4490974]40% of the adult population or are we speaking the total population?

    [url]http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/germans_confused_over_us_healthcare_debate[/url]



    I found that, but I wanted to see if their 4 billion euro surplus was correct:

    [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/german-health-insurers-have-26-billion-cash-sueddeutsche-says.html[/url]



    Here's an article on comparing their system to the UK system, albeit somewhat focused on how British could get healthcare while in Germany, but a lot of it is just a straight comparison:



    [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/8572290/Expat-guide-to-Germany-health-care.html[/url]

    There's a lot to unpack in these, but strictly speaking, a 4 billion euro surplus for 2011, after certain reforms, looks like a healthy, functioning 70 year old healthcare system that costs the Germans less as a % of their GDP than us and insures more - lower infant mortality rate too, fwiw. But they've got a somewhat hybrid system in that they still have private insurance, with 'cadillac' coverage so-to-speak that operates in a free market for those with high incomes.

    It sounds good to me.[/QUOTE]
    As I stated here before, Lets send them the illegals and inner city folk that REFUSE to live a healthy lifestyle ( Bloomberg be damned) and see how long their system survives.

  13. #93
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4491075]As I stated here before, Lets send them the illegals and inner city folk that REFUSE to live a healthy lifestyle ( Bloomberg be damned) and see how long their system survives.[/QUOTE]

    So we can't touch healthcare till we deal with immigration?

    And who are these "inner-city folk that refuse to live a healthy lifestyle"?

  14. #94
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4491068][CENTER][B][SIZE="6"]Vote[/SIZE][/B]

    [IMG]http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/images/20thc/Bismark.jpg[/IMG]

    [B][SIZE="6"]For President![/SIZE][/B][/CENTER][/QUOTE]

    Hey, btw, did you know President Harry S Truman was the first American President to call for universal healthcare? It was part of his "fair deal" program.

    Truman... totally a soviet plant. Am-I-right?

  15. #95
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4491086]Hey, btw, did you know President Harry S Truman was the first American President to call for universal healthcare? It was part of his "fair deal" program.

    Truman... totally a soviet plant. Am-I-right?[/QUOTE]

    Nope, just another pro-collectivist of sorts, like his Predecessor. You do know he nuked Japan, not the USSR right?

    Like FDR before him, they both took Stalin's knob right up their softly Communist-tolerant asses, and all it cost them was the Freedom and Liberty of all of Eastern Europe for half a century Now thats a "fair deal" any Collectivist can love!

  16. #96
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4491085]So we can't touch healthcare till we deal with immigration?

    And who are these "inner-city folk that refuse to live a healthy lifestyle"?[/QUOTE]

    The proportion of the African American population that has diabetes rises from less than 1 percent for those aged younger than 20 years to as high as 32 percent for women age 65-74 years. In every age group, prevalence is higher for women than men: overall, among those age 20 years or older, the rate is 11.8 percent for women and 8.5 percent for men.

    About one-third of total diabetes cases are undiagnosed among African Americans. This is similar to the proportion for other racial/ethnic groups in the United States.

    National health surveys during the past 35 years show that the percentage of the African American population that has been diagnosed with diabetes is increasing dramatically. The surveys in 1976-80 and in 1988-94 measured fasting plasma glucose and thus allowed an assessment of the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes as well as of previously diagnosed diabetes. In 1976-80, total diabetes prevalence in African Americans age 40-74 years was 8.9 percent; in 1988-94, total prevalence had increased to 18.2 percent--a doubling of the rate in just 12 years.

    Prevalence in African Americans is much higher than in white Americans. Among those age 40-74 years in the 1988-94 survey, the rate was 11.2 percent for whites, but was 18.2 percent for blacks--diabetes

    Age-adjusted percentage of overweight persons 20 years of age and over who are obese, 2007-2010. (Persons are considered obese if they have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 30 or greater.) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)




    Non-Hispanic Black


    Non-Hispanic White


    Non-Hispanic Black/ Non-Hispanic White Ratio

    Men


    [B]38.3[/B]


    34.1


    1.1

    Women


    [B]54.0
    [/B]

    32.5


    1.7

    CDC
    Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest rates of obesity (44.1%) compared with Mexican Americans (39.3%), all Hispanics (37.9%) and non-Hispanic whites (32.6%).
    Facts don't lie, liberal do.

  17. #97
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4491096]Nope, just another pro-collectivist of sorts, like his Predecessor. You do know he nuked Japan, not the USSR right?

    Like FDR before him, they both took Stalin's knob right up their softly Communist-tolerant asses, and all it cost them was the Freedom and Liberty of all of Eastern Europe for half a century Now thats a "fair deal" any Collectivist can love![/QUOTE]

    Yes I was aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

    Let me ask you this - would you have rather had Joseph McCarthy or Harry Truman as President?

  18. #98
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4491101]The proportion of the African American population... [/QUOTE]

    Knew it was coming.

  19. #99
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4491138]Yes I was aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

    Let me ask you this - would you have rather had Joseph McCarthy or Harry Truman as President?[/QUOTE]

    I would have rather not left Eastern Europe to 50 years of Communist domination, tyrany and mass murder under Communist Totalitarianism.

  20. #100
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4491151]I would have rather not left Eastern Europe to 50 years of Communist domination, tyrany and mass murder under Communist Totalitarianism.[/QUOTE]

    What would that have entailed, in your estimation?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us