I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I'm asking because, according to some folks on the debate stage in Detroit, support for policy positions like the public option, comprehensive immigration reform and trade agreements are now dismissed as "Republican talking points." The same applies to asking practical questions about how proposals would be passed or paid for. That's not only a sign of how far left Democrats are moving but also a warning about how liberals risk reinforcing Donald Trump's re-election playbook.
Of course, all this is absurd. Obama is the Democratic Party's most popular ex-President in living memory. Despite Republicans' relentless and often unhinged attacks on him as socialist and worse, it's now clear that he was a responsible center-left leader.
After inheriting the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Obama actually reduced the deficit in his second term and backed bipartisan reforms on stubborn issues like immigration. Many of his policy outreaches to Republicans were rebuffed, and it's because of the reflexive demonization of Obama that many Democrats today are saying that it's useless to reach out to Republicans. I understand their frustration. But still, the ability to work with Republicans is the third quality that a CNN poll shows Democrats want most in their next president, the first being an ability to defeat Donald Trump. And that requires more than a purely play-to-the-base strategy that ignores independent swing voters. Let's not forget that passing Obamacare was a massive task. Obama proposed a public option as a more practical and popular alternative to the single-payer system that very few Democrats supported just a decade ago.
I'm asking because, according to some folks on the debate stage in Detroit, support for policy positions like the public option, comprehensive immigration reform and trade agreements are now dismissed as "Republican talking points." The same applies to asking practical questions about how proposals would be passed or paid for. That's not only a sign of how far left Democrats are moving but also a warning about how liberals risk reinforcing Donald Trump's re-election playbook.
Of course, all this is absurd. Obama is the Democratic Party's most popular ex-President in living memory. Despite Republicans' relentless and often unhinged attacks on him as socialist and worse, it's now clear that he was a responsible center-left leader.
After inheriting the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Obama actually reduced the deficit in his second term and backed bipartisan reforms on stubborn issues like immigration. Many of his policy outreaches to Republicans were rebuffed, and it's because of the reflexive demonization of Obama that many Democrats today are saying that it's useless to reach out to Republicans. I understand their frustration. But still, the ability to work with Republicans is the third quality that a CNN poll shows Democrats want most in their next president, the first being an ability to defeat Donald Trump. And that requires more than a purely play-to-the-base strategy that ignores independent swing voters. Let's not forget that passing Obamacare was a massive task. Obama proposed a public option as a more practical and popular alternative to the single-payer system that very few Democrats supported just a decade ago.
Clink the link to read the rest of the article.
The question is whether these candidates are actually reflective of the voters. So far, with Biden polling highest, the answer appears to be "no". But as candidates drop, and people move to their second choices, we'll know better.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.
One last question,
on here a while back someone (american) said that his wife needed an aspirin (or similiar) at the hospital while being in labor. And that was added to their bill for the visit, the cost I think was 80-100 dollar for that pill.
In Sweden, that would have been given for no charge and the actual charge of it for the taxpayers would be the cost of the pill (whatever Aspirin cost per pill, in Sweden or the US).
And I understand that it is impossible to compare the US because it is the apple to every other countries oranges.
But will I find an answer to that difference in health care cost in your block of text above?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.
One last question,
on here a while back someone (american) said that his wife needed an aspirin (or similiar) at the hospital while being in labor. And that was added to their bill for the visit, the cost I think was 80-100 dollar for that pill.
In Sweden, that would have been given for no charge and the actual charge of it for the taxpayers would be the cost of the pill (whatever Aspirin cost per pill, in Sweden or the US).
And I understand that it is impossible to compare the US because it is the apple to every other countries oranges.
But will I find an answer to that difference in health care cost in your block of text above?
I find that unbelievable. Not calling you a liar because hell, maybe someone really did say that. But you can get a bottle of 500 aspirin pills for like $5.
Then again, when you're in a hospital and at the will of insurance companies, I guess anything can happen.
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
Name another country that can be compared to the US?
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.
One last question,
on here a while back someone (american) said that his wife needed an aspirin (or similiar) at the hospital while being in labor. And that was added to their bill for the visit, the cost I think was 80-100 dollar for that pill.
In Sweden, that would have been given for no charge and the actual charge of it for the taxpayers would be the cost of the pill (whatever Aspirin cost per pill, in Sweden or the US).
And I understand that it is impossible to compare the US because it is the apple to every other countries oranges.
But will I find an answer to that difference in health care cost in your block of text above?
I find that unbelievable. Not calling you a liar because hell, maybe someone really did say that. But you can get a bottle of 500 aspirin pills for like $5.
Then again, when you're in a hospital and at the will of insurance companies, I guess anything can happen.
Could remember it all wrong ofc. But I usually have a good memory concerning things that are like a Rod Serling fever dream.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,659
Was discussing again last night with someone....Dems are, in my
opinion, 100% going to lose if they send up one of these out of touch,
screaming, septuagenarian, dreamers. Crazy platform ideas like
"Forgive all college debt"? This is not going to fly here. Nope. Go
ahead and give the stage back to that orange monster.
Focus on winning the swing votes, not on being the most "left" you can be.
Kicking Obama policies to try and get up on Joe? So dumb.
I despise Trump, but the left is really not much smarter. Country full of dummies, we are.
Was discussing again last night with someone....Dems are, in my
opinion, 100% going to lose if they send up one of these out of touch,
screaming, septuagenarian, dreamers. Crazy platform ideas like
"Forgive all college debt"? This is not going to fly here. Nope. Go
ahead and give the stage back to that orange monster.
Focus on winning the swing votes, not on being the most "left" you can be.
Kicking Obama policies to try and get up on Joe? So dumb.
I despise Trump, but the left is really not much smarter. Country full of dummies, we are.
Write in vote for Yoda
democrats are desperate for that under 30 vote. they know if young adults were engaged in politics they'd win by a landslide. but honestly, I wasn't engaged until I had kids in my 30's. I don't know if that's average, but politics just wasn't on my radar when me and my buddies were jamming in our basements getting stoned out of our minds.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,659
Was discussing again last night with someone....Dems are, in my
opinion, 100% going to lose if they send up one of these out of touch,
screaming, septuagenarian, dreamers. Crazy platform ideas like
"Forgive all college debt"? This is not going to fly here. Nope. Go
ahead and give the stage back to that orange monster.
Focus on winning the swing votes, not on being the most "left" you can be.
Kicking Obama policies to try and get up on Joe? So dumb.
I despise Trump, but the left is really not much smarter. Country full of dummies, we are.
Write in vote for Yoda
democrats are desperate for that under 30 vote. they know if young adults were engaged in politics they'd win by a landslide. but honestly, I wasn't engaged until I had kids in my 30's. I don't know if that's average, but politics just wasn't on my radar when me and my buddies were jamming in our basements getting stoned out of our minds.
I think the candidates the press loves are fucking ancient and out of touch with reality. I am 45.
Do people 18-30 really want to vote for old people? Can't imagine most kids can relate to shrieking oldsters, but I am sure they like the idea of free college.
Was discussing again last night with someone....Dems are, in my
opinion, 100% going to lose if they send up one of these out of touch,
screaming, septuagenarian, dreamers. Crazy platform ideas like
"Forgive all college debt"? This is not going to fly here. Nope. Go
ahead and give the stage back to that orange monster.
Focus on winning the swing votes, not on being the most "left" you can be.
Kicking Obama policies to try and get up on Joe? So dumb.
I despise Trump, but the left is really not much smarter. Country full of dummies, we are.
Write in vote for Yoda
democrats are desperate for that under 30 vote. they know if young adults were engaged in politics they'd win by a landslide. but honestly, I wasn't engaged until I had kids in my 30's. I don't know if that's average, but politics just wasn't on my radar when me and my buddies were jamming in our basements getting stoned out of our minds.
I think the candidates the press loves are fucking ancient and out of touch with reality. I am 45.
Do people 18-30 really want to vote for old people? Can't imagine most kids can relate to shrieking oldsters, but I am sure they like the idea of free college.
well, I don't relate to people 75 years old either, but I still vote. I don't think the age gap is the issue. I think issues are the issues. And many people that age just don't think that far into the future to worry about most of the issues/solutions being presented. free college sounds wonderful, student loan debt also sounds wonderful.
maybe a free iphone for everyone under 28 would work better.
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system? Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult. My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
i must say that hospitals in canada are not government entities but are actually non-profit entities. from what i remember 95% of our hospital are non-profit. i think the care is very good here but yes we do have major issues with access to care in the more remote areas in Canada.
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system? Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult. My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
i must say that hospitals in canada are not government entities but are actually non-profit entities. from what i remember 95% of our hospital are non-profit. i think the care is very good here but yes we do have major issues with access to care in the more remote areas in Canada.
Hospitals in Ontario are owned by the government. Access to proper care is not just limited to remote areas. People in Southern Ontario struggle to find adequate family doctors and specialist...people in Windsor often need to commute to London for specialist...
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system? Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult. My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
i must say that hospitals in canada are not government entities but are actually non-profit entities. from what i remember 95% of our hospital are non-profit. i think the care is very good here but yes we do have major issues with access to care in the more remote areas in Canada.
Hospitals in Ontario are owned by the government. Access to proper care is not just limited to remote areas. People in Southern Ontario struggle to find adequate family doctors and specialist...people in Windsor often need to commute to London for specialist...
This is what concerns me. Our Veterans hospitals are terrible, outside maybe Walter Reed. Today I can choose a Bon Secouer hospital, a Henrico Doctor's, probably 3 more chains or go to the Medical College of Virginia which is a university research hospital. We shopped hospitals and researched before the birth of our last child because we expected complications. We wanted the best NICU in the area. She was born at 29 weeks and spent 6 weeks in the hospital. So these options were helpful.
I got a splint once in a hospital that fell apart 2 hours later and they charged me $900
That's, from what I have learnt in this thread, just because Sweden is taking a free ride on american pharmaceutical companies research costs.
"U.S. consumers account for about 64 to 78 percent of total pharmaceutical profits, despite accounting for only 27 percent of global income. . . American patients use newer drugs and face higher prices than patients in other countries"
Which of course leads to more R and D for future medicines subsidized again by...Americans
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system? Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult. My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
i must say that hospitals in canada are not government entities but are actually non-profit entities. from what i remember 95% of our hospital are non-profit. i think the care is very good here but yes we do have major issues with access to care in the more remote areas in Canada.
Hospitals in Ontario are owned by the government. Access to proper care is not just limited to remote areas. People in Southern Ontario struggle to find adequate family doctors and specialist...people in Windsor often need to commute to London for specialist...
This is what concerns me. Our Veterans hospitals are terrible, outside maybe Walter Reed. Today I can choose a Bon Secouer hospital, a Henrico Doctor's, probably 3 more chains or go to the Medical College of Virginia which is a university research hospital. We shopped hospitals and researched before the birth of our last child because we expected complications. We wanted the best NICU in the area. She was born at 29 weeks and spent 6 weeks in the hospital. So these options were helpful.
I like universal health care...just so I do not have to deal with insurance companies. Canada has tiered healthcare. Many Canadians with money travel outside the country for healthcare...some go to the States, Mexico and India, maybe other countries as well.
Your concerns are valid. It would not surprise me that someone born in Windsor and needing the care your child needed that the child would be transferred to London...a 5 hour round trip visit...those is the things that really frustrate Ontarians. Detroit...10 minutes.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
It is a most valid example.
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
It is a most valid example.
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
It is a most valid example.
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
Cause I was upset and tired of your nonsense but figured you were just a troll trying to get me...and I let it happen. Then I thought better of it.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
It is a most valid example.
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
How many children do you have?
Two stepcats.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Its actually even trickier than the wonky debates this week.
MFA is not free and will not include massive govt spending or an enormous tax
The trick is converting a sizable portion of the economy, what employers pay for healthcare, directly to worker salaries salaries. Pay us instead of our insurers.
If Bernie or Liz could do that, and then account for the lowering of the actual cost to provide care, the impact on our taxes would be minimal in theory
The reason I love Bernie but dont support him is he has done a terrible job communicating this. Too many Americans have a false perception on cost and I'll blame bernie for that because he has been talking about MFA healthcare the longest.
Couldn't you effectively lower the prices by allowing people to buy into Medicare, creating true competition for private insurers, without blowing up the whole system? Forcing employers to turn money saved through employer matches into salary increases to net the cost to neutral for the inevitable tax increases feels much more difficult. My biggest concern is quality of care if private hospitals turn into government entities. We have government hospitals in this country and the care is terrible, wait times atrocious, etc. The VA is awful.
i must say that hospitals in canada are not government entities but are actually non-profit entities. from what i remember 95% of our hospital are non-profit. i think the care is very good here but yes we do have major issues with access to care in the more remote areas in Canada.
Hospitals in Ontario are owned by the government. Access to proper care is not just limited to remote areas. People in Southern Ontario struggle to find adequate family doctors and specialist...people in Windsor often need to commute to London for specialist...
This is incorrect. we have to understand the difference between funding hospitals and owing them outright.
Hospitals are independent corporations run by their own board of
directors. The boards are responsible for day-to-day operational
decisions on how to allocate the public funding they receive. They are
accountable to their Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) and the government for the quality and efficacy of the care they provide.
now you do raise a good point about family doctors and specialist, but the issue has less to do about single paying health care and more about other issues. for example, we have more have less people going into medical school so maybe what needs to happen is more funding into the sciences in high school and university. as this articles shows in that we need residency positions also. again I don't know if this is due to UHC or not.
I remember when i left University with my degree in social work, I was head hunter by the Canadian government to go and work in very remote area in Nunavut (sadly i didn't go). the job offered great incentives so this maybe something that the government might have to do with doctors. again is this because of UHC? I don't think so.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
It is a most valid example.
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
I’m more concerned.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there. 2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result. 3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Just giving some context.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
It is a most valid example.
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
How many children do you have?
Two stepcats.
So zero. Got it. I'll keep that in mind.
Please elaborate.
Of if you are in your snarky mood. No need.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/opinions/when-did-barack-obama-become-a-republican-avlon/index.html(CNN)When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
Let's not forget that passing Obamacare was a massive task. Obama proposed a public option as a more practical and popular alternative to the single-payer system that very few Democrats supported just a decade ago.
Clink the link to read the rest of the article.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"
Your answer should be thank you very much generous american taxpayer for making my Euro healthcare cheaper
Anerican big pharma develops life saving drugs, charges Americans thru the nose, then once billions are made, sells it cheaper globally.
The misconception that folks like mcgruff10 have about prohibitive cost for MFA is a big problem for dems and like I said last night, I blame Bernie for doing a poor job explaining that we need a conversion of employer funding from health insurance to salary.
With that and cost care reduction, it become obvious "who is paying for this" is malarkey.
But we need public option first. If that works then maybe MFA. If bernie or liz win the nom trump will pound away at them.
on here a while back someone (american) said that his wife needed an aspirin (or similiar) at the hospital while being in labor. And that was added to their bill for the visit, the cost I think was 80-100 dollar for that pill.
In Sweden, that would have been given for no charge and the actual charge of it for the taxpayers would be the cost of the pill (whatever Aspirin cost per pill, in Sweden or the US).
And I understand that it is impossible to compare the US because it is the apple to every other countries oranges.
But will I find an answer to that difference in health care cost in your block of text above?
Then again, when you're in a hospital and at the will of insurance companies, I guess anything can happen.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
www.headstonesband.com
maybe a free iphone for everyone under 28 would work better.
www.headstonesband.com
Seriously? Medicine, haven't heard of it?
It's about 15% of healthcare costs and often US patients get into trouble when "it's not covered."
"U.S. consumers account for about 64 to 78 percent of total pharmaceutical profits, despite accounting for only 27 percent of global income. . . American patients use newer drugs and face higher prices than patients in other countries"
Which of course leads to more R and D for future medicines subsidized again by...Americans
Your concerns are valid. It would not surprise me that someone born in Windsor and needing the care your child needed that the child would be transferred to London...a 5 hour round trip visit...those is the things that really frustrate Ontarians. Detroit...10 minutes.
Don't know why you edited your post to remove the part about you thinking I should be banned for my "nonsense" and telingl me to "fuck off".
But I guess that is a positive that you did change it.
Of if you are in your snarky mood. No need.