Romney vs. Obama

[Typhoon]

Received in this morning's email:

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

—Ben Stein

. . .

That's how it's been for years. Show up at an emergency room and they'll treat you. We have an incredibly expensive form of socialized medicine and Conservatives resist at every turn the opportunity to bring costs down.

Now c'mon . . Conservatives ain't no more stoopid than are Liberals. From all that I hear, totally socialized medicine would increase costs and decrease service. Too glib, Tinker, no easy answers . . have you seen Moore's film, SICKO? No answers there either, but he does ask the right questions.

. . .

Healthcare in the US is currently by far the most expensive of all industrialized countries no matter how one measures it,

so I'm fairly confident that the US would also find a way to make universal healthcare far more expensive than anywhere else.

[Ibrahim]

Received in this morning's email:

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

—Ben Stein

. . .

I thought Ben Stein was cuter before he made a movie about creationism which blamed Darwin for the Holocaust.

[Ibrahim]

Received in this morning's email:

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

—Ben Stein

. . .

That's how it's been for years. Show up at an emergency room and they'll treat you. We have an incredibly expensive form of socialized medicine and Conservatives resist at every turn the opportunity to bring costs down.

Now c'mon . . Conservatives ain't no more stoopid than are Liberals. From all that I hear, totally socialized medicine would increase costs and decrease service. Too glib, Tinker, no easy answers . . have you seen Moore's film, SICKO? No answers there either, but he does ask the right questions.

. . .

Healthcare in the US is currently by far the most expensive of all industrialized countries no matter how one measures it,

so I'm fairly confident that the US would also find a way to make universal healthcare far more expensive than anywhere else.

Having the highest costs might not be as upsetting if Americans also got the best health outcomes from their system. In fact they do not, and in many categories lag behind most of the developed world. That is what ought to outrage Americans as consumers, citizens, and taxpayers.

[Skin Job]

Outraged to what end? What we need are solutions. My experience with the healthcare reveals a system with no focus on price at all. When asked about prices of procedures, few but the bookkeeper have any idea, which reveals a complete lack of competition in the industry. A 2 minute test administered by a technician that expends a small piece of plastic costs $100? Come again? It's very difficult to value shop for procedures, which is what those of limited means need to do to obtain care that doesn't break the bank. For some reason, it's considered unthinkable to have differing levels of care with different price structures. I can't afford Cadillac healthcare, but would be perfectly happy with a Chevy, if one would be made available.

Which brings another observation. Insurance in all other instances covers incidents of a large or catastrophic nature, yet health insurance is supposed to cover every little boo-boo and all maintenance costs associated with living and growing old. Why? It shouldn't. It should cover large unforeseen expenses only, like emergency surgery, cancer, heart attacks, etc.

How much would an auto insurance policy cost that covers everything from tires to oil changes, as well as collisions, in perpetuity? Would anyone buy it?

[Mr. Perfect]

Having the highest costs might not be as upsetting if Americans also got the best health outcomes from their system. In fact they do not, and in many categories lag behind most of the developed world. That is what ought to outrage Americans as consumers, citizens, and taxpayers.

A bunch of fat people should get outraged that they die sooner and more diseased than other countries? Shirley you must be joking.

The fact that Americans are competitive at all is a testament to the amazing superiority of US healthcare. I can't imagine budget constrained single payer systems coming anywhere close.

[Typhoon]

Outraged to what end? What we need are solutions. My experience with the healthcare reveals a system with no focus on price at all. When asked about prices of procedures, few but the bookkeeper have any idea, which reveals a complete lack of competition in the industry. A 2 minute test administered by a technician that expends a small piece of plastic costs $100? Come again? It's very difficult to value shop for procedures, which is what those of limited means need to do to obtain care that doesn't break the bank. For some reason, it's considered unthinkable to have differing levels of care with different price structures. I can't afford Cadillac healthcare, but would be perfectly happy with a Chevy, if one would be made available.

This is more or less the system in countries such as France, Australia, and Japan.

Universal healthcare, but if you want to pay extra, many private clinics and hospitals are available to serve your needs and wants.

Which brings another observation. Insurance in all other instances covers incidents of a large or catastrophic nature, yet health insurance is supposed to cover every little boo-boo and all maintenance costs associated with living and growing old. Why? It shouldn't. It should cover large unforeseen expenses only, like emergency surgery, cancer, heart attacks, etc.

Agreed. Large unforeseen expenses that would bankrupt a family.

[Typhoon]

Having the highest costs might not be as upsetting if Americans also got the best health outcomes from their system. In fact they do not, and in many categories lag behind most of the developed world. That is what ought to outrage Americans as consumers, citizens, and taxpayers.

A bunch of fat people should get outraged that they die sooner and more diseased than other countries? Shirley you must be joking.

The fact that Americans are competitive at all is a testament to the amazing superiority of US healthcare. I can't imagine budget constrained single payer systems coming anywhere close.

Not even wrong.

[Mr. Perfect]

Typhoon, do you know anything about insurance? Are you saying that the medical community has a cure for obesity and for some reason American hc is holding out? Or maybe you're saying that obesity does not a cause an increase in disease and early death?

[Zack Morris]

Last time everyone put their money in something as intrinsically valueless as stocks, it didn't go so well.

Wow. I guess corporations don't have it anywhere near as good as you are saying.

So in your view, because a situation or arrangement does not last indefinitely, it therefore cannot possibly be harmful and/or is justifiable?

It is of course ridiculous, what you're saying. People's fortunes change all the time, advantaged or disadvantaged.

Completely beside the point. Another of your ridiculous strawman arguments and attempt to derail the argument, as usual.

A better question is: who does not create jobs?

That isn't a better question.

Oh yes it is.

Everyone who buys anything creates jobs!

How many people work for you?

None, because I am not an employer (except when employing people temporarily for their services). But that doesn't mean that I do not participate in job creation.

Polls indicate conservatives give more money to charity than liberals, if you want a shortcut.

Polls are often constructed to make fantasies seem real. Just ask Jack Welch!

Let's try something a little more factual.

Well, what are you waiting for?

What do they spend it on.

What they feel is in their best interest. Things that make them happier. Do you have a problem with that?

I thought you were high educated and high income. What's the deal with not being able to spare a few bucks.

I do spare a few bucks.

I'm not really saying that. You're saying liberals are so moral and whatnot, and giving to the homeless is a sign of morality, so again, why such persistent homelessness in liberal cities?

One could ask the same about conservative moral shortcomings and the general wimpiness of Red State economies. A tit-for-tat with someone who, when pressed, refuses to provide substantive responses would be pointless.

[Ibrahim]

Outraged to what end? What we need are solutions.

Theoretically if people gave enough of a lavender about health care in the US there would be sufficient pressure on the government to create solutions. Or so goes my theory of representative democracy.

I can't afford Cadillac healthcare, but would be perfectly happy with a Chevy, if one would be made available.

Emigrate to Canada. We all get, say, a Honda Accord with the add-on package.

Which brings another observation. Insurance in all other instances covers incidents of a large or catastrophic nature, yet health insurance is supposed to cover every little boo-boo and all maintenance costs associated with living and growing old. Why? It shouldn't. It should cover large unforeseen expenses only, like emergency surgery, cancer, heart attacks, etc.

The rest of the developed world disagrees with you, and in providing an entire range of health care services to all citizens produces far better overall health outcomes than the US system. I'm sure you can find some YouTube video of a public health nurse droning on about the health and cost benefits of preventative care. If you disagree write a comment beneath it.

How much would an auto insurance policy cost that covers everything from tires to oil changes, as well as collisions, in perpetuity? Would anyone buy it?

The rest of the developed world, evidently.

[Marcus]

Having the highest costs might not be as upsetting if Americans also got the best health outcomes from their system. In fact they do not, and in many categories lag behind most of the developed world. That is what ought to outrage Americans as consumers, citizens, and taxpayers.

A bunch of fat people should get outraged that they die sooner and more diseased than other countries? Shirley you must be joking.

The fact that Americans are competitive at all is a testament to the amazing superiority of US healthcare. I can't imagine budget constrained single payer systems coming anywhere close.

Not even wrong.

He's far more right than wrong, CS, we truly live in a system designed to make us sick and keep us sick. Check out In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan and The China Study by T. Colin Campbell as well as DVDs like "Food Inc.," "Forks Over Knives," and "Fat Sick and Nearly Dead."

[Marcus]

6KKciae1-Dg

[Jnalum Persicum]

.


Romney has not learned a thing from Bush’s failures – Russia

.

“What is worse, if Romney’s words are not simply right-wing conservative populism, but a true reflection of his views, we have to conclude that this presidential candidate cannot fit America’s current capabilities with the policy he intends to conduct,” . .

“The intent to arm the Syrian opposition, to postpone the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and to show firmness towards Russian President Vladimir Putin will not help the USA to return to global leadership. It only shows that Romney is ready to insist on the mistakes that the USA had already made,” . .


.

.

[Typhoon]

17Ao6GQL7r0

[Typhoon]

Typhoon, do you know anything about insurance? Are you saying that the medical community has a cure for obesity and for some reason American hc is holding out? Or maybe you're saying that obesity does not a cause an increase in disease and early death?

Growing levels of obesity is a global problem.

Obesity 'epidemic' turns global

People are getting fatter in all parts of the world, with the possible exception of south and east Asia, a one-day global snapshot shows.
Between half and two-thirds of men and women in 63 countries across five continents - not including the US - were overweight or obese in 2006.

The Circulation journal study included over 168,000 people evaluated by a primary care doctor.

Experts said the findings were deeply worrying.

ABC | Globesity - Fat's New Frontier

GP | Japan has taken a very aggressive, although possibly misguided, approach to the growing metabo problem.

[monster_gardener]

17Ao6GQL7r0

Thank you VERY Much for the Video, Typhoon.

The song that rankled the most was "I Got High"........

Obama has not changed much from his Choom Van days....... Still hogging the pot for himself

What a shame that both of these losers have a chance of winning instead of both losing.......

[Marcus]

Obesity 'epidemic' turns global

Why Weight Has Become a Worldwide Problem

Globalization—the inexorable spread of knowledge, technology, culture, and capital from country to country (1)—has been a force both for good and ill, especially when it comes to health. The good: Globalization has lifted millions of people out of poverty, reducing hunger and infectious disease, and, in turn, improving quality of life. The ill: The same social and economic shifts that have increased people’s wealth have also increased their waistlines—and are driving the obesity epidemic in China, India, and other developing countries worldwide.

Until recently, obesity was a public health problem only in Western countries. But over the past two decades, (2,3) it has become truly a global problem—a “globesity epidemic,” as some have called it—affecting countries rich and poor. An estimated 500 million adults worldwide are obese and 1.5 billion are overweight or obese. (2) And if recent trends continue unabated, nearly 60 percent of the world’s population—3.3 billion people—could be overweight (2.2 billion) or obese (1.1 billion) by 2030. (4,5)

Many low- and middle-income countries struggle with the so-called “dual burden” of obesity and underweight; but although malnutrition persists in many places, overweight is rapidly becoming a more common problem than underweight. (6) Indeed, for the first time in human history, the world has more overweight than underweight people, (7) and globalization is a major reason for this: It has brought McDonald’s franchises to Mumbai and SUVs to Shanghai, digital TVs to Dar es Salaam and Nestle’s supermarket barges to the Amazon River delta. (8–11) It has thus super-charged the “nutrition transition,” a term for the obesity-inducing shift from traditional to Western diets that accompanies modernization and wealth.

—more at the link

[Typhoon]

Obesity 'epidemic' turns global

Why Weight Has Become a Worldwide Problem

Globalization—the inexorable spread of knowledge, technology, culture, and capital from country to country (1)—has been a force both for good and ill, especially when it comes to health. The good: Globalization has lifted millions of people out of poverty, reducing hunger and infectious disease, and, in turn, improving quality of life. The ill: The same social and economic shifts that have increased people’s wealth have also increased their waistlines—and are driving the obesity epidemic in China, India, and other developing countries worldwide.

. . .

Anecdotally, I've noticed more overweight schoolkids over the last decade or so. Especially girls for some reason.
This was something one never saw unless the unfortunate kid had some metabolic disorder.
Walking past the local MacDonalds after school hours I sometimes have to step out onto the road to get past as the sidewalk is so packed with kids bicycles.

Anyways the point is that the obesity problem is not unique to the US so it's not valid differentiator between healthcare systems.

[Marcus]

. . Walking past the local MacDonalds after school hours I sometimes have to step out onto the road to get past as the sidewalk is so packed with kids bicycles.

Anyways the point is that the obesity problem is not unique to the US so it's not valid differentiator between healthcare systems.

Watch the DVD "Supersize Me" and you'll walk around the block to avoid McDonalds.

The obesity problem is a legitimate consideration when differentiating between healthcare systems, not the sole consideration, but valid nonetheless. A great many of society's health problems, obesity being a prime example, are chronic, brought on by poor diet and lack of exercise, and are only recently beginning to take their toll on parts of the world fast becoming addicted to the Western diet.

The world's obesity problem is not unique to the US, but it is unique to the Western diet. Read The China Study:

The China Study is a 2004 book by T. Colin Campbell (the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University), and his son, Thomas M. Campbell II, a physician. It examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products and a variety of chronic illnesses, such as cancers of the breast, prostate, and bowel; diabetes; and coronary heart disease. The book had sold 500,000 copies as of January 2011, making it one of America's best-selling books about nutrition.

The China Study of the title is taken from the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, a 20-year study that began in 1983 and was conducted jointly by the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Cornell University, and the University of Oxford. T. Colin Campbell was one of the directors of the project, described by The New York Times in 1990 as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology".

The study examined mortality rates from 48 forms of cancer and other chronic diseases from 1973–75 in 65 counties in China, and correlated them with 1983–84 dietary surveys and bloodwork from 6,500 people, 100 from each county. It concluded that counties with a high consumption of animal-based foods in 1983–84 were more likely to have had higher death rates from "Western" diseases as of 1973–75, while the opposite was true for counties that ate more plant foods in 1983–84. The study was conducted in those counties because they had genetically similar populations that tended, over generations, to live in the same way in the same place, and eat diets specific to those regions.

The authors conclude that people who eat a plant-based/vegan diet—avoiding animal products such as beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce, or reverse the development of chronic diseases. They also recommend adequate amounts of sunshine to maintain sufficient levels of vitamin D, and supplements of vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products. They criticize low-carb diets, such as the Atkins diet, which include restrictions on the percentage of calories derived from complex carbohydrates.

[Demon of Undoing]

Biden of all people is handing Ryan his ass.

Mostly, by challenging lies that Obama let slide.

[Enki]

Biden of all people is handing Ryan his ass.

Mostly, by challenging lies that Obama let slide.

Biden is a phenomenal debater. Ryan at least is debating, unlike Palin.

[Ibrahim]

I'm a little behind the live feed since I was out to dinner and am catching up on PVR, but Ryan is getting his ass beat.

DoU is right, Biden is just crushing Ryan on false claims. Or the vague details of their budget plan that he never specifies.


They obviously looked at the first Obama/Romney debate, and in every situation that Obama looked down at a the lectern, Biden is instead a) laughing in Ryan's face when he lies, and then b) describing why it is a lie in detail.


So much for Ryan as the ideas guy/policy wonk.

[Marcus]

I'm watching the "debate" right now. Leaving aside the different versions of "the facts" as presented by both Ryan and Biden, Biden is coming off as incredibly and boorishly rude with his constant interruptions, and the moderator is coming off as plainly hostile to Ryan while pandering to Biden. Biden is being given twice the time to talk as is Ryan, nor is Biden being asked to allow Ryan to speak uninterrupted.

Dog and pony show . . .

Ryan is presenting himself as rational and reasonable. Biden sounds like he's foaming at the mouth.

[Enki]

The moderator is asking good questions.

[Enki]

Dems are wishing it was Biden/Obama right now.