Languish.org

I just quoted the relevant bits.

QuoteThe New York Times/CBS News poll put his job approval rating at 63 percent, an impressive number given the high 9.4 percent unemployment rate.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll said a solid majority of 58 percent believe Obama and Congress should focus on keeping the budget deficit down even if it means delaying a recovery. The deficit is forecast to skyrocket beyond $1 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year.

The Journal/NBC poll said 56 percent oppose giving financial aid to ailing automaker General Motors in exchange for the federal government obtaining a stake in the company.

The Times/CBS poll showed that Obama has his work cut out for him on healthcare. It gave him 44 percent approval in his handling of the issue, with 34 percent disapproving, a sign that many are taking a wait-and-see approach.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE55H5P420090618?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441

So, is Obama going to face an uphill battle from now on? Will he able to get any sort of health care reform passed?

I wouldn't worry.  ABC is giving him a free Healthscare infomercial next week in primetime, which should give him the boost he needs.

Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2009, 09:58:40 AM
I wouldn't worry.  ABC is giving him a free Healthscare infomercial next week in primetime, which should give him the boost he needs.

honeymoon's only end when you wake up sore and realise that you've been fucked over.

we're still at the "trying new positions" stage.  ;)

The headlines are all about him killing a fly in his office.

Hardly the stuff of hard hitting reporting at the end of a political honeymoon....

I think the "Honeymoon" is probably nearing the end, as people have had time to reflect on some of the issues and fixes to those issues, like TARP, economy, government spending. While people still like Pres Obama quite well, and don't necessarily blame him for some of the problems, still some of those policies are facing more and more resistance by voters. And I'd think that will catch up with him at some point, especially as he will own more of the issues/problems as time goes on.

Health care may face a tough uphill battle, depending on how the financing and expense look to be. Already some Dem Congress members are quite worried. But I give Obama credit for trying to take on some of the issues that have been let lie dormant, like energy, national infrastructure, health care. But it also depends on how the fixes or programs go, what the plans are, especially with health care.

Health Care simply has to be reformed.  Nobody has ever paid more for less in the history of the world than we do for health care.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
Health Care simply has to be reformed.  Nobody has ever paid more for less in the history of the world than we do for health care.

I think the hundreds of thousands my Dad's insurance spent on me were well spent.

Well, the homo lobby has freaked out on him already. So I'd say the honeymoon is not over yet, but it's the first sign.

He promised a lot of things to a lot of people and obviously he won't be able to deliver.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:06:41 PM
I think the hundreds of thousands my Dad's insurance spent on me were well spent.

Hundreds of thousands of fucking dollars?  What the fuck did they use to cure your cancer?  Gold and platinum ingots?

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 03:07:00 PM
Well, the homo lobby has freaked out on him already. So I'd say the honeymoon is not over yet, but it's the first sign.

He promised a lot of things to a lot of people and obviously he won't be able to deliver.

Apparently the "homo lobby" did not get the memo that many in the black community are vehemently anti-gay.  Seems a bit ironic to me given the past discrimination they have suffered, but it is apparently true nonethess. 

Quote from: Lndhand on June 19, 2009, 03:14:12 PM
Apparently the "homo lobby" did not get the memo that many in the black community are vehemently anti-gay.  Seems a bit ironic to me given the past discrimination they have suffered, but it is apparently true nonethess. 

If it was true that being discriminated against made you a better and more accepting person the world would be nothing but sunshine and lollipops today.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:16:10 PM

Quote from: Lndhand on June 19, 2009, 03:14:12 PM
Apparently the "homo lobby" did not get the memo that many in the black community are vehemently anti-gay.  Seems a bit ironic to me given the past discrimination they have suffered, but it is apparently true nonethess. 

If it was true that being discriminated against made you a better and more accepting person the world would be nothing but sunshine and lollipops today.

Indeed, sadly it seems like the opposite is true - being discriminated against just makes people want to find someone they can be bigots towards.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:06:41 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
Health Care simply has to be reformed.  Nobody has ever paid more for less in the history of the world than we do for health care.

I think the hundreds of thousands my Dad's insurance spent on me were well spent.

And what about all the money the government spends on health care in the US...  That is the issue.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:16:10 PM

Quote from: Lndhand on June 19, 2009, 03:14:12 PM
Apparently the "homo lobby" did not get the memo that many in the black community are vehemently anti-gay.  Seems a bit ironic to me given the past discrimination they have suffered, but it is apparently true nonethess. 

If it was true that being discriminated against made you a better and more accepting person the world would be nothing but sunshine and lollipops today.

What do you mean by that post? Are you saying that the gay rights groups are wrong in being disappointed with Obama's record so far?

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 03:18:16 PM
What do you mean by that post? Are you saying that the gay rights groups are wrong in being disappointed with Obama's record so far?

He said it was ironic the black community is vehemently anti-gay when they themselves were discriminated against.  I said that yes it does seem that being discriminated against yourself doesn't seem to lead to being more accepting of others yourself.  You only have to look at what the Eastern Euros did in your neck of the woods did once they were freed from their respective Empires to see more evidence of that.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:20:39 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 03:18:16 PM
What do you mean by that post? Are you saying that the gay rights groups are wrong in being disappointed with Obama's record so far?

He said it was ironic the black community is vehemently anti-gay when they themselves were discriminated against.  I said that yes it does seem that being discriminated against yourself doesn't seem to lead to being more accepting of others yourself.  You only have to look at what the Eastern Euros did in your neck of the woods did once they were freed from their respective Empires to see more evidence of that.

Oh sorry, for some reason I misread your post as being in response to mine. :P

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:12:51 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:06:41 PM
I think the hundreds of thousands my Dad's insurance spent on me were well spent.

Hundreds of thousands of fucking dollars?  What the fuck did they use to cure your cancer?  Gold and platinum ingots?

Xrays, MRIs, Catscans, three kinds of chemo, a big operation, pain medication, nausea medication, medication to protect me from the chemo, probably 2 months worth of time overnight in the hospital, etc, so when you had it all up it doesn't sound that bad.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:06:41 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
Health Care simply has to be reformed.  Nobody has ever paid more for less in the history of the world than we do for health care.

I think the hundreds of thousands my Dad's insurance spent on me were well spent.

:zipped:

I thought the thousand+ bucks on my bill for the morphine trigger was a bit over the top. Especially since I didn't press it much, and even when I did the fucking thing didn't work that well.

Just bring in the Percocets. Yummy Percosets.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:24:05 PM
Xrays, MRIs, Catscans, three kinds of chemo, a big operation, pain medication, nausea medication, medication to protect me from the chemo, probably 2 months worth of time overnight in the hospital, etc, so when you had it all up it doesn't sound that bad.

Hundreds of thousands to cure one guy of one disease?  And it is not like you are the only dude to get cancer in this country so they have to do something out of the ordinary or experimental.

No wonder we are all going bankrupt.

Read recently that average employer-provided family health insurance costs 14K/year.

I remember there was a graph in The Economist few months ago comparing health care costs in various Western countries. Germany was the country with the second highest health care costs per capita, after the US.

What was staggering, the US government was paying exactly the same amount of money, per capita, as the highly socialized German government, but then the same amount was paid again by US employers (whereas German ones didn't pay a dime) - effectively, this debunked any myths about the US health care not being socialized- it's just damn expensive.

Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2009, 09:58:40 AM
I wouldn't worry.  ABC is giving him a free Healthscare infomercial next week in primetime, which should give him the boost he needs.

People watch network news?  :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2009, 03:32:59 PM
Read recently that average employer-provided family health insurance costs 14K/year.

My monthly bill for health care exceeds $900 without regard to what my employer pays toward the premium charge.  Then I get the pleasure of co-pays.  Today's insurance is more like catastrophic coverage -- you clearly pay for the basic shit in advance.   :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2009, 03:32:59 PM
Read recently that average employer-provided family health insurance costs 14K/year.

Wow.

I just changed all our staff over to better extended health and disability coverage.  The health care part was in the hundreds of dollars per employee.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:12:51 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:06:41 PM
I think the hundreds of thousands my Dad's insurance spent on me were well spent.

Hundreds of thousands of fucking dollars?  What the fuck did they use to cure your cancer?  Gold and platinum ingots?

American health care.

At any rate, Obama's honeymoon with the public is probably over.  His honeymoon with the media is unlikely to end at any point.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:06:41 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
Health Care simply has to be reformed.  Nobody has ever paid more for less in the history of the world than we do for health care.

I think the hundreds of thousands my Dad's insurance spent on me were well spent.

I disagree, especially when we can get the same thing by going to MSNBC.com instead.  Fucking retard.

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 03:18:16 PMAre you saying that the gay rights groups are wrong in being disappointed with Obama's record so far?

Yes.

Quote from: Habsburg on June 19, 2009, 04:15:39 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2009, 09:58:40 AM
I wouldn't worry.  ABC is giving him a free Healthscare infomercial next week in primetime, which should give him the boost he needs.

People watch network news?  :huh:

:lol:

What a tool.

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 03:41:59 PM
I remember there was a graph in The Economist few months ago comparing health care costs in various Western countries. Germany was the country with the second highest health care costs per capita, after the US.

What was staggering, the US government was paying exactly the same amount of money, per capita, as the highly socialized German government, but then the same amount was paid again by US employers (whereas German ones didn't pay a dime) - effectively, this debunked any myths about the US health care not being socialized- it's just damn expensive.

Correct.  The same procedures and medicines cost far more int he US than in nations with socialized health care, because no one can see where the costs are except the employers, and they are competing with each other for the high-value employees.

The administrative costs of the US health care system are also obscene.

Two injectable medicines I get are each about two grand per month.  :pinchL

Thank Hod for socialized medicine (medicare).

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:30:15 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 03:24:05 PM
Xrays, MRIs, Catscans, three kinds of chemo, a big operation, pain medication, nausea medication, medication to protect me from the chemo, probably 2 months worth of time overnight in the hospital, etc, so when you had it all up it doesn't sound that bad.

Hundreds of thousands to cure one guy of one disease?  And it is not like you are the only dude to get cancer in this country so they have to do something out of the ordinary or experimental.

No wonder we are all going bankrupt.

I think you're underestimating the difficulty in combating cancer.

As far as I understand his approval rating's moved down in the past month but within 1-2% in the past week or two, as it's moved within that space from 60% since February.

I don't think the honeymoon has ended because of how bad people seemed to feel when voting him in.  Shelley was right, from despair comes hope, however misplaced.  I still think Obama's like Blair; the opposition don't know how to attack him and so even when he fucks up they won't benefit.  Also similar to Blair is that I don't think we've seen as strong disapproval of a president as we saw of Bush since Carter, so Obama gets a natural boost, just like after Major even Gordon Brown would present a commanding figure.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 19, 2009, 09:15:03 PM
As far as I understand his approval rating's moved down in the past month but within 1-2% in the past week or two, as it's moved within that space from 60% since February.

I don't think the honeymoon has ended because of how bad people seemed to feel when voting him in.  Shelley was right, from despair comes hope, however misplaced.  I still think Obama's like Blair; the opposition don't know how to attack him and so even when he fucks up they won't benefit.  Also similar to Blair is that I don't think we've seen as strong disapproval of a president as we saw of Bush since Carter, so Obama gets a natural boost, just like after Major even Gordon Brown would present a commanding figure.

Love the Shelley reference.

Since the approval/disapproval polls began America has never seen such a strong disapproval rating for a president for so long as they did for Bush II.  Even Truman, Nixon and Johnson didn't have disapproval ratings for as many months as Bush did.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 03:03:14 PM
Health Care simply has to be reformed.  Nobody has ever paid more for less in the history of the world than we do for health care.

I don't disagree with that.  But the choices are not only Obama's plan or the status quo, as the Dems are trying to convince us.

Quote from: Habsburg on June 19, 2009, 04:15:39 PM
People watch network news?  :huh:

Yeah, old people.  And old people vote :(

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2009, 09:06:57 PM
I think you're underestimating the difficulty in combating cancer.

I think you are underestimating how staggeringly overpriced your treatment was.  Millions of Americans have cancer every year.  It is simply impossible to believe that we have to shell out enough to sustain a family of four for life in order to cure one person.

Quote from: grumbler on June 19, 2009, 05:52:56 PM
Correct.  The same procedures and medicines cost far more int he US than in nations with socialized health care, because no one can see where the costs are except the employers, and they are competing with each other for the high-value employees.

The administrative costs of the US health care system are also obscene.

Yeah it is pretty ridiculous.  We managed to create a system even more inefficient and expensive than socialized medicine.  We should get a medal or something.

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2009, 01:29:29 AM
I think you are underestimating how staggeringly overpriced your treatment was.

What would be a reasonable price to pay?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 01:32:38 AM
What would be a reasonable price to pay?

There is no freaking way anybody could afford to pay that sort of money going by market value.  Tim is talking that to cure him of one disease it costs about what the average American households entire income would be for several years (depending upon exactly how many hundreds of thousands of dollars we are talking about).  I mean that is simply bullshit...beyond bullshit unless we are talking a luxury item.

And yet we are trying prop up medicare and get insurance for people and so forth to cover shit like this.  Is it any wonder it is going tits up?

Surely there has to be a more efficient way of treating cancer effectively than that.

I think you won't be able to reform healthcare in the US without the tort reform.

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2009, 01:39:24 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 01:32:38 AM
What would be a reasonable price to pay?

There is no freaking way anybody could afford to pay that sort of money going by market value.  Tim is talking that to cure him of one disease it costs about what the average American households entire income would be for several years (depending upon exactly how many hundreds of thousands of dollars we are talking about).  I mean that is simply bullshit...beyond bullshit unless we are talking a luxury item.

And yet we are trying prop up medicare and get insurance for people and so forth to cover shit like this.  Is it any wonder it is going tits up?

Surely there has to be a more efficient way of treating cancer effectively than that.

Medicine in general is very expensive. Treatment for my Crohn's has included 4 CAT scans, 4 barium swallows, 2 ecos, tons of X-rays, around 2 months at the hospital, 3 hours of surgery, maybe 20 visits to my specialist, 6 or 7 to the ER and lots of relatively cheap medication. That probably amounts at least to $ 100k or so. And that's only because I haven't had that chance/need to take biologics yet, like I suspect Citizen K does, which can amount to $ 30k or 40k a year.

Of course in the States that would cost 2 or 3 times more. But yeah, medicine is fucking expensive. Which also explains why most bankruptcies over there are related to medical bills.

Quote from: Martinus on June 20, 2009, 02:11:48 AM
I think you won't be able to reform healthcare in the US without the tort reform.

:yes:

Tort Reform is a red herring. In the states that have enacted tort reform, it has made no difference to costs.

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2009, 01:39:24 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2009, 01:32:38 AM
What would be a reasonable price to pay?

There is no freaking way anybody could afford to pay that sort of money going by market value.  Tim is talking that to cure him of one disease it costs about what the average American households entire income would be for several years (depending upon exactly how many hundreds of thousands of dollars we are talking about).  I mean that is simply bullshit...beyond bullshit unless we are talking a luxury item.

I remember the figure $250k being thrown around as the total up to the point after the operation so the end price was probably $300k or more.

Quote from: ulmont on June 20, 2009, 09:40:40 AM
Tort Reform is a red herring. In the states that have enacted tort reform, it has made no difference to costs.

Tort reform is merely a piece of the puzzle, not the answer to everything.

Come back W all is forgiven!

Quote from: ulmont on June 20, 2009, 09:40:40 AM
Tort Reform is a red herring. In the states that have enacted tort reform, it has made no difference to costs.

It's at best only half the puzzle.  If neither doctors nor patients have to pay for defensive medicine, then they'll still do it just to be sure.  In our messed up system, the financial incentives are screwed up even worse than in a typical socialist setup.

Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2009, 11:02:16 AM
Come back W all is forgiven!

I do miss his devil may care attitude.  :(

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 03:41:59 PM
I remember there was a graph in The Economist few months ago comparing health care costs in various Western countries. Germany was the country with the second highest health care costs per capita, after the US.

What was staggering, the US government was paying exactly the same amount of money, per capita, as the highly socialized German government, but then the same amount was paid again by US employers (whereas German ones didn't pay a dime) - effectively, this debunked any myths about the US health care not being socialized- it's just damn expensive.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fimages%2F20081018%2FCUS174.gif&hash=769e3bd8d03e71eae86c02eb01023ee74b5f3202)

PS: Actually, in Germany, the health care is paid for by a kind of payroll deduction that goes to your health insurance provider that are split about 45-55 between employers and employees. I assume that the "government" part of the chart for Germany means the obligatory public health insurance (about 90% of the population), whereas the private means the other 9.5% or so that have private insurance (only available with high income).

Quote from: Martinus on June 20, 2009, 02:11:48 AM
I think you won't be able to reform healthcare in the US without the tort reform.

Shhh... that's something only Republicans say here :o :o

Quote from: derspiess on June 22, 2009, 09:19:06 AM
Shhh... that's something only Republicans say here :o :o

Only because the Democrats are owned by the Lawtalker lobby.  It is hardly an ideological position.

Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 09:30:35 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 22, 2009, 09:19:06 AM
Shhh... that's something only Republicans say here :o :o

Only because the Democrats are owned by the Lawtalker lobby.  It is hardly an ideological position.

Just a silly one.

Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 09:30:35 AM
Only because the Democrats are owned by the Lawtalker lobby.  It is hardly an ideological position.

So you're saying the GOP takes this position out of spite?  :huh:

Anyway, I would say it's one of their more ideological positions. 

Quote from: derspiess on June 22, 2009, 09:58:40 AM
So you're saying the GOP takes this position out of spite?  :huh:

Anyway, I would say it's one of their more ideological positions. 

No I am saying the Democrats are against the position because of corruption and not ideology.

Without the big trial lawyers throwing cash around we would have had tort reform a long time ago.

Lawyers should be culled regularly.

omg, Michelle Obama is in SF! I wish I could go stalk her!

Quote from: ulmont on June 20, 2009, 09:40:40 AM
Tort Reform is a red herring. In the states that have enacted tort reform, it has made no difference to costs.

Interesting.  If you have a link I'd love to take a look.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2009, 12:37:59 PM

Quote from: ulmont on June 20, 2009, 09:40:40 AM
Tort Reform is a red herring. In the states that have enacted tort reform, it has made no difference to costs.

Interesting.  If you have a link I'd love to take a look.

For starters, McAllen, Texas, the second most expensive health-care market in the country, is in a state with a non-economic damage cap, the doctors admit that cap dropped lawsuits practically to zero, and yet their health care costs keep growing faster than anywhere else...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

For second, unfortunately I can't get to the actual article:

QuoteIn the 1980s and 1990s many states adopted tort reforms. It has been argued that these reforms have reduced the practice of defensive medicine arising from excess tort liability. We find that this does not appear to be true for a large and important class of cases–childbirth in the United States.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.795

I concede that they say eliminating joint and several liability lowers costs, but note that they say non-economic damage caps increase them.

To shift a bit towards the anecdotal side, about 20 states have adopted non-economic damage caps, over 30 have abolished joint and several liability, and medical costs keep going up anyway (including here in Georgia, which has both).

Good read.  Thanks.

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2009, 01:31:36 AM
Yeah it is pretty ridiculous.  We managed to create a system even more inefficient and expensive than socialized medicine.  We should get a medal or something.

"Socialized Medicine" is a bit of a misnomer.  Really the difference is that we have a single payor system rather then multiple payors.  This creates a lot of efficiencies as Doctors dont have to worry about who will be paying the bill and what restrictions may or may not apply to that.  It also allows the payor to have the bargaining power to keep costs down when negotiating the rate it will pay to the service providers.

Socialized Medicine makes it sound like the government controls other aspects of medical treatment such as who I can see, what treatment I can obtain etc.  In reality, from what I know of the US insurance system, there are far more restrictions placed on policy holders then anyone in Canada might have.

I can understand why there would be a big lobby against a single payor system.  It would create a lot of efficiencies that would put a large number of people out of work and it would restrain the fees that doctors could charge individual patients.  But I dont see any downside to the patients themselves.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2009, 04:42:57 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2009, 01:31:36 AM
Yeah it is pretty ridiculous.  We managed to create a system even more inefficient and expensive than socialized medicine.  We should get a medal or something.

"Socialized Medicine" is a bit of a misnomer.  Really the difference is that we have a single payor system rather then multiple payors.  This creates a lot of efficiencies as Doctors dont have to worry about who will be paying the bill and what restrictions may or may not apply to that.  It also allows the payor to have the bargaining power to keep costs down when negotiating the rate it will pay to the service providers.

Socialized Medicine makes it sound like the government controls other aspects of medical treatment such as who I can see, what treatment I can obtain etc.  In reality, from what I know of the US insurance system, there are far more restrictions placed on policy holders then anyone in Canada might have.

I can understand why there would be a big lobby against a single payor system.  It would create a lot of efficiencies that would put a large number of people out of work and it would restrain the fees that doctors could charge individual patients.  But I dont see any downside to the patients themselves.

Yes, efficient like Medicare.   :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Of course it is complete nonsense.  We know how single payer systems save money: they simply ration health care.  Expensive treatments are rationed by limiting supply, relusting in waiting lists several months long.  This is why prostate cancer has a 98 percent survival rate in the US but only a 49 percent rate in the UK.

50 percent of health care costs are consumed by 5 percent of the patients.  You simply fuck over the minority to cut costs and volia, you have your precious savings.  You also cut doctor's pay since the state then has a monopsony, creating a shortage of doctors.  You then just have to import your doctors from third world countries, fucking them over in the progress.  All medical innovation ceases as well, since the state monopoly prvents the development of new medicines and treatments.  These cost money to develop, and given the high rate of failure will only be undertaken if there is a chance of high profit margins.  So if you want to have all medical decision making capacity transferred to the gov't, want to cease all medical research, and want to create a health rationing systen that is predicated on the hope that enough people die while waiting to get treated to save money then the single payer system is for you, otherwise it is nonsense.

Back on the original topic; I found this political analysis piece in the Detroit Free Press:

QuoteObama's attorneys sound like Bush's
In courtroom battles, administration adopts familiar rationales
BY MICHAEL DOYLE • MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS • June 21, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is morphing into George W. Bush, as administration attorneys repeatedly adopt the executive-authority and national-security rationales that their Republican predecessors preferred.

In courtroom battles and freedom-of-information fights from Washington, D.C., to California, Obama's legal arguments repeatedly mirror Bush's:

• White House turf is to be protected.

• Secrets must be retained.

• Dire warnings are wielded as weapons.

"It's putting up a veritable wall around the White House, and it's so at odds with Obama's campaign commitment to more open government," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a legal watchdog group.

Some differences exist
The Obama administration released documents from the Council on Environmental Quality that the Bush administration sought to suppress. Some questions, such as access to White House visitor logs, remain a work in progress.

On policies that are at the heart of presidential power and prerogatives, however, this administration's legal arguments have blended into the other administration's.

"There is no question that there are cultures and mind-sets in agencies," Weismann acknowledged.

A courtroom clash Thursday illustrated how Obama has come to emulate Bush.

Weismann's organization sued last year to obtain the notes from an interview that the FBI conducted with then-Vice President Dick Cheney. The interview was part of an investigation into leaks concerning undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, and the Bush administration fought the release of the notes.

"The records contain descriptions of confidential deliberations among top White House officials which are protected by the deliberative process and presidential communications privileges," Bush's Justice Department argued in an Oct. 10, 2008, legal brief.

Obama's Justice Department held the same line Thursday.

"The new leadership of the department supports those arguments," Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan during the oral argument. "The Department of Justice is an ongoing entity, and it is not normal for us to update cases simply because we have a new attorney general."

Perspectives change
Perspectives, of course, often change once candidates assume responsibility upon taking office.



As a candidate, for instance, Obama opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. As president, however, he's following Bush's lead in defending in court the federal marriage law, which a California same-sex couple is challenging.

The law "reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," Assistant Attorney General Tony West declared in a legal filing June 11.

Legally speaking, every administration inherits lawsuits filed against its predecessor. The Solicitor General's Office, which represents the government in appeals, traditionally tries to hold a steady course.

Personnel, too, stick around. John Brennan, the CIA director's chief of staff during the Bush administration, is closely advising Obama as a senior National Security Council staffer.

Policy persists
Whatever the reasons, policy persists. The Bush White House sought to keep e-mails secret. The Obama White House has followed suit.

The Bush White House sought to keep visitor logs secret. The Obama White House, so far, takes the same view.

Similarly, the Bush administration objected to an American Civil Liberties Union request for access to documents that include photographs that reportedly show the abuse of foreign prisoners held by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Obama administration declared in April that it would release the photographs. Three weeks later, Obama reversed course.

The Free Press editorial board usually endorses Democrat candidates.  Judging by their well thought out editorial diatribes from the past 8 years saying that Obama's attorney's sound like Bush's is the equivalent of accusing them of slander, libel, gross abuse of power, treason and witchcraft.     

Good.

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 22, 2009, 10:47:35 PM
Of course it is complete nonsense.  We know how single payer systems save money: they simply ration health care.

:rolleyes:

ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I have never once had my health care rationed.  It is this kind of idiotic rhetoric that makes your system so messed up.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
I have never once had my health care rationed.  It is this kind of idiotic rhetoric that makes your system so messed up.

I have.  First, you have to go to the primary care physician to get a referral to the specialist, then choose medicines from a particular list if you want them to be paid for, etc., etc.  HMOs suck; the public plan can't be any worse.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
I have never once had my health care rationed.  It is this kind of idiotic rhetoric that makes your system so messed up.

All health care is "rationed."  The question is whether or not to ration based on income.

No health care system can afford to simply hand out unlimited health care on demand.  Some health care systems have such a generous ration, though, that few even see the rationing.

I can get all the prostrate exams I want.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 23, 2009, 02:20:08 PM
I can get all the prostrate exams I want.

What do those look for?

Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2009, 02:30:54 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 23, 2009, 02:20:08 PM
I can get all the prostrate exams I want.

What do those look for?

The chick doctor just wants to stick her fingers in my ass.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 23, 2009, 02:37:18 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2009, 02:30:54 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 23, 2009, 02:20:08 PM
I can get all the prostrate exams I want.

What do those look for?

The chick doctor just wants to stick her fingers in my ass.

Does she do a prostate exam as well while she's down there?

Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2009, 10:36:58 AM
All health care is "rationed."  The question is whether or not to ration based on income.

No health care system can afford to simply hand out unlimited health care on demand.  Some health care systems have such a generous ration, though, that few even see the rationing.

You are correct but in systems like the one we have in Canada where the rationing process is not noticeable then comments like the one Hans made are at best misleading - which is really what I responding to.

It isn't noticeable?

I've heard plenty of anecdotes at least about long wait times for health care - that is certainly "noticeable", isn't it?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 09:42:36 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 22, 2009, 10:47:35 PM
Of course it is complete nonsense.  We know how single payer systems save money: they simply ration health care.

:rolleyes:

ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I have never once had my health care rationed.  It is this kind of idiotic rhetoric that makes your system so messed up.

What is a waiting list but rationing by another name?

Ah - Berkut already made that point.

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 02:52:06 PM
It isn't noticeable?

I've heard plenty of anecdotes at least about long wait times for health care - that is certainly "noticeable", isn't it?

That has nothing to do with "rationing" of health care.  That is a function of the provincial governments not being able to hire enough doctors.  Rationing is a process of the government (or in the US an insurer) telling a doctor he cannot perform a procedure the doctor deems medically necessary.  That simply does not happen in Canada.

BTW I have never had a wait of more then a few days for any test or any other procedure I might require.  I understand that the big waits are around things like hip replacement surgury and such - eg the treatment of chronic problems in the elderly.  The demand has simply swamped the supply of operating rooms and doctors for those procedures.  But for  acute problems I have not heard of any waiting periods.  Quite the opposite.  If you have symptoms of a heart attack (as an example) you would get immediate excellent care.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
:rolleyes:

ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I have never once had my health care rationed.  It is this kind of idiotic rhetoric that makes your system so messed up.

How often have you had an MRI?

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:06:46 PM
What is a waiting list but rationing by another name?

Ah - Berkut already made that point.

You think the government says to doctors.  Ok folks you already performed 1000 of operation x.  You may not perform anymore?

As you already said, there is a shortage of doctors.  You seem to think that is be design but I have already showed you data that you are wrong about that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2009, 03:08:32 PM
How often have you had an MRI?

More often then I would like to remember.

I had a lot of sports related injuries...

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 03:07:37 PM
That has nothing to do with "rationing" of health care.  That is a function of the provincial governments not being able to hire enough doctors.  Rationing is a process of the government (or in the US an insurer) telling a doctor he cannot perform a procedure the doctor deems medically necessary.  That simply does not happen in Canada.

BTW I have never had a wait of more then a few days for any test or any other procedure I might require.  I understand that the big waits are around things like hip replacement surgury and such - eg the treatment of chronic problems in the elderly.  The demand has simply swamped the supply of operating rooms and doctors for those procedures.  But for  acute problems I have not heard of any waiting periods.  Quite the opposite.  If you have symptoms of a heart attack (as an example) you would get immediate excellent care.

Hush Americans know far more about how Canada's system works than ignorant Canadians :P

Seriously though where would I go to get some stats on average wait times for certain procedures?  It is not like we don't have health care worker shortages here in the US also.

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2009, 03:10:15 PM
Seriously though where would I go to get some stats on average wait times for certain procedures?  It is not like we don't have health care worker shortages here in the US also.

Wait times are published by provincial governments on a fairly regular basis.  It is one of the methods politicians use to let the public know that they are spending enough on health care.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 03:09:08 PM
You think the government says to doctors.  Ok folks you already performed 1000 of operation x.  You may not perform anymore?

As you already said, there is a shortage of doctors.  You seem to think that is be design but I have already showed you data that you are wrong about that.

That's not how it works.  Instead the government has a system that can only do 1000 of operation X per year.  If there are actually need to be 1100 of operation X they don't expand the capacity, they just put you on the waiting list.

And the shortage of doctors was by design.  It was a move in the 80s-90s to help cut costs.  The fact that policy has been reversed doesn't mewan it can be fixed overnight.  It takes 4 years to get an MD, plus several years to finish residency.  If changes were made 8 years ago we'd only now get the first cohort of new doctors thie year.

And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:13:56 PM
And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Doh!

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 03:07:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 02:52:06 PM
It isn't noticeable?

I've heard plenty of anecdotes at least about long wait times for health care - that is certainly "noticeable", isn't it?

That has nothing to do with "rationing" of health care.  That is a function of the provincial governments not being able to hire enough doctors.  Rationing is a process of the government (or in the US an insurer) telling a doctor he cannot perform a procedure the doctor deems medically necessary.  That simply does not happen in Canada.

Of course it has to do with rationing health care. The provider is not willing to spend the funds necessary to provide enough services that waits do not happen - that is rationing. And I am sure that the government in Canada has some list of "medically necessary" procdeures and under what circumstances they should be provided - surely a doctor cannot simply say 'Yeah, Berkut needs a heart transplant!" even if I do not meet some criteria for it?

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:13:56 PM

And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Well, you know, as long as there isn't any rationing!

I can't get MRIs on my legs anymore, too much metal.

This is your medical non sequitur of the day. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:16:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:13:56 PM

And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Well, you know, as long as there isn't any rationing!

He lives in the middle of nowhere.  He will necessarily not get the same access to medical treatment as someone who lives in a big city.

But then you knew that....

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 03:19:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:16:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:13:56 PM

And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Well, you know, as long as there isn't any rationing!

He lives in the middle of nowhere.  He will necessarily not get the same access to medical treatment as someone who lives in a big city.

But then you knew that....

While our access isn't exactly the same, we do have comparable medical coverage.

Anyone who needs an MRI gets flown down south for one.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 03:19:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:16:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:13:56 PM

And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Well, you know, as long as there isn't any rationing!

He lives in the middle of nowhere.  He will necessarily not get the same access to medical treatment as someone who lives in a big city.

But then you knew that....

So people in the big city never have to wait for MRIs, or other routine medical care? Or even non-routine medical care?

And really, I have no idea what access he has - it would not surprise me if there is a regional hospital or clinic in his area that had an MRI machine, for example. Doesn't surprise me that there isn't either - but no, I did NOT know that.

Let me guess: the MRI is in operation 8h a day?

And for the record, since I think Canucks caunckistanie cackles are starting to raise up, I am not making any claim about the comparative superiority of the US system. They both ration health care, and I am certainly not convinced that the US system is superior.

But the idea that the Canadian system does not ration healthcare is pretty funny. Of course it does.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 23, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
I can't get MRIs on my legs anymore, too much metal.

This is your medical non sequitur of the day. :thumbsup:

I guess you could use MRI to remove all that hardware from your leg.

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:26:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 03:19:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:16:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:13:56 PM

And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Well, you know, as long as there isn't any rationing!

He lives in the middle of nowhere.  He will necessarily not get the same access to medical treatment as someone who lives in a big city.

But then you knew that....

So people in the big city never have to wait for MRIs, or other routine medical care? Or even non-routine medical care?

There is a difference between treatment of acute cases and chronic cases.  There is no wait time for emergency procedures.  If BB's wife had an acute problem she would get immediate access.  It sounds like BB's wife has a chronic problem that is not urgent.

Would she get immediate treatment from an HMO doctor?

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:27:59 PM
But the idea that the Canadian system does not ration healthcare is pretty funny. Of course it does.

Please read along.  I agreed with Grumbler.

The point is that we dont notice restrictions in our health care the same way most Americans do under your private health policies.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:01:28 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:26:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 03:19:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:16:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 03:13:56 PM

And my wife has been having some chronic pain in her knee.  She asked about getting an MRI - they laughed and said maybe in a year.

Well, you know, as long as there isn't any rationing!

He lives in the middle of nowhere.  He will necessarily not get the same access to medical treatment as someone who lives in a big city.

But then you knew that....

So people in the big city never have to wait for MRIs, or other routine medical care? Or even non-routine medical care?

There is a difference between treatment of acute cases and chronic cases.  There is no wait time for emergency procedures.  If BB's wife had an acute problem she would get immediate access.  It sounds like BB's wife has a chronic problem that is not urgent.

Would she get immediate treatment from an HMO doctor?

Of course not. But I am not claiming that medical care is not rationed in the US.

Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2009, 03:27:17 PM
Let me guess: the MRI is in operation 8h a day?

:lol:

There are actually several private radiology clinics that have opened up to meet the demand.  They are all paid through the single payor model.

Which is why I started by saying it is a misnomer to call our model "socialized medicine" there is a lot of room for private actors within a single payor system.

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
Of course not. But I am not claiming that medical care is not rationed in the US.

My claim is that to the extent health care is rationed in Canada, such rationing is not noticeable in the same way it is noticeable in the US.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:03:00 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 03:27:59 PM
But the idea that the Canadian system does not ration healthcare is pretty funny. Of course it does.

Please read along.  I agreed with Grumbler.

The point is that we dont notice restrictions in our health care the same way most Americans do under your private health policies.

O RLY?

What restrictions are you talking about with our "private health policies" that you do not suffer from?

The idea that my wife could not get an MRI, for example, if her doctor prescribed one for her is quite alien to me. If he said she needed one, she would go get one under our HMO.

Apparently you guys "notice" some kind of restrictions to your healthcare.

Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2009, 03:53:05 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 23, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
I can't get MRIs on my legs anymore, too much metal.

This is your medical non sequitur of the day. :thumbsup:

I guess you could use MRI to remove all that hardware from your leg.

:lol: I think I'd rather just have that leg chopped off.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:06:23 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
Of course not. But I am not claiming that medical care is not rationed in the US.

My claim is that to the extent health care is rationed in Canada, such rationing is not noticeable in the same way it is noticeable in the US.

I would claim that to the extent that health care is rationed in Canada, it is apparently perfectly noticeable, and BB's example shows that to be the case.

I don't think you really know anything about how "noticeable" it is in the US - what example are you driving from?

I am willing to admit my knowledge of Canadian healthcare is pretty spotty - I am just going by what people have told me anecdotally (like BB for example). But it seems like having to wait what seems (from a US perspective) to be a very long time for relatively routine procedures is not completely uncommon.

How noticeable is rationing in the US? How are you measuring this?

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 04:06:37 PM
O RLY?

What restrictions are you talking about with our "private health policies" that you do not suffer from?

The idea that my wife could not get an MRI, for example, if her doctor prescribed one for her is quite alien to me. If he said she needed one, she would go get one under our HMO.

Apparently you guys "notice" some kind of restrictions to your healthcare.

I really wish you would just read what I have written before....


Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that medical procedures that are insured through such things as HMOS need to be approved before the procedure can take place.  If you had been following the thread before you barged in you would have noticed the BB's main complaint about our system is that if the doctor decides the procedure is medically necessary then the health care plan pays for it.  There is no insurance bean counter interposed between the patient and the doctor.

I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence.

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 04:09:28 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:06:23 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
Of course not. But I am not claiming that medical care is not rationed in the US.

My claim is that to the extent health care is rationed in Canada, such rationing is not noticeable in the same way it is noticeable in the US.

I would claim that to the extent that health care is rationed in Canada, it is apparently perfectly noticeable, and BB's example shows that to be the case.

I don't think you really know anything about how "noticeable" it is in the US - what example are you driving from?

I am willing to admit my knowledge of Canadian healthcare is pretty spotty - I am just going by what people have told me anecdotally (like BB for example). But it seems like having to wait what seems (from a US perspective) to be a very long time for relatively routine procedures is not completely uncommon.

How noticeable is rationing in the US? How are you measuring this?

Again, I really wish you would actually read the thread before posting.  You might have noticed that I made the point that it is important to compare apples to apples.  Given the mess your system is in the the varying ways health care is delivered I am not sure that is possible.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:10:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2009, 04:06:37 PM
O RLY?

What restrictions are you talking about with our "private health policies" that you do not suffer from?

The idea that my wife could not get an MRI, for example, if her doctor prescribed one for her is quite alien to me. If he said she needed one, she would go get one under our HMO.

Apparently you guys "notice" some kind of restrictions to your healthcare.

I really wish you would just read what I have written before....


Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that medical procedures that are insured through such things as HMOS need to be approved before the procedure can take place. 

You are wrong. I have gotten innumerable tests or procedures done without any need for pre-approval, and I have an HMO. Blue Choice in fact. Costs a bloody fortune.

I imagine some tests and procedures need pre-approval, like if I wanted to get something elective done - or rather, the HMO will simply refuse to pay for it when the bill comes in, and then the doctor would have to fight with them over it, so the doctor would make sure the HMO agrees ahead of time. I say this in theory of course - I have never actualy experienced this (or as you might say, I've never "noticed" it).

Something as routine as an MRI though? Perhaps some HMO require approval for things like that, but mine certainly does not. Both my kids have gotten a variety of expensive medical tests done simply on the order of their doctors, and without any need for prior approval.

Your comment about BB's complaint makes no sense. Why would he complina that if the docotor decides something is necessary, then the health care paln pays for it? I thought his complaint was that they laughed when his wife thought she should get an MRI to check on some chronic pain.

If you had been reading my comments before you barged into the thread, you would know this. If you bothered asking about how the US system actually works, rather than your mythical version of the system, you would not look so silly as to claim that there is some bean counter approving every blood test your doctor orders for you.

Is this just you trying to pick a fight with me? I suspect so - maybe you should just pretend not to read my posts if they cause you to become so hostile and irrational. I don't really mind that you go on this personal jihad every time I respond to something you post, but I think others find it distracting and annoying.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:12:27 PM
Again, I really wish you would actually read the thread before posting.  You might have noticed that I made the point that it is important to compare apples to apples.  Given the mess your system is in the the varying ways health care is delivered I am not sure that is possible.

Ahh, so when you compare the wonderful Candaian system to the "mess" of a US system, it isn't actually possible to make such a comparison, because the US system is in fact such a mess. That is a strong argument, it goes well with the little snide comments about reading the thread.

See my previous comment - you don't HAVE to get personal and unpleasant you know. It is possible to just talk about stuff, compare systems, discuss problems with the US system, and the Canadian system, see how one works better than the other in some ways, etc., etc., without turning it into some kind of internet uber-nationalistic dick waving contest.

Give it a try sometime - you might be surprised how pleasant the result can be.

Canadians smell like feet.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that medical procedures that are insured through such things as HMOS need to be approved before the procedure can take place.  If you had been following the thread before you barged in you would have noticed the BB's main complaint about our system is that if the doctor decides the procedure is medically necessary then the health care plan pays for it.  There is no insurance bean counter interposed between the patient and the doctor.

You haven't proven that is necessarily a better system however.

Since I have had pretty good health my experience with doctors has been largely through my files at work (and my aunt who is a GP).  I find that doctors tend to be some of the least-objective people around when it comes to their patients.  They wind up going into total patient advocate mode.  Perhaps an "insurance bean counter" system is superior.

Really I don't know enough of either system to say which is superior.  I do like to object to fellow Canadians who treat our own health care system as being some marvel of public policy, when it so clearly is flawed.

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 04:23:41 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2009, 04:10:48 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that medical procedures that are insured through such things as HMOS need to be approved before the procedure can take place.  If you had been following the thread before you barged in you would have noticed the BB's main complaint about our system is that if the doctor decides the procedure is medically necessary then the health care plan pays for it.  There is no insurance bean counter interposed between the patient and the doctor.

You haven't proven that is necessarily a better system however.

Since I have had pretty good health my experience with doctors has been largely through my files at work (and my aunt who is a GP).  I find that doctors tend to be some of the least-objective people around when it comes to their patients.  They wind up going into total patient advocate mode.  Perhaps an "insurance bean counter" system is superior.

Really I don't know enough of either system to say which is superior.  I do like to object to fellow Canadians who treat our own health care system as being some marvel of public policy, when it so clearly is flawed.

LIke I said, I think there is plenty to be said for and against the US health care system. I would *never* argue that is is better than the Canadian one though - I cannot say that the Canadian is so great, but I know that any system where we pay so much for, well, a lot, but still at an exorbitant cost, cannot be much of a model for anyone else.

Funny how something as pedestrian as health care can give rise to these kinds of feeling of nationalism though. At least in some people.

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 04:23:41 PM

You haven't proven that is necessarily a better system however.

Since I have had pretty good health my experience with doctors has been largely through my files at work (and my aunt who is a GP).  I find that doctors tend to be some of the least-objective people around when it comes to their patients.  They wind up going into total patient advocate mode.  Perhaps an "insurance bean counter" system is superior.

Really I don't know enough of either system to say which is superior.  I do like to object to fellow Canadians who treat our own health care system as being some marvel of public policy, when it so clearly is flawed.

One objective measure in which it is better is that everyone is insured.  According to Berkut his coverage costs a "bloody fortune" for the same thing we all get for free.

You object that our system spends too many resources on its patients.  I take it that it the way in which you say it is "clearly flawed". I would prefer to have that kind of system then have a system that interjects insurance approval between a patient and their doctor.  Although Berkut said I was wrong about the approval thing he then went on to say that it did in fact happen so I am not really sure what the situation is there.

Obama got really snarky with a reporter today re: Iran rhetoric, when he was asked if his tougher language was in response to the comments of McCain and Graham.  He said, "What do you think?"

Ouch.  Law prof returns.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2009, 01:02:43 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 04:23:41 PM

You haven't proven that is necessarily a better system however.

Since I have had pretty good health my experience with doctors has been largely through my files at work (and my aunt who is a GP).  I find that doctors tend to be some of the least-objective people around when it comes to their patients.  They wind up going into total patient advocate mode.  Perhaps an "insurance bean counter" system is superior.

Really I don't know enough of either system to say which is superior.  I do like to object to fellow Canadians who treat our own health care system as being some marvel of public policy, when it so clearly is flawed.

One objective measure in which it is better is that everyone is insured.  According to Berkut his coverage costs a "bloody fortune" for the same thing we all get for free.

You object that our system spends too many resources on its patients.  I take it that it the way in which you say it is "clearly flawed". I would prefer to have that kind of system then have a system that interjects insurance approval between a patient and their doctor.  Although Berkut said I was wrong about the approval thing he then went on to say that it did in fact happen so I am not really sure what the situation is there.

I don't think it was that confusing - I said that you were certainly wrong to say that you cannot get procedures done without prior approval, and stated that I can be 100% certain this is true since I have experienced that myself.

I went on to say that perhaps it is different with other insurers - unlike some, I am loathe to make sweeping generalizations based on urban legend and nationalistic jingoism, so I don't want to try to speak for the entire country, much less some OTHER entire country.

Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2009, 02:36:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2009, 01:02:43 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2009, 04:23:41 PM

You haven't proven that is necessarily a better system however.

Since I have had pretty good health my experience with doctors has been largely through my files at work (and my aunt who is a GP).  I find that doctors tend to be some of the least-objective people around when it comes to their patients.  They wind up going into total patient advocate mode.  Perhaps an "insurance bean counter" system is superior.

Really I don't know enough of either system to say which is superior.  I do like to object to fellow Canadians who treat our own health care system as being some marvel of public policy, when it so clearly is flawed.

One objective measure in which it is better is that everyone is insured.  According to Berkut his coverage costs a "bloody fortune" for the same thing we all get for free.

You object that our system spends too many resources on its patients.  I take it that it the way in which you say it is "clearly flawed". I would prefer to have that kind of system then have a system that interjects insurance approval between a patient and their doctor.  Although Berkut said I was wrong about the approval thing he then went on to say that it did in fact happen so I am not really sure what the situation is there.

I don't think it was that confusing - I said that you were certainly wrong to say that you cannot get procedures done without prior approval, and stated that I can be 100% certain this is true since I have experienced that myself.

I went on to say that perhaps it is different with other insurers - unlike some, I am loathe to make sweeping generalizations based on urban legend and nationalistic jingoism, so I don't want to try to speak for the entire country, much less some OTHER entire country.

But you are loathe to overstate.  A brief review of the Wiki page on HMOS indicates there are approvals which are required.

Not sure why you insist on the over the rhetoric.  I hope someone else who knows a bit more about how HMOS operate can give some information in a non inflamatory manner.

Canuck, you do realize a pretty small % of Americans are covered by HMOs, right?

The funny thing is that abot 15% of Canadians lack a primary physician due to lack of doctors, which is about the same percentage that lack health insurance in the US.

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 24, 2009, 10:26:53 PM
The funny thing is that abot 15% of Canadians lack a primary physician due to lack of doctors, which is about the same percentage that lack health insurance in the US.

We have that problem here in US as well, for the same reasons.  In the age of specialization, no one wants to be the boring old family practitioner.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2009, 04:46:20 PM
But you are loathe to overstate.  A brief review of the Wiki page on HMOS indicates there are approvals which are required.

And there are approvals that are required for your healthcare (at times) as well. So what? That doesn't mean that it is any more or less "rationed".

Quote
Not sure why you insist on the over the rhetoric.

I am not sure I know what that sentence means. Is that some Canadian colloquialism or something?

Quote
  I hope someone else who knows a bit more about how HMOS operate can give some information in a non inflamatory manner.

So you are rejecting my information - do you think I am lying when I say I get tests done routinely without prior approval?

Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2009, 08:33:20 AM
We have that problem here in US as well, for the same reasons.  In the age of specialization, no one wants to be the boring old family practitioner.

Why anybody would ever want to be a Doctor in the US is completely beyond me.  Being a doctor seems like one of the truly shit jobs out there: you have to work so hard to get a job that pays poorly, works you long long hours, and is high stress. 

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 08:40:55 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2009, 08:33:20 AM
We have that problem here in US as well, for the same reasons.  In the age of specialization, no one wants to be the boring old family practitioner.

Why anybody would ever want to be a Doctor in the US is completely beyond me.  Being a doctor seems like one of the truly shit jobs out there: you have to work so hard to get a job that pays poorly, works you long long hours, and is high stress. 

I will give you the long hours and stress, but pays poorly? Huh?

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 08:41:38 AM
I will give you the long hours and stress, but pays poorly? Huh?

One of my very good friends added up the amount of hours he worked one year compared to how much he had been paid and I think it came out to something stupid like $9 an hour.

But this varies alot by exactly what sort of doctor you are, but I mean primarily people who take the traditional route to primary care and not decide to do boob jobs or whatever.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 08:41:38 AM
I will give you the long hours and stress, but pays poorly? Huh?

One of my very good friends added up the amount of hours he worked one year compared to how much he had been paid and I think it came out to something stupid like $9 an hour.

But this varies alot by exactly what sort of doctor you are, but I mean primarily people who take the traditional route to primary care and not decide to do boob jobs or whatever.

Sounds like horseshit to me.

I know quite a few doctor's. Some of them work incredibly hard, some not that hard. They all are rather well paid though.

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 09:26:21 AM
Sounds like horseshit to me.

I know quite a few doctor's. Some of them work incredibly hard, some not that hard. They all are rather well paid though.

I am not lying.  :rolleyes:

It gets better as you get older.  It is a truly brutal trial by fire for years until you get established though.

How long have your doctors been in practice?

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 09:29:00 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 09:26:21 AM
Sounds like horseshit to me.

I know quite a few doctor's. Some of them work incredibly hard, some not that hard. They all are rather well paid though.

I am not lying.  :rolleyes:

It gets better as you get older.  It is a truly brutal trial by fire for years until you get established though.

How long have your doctors been in practice?

Well, the one who is a neurologist just started. He is being sued already though, hasn't been in practice for a year yet.

The others vary quite a bit, and for most I don't really know.

But really, a professional person who has to work very hard at the beginning to establish themselves? Well, duh. Isn't that perfectly normal for professionals?

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 24, 2009, 10:26:53 PM
The funny thing is that abot 15% of Canadians lack a primary physician due to lack of doctors, which is about the same percentage that lack health insurance in the US.

The doctor shortage in Canada is mainly a rural issue. Physicians do not want to live in remote places, of which Canada has more than its share. Rural areas also tend to be less affluent. No problem getting a doc in Toronto.

Ironically, the only solution to this problem is some sort of government action.

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 09:31:54 AM
But really, a professional person who has to work very hard at the beginning to establish themselves? Well, duh. Isn't that perfectly normal for professionals?

To the extent that they do?  No.  Compared to the other people I know with professional degrees the doctors have by far the most brutal ordeal I have ever seen.  I would rather be a lawyer or an engineer or anything else any day.  It is not even comparable in my mind.

But anyway I think we can at least agree it is not a career for the faint of heart.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 09:33:45 AM
The doctor shortage in Canada is mainly a rural issue. Physicians do not want to live in remote places, of which Canada has more than its share. Rural areas also tend to be less affluent. No problem getting a doc in Toronto.

Ironically, the only solution to this problem is some sort of government action.

This is why political discussions are so frustrating, people bring up these stats and then explain them from their political bias and I have no idea if they are presenting the relevent information or not.  What is true, or some decent approximation, is so hard to really discover.

I wanted to be a gynecologist.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 09:37:35 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 09:33:45 AM
The doctor shortage in Canada is mainly a rural issue. Physicians do not want to live in remote places, of which Canada has more than its share. Rural areas also tend to be less affluent. No problem getting a doc in Toronto.

Ironically, the only solution to this problem is some sort of government action.

This is why political discussions are so frustrating, people bring up these stats and then explain them from their political bias and I have no idea if they are presenting the relevent information or not.  What is true, or some decent approximation, is so hard to really discover.

Indeed. Such is always the problem when discussing anything with the Faithful. They only look at the data from a very narrow perspective.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2009, 09:38:47 AM
I wanted to be a gynecologist.

Nothing preventing you from pusuing this as an amateur.  ;)

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2009, 09:38:47 AM
I wanted to be a gynecologist.

No thanks. it sounds good in theory, but when you consider that

A) You will almost immediately become incredibly bored with the female vagina, and
B) You will have to deal with them when they are not exactly as enticing as one might hope....


PASS. :puke:

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 09:41:11 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 25, 2009, 09:38:47 AM
I wanted to be a gynecologist.

Nothing preventing you from pusuing this as an amateur.  ;)

yes, there is. A total lock of rubber gloves.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2009, 04:54:55 PM
Canuck, you do realize a pretty small % of Americans are covered by HMOs, right?

No, I dont.  That is why I asking the questions.  My understanding of the US system is limited to the fact that there is a whole spectrum of ways people access health care from not at all to best in the world.

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 24, 2009, 10:26:53 PM
The funny thing is that abot 15% of Canadians lack a primary physician due to lack of doctors, which is about the same percentage that lack health insurance in the US.

Not sure why you are comparing the two.  Canadians who lack a primary physician (which means they dont have their own family doctor) still have access to free health care provided by clinics and hospitals.  Ineffect the clinic becomes their primary care giver.

What happens to the 15% who have no health insurance in the US?

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 08:37:00 AM
And there are approvals that are required for your healthcare (at times) as well.

Not sure what you are talking about.  You may have noticed that BB's main complaint is that a Canadian doctor can and does perform any procedure they deem medically necessary without any approval - unlike the US.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:29:13 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2009, 04:54:55 PM
Canuck, you do realize a pretty small % of Americans are covered by HMOs, right?

No, I dont.  That is why I asking the questions.  My understanding of the US system is limited to the fact that there is a whole spectrum of ways people access health care from not at all to best in the world.

I'm not so sure it's a small percentage.  This 2006 USA Today poll shows 18% HMO, this 1999 Reason article claims 85%, and Kaiser shows 64 million Americans as of July 2008, so 20% or so:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-15-health-poll1.htm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30907.html
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=348&cat=7&sub=85&yr=71&typ=1&sort=a

PPOs do seem to be more popular, though.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 09:37:35 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 09:33:45 AM
The doctor shortage in Canada is mainly a rural issue. Physicians do not want to live in remote places, of which Canada has more than its share. Rural areas also tend to be less affluent. No problem getting a doc in Toronto.

Ironically, the only solution to this problem is some sort of government action.

This is why political discussions are so frustrating, people bring up these stats and then explain them from their political bias and I have no idea if they are presenting the relevent information or not.  What is true, or some decent approximation, is so hard to really discover.

What is so hard to understand about doctors preferring to work in urban rather then poor rural areas?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:32:27 AM
What happens to the 15% who have no health insurance in the US?

That is a really difficult question to answer.  The system is just really complex.  In some circumstances emergency rooms have to treat you insurance or no.  Fans of the Byzantine Empire would love our health care system.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:36:38 AM
What is so hard to understand about doctors preferring to work in urban rather then poor rural areas?

That makes perfect sense to me.  But Hans threw out the stat saying it was a result of the faults of the Canadian system instead.

Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2009, 10:35:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:29:13 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2009, 04:54:55 PM
Canuck, you do realize a pretty small % of Americans are covered by HMOs, right?

No, I dont.  That is why I asking the questions.  My understanding of the US system is limited to the fact that there is a whole spectrum of ways people access health care from not at all to best in the world.

I'm not so sure it's a small percentage.  This 2006 USA Today poll shows 18% HMO, but this 1999 Reason article claims 85%:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-15-health-poll1.htm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30907.html

Wiki gives 28% for 1999, and 20% for 2006.  That sounds about right, HMOs have been slowly losing popularity over time.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:32:27 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 24, 2009, 10:26:53 PM
The funny thing is that abot 15% of Canadians lack a primary physician due to lack of doctors, which is about the same percentage that lack health insurance in the US.

Not sure why you are comparing the two.  Canadians who lack a primary physician (which means they dont have their own family doctor) still have access to free health care provided by clinics and hospitals.  Ineffect the clinic becomes their primary care giver.

What happens to the 15% who have no health insurance in the US?

Emergency room. Back in the day when I was 'po, there was a form you got from billing that got the feds to pay the bill.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 10:38:59 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:32:27 AM
What happens to the 15% who have no health insurance in the US?

That is a really difficult question to answer.  The system is just really complex.  In some circumstances emergency rooms have to treat you insurance or no.  Fans of the Byzantine Empire would love our health care system.

The difference being that, in the US, you have to pay personally to have your eyeballs gouged out.  :D

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 10:40:01 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:36:38 AM
What is so hard to understand about doctors preferring to work in urban rather then poor rural areas?

That makes perfect sense to me.  But Hans threw out the stat saying it was a result of the faults of the Canadian system instead.

Well, to an extent he's right - the Canadian system hasn't developed a workable method of incentivising docs to move to the sticks.

Also, Canada has overall less docs, because being a doc isn't as lucrative here as in the US. But the effect of this is felt most severly in rural areas.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 10:51:36 AM
The difference being that, in the US, you have to pay personally to have your eyeballs gouged out.  :D

And naturally the bill the Bulgarians got for their 10,000 opticalectomies was way inflated <_<

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 10:54:16 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 10:51:36 AM
The difference being that, in the US, you have to pay personally to have your eyeballs gouged out.  :D

And naturally the bill the Bulgarians got for their 10,000 opticalectomies was way inflated <_<

... On the taxpayer's dime.  :(

The Iran press conference was interesting.  Obama doesn't hold his cool so well when the press is being snarky.

Quote from: fahdiz on June 25, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
The Iran press conference was interesting.  Obama doesn't hold his cool so well when the press is being snarky.

His teleprompter is cold and logical.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 10:38:59 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:32:27 AM
What happens to the 15% who have no health insurance in the US?

That is a really difficult question to answer.  The system is just really complex.  In some circumstances emergency rooms have to treat you insurance or no.  Fans of the Byzantine Empire would love our health care system.

The answer varies from state to state, actually.

When I was unemployed, for example, the state provided health care for my kids was actually better than the health insurance I had. That is The Socialist Democratic Republic of New York though.

I don't think anyone really simply goes without healthcare - it ends up being provided in some incredibly inefficient manner or another.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 10:32:27 AM

What happens to the 15% who have no health insurance in the US?

They get treated when they show up with something serious.

The problems of not having health insurance are that:
a) They don't get primary care, so they frequently miss out on health screenings that can detect illnesses early as well as advice from doctors.
b) When they do present with illnesses, they do so in places like ERs that are expensive.
c) Insurance companies negotiate rates, so the rates for uninsured are much higher (which makes sense in a way--as a class, uninsured pay less for their treatments than anyone else, even if those with some means end up getting gouged). This is a huge incentive to avoid treatments as long as possible, and many people end up bankrupt.
d) The uninsured are concentrated in poor communities. Hence inner city hospitals chronically lose money and are in a fight for survival. These hospitals need to receive government support, so in a very backend and inefficient way we are providing universal health coverage.

Again, in some states the state provides HMO-like health care coverage to the poor. So alfred's response does not really reflect ALL cases.

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:08:00 AM
Again, in some states the state provides HMO-like health care coverage to the poor. So alfred's response does not really reflect ALL cases.

If they have coverage, they wouldn't be a part of the uninsured.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2009, 11:09:37 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:08:00 AM
Again, in some states the state provides HMO-like health care coverage to the poor. So alfred's response does not really reflect ALL cases.

If they have coverage, they wouldn't be a part of the uninsured.

They are for the purposes of this conversation about health care coverage, and more importantly, what happens when you cannot afford your own. In some cases, the answer is that the state pays for it.

What is interesting about the New York system is that the state basically pays for your enrollment in the state HMO - you are then free to choose your doctor from those that participate in that MO, which seem to be many (if not most) of them. My kids did not even have to change their PCP when we switched to it and then back.

I had insurance from my previous job however, but the State offered to pay for the kids, so I was not about to say no.

Quote from: fahdiz on June 25, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
The Iran press conference was interesting.  Obama doesn't hold his cool so well when the press is being snarky.

From my personal experience, it's very hard for a highly intelligent man to suffer the fools gracefully.

Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2009, 11:20:00 AM

Quote from: fahdiz on June 25, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
The Iran press conference was interesting.  Obama doesn't hold his cool so well when the press is being snarky.

From my personal experience, it's very hard for a highly intelligent man to suffer the fools gracefully.

Don't let it get to you, the annoyance with you passes quickly.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2009, 11:06:40 AM
They get treated when they show up with something serious.

Depends what that "serious something" is.  Gunshot, yes.  Cancer that requires long therapy to treat?  Getting iffy.

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:22:47 AM
Don't let it get to you, the annoyance with you passes quickly.

DG, you really walked into that one. :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 10:54:12 AM

Well, to an extent he's right - the Canadian system hasn't developed a workable method of incentivising docs to move to the sticks.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiotimes.com%2Fshows%2Fdoc-martin%2Fmain.jpg&hash=22a88829110a0ad50d96cf60d5eccfca0ef0a301)

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 08:40:55 AM

Why anybody would ever want to be a Doctor in the US is completely beyond me.  Being a doctor seems like one of the truly shit jobs out there: you have to work so hard to get a job that pays poorly, works you long long hours, and is high stress.

Clearly they do when it's an upgrade over what their previous options were. An awful lot of our doctors are foreigners coming from places where their skills are...less valuable.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2009, 11:27:42 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 08:40:55 AM

Why anybody would ever want to be a Doctor in the US is completely beyond me.  Being a doctor seems like one of the truly shit jobs out there: you have to work so hard to get a job that pays poorly, works you long long hours, and is high stress.

Clearly they do when it's an upgrade over what their previous options were. An awful lot of our doctors are foreigners coming from places where their skills are...less valuable.

Canada?

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:17:31 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2009, 11:09:37 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:08:00 AM
Again, in some states the state provides HMO-like health care coverage to the poor. So alfred's response does not really reflect ALL cases.

If they have coverage, they wouldn't be a part of the uninsured.

They are for the purposes of this conversation about health care coverage, and more importantly, what happens when you cannot afford your own. In some cases, the answer is that the state pays for it.

We have medicaid too--those people aren't usually included as uninsured.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 10:54:12 AM
incentivising

:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:30:11 AM

Canada?

Of the three docs my wife and I see, two are from Canada and one is from the UK. So, yeah. I guess so.


There are also a lot of them from South Asia.

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:30:11 AM
Canada?

Probably.  I havent seen the reverse being true.

Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 11:30:45 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 10:54:12 AM
incentivising

:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:

You know, you get a doctor to treat that bleeding problem in the US. If you incentivize him properly, of course.  :D

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 12:45:17 PM
You know, you get a doctor to treat that bleeding problem in the US. If you incentivize him properly, of course.  :D

I'll get my incentivizing stick.

Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 12:47:58 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 12:45:17 PM
You know, you get a doctor to treat that bleeding problem in the US. If you incentivize him properly, of course.  :D

I'll get my incentivizing stick.

Good.

You have now incentivized me to use that word in every possible situation.  :D

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 12:52:45 PM
Good.

You have now incentivized me to use that word in every possible situation.  :D

According to Camus, since life is meaningless, it's up to the individual to set his own goals in order that he may experience moments of triumnph.  I'm glad I've helped you find such a goal.   :)

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 11:22:47 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2009, 11:20:00 AM

Quote from: fahdiz on June 25, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
The Iran press conference was interesting.  Obama doesn't hold his cool so well when the press is being snarky.

From my personal experience, it's very hard for a highly intelligent man to suffer the fools gracefully.

Don't let it get to you, the annoyance with you passes quickly.

Oh, Snap!  :lol:

Well, Obama's abc infomercial last night tanked, having very low ratings.  Maybe Obama should've tried to sell Sham-Wow instead of his incoherent health care plan.

Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 01:00:01 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 12:52:45 PM
Good.

You have now incentivized me to use that word in every possible situation.  :D

According to Camus, since life is meaningless, it's up to the individual to set his own goals in order that he may experience moments of triumnph.  I'm glad I've helped you find such a goal.   :)

I may be six feet tall, but in many ways, I'm a small person.  :blush:

Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2009, 11:20:00 AM

Quote from: fahdiz on June 25, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
The Iran press conference was interesting.  Obama doesn't hold his cool so well when the press is being snarky.

From my personal experience, it's very hard for a highly intelligent man to suffer the fools gracefully.

I'm sure you're super and all, but the odds are that you think of yourself far too highly. :)

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 01:47:35 PM
I am six feet tall, in many other ways, I'm also a small person.  :blush:

Fixed it for you shorty.

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 25, 2009, 01:18:51 PM
Well, Obama's abc infomercial last night tanked, having very low ratings.  Maybe Obama should've tried to sell Sham-Wow instead of his incoherent health care plan.

So I assume there are still no concrete proposals.  Just a lot of "we can do better" type statements.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 02:14:21 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 01:47:35 PM
I am six feet tall, in many other ways, I'm also a small person.  :blush:

Fixed it for you shorty.

Thanks for proving that I'm not alone in that.  :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 02:15:52 PM
So I assume there are still no concrete proposals.  Just a lot of "we can do better" type statements.

I think you have correctly summed up what will be the substance of his whole Presidency.

Unless of course he becomes the 1st US President to allow his home state to be nuked by a foreign power.

Quote from: Strix on June 25, 2009, 03:30:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 02:15:52 PM
So I assume there are still no concrete proposals.  Just a lot of "we can do better" type statements.

I think you have correctly summed up what will be the substance of his whole Presidency.

Unless of course he becomes the 1st US President to allow his home state to be nuked by a foreign power.

You mean Michigan?

Would anyone notice or object, if someone nuked Detroit?  :P

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 03:55:36 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 25, 2009, 03:30:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2009, 02:15:52 PM
So I assume there are still no concrete proposals.  Just a lot of "we can do better" type statements.

I think you have correctly summed up what will be the substance of his whole Presidency.

Unless of course he becomes the 1st US President to allow his home state to be nuked by a foreign power.

You mean Michigan?

Would anyone notice or object, if someone nuked Detroit?  :P

I thought he grew up in Hawaii (for the most part)?  :unsure:

Quote from: Strix on June 25, 2009, 04:05:11 PM
I thought he grew up in Hawaii (for the most part)?  :unsure:

Ah, I had thought you met Illinois; and I was wondering who was going to nuke that of all places.

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 03:55:36 PM


Would anyone notice or object, if someone nuked Detroit?  :P

The government would notice when no one was cashing their multi billion dollar checks, and the democratic party would notice the reduction in UAW contributions. I suspect the latter would be noticed first.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2009, 04:09:13 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 25, 2009, 03:55:36 PM


Would anyone notice or object, if someone nuked Detroit?  :P

The government would notice when no one was cashing their multi billion dollar checks, and the democratic party would notice the reduction in UAW contributions. I suspect the latter would be noticed first.

Actually, I think that might be current urban renewal policy.  :P