72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[immto]

Universal Health Care, the main issue they have in getting it done is the cost. Not anymore. All they need to do is have those bloody rich pay a little more of their fair share. It's almost like those idiots are trying to eliminate as many jobs as they can, kill any chance of a recovery. It's almost sick to accuse those who make $250k rich. I don't know what planet Politicians are living on but a family with an income of $250K probably is not vacationing in the Hampton's and certainly are not cruising the Caribbean in their own private yacht.

 

[Bern80]

I don't see anyone on medicaid/medicare or the government's health care plan (Congress et al) screaming for a private hand on their policies.

That's because welfare recipients are generally, by definition, lazy, dependent fuckers without the gumption to come in out of the rain. Although I personally know quite a few who aren't exactly all sunshine and puppies about dealing with government bureaucracy.
Great...another feminazi joins the fray.

It's not that hard at all, however, to find Medicare recipients who are seriously pissed off at having to deal with the government's red tape. If you can't find any, that begs the serious question of where the hell you're looking.

Several members of my family, as well as many friends are on Medicare and not a single one has ever had a problem with "red tape." They've had a problem with doctors overbilling, however, which means that what Medicare won't pay for, they must, and it's often outrageous. Some doctors in my community (and we all know who they are) also have now started robo-calling Medicare patients around the first of every year, knowing full well that Medicare recipients are entering into a new deductible phase. That means they get to collect FROM THE PATIENT the full amount up front. Neat, huh?

They have a problem with over billing because the government doesn't reimburse them for shit. Well everyone else is paying one price for service the government feels it should get to pay less for the same service. Medicare/Medicade is a perfect microcosim of how fucked up government healthcare will be. It's a subsidy and obviously no one here gets what a subsidy does to the cost of something even though you have just told us exactly what it does. IT ARTIFICALLY INFLATES THE PRICE OF THINGS. Knock, knock, hello. It will force prices up, not down.

 

[jreeves]

Universal Health Care, the main issue they have in getting it done is the cost. Not anymore. All they need to do is have those bloody rich pay a little more of their fair share. It's almost like those idiots are trying to eliminate as many jobs as they can, kill any chance of a recovery. It's almost sick to accuse those who make $250k rich. I don't know what planet Politicians are living on but a family with an income of $250K probably is not vacationing in the Hampton's and certainly are not cruising the Caribbean in their own private yacht.

There is one problem with having a tax system in which, over 40% pay no net income tax. You can only bleed so much revenue from the other 60%.

 

[Political Junky]

Look how the federal government handled social security......enough said

Do you know anyone who ever didn't get their Social Security check?

 

[jreeves]

Look how the federal government handled social security......enough said

Do you know anyone who ever didn't get their Social Security check?

These attorneys represent the people who have not gotten a SS check....

Social Security Disability - Denied Social Security Benefits?

 

[Political Junky]

Look how the federal government handled social security......enough said

Do you know anyone who ever didn't get their Social Security check?

These attorneys represent the people who have not gotten a SS check....

Social Security Disability - Denied Social Security Benefits?

Good try .. that article is about being denied Social Security Disability, because the individual doesn't quality for it.
Again, do you know of anyone who didn't get their Social Security check?

 

[Maple]

Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.

What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???

Do you think that it will pay for dental care and eye care??. I have been waiting to get veneers and I am sure that Obama will make sure that I get FREE cosmetic dentisty because I need to compete in a world that has nice smiles.

And, and, I would love not to wear glasses, I appear older, so do you think that his plan would make it possible to get laser surgery and it's FREE??????? Oh my goodness.


I can't beleive it and it's ALL free. I voted for Obama and he promised me that I would not have to worry about paying my mortgage or worry about gasoline prices, so I guess it's all real.

I feel like I have won the lotto.

Above the Obama voters, the dumbest people on earth.

 

[xotoxi]

Boy, I can hardly wait until...

I thought you'd hit the road.

What's the deal, lady?

 

[jreeves]

Do you know anyone who ever didn't get their Social Security check?

These attorneys represent the people who have not gotten a SS check....

Social Security Disability - Denied Social Security Benefits?

Good try .. that article is about being denied Social Security Disability, because the individual doesn't quality for it.
Again, do you know of anyone who didn't get their Social Security check?

So nobody wins these suits, I wonder why there is a ton of lawyers representing people who never prevail.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

this just in, 72% of americans are idiots, and have no clue how bad socialized medicine is or 100% would be against it

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

 

[auditor0007]

Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.

What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???

Do you think that it will pay for dental care and eye care??. I have been waiting to get veneers and I am sure that Obama will make sure that I get FREE cosmetic dentisty because I need to compete in a world that has nice smiles.

And, and, I would love not to wear glasses, I appear older, so do you think that his plan would make it possible to get laser surgery and it's FREE??????? Oh my goodness.


I can't beleive it and it's ALL free. I voted for Obama and he promised me that I would not have to worry about paying my mortgage or worry about gasoline prices, so I guess it's all real.

I feel like I have won the lotto.

Above the Obama voters, the dumbest people on earth.

The problem with idiots like you is that you deny that there is a problem to begin with. Nobody says that a government program for healthcare will be free. You are an absolute moron. If you think that our current system is a good one, you show more ignorance than the very few who actually believe government healthcare would be free.

But hey, keep denying the facts that the current system has doubled the cost of healthcare and that it will double it again. The fact is that at the current rate, it will be 100 million without insurance before too long and more after that, and one of those may even turn out to be you. These costs will wipe out many businesses which will lead to even higher unemployment.

 

[Meister]

Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.

What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???

Do you think that it will pay for dental care and eye care??. I have been waiting to get veneers and I am sure that Obama will make sure that I get FREE cosmetic dentisty because I need to compete in a world that has nice smiles.

And, and, I would love not to wear glasses, I appear older, so do you think that his plan would make it possible to get laser surgery and it's FREE??????? Oh my goodness.


I can't beleive it and it's ALL free. I voted for Obama and he promised me that I would not have to worry about paying my mortgage or worry about gasoline prices, so I guess it's all real.

I feel like I have won the lotto.

Above the Obama voters, the dumbest people on earth.

The problem with idiots like you is that you deny that there is a problem to begin with. Nobody says that a government program for healthcare will be free. You are an absolute moron. If you think that our current system is a good one, you show more ignorance than the very few who actually believe government healthcare would be free.

But hey, keep denying the facts that the current system has doubled the cost of healthcare and that it will double it again. The fact is that at the current rate, it will be 100 million without insurance before too long and more after that, and one of those may even turn out to be you. These costs will wipe out many businesses which will lead to even higher unemployment.

Somehow, I know there is a way to get the people that want insurance covered without a full universal health care system. One that won't screw the person who still wants his private insurance. But, I don't think that will ever happen because of the power grubbing politicians.

 

[auditor0007]

Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.

What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???

Do you think that it will pay for dental care and eye care??. I have been waiting to get veneers and I am sure that Obama will make sure that I get FREE cosmetic dentisty because I need to compete in a world that has nice smiles.

And, and, I would love not to wear glasses, I appear older, so do you think that his plan would make it possible to get laser surgery and it's FREE??????? Oh my goodness.


I can't beleive it and it's ALL free. I voted for Obama and he promised me that I would not have to worry about paying my mortgage or worry about gasoline prices, so I guess it's all real.

I feel like I have won the lotto.

Above the Obama voters, the dumbest people on earth.

The problem with idiots like you is that you deny that there is a problem to begin with. Nobody says that a government program for healthcare will be free. You are an absolute moron. If you think that our current system is a good one, you show more ignorance than the very few who actually believe government healthcare would be free.

But hey, keep denying the facts that the current system has doubled the cost of healthcare and that it will double it again. The fact is that at the current rate, it will be 100 million without insurance before too long and more after that, and one of those may even turn out to be you. These costs will wipe out many businesses which will lead to even higher unemployment.

Somehow, I know there is a way to get the people that want insurance covered without a full universal health care system. One that won't screw the person who still wants his private insurance. But, I don't think that will ever happen because of the power grubbing politicians.

The biggest problem is that no matter where we head with this, costs will continue to rise. The big question is by how much. Under our current system, the CBO projects that healthcare spending will increase from the current 17% of GDP today, to 49% of GDP by 2082. This projection takes into account cost savings and reductions in healthcare spending that will have to take place. Without these, the CBO projections would show healthcare spending surpassing 100% of GDP, which is obviously impossible as our entire economy would collapse.

The interesting point of the CBO projection is that while Medicaid and Medicare spending will increase as a percentage of GDP, it is the cost of private healthcare that will eventually overwhelm the system and make up the largest portion of the increase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf

My point is that at some time in the future, the costs will become so high in the private sector that there will be an absolute demand for real change. When that time comes, the option of private insurance will be removed. What most people don't understand is that we are on a path that is unsustainable. It's not only that some people are currently without coverage. The bigger point is that the costs are spiraling out of control and there is no end in sight.

To keep it the status quo is no longer an option. But those against change stand in the way of any type of change. Keeping more of healthcare in the private sector will only work if health insurance is made mandatory, but those who are fighting government control of healthcare are against this also.

If it were up to me, I would push for the system they have in Switzerland. It is mostly private but health insurance is mandated, and it's not up to employers to provide health insurance. It's up to each individual and family. But there is still some government control. Premiums are limited to three age groups, and everyone is charged the same amount regardless of health. The government also limits the amount hospitals and doctors can charge for certain procedures.

But again, the insurance companies would fight this tooth and nail also, and they would convince enough that our current system gives everyone the best care for the money. Eventually though, people will begin to wake up. When more and more employers begin moving their operations overseas because they can't afford the cost of health insurance for their employees, things will change. The auto companies have already moved many of their operations to Canada and Mexico for this exact reason.

Healthcare spending will determine what happens with our economy long term. If spending continues to spiral out of control, we will fall behind most of the rest of the world economically. We will also see a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor as the middle class is wiped out. Of course, once the middle class is wiped out, the wealthy will be wiped out because there won't be enough consumers with any money to buy their products.

 

[Chris]

Boy, I can hardly wait until I get my FREE healthcare. It will pay for all my plastic surgery and my boy friend's VIAGRA.

What do you think is next. Do you think it will pay for my nanny to watch my 5 children???

Do you think that it will pay for dental care and eye care??. I have been waiting to get veneers and I am sure that Obama will make sure that I get FREE cosmetic dentisty because I need to compete in a world that has nice smiles.

And, and, I would love not to wear glasses, I appear older, so do you think that his plan would make it possible to get laser surgery and it's FREE??????? Oh my goodness.


I can't beleive it and it's ALL free. I voted for Obama and he promised me that I would not have to worry about paying my mortgage or worry about gasoline prices, so I guess it's all real.

I feel like I have won the lotto.

Above the Obama voters, the dumbest people on earth.

No one believes anything is free.

But anyone who wants to get keep getting screwed by the oil companies, the insurance companies, and Big Pharma is a fool.

Republicans love their masters!

 

[Care4all]

The problem with idiots like you is that you deny that there is a problem to begin with. Nobody says that a government program for healthcare will be free. You are an absolute moron. If you think that our current system is a good one, you show more ignorance than the very few who actually believe government healthcare would be free.

But hey, keep denying the facts that the current system has doubled the cost of healthcare and that it will double it again. The fact is that at the current rate, it will be 100 million without insurance before too long and more after that, and one of those may even turn out to be you. These costs will wipe out many businesses which will lead to even higher unemployment.

Somehow, I know there is a way to get the people that want insurance covered without a full universal health care system. One that won't screw the person who still wants his private insurance. But, I don't think that will ever happen because of the power grubbing politicians.

The biggest problem is that no matter where we head with this, costs will continue to rise. The big question is by how much. Under our current system, the CBO projects that healthcare spending will increase from the current 17% of GDP today, to 49% of GDP by 2082. This projection takes into account cost savings and reductions in healthcare spending that will have to take place. Without these, the CBO projections would show healthcare spending surpassing 100% of GDP, which is obviously impossible as our entire economy would collapse.

The interesting point of the CBO projection is that while Medicaid and Medicare spending will increase as a percentage of GDP, it is the cost of private healthcare that will eventually overwhelm the system and make up the largest portion of the increase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdf

My point is that at some time in the future, the costs will become so high in the private sector that there will be an absolute demand for real change. When that time comes, the option of private insurance will be removed. What most people don't understand is that we are on a path that is unsustainable. It's not only that some people are currently without coverage. The bigger point is that the costs are spiraling out of control and there is no end in sight.

To keep it the status quo is no longer an option. But those against change stand in the way of any type of change. Keeping more of healthcare in the private sector will only work if health insurance is made mandatory, but those who are fighting government control of healthcare are against this also.

If it were up to me, I would push for the system they have in Switzerland. It is mostly private but health insurance is mandated, and it's not up to employers to provide health insurance. It's up to each individual and family. But there is still some government control. Premiums are limited to three age groups, and everyone is charged the same amount regardless of health. The government also limits the amount hospitals and doctors can charge for certain procedures.

But again, the insurance companies would fight this tooth and nail also, and they would convince enough that our current system gives everyone the best care for the money. Eventually though, people will begin to wake up. When more and more employers begin moving their operations overseas because they can't afford the cost of health insurance for their employees, things will change. The auto companies have already moved many of their operations to Canada and Mexico for this exact reason.

Healthcare spending will determine what happens with our economy long term. If spending continues to spiral out of control, we will fall behind most of the rest of the world economically. We will also see a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor as the middle class is wiped out. Of course, once the middle class is wiped out, the wealthy will be wiped out because there won't be enough consumers with any money to buy their products.

excellent post and analysis....

some things that might help:

we need to get alot more people in to medical school, nursing school, medical technology...so the ''supply'' of medical personnel is not limited, causing prices to go up for their labor...invest now in schooling them, save BIG TIME later.

help fund more research and development in technology and medicines through grants, but regulate the prices charged once developed.

help fund more private and state hospitals and clinics being built so there is more supply, but regulate charges or put in caps on what can be charged.

reput in the regulation that kept insurance companies, insurance companies... instead of multi financial institutions...this will give more focus on health services, and keep the insurance company from making bad investments financially elsewhere and charging higher insurance prices to make up for it....

some sort of tort reform

States need to let more or all health Insurance companies operate in all states, instead of limiting insurance companies within their state, which limits the supply which causes higher prices.

we do need all hospitals/doctors and clinics to revise their antiquated ''paper'' systems and unify their billing practices...some say as much as 25% of the whole healthcare cost can be SAVED by doing this reform.

i dunno, i think this has to be approached from all angles and all options should be on the table, and some thinking outside of the box too.

care

 

[Yukon]

Whats the difference between socialized medicine, socialized banking, socilaized insurance, and socialized automobile manufacturing?

 

[Navy1960]

What, in God's name, seems vaguely Liberal about the AMA?

In 2008, the AMA issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they "support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health."

They advocate draconian gun control.

There are other things, but unfortunately, I have to go to an appointment, so I don't have time to look it up right now. I'll be back later and post more on the subject.

Most scientists, worldwide, believe in the adverse effects of climate change. It's not a Liberal notion even if most wingnuts deny it.

Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[17]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[19]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[20]
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24]
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27]
Tim Patterson[28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[29][30]
Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[31]
Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".[32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."[33]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[34]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[35][36] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor"[39]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[40]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[41]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theres a listing for you of just a few of those wingnuts, and I suggest that if you assert that do not watch the weather channel as well because it's founder also is among those wingnuts. The fact is the WHO and IPCC reports have all been shot ful of holes not by *wingnuts* but by scientists,professors,and others, from institutions from MIT, to Harvard. Want some examples take the last 4th IPCC report that has since taken out all the data prior to 1880 of Dr. Mann's original hockey stick graph that has been the basis for global warming. The reason for doing this is because the scientific community has called into question the very basis for temp. change and when data from ice core samles is added to the mix prior to 1880 the line is no longer a big hockey stick that sends people running to the hills. Further the UN is the same organization that was reporting on global cooling in the 1970's and a global ice age will result as a result of man made CO2. As for the WHO reports on standards of healthcare, when you omit murders, deaths by acident in this country and use the very same baseline that the WHO usues to guage world health care the US scrores at the top of the list. As for the 72% I suppose when you poll 800 people and 600 of those are Obama voters the end result should not be a surprise.

 

[Yukon]

Navy,

You are so impressive.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

this just in, 72% of americans are idiots, and have no clue how bad socialized medicine is or 100% would be against it

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

You missed my earlier post. 80% of respondants to this poll being quoted were registered democrats. It skewes the results of the poll a lot. Typical NYTimes stuff there.


WTF is the global warming discussion doing in the health care thread? Dont we have a bazillion global warming/climate change threads?

 

[Navy1960]

this just in, 72% of americans are idiots, and have no clue how bad socialized medicine is or 100% would be against it

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday.

The poll came amid mounting opposition to plans by the Obama administration and its allies in the Democratic-controlled Congress to push through the most sweeping restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system since the end of World War Two.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats oppose increasing the government's role in healthcare -- it already runs the Medicare and Medicaid systems for the elderly and indigent -- fearing it would require vast public funds and reduce the quality of care.

But the Times/CBS poll found 85 percent of respondents wanted major healthcare reforms and most would be willing to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone had health insurance. An estimated 46 million Americans currently have no coverage.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Wide support for government health plan: poll | Reuters

You missed my earlier post. 80% of respondants to this poll being quoted were registered democrats. It skewes the results of the poll a lot. Typical NYTimes stuff there.


WTF is the global warming discussion doing in the health care thread? Dont we have a bazillion global warming/climate change threads?

My apologies to everyone for putting in a response to a comment made about *wingnuts* as it applies to people who happen to hold a different view than the so called main stream. It can also apply to the healthcare debate when it comes to these so called reports comming from the NYT, WHO and others that tend to dismiss those who disagree with them and label those groups, when the point was to show that sometimes people who disagree could hardly be considered a group of wingnuts and the same applies with the healthcare debate.