Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It cost at least double today for me to cover my family than it did last year. That dang Bush!
no one believes that.
unless of course you had scam coverage before which only covered catastrophic care and now you have actual medical coverage.
Well that's just plain silly. Come on Jill you seem to believe anything you're told by the liar and chief. I'm hurt.
BULLSHIT!! The words have total meaning. The problem is that you people don't want to read what was written, but rather what you want it to mean.
you can spew all you want... but we live in a common law system where caselaw has equal weight with statute and establishes precedent.
there is no meaning to "DUE" process absent caselaw.
there is no meaning to "equal protection" absent caselaw.
again... why aren't you demanding that guns are only in possession of those who are part of a well regulated militia (that doesn't mean thugs with guns on a ranch in AZ).
Both of which ARE the correct beliefs on those topics.
only if you're a troll or a moron.
I do believe you're a double threat in that regard.
Why is it that liberals seem, no they do, to take great pride in tearing down the USA on almost every subject?
The Iraq war.
The Afghanistan war.
Our Health Care.
How a soldier that went AWOL is treated
The military
Abortion
Religion
The list is freanin' endless. Next time any subject is posted note which side automatically picks the side that makes America look bad.
Categories like the following:
access
efficiency
equity
healthy lives
don't measure the quality of healthcare. They measure how socialist it is, or they measure cultural issues that affect health.
The article doesn't explain how the other categories:
effective care
safe care
coordinated care
patient centered care
are measured. Furthermore, the last two sound like bogus measures that don't really measure the quality of the care.
The only thing that really measures the quality of healthcare: ie, how many people who go into the hospital with a health issue come out with a successful resolution. The United States beats every other country by far in that category - the only one that matters to the patient.
In short, your article is bullshit propaganda.
what it measures is ACCESS. if you can't OBTAIN health care, then it doesn't matter how effective, safe, coordinated or patient-centered the care is.
so yes, i'd choose columbia pres/ny hospital cornell over almost anything in the world if i needed a hospital (or mass general or johns hopkins, etc.) but if you earn $100,000 a year and your care is going to cost $300,000 then it doesn't matter how good the doctors are.
as for it meaning how many people who go to a doctor have a successful resolution, what else would you measure health care by some fantasmagircal make believe standard where you chant USA USA?
how about the right stop being defensive about the things we don't do well... and start solving problems?
oh right... that would mean thought, that a desire to solve those problems and actually govern.
never mind.
Bullshit, NO one in the USA was denied medical care before obamacare. NO ONE. Even those here illegally were treated and it was FREE.
Yes, if you were getting it free, it was a little more inconvenient---------BFD, thats how free stuff works.
Obamacare has destroyed the good parts of american medical care and multiplied the bad parts---------oh, and it will cost more for everyone.
the worst piece of legislation in the history of this nation. YOu dems own it.
The Welfare of the People clause covers healthcare!
Your inability to comprehend the Constitution doesn't negate that the government was given the power to do what is in the best interests of We the People. Healthcare is constitutional and the SCOTUS agreed.
Where is this "Welfare of the People" clause? Are you referring to the "General Welfare and Common Defense" language of Article I, Section 8? If so, then you have no idea what you're talking about. That language refers to the Welfare and Defense of the NATION, not its individual citizens AND more importantly, the limitations and description of what that entails is laid out in the 18 specific items listed further on in that Section; none of which refer to medicine, medical care, or health.
Your whining won't change any of that.
No, but my rifle will, along with the rifles of a whole lot of other frustrated people in this country. If things are not straightened out in due course, this may well be an issue that could again cause revolution, like the illegal imposition of Federal laws onto States did in 1861.
what it measures is ACCESS. if you can't OBTAIN health care, then it doesn't matter how effective, safe, coordinated or patient-centered the care is.
so yes, i'd choose columbia pres/ny hospital cornell over almost anything in the world if i needed a hospital (or mass general or johns hopkins, etc.) but if you earn $100,000 a year and your care is going to cost $300,000 then it doesn't matter how good the doctors are.
as for it meaning how many people who go to a doctor have a successful resolution, what else would you measure health care by some fantasmagircal make believe standard where you chant USA USA?
how about the right stop being defensive about the things we don't do well... and start solving problems?
oh right... that would mean thought, that a desire to solve those problems and actually govern.
never mind.
Bullshit, NO one in the USA was denied medical care before obamacare. NO ONE. Even those here illegally were treated and it was FREE.
Yes, if you were getting it free, it was a little more inconvenient---------BFD, thats how free stuff works.
Obamacare has destroyed the good parts of american medical care and multiplied the bad parts---------oh, and it will cost more for everyone.
the worst piece of legislation in the history of this nation. YOu dems own it.
Nobody was denied life threatening medical care before ACA you should say. Routine medical care, and important preventive care, has always cost money in this country. Democrats have tried since WW2 to have a national health care like other first world countries, but "right to life" republicans have always fought. We wouldn't even have social security if the people hadn't run the republicans out of D.C. in the 30's so FDR could push it through.
I downloaded the full report and will study it first. Others can do likewise:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf
And the overview:
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally - The Commonwealth Fund
Important to find out exactly how they conducted the study and if it is kosher before jumping to any personal conclusions. I say this about EVERY study, without exception.
Will get back with you on this once I have digested the study.
Kosher did the study we find?
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
The study was conducted by
The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that promotes a high performance health care system providing better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency. The Funds work focuses particularly on societys most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.
The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries.
I wonder if stimulating innovative policies and practices requires more public funding.....
hmmmmmmm?
....would ranking the USA below any other nation would stimulate more public funding? Would more public funding grow, or shrink government?
I'm not certain why the Commonwealth Fund doesn't simply call the report: The USA: A Nation that should spend more money on healthcare because we compared them with UK, a much smaller nation with completely different demographics and found that the UK spends LESS per capita!!!
The Welfare of the People clause covers healthcare!
Your inability to comprehend the Constitution doesn't negate that the government was given the power to do what is in the best interests of We the People. Healthcare is constitutional and the SCOTUS agreed.
Where is this "Welfare of the People" clause? Are you referring to the "General Welfare and Common Defense" language of Article I, Section 8? If so, then you have no idea what you're talking about. That language refers to the Welfare and Defense of the NATION, not its individual citizens AND more importantly, the limitations and description of what that entails is laid out in the 18 specific items listed further on in that Section; none of which refer to medicine, medical care, or health.
Your whining won't change any of that.
No, but my rifle will, along with the rifles of a whole lot of other frustrated people in this country. If things are not straightened out in due course, this may well be an issue that could again cause revolution, like the illegal imposition of Federal laws onto States did in 1861.
Your ignorance of the Constitution is your problem.
As far as your insurrectionist sedition and delusions of resurrecting slavery are concerned you are in the wrong thread. Start your own instead of derailing the OP.
Where is this "Welfare of the People" clause? Are you referring to the "General Welfare and Common Defense" language of Article I, Section 8? If so, then you have no idea what you're talking about. That language refers to the Welfare and Defense of the NATION, not its individual citizens AND more importantly, the limitations and description of what that entails is laid out in the 18 specific items listed further on in that Section; none of which refer to medicine, medical care, or health.
No, but my rifle will, along with the rifles of a whole lot of other frustrated people in this country. If things are not straightened out in due course, this may well be an issue that could again cause revolution, like the illegal imposition of Federal laws onto States did in 1861.
Your ignorance of the Constitution is your problem.
As far as your insurrectionist sedition and delusions of resurrecting slavery are concerned you are in the wrong thread. Start your own instead of derailing the OP.
no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies
what politicians of their age said is less important than the caselaw construing it since the words have little meaning absent judicial construction.
BULLSHIT!! The words have total meaning. The problem is that you people don't want to read what was written, but rather what you want it to mean.
the "founding fathers" also believed women shouldn't have the vote, and slavery was peachy keen.
Both of which ARE the correct beliefs on those topics.
The 2nd Amendment "as written" requires gun owners to belong to a well ordered militia. Unless you and every other gun owner belongs to a well ordered militia you and they are in violation of your interpretation of the Constitution.
Your ignorance of the Constitution is your problem.
As far as your insurrectionist sedition and delusions of resurrecting slavery are concerned you are in the wrong thread. Start your own instead of derailing the OP.
no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies
Not in the least!
Let's just take a look at the Defense budget in real terms. Not just the amount allocated but also the corporate welfare, the interest on the National Debt for unfunded weapons and wars, the pension obligations to veterans, the whole package.
That equates to roughly 27% of the entire budget. Do you believe that the Founding Fathers ever imagined spending one out of every four dollars on the military? Did they foresee the US having the ability to strike anyone, anywhere on the entire planet?
Of course they didn't!
But you accept that massive spending as though it is was meant to be what was intended for the Federal government. That somehow the FF's were prescient enough to believe that 200+ years into the future that America would be the world's policeman.
If you accept that the Federal government has the right to tax you and your children for a military that far exceeds the actual needs to defend this nation then you are in no position to deny the Federal government the right to provide healthcare.
Both cost money and both are in the Constitution.
There is far less justification for a military budget that is more than the combined total of the next 10 nations spending than there is for healthcare.
Not when there are schools, roads and bridges that are in disrepair.
This is about priorities!
I will, however, leave a thread when it's obvious I'm speaking to brick walls.Ran from? lol
Either participate intelligently and disprove the facts or call mommy for help.
VA Care: Still the Best Care Anywhere? by Phillip Longman | Political Animal | The Washington Monthly
like you did?....you ran from the fucking thread Howey....and there was a couple of posters at the end of it wondering were you went...they are probably still wondering....
Blame this forum for allowing multiple threads on same subjects. I never run from threads. I will, however, leave a thread when it's obvious I'm speaking to brick walls.
You obviously know very little.
my wife has been an Epileptic since 1979.....i have switched Ins companies at work 4 or 5 times....she was never refused....so apparently you dont know very much do ya.....some fucking sheriff you are....
Changed your tune huh? Yes, some HUGE group plans may accept prior conditions and they're few. That's why Obamacare was created. And you failed to add you paid out of your ass for that coverage.
no you're twisting of what the general welfare of people in the constitution mean, is ignorant
sorry but I had to say that
the Federal government was never meant to be our nanny, mommie or daddies
Not in the least!
Let's just take a look at the Defense budget in real terms. Not just the amount allocated but also the corporate welfare, the interest on the National Debt for unfunded weapons and wars, the pension obligations to veterans, the whole package.
That equates to roughly 27% of the entire budget. Do you believe that the Founding Fathers ever imagined spending one out of every four dollars on the military? Did they foresee the US having the ability to strike anyone, anywhere on the entire planet?
Of course they didn't!
But you accept that massive spending as though it is was meant to be what was intended for the Federal government. That somehow the FF's were prescient enough to believe that 200+ years into the future that America would be the world's policeman.
If you accept that the Federal government has the right to tax you and your children for a military that far exceeds the actual needs to defend this nation then you are in no position to deny the Federal government the right to provide healthcare.
Both cost money and both are in the Constitution.
There is far less justification for a military budget that is more than the combined total of the next 10 nations spending than there is for healthcare.
Not when there are schools, roads and bridges that are in disrepair.
This is about priorities!
General Welfare was not meant for a certain individual or a certain group of people, it was meant for all....not what you wingnuts morphed it. Just sayin.....
That has nothing to do with how our FF framed "General Welfare".Not in the least!
Let's just take a look at the Defense budget in real terms. Not just the amount allocated but also the corporate welfare, the interest on the National Debt for unfunded weapons and wars, the pension obligations to veterans, the whole package.
That equates to roughly 27% of the entire budget. Do you believe that the Founding Fathers ever imagined spending one out of every four dollars on the military? Did they foresee the US having the ability to strike anyone, anywhere on the entire planet?
Of course they didn't!
But you accept that massive spending as though it is was meant to be what was intended for the Federal government. That somehow the FF's were prescient enough to believe that 200+ years into the future that America would be the world's policeman.
If you accept that the Federal government has the right to tax you and your children for a military that far exceeds the actual needs to defend this nation then you are in no position to deny the Federal government the right to provide healthcare.
Both cost money and both are in the Constitution.
There is far less justification for a military budget that is more than the combined total of the next 10 nations spending than there is for healthcare.
Not when there are schools, roads and bridges that are in disrepair.
This is about priorities!
General Welfare was not meant for a certain individual or a certain group of people, it was meant for all....not what you wingnuts morphed it. Just sayin.....
The ACA covers the entire population of the USA.
College try? They don't need no stinkin' college.
I actually had a 21 year old idiot on another board tell me he didn't go to college because he didn't want to be taught by "liberals". he earned $8,000 a year, refused to go on his parents' health care when the law allowed him to stay on til he was 26 (because he didn't want any part of "obamacare") and couldn't afford his own health care, wouldn't take medicare and couldn't afford a car to go to work so walked miles...
but he had money for pot.
so there ya go.
sounds more like a bunch of bull to push some buttons......
That has nothing to do with how our FF framed "General Welfare".General Welfare was not meant for a certain individual or a certain group of people, it was meant for all....not what you wingnuts morphed it. Just sayin.....
The ACA covers the entire population of the USA.
No doubt the liberals of today have most of them rolling in their grave.
I actually had a 21 year old idiot on another board tell me he didn't go to college because he didn't want to be taught by "liberals". he earned $8,000 a year, refused to go on his parents' health care when the law allowed him to stay on til he was 26 (because he didn't want any part of "obamacare") and couldn't afford his own health care, wouldn't take medicare and couldn't afford a car to go to work so walked miles...
but he had money for pot.
so there ya go.
sounds more like a bunch of bull to push some buttons......
We have one like that on this board.
And, I've recently written about another one I know.
Lazy RWs want it given to them. They don't want to work for anything. And they sure as hell don't want to work for an education.
We would have the best Health Care in the entire world if the Feds would get their damn noses out it.
