Karl Rove: How to beat Hillary or Obama

[Loftin]

This was a pretty interesting read, thought I'd share:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/uselection,568,karl-rove--how-to-beat-hillary-and-obama,13065

[Mole]

How to beat Hillary or Obama: Have America read what they actually stand for.

[KCAggie]

Maybe some people actually believe in what they stand for.

[Mole]

Maybe some people actually believe in what they stand for.

I'm sure there are.

[Fxalaweed]

Maybe some people actually believe in what they stand for.
I think that's the point that's why they shouldn't be elected

[KCAggie]

Why shouldn't they be elected if many people actually do believe in what they stand for.

[Fxalaweed]

maybe i misunderstood your original post, i took your post to mean that the candidates believe what they stand for thus my comment and besides that I wouldn't feel very comfortable with the instability in the middle east with either of the donkey candidates being elected. They are to wishy washy and where they stand against when it comes to defense of our country and refuse to make a strong commitment to it. You can say what you want about Pres. Bush but he's done quite a bit to help ensure that we are not attacked at home since 9-11 unlike his predecessor, while things in Iraq haven't been as easy as once believed all you hear from the Liberal media only displays the negatives, and from troops that I've met that have been there and are looking forward to going back, they all believe in what they are doing and can see the fruits of their labor daily. I just don't see anything from anyone on that side of the ballot taking that issue seriously, to them it just seems like a Republican smearing tactic.

[c_stiles2003]

maybe i misunderstood your original post, i took your post to mean that the candidates believe what they stand for thus my comment and besides that I wouldn't feel very comfortable with the instability in the middle east with either of the donkey candidates being elected. They are to wishy washy and where they stand against when it comes to defense of our country and refuse to make a strong commitment to it. You can say what you want about Pres. Bush but he's done quite a bit to help ensure that we are not attacked at home since 9-11 unlike his predecessor, while things in Iraq haven't been as easy as once believed all you hear from the Liberal media only displays the negatives, and from troops that I've met that have been there and are looking forward to going back, they all believe in what they are doing and can see the fruits of their labor daily. I just don't see anything from anyone on that side of the ballot taking that issue seriously, to them it just seems like a Republican smearing tactic.

Good post:rep:...

[Loftin]

How to beat Hillary or Obama: Have America read what they actually stand for.

We're screwed...

[Team Hardline]

Hillary and Obama want Americans to become dependant upon the govt (i.e. them). This ensures longevity of their idiology and way of thinking. Are American values based on Freedom and the Constitution or Govt rule?

For instance, Hillary is wanting to implement a Universal Healthcare Plan. She wants to trap and enslave the 47 million or 14% of Americans within her plan that the rest of America will pay for. Will the Americans who pick up the healthcare for those who don't have a say in their lifestyles? This meaning, will we be able to tell the ones who we are paying healthcare for to not drink in excess, sleep with whoever, eat in excess, etc....? Will their benefits be removed if they fail to follow the rules? Of course not!

[KCAggie]

I am 100% for Universal Healthcare in this country. My fiance who is a med student is for it also as is most of the doctors that she works with. I am sure many of you have seen the movie Sicko, and yeah, it is propaganda, but the movie is true. She has told me that countless times the hospital had to deny life saving treatment because the insurance companies denied them. How is that different from murder? Universal Healthcare works everywhere else, why not here? I do not side with the insuranse companies who are only in to make money. Pharmaceutical companies charge outrageous prices for medicine that can be bought for pennies elsewhere.

[Team Hardline]

KC, the answer is called Consumerism. This works just like anything else that supply and demand affects. In the case of not saving someone's life due to monetary status, shame on those physicans as that is not the norm and represents a very very small % of cases. I would also never start a debate on an opinion with,"Have you seen the movie". As you mentioned, that is nothing but propaganda used for monetary gain. Everywhere else is not The United States of America!!!!! By applying government rules, taking away our rights is wrong. We as a country are different. We do not need to follow the failure of socialistic behavior that the rest of the world follows. By controlling healthcare, you are controlling the ability to acheive standards greater than that of what the government wants it to be. Socialism does not work for advanced countries like ours. Just ask the physicians on Europe where they would like to practice medicine. The large majority will say here in the US where they can make the type of money they deserve. Universal Healthcare is not going to be good for Americans and it only removes individualism.

[KCAggie]

If an individual is denied treatment by the insurer, then the doctors cannot provide treatment. Emergency medicine is a different case. And I have talked with many doctors who say that medical practice is much better in other countries where there is universal healthcare. I know some med students from other countries that are going to school here and practicing elsewhere. The money issue is overblown. Doctors in Europe and Canada are very well off as is here.

[whitelightnin_23]

I am 100% for Universal Healthcare in this country. My fiance who is a med student is for it also as is most of the doctors that she works with. I am sure many of you have seen the movie Sicko, and yeah, it is propaganda, but the movie is true. She has told me that countless times the hospital had to deny life saving treatment because the insurance companies denied them. How is that different from murder? Universal Healthcare works everywhere else, why not here? I do not side with the insuranse companies who are only in to make money. Pharmaceutical companies charge outrageous prices for medicine that can be bought for pennies elsewhere.

a few things...(please clarify whether you're speaking of a ONE payor system or some other "universal coverage" plan)...assuming the "ONE payor system"...

1) what makes you think that if we have ONE payor (universal healthcare)...IF that is the plan you're talking about (there's several "universal hc plans out there)...there will still be some ruling board out there to say what is "emergent" and "non-emergent" and I'm sure there will be mistakes...which will be similar to murder...don't even mention wait times because big bertha thinks her gastric bypass is a life threatening condition but she got there before someone w/ stomach cancer.

2) Phrases like "Universal HC works other places...why not here" are thrown out way too much (as are many phrases on the other side of the discussion...thank you politics)...where exactly are you referring to? UK? We have hospitals there (private hospitals) that are OVERflowing because people will pay a HUGE premium to go to our hospitals to: 1) get premium care 2) not wait. What makes you think the same won't happen here (self-pay/premium hospitals spring up that will take the best doctors, researchers, etc)

3) Believe me...I don't side w/ insurance companies either...SOMETHING must be done...but if you have all the cards (Universal care/one payor) isn't that a LARGER paradigm shift???

4) Pharm and supplies costs are through the roof. You are absolutely correct. This AND the insurance regulation is what should be addressed. There is NO reason why we can pay to fly to Dubai (1st class) have a procedure done, recover, & fly back (1st class again) and it be LESS than to have the procedure done in the U.S.


just some food for thought...

You will notice that it is really easy to poke holes in many of these health plans...but I will give the Dems something...they are acknowledging the issue & speaking about it. The republicans really haven't been on the forefront of this issue...to their demise. You have to go about 3 links into their website until you get a hint about their healthcare plans/propositions.

[whitelightnin_23]

We're screwed...

sad but true...

if a "talking head" on TV doesn't tell people what to think...many people are lost...:sad:

[KCAggie]

I will say the best solution is a mixture of the two. Universal health care does have its problems, especially with overflowing hospitals, but no one should be denied a treatment based on the beliefs of insurance companies. It is the doctors that have medical degrees and know what is right for their patients, not the insurers. A student of mine, her mother is dying of cancer and can't get the treatment she needs, even though she has insurance, becuase the insurance company considered her high risk (not sure for what). Nothing will convince me that is right.

[whitelightnin_23]

I will say the best solution is a mixture of the two. Universal health care does have its problems, especially with overflowing hospitals, but no one should be denied a treatment based on the beliefs of insurance companies. It is the doctors that have medical degrees and know what is right for their patients, not the insurers. A student of mine, her mother is dying of cancer and can't get the treatment she needs, even though she has insurance, becuase the insurance company considered her high risk (not sure for what). Nothing will convince me that is right.

I couldn't agree more with the bolded parts...this is the fundamental premise our healthcare system should be built upon.

There does need to be a balance between the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, & suppliers/pharm players...
TOO MUCH power/control leads to increased costs which forces regulators/govt/ins to feel compelled to "make calls" which are controversial.

Sad thing is...I'm not sure what the answer is...I like things I hear in most plans...but then there are fundamental problems with most (as well).

I think we agree that there is some MIXTURE of all of these plans that would be the best (synergy anyone)...

Sader thing is...that will never happen due to political stubbornness.

[whitelightnin_23]

btw...:rep: for an intelligent discussion

[Team Hardline]

Agreed that healthcare is the #1 industry by dollars and it needs some fixing, but my point is that we don't want to take away individualism to "try" and fix it. My analogy is that of the domesticated dog and the wild wolf. What makes the dog wild? It would be when he has to go out and hunt for himself. When you take the dog and feed it once maybe even twice a day at the same time, same place, it becomes accustomed to being fed. Now that same wolf dog has pups. The cycle continues for generations and soon we have pets!

With Hillary's proposal, she expects the tax payer to support this plan (in the example above the feeding time). When you give someone something, they abuse it!!!! Would the dog stop eating if you put out a third dish for him? My point being, there is a difference between Standards and Restrictions. This plan of Hillary's only has weak Standards and weak Restrictions. Why should us tax payers have to pay for someone who goes out and catches STDs, drinks in excess, smokes in excess, eats in excess, causing health risks? Those should be Standards meet, but they are not in place.

This plan is yet another attempt to weaken our country.

[whitelightnin_23]

Agreed that healthcare is the #1 industry by dollars and it needs some fixing, but my point is that we don't want to take away individualism to "try" and fix it. My analogy is that of the domesticated dog and the wild wolf. What makes the dog wild? It would be when he has to go out and hunt for himself. When you take the dog and feed it once maybe even twice a day at the same time, same place, it becomes accustomed to being fed. Now that same wolf dog has pups. The cycle continues for generations and soon we have pets!

With Hillary's proposal, she expects the tax payer to support this plan (in the example above the feeding time). When you give someone something, they abuse it!!!! Would the dog stop eating if you put out a third dish for him? My point being, there is a difference between Standards and Restrictions. This plan of Hillary's only has weak Standards and weak Restrictions. Why should us tax payers have to pay for someone who goes out and catches STDs, drinks in excess, smokes in excess, eats in excess, causing health risks? Those should be Standards meet, but they are not in place.

This plan is yet another attempt to weaken our country.

I respect your thinking here (true conservatism); however, in today's political climate, I don't think this is something that is feasible or practical. The reality is, our country relies heavily upon the notion of "taking care of the needy/poor/disabled/those who can't care for themselves"...in fact I think you, and many other interested in the healthcare debate will find this interesting:

Medicare/Caid was started in 1965 by LBJ (as a part of the "Great Society" program) in an effort to (get this) "End poverty & racial injustice"...

Yet 43 years later, we are attempting to amend the program that was set out to fix this problem...for the same reason (End poverty/racial injustice).

I will agree that more government is not the answer...but neither is leaving millions without the ability to acquire proper healthcare (un or under-insured).

The right answer lies somewhere between the two extremes of pure conservatism ("You don't see McDonald's handing out big-mac's to the hungry...why should we give out healthcare") and pure liberalism/big government/socialism ("The gov't should be in control of the healthcare system to ensure everyone gets equal treatment").
(Insert "captain obvious" comments here).

[TexAg77]

If national healthcare is so great in Canada and Britain, why are so many Canadians and Britons coming over here for medical treatment? Or why is there a significant increase in successful private medical facilities in Briton that operate out side of the national health care system?

[whitelightnin_23]

Or why is there a significant increase in successful private medical facilities in Briton that operate out side of the national healt care system?

exactly my point (post #14, point #2).

[Team Hardline]

I work for myself as a contracted medical manufacturers' rep. I also have to purchase my own health insurance as many people without salary must do. I don't even use my insurance for simple doctor visits like common cold, dentist, opthamologist because I can call up and get quotes from them and negotiate price (which is cheaper). Have any of you ever tried that? Call up a dentist and let them know that you need a quotation for the x-rays and general cleaning. Talk to someonw who can make decisions. Let them know that you have quotations already and will go to the doctor that has the best price. Act as a consumer for your healthcare. If you need a new alternator for your '93 Chevy Silverado, do you just drive up to Autozone and buy whatever they have or do you call every location to see who has the best price? Using Hillary's plan takes this away and makes the rich pay for the poor and supply and demand is kicked right out the window.

A bit off topic with insurance, but just another opinion that can be used to fix some issues of healthcare costs vs. using socialism.

[Mole]

I'm all for universal health care too. Look at how many other fine institutions the government runs with complete precision, efficiency, and accuracy, like the Post Office or the DMV. /sarcasm

[zrf2002]

If national healthcare is so great in Canada and Britain, why are so many Canadians and Britons coming over here for medical treatment? Or why is there a significant increase in successful private medical facilities in Briton that operate out side of the national health care system?

exactly..... if universal healthcare is instituted in our country, you will see even more of an increase of private medical facilities which are physician owned. the physicians who own these practices will be a group of docs who are very successful and have the money to build these practices. many of the best doctors in our country will be in a true private practice and will probably only accept cash from their patients and not accept any form of insurance from their patients. so what does that leave for regular public hospitals??? not only will the hospitals and waiting rooms be full with horrible wait times to see a doc, you will probably not be seeing as good of a doc as you can now....

additionally, since the system will subsidized by the govt, i do not see any way that a doc in the system will earn near what they can now. in an effort to maintain their current standard of living and pay, the good docs will be practicing in a physician owned private practice. does anyone really think that the govt will pay an orthopod a salary of $600,000/year? that is the current MEDIAN income for an orthopod. the current MEDIAN income for a cardiologist is about $500,000. the current MEDIAN salary for an Internal Medicine doc is about $200,000. but, if any of those docs practice as a VA or IHS facility, they would be lucky to be paid 50% of those MEDIAN figures.

[whitelightnin_23]

exactly..... if universal healthcare is instituted in our country, you will see even more of an increase of private medical facilities which are physician owned. the physicians who own these practices will be a group of docs who are very successful and have the money to build these practices. many of the best doctors in our country will be in a true private practice and will probably only accept cash from their patients and not accept any form of insurance from their patients. so what does that leave for regular public hospitals??? not only will the hospitals and waiting rooms be full with horrible wait times to see a doc, you will probably not be seeing as good of a doc as you can now....

additionally, since the system will subsidized by the govt, i do not see any way that a doc in the system will earn near what they can now. in an effort to maintain their current standard of living and pay, the good docs will be practicing in a physician owned private practice. does anyone really think that the govt will pay an orthopod a salary of $600,000/year? that is the current MEDIAN income for an orthopod. the current MEDIAN income for a cardiologist is about $500,000. the current MEDIAN salary for an Internal Medicine doc is about $200,000. but, if any of those docs practice as a VA or IHS facility, they would be lucky to be paid 50% of those MEDIAN figures.

the ban on physician owned hospitals (YES there WAS a ban on this...for the precise reason mentioned above) expired last year...now many physician-owned hospitals are springing up (some are even open...built in anticipation of such expiration of the law).

IMO, this is another HUGE oversight by our current Congress...no way that ban should have not been re-newed.

[whitelightnin_23]

I work for myself as a contracted medical manufacturers' rep. I also have to purchase my own health insurance as many people without salary must do. I don't even use my insurance for simple doctor visits like common cold, dentist, opthamologist because I can call up and get quotes from them and negotiate price (which is cheaper). Have any of you ever tried that? Call up a dentist and let them know that you need a quotation for the x-rays and general cleaning. Talk to someonw who can make decisions. Let them know that you have quotations already and will go to the doctor that has the best price. Act as a consumer for your healthcare. If you need a new alternator for your '93 Chevy Silverado, do you just drive up to Autozone and buy whatever they have or do you call every location to see who has the best price? Using Hillary's plan takes this away and makes the rich pay for the poor and supply and demand is kicked right out the window.

A bit off topic with insurance, but just another opinion that can be used to fix some issues of healthcare costs vs. using socialism.

my good friend...I'm also sure you have the means to do this (pay out of pocket price for HC)...many in our nation do not...

and I'm sure there is an element of the "abusers of themself" (as you previously mentioned) and people who abuse the system...BUT there are also VERY needy children whose conditions are not life threatening, yet require substantive medical care but (their parents) can't afford it...and their condition is not "emergent"; therefore, our current system will not pay for it.

honestly, tell me how to fix that...

I agree that in a utopian world...everyone would be responsible for their own actions & "reap what they have sown"...but where does that leave those who have a hard turn of luck? who have no choice (children w/ incompetent parents)? mentally retarded? alzheimer's & other long term care conditions which medicare WON'T cover (in many cases)?

Your "I can do it, why can't everyone else" attitude while idealistic...is not realistic & lacks the compassion & element of reality that it takes to have an effective program...

[zrf2002]

the ban on physician owned hospitals (YES there WAS a ban on this...for the precise reason mentioned above) expired last year...now many physician-owned hospitals are springing up (some are even open...built in anticipation of such expiration of the law).

IMO, this is another HUGE oversight by our current Congress...no way that ban should have not been re-newed.

yes they are springing up and have been for quite some time..... many are already open and there are many more to come.... i am not sure that a lot of the docs who are entering into these partnerships are at this time necessarily doing this in anticipation of a universal healthcare system. some maybe, but most of them are doing this at this time because of the amount of money they can make for a relatively small investment. most of these partnerships are being formed with as little as $20,000 investment from anywhere from 20-100 docs. for that investment, they can easily expect to make over $1 mill/year from the physician owned hospital and that does not include what they will make from performing cases and procedures.....

[Team Hardline]

my good friend...I'm also sure you have the means to do this (pay out of pocket price for HC)...many in our nation do not...

and I'm sure there is an element of the "abusers of themself" (as you previously mentioned) and people who abuse the system...BUT there are also VERY needy children whose conditions are not life threatening, yet require substantive medical care but (their parents) can't afford it...and their condition is not "emergent"; therefore, our current system will not pay for it.

honestly, tell me how to fix that...

I agree that in a utopian world...everyone would be responsible for their own actions & "reap what they have sown"...but where does that leave those who have a hard turn of luck? who have no choice (children w/ incompetent parents)? mentally retarded? alzheimer's & other long term care conditions which medicare WON'T cover (in many cases)?

Your "I can do it, why can't everyone else" attitude while idealistic...is not realistic & lacks the compassion & element of reality that it takes to have an effective program...

There will always be children that are sick and people who can not afford things that other people can. There SHOULD always be a range of social classes. A start to "Fixing things" should not consist of changing the largest industry to a socialistic program. I am no expert on the issue, but I might want to start with removing the amount of fraud involved with insurance. Perhaps limit emergent care to actual emergencies (the ILLEGALS present this issue as they can not be denied medical care).

You can not take away the right to choose healthcare for 86% of the nation to satisfy the needs of the 14% without insurance or cannot afford it. Heck, nobody can afford heart surgery at list price!!!!! That is the reason people carry insurance. If you can't afford insurance, you must go to the county hospital and govt. docs. They will make your need for surgery emergent. What I am about to write is heartless, but true......... natural selection. This may create a firestorm of controversy but it is a fact of life........ the strong will survive and the weak may fail. The plans we have as a country now for the "weak" may need some tweaking, but by no means should the fortunate/better off Americans be forced to pick up this much slack at the cost of individualism.

Instead of buying those new rims and slammin' the '86 caddie real low, you might try opening a Long Term Care policy. Now that was uncalled for Hardline............

[phatbc]

I completely missed this thread. and since there was so much, I didn't read everyone's comments.

However, KC, I think you are mistaken.

I am going to be matriculating to medical school this fall, and after talking to doctors, fellow interviewees, and doctor interviewers, most people are NOT for universal healthcare. Canada and England are not doing to hot with their systems right now, and because of this, more and more people are getting away from the idea. The research is out there, and more people are realizing, in many ways it is worse than our system.

the problem is primary care is fine in those countries, but specialized care has been reduced to ENORMOUS waiting lists, and many people are suffering as a result. There may be able to be some sort of a hybrid system, or some way of opening up primary care to more people, but the system as a whole will fail like it is right now in other countries.

[Curly06]

They are to wishy washy and where they stand against when it comes to defense of our country and refuse to make a strong commitment to it. You can say what you want about Pres. Bush but he's done quite a bit to help ensure that we are not attacked at home since 9-11 unlike his predecessor, while things in Iraq haven't been as easy as once believed all you hear from the Liberal media only displays the negatives, and from troops that I've met that have been there and are looking forward to going back, they all believe in what they are doing and can see the fruits of their labor daily. I just don't see anything from anyone on that side of the ballot taking that issue seriously, to them it just seems like a Republican smearing tactic.
:rep: :rep: :rep:

[whitelightnin_23]

as if it needed any additional proof...here's another example of what we can look forward to under a (great) NHS (National Healthcare System)...:gig: :bored:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325986,00.html

[Pumchavas28]

maybe i misunderstood your original post, i took your post to mean that the candidates believe what they stand for thus my comment and besides that I wouldn't feel very comfortable with the instability in the middle east with either of the donkey candidates being elected. They are to wishy washy and where they stand against when it comes to defense of our country and refuse to make a strong commitment to it. You can say what you want about Pres. Bush but he's done quite a bit to help ensure that we are not attacked at home since 9-11 unlike his predecessor, while things in Iraq haven't been as easy as once believed all you hear from the Liberal media only displays the negatives, and from troops that I've met that have been there and are looking forward to going back, they all believe in what they are doing and can see the fruits of their labor daily. I just don't see anything from anyone on that side of the ballot taking that issue seriously, to them it just seems like a Republican smearing tactic.
:rep:

[Gravy]

My father is a doctor, and I guarantee you he and his peers are not interested in a universal health plan that has government controlled pay for doctors, but uncontrolled lawsuit potential in the form of malpractice. Now, make the government also willing to absorb all malpractice insurance costs and any potential lawsuit expenditure, and you may have their attention.

[whitelightnin_23]

Now, make the government also willing to absorb all malpractice insurance costs and any potential lawsuit expenditure, and you may have their attention.

and then any hope of quality care goes RIGHT down the toilet...

Ever try to sue the gov't? It's difficult to do, and you rarely win.

It would eliminate frivolous lawsuits, yes...but also all but shut down a recourse against poor care.

[Gravy]

Yep, but if you want there to be any incentive at all for doctors when they are only getting government mandated wages, you have to forfeit something. Otherwise you get the long lines that happen in other countries (no doctors willing to take the risk).

[Chi Ag]

maybe i misunderstood your original post, i took your post to mean that the candidates believe what they stand for thus my comment and besides that I wouldn't feel very comfortable with the instability in the middle east with either of the donkey candidates being elected. They are to wishy washy and where they stand against when it comes to defense of our country and refuse to make a strong commitment to it. You can say what you want about Pres. Bush but he's done quite a bit to help ensure that we are not attacked at home since 9-11 unlike his predecessor, while things in Iraq haven't been as easy as once believed all you hear from the Liberal media only displays the negatives, and from troops that I've met that have been there and are looking forward to going back, they all believe in what they are doing and can see the fruits of their labor daily. I just don't see anything from anyone on that side of the ballot taking that issue seriously, to them it just seems like a Republican smearing tactic.

What a load! Bush is a joke. I am not saying I am a bleeding heart liberal but if Bush is representative (and he is) of the Elephantitis party, then Elephants suck.

[whitelightnin_23]

Yep, but if you want there to be any incentive at all for doctors when they are only getting government mandated wages, you have to forfeit something. Otherwise you get the long lines that happen in other countries (no doctors willing to take the risk).

I agree...I'm just pointing out that I'm not sure that "America" would be willing to give up quality in order to achieve gross adequacy.