Friday, July 27, 2007

Republicans Afraid to Answer Tough Questions Not Already Approved By Their Campaigns

Washington Post

All major Democratic candidates for President recently appeared on a CNN "You Tube Debate" where common citizens could ask candidates questions which they had to answer. The Republican version of this debate is scheduled for September 17th and there are already many questions for the candidates posted on You Tube. Apparently, upon seeing these questions, Mitt Romney and Guiliani have yet to commit. In fact, the only two who have committed is John McCain and Ron Paul. Are they the only ones with real views on the issues and nothing to hide?? I mean how many times can you say "9/11" before someone wants to actually hear how you are going to make things better and where you stand on the issues.

Here are a couple of tough question's the Republicans would like to avoid:

Erin Neaves, 25-year-old mother of three, uploaded this question: "You hear a lot about supporting the troops from the Republicans, and we're not getting any kind of support from the government ..... We are getting more than 15-month deployments. We are getting cut out of our bonuses. ..... How will you support the troops?" She's a Democract and her husband serves in the U.S. military.

John King, a paramedic student at Cincinnati State, has a direct question for Giuliani about his business, Giuliani Partners. "I'm not saying that's wrong to make money off your image, but why are you keeping it such a secret -- the clients, how much they paid you, what kind of work you did for them?" asks the 24-year-old Republican.Patrick Ruffini, former eCampaign director at the Republican National Committee who served as online adviser to Giuliani for a few months earlier this year, said it would "very problematic" if the Republican candidates declined.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Fox News' Fair and Balanced Take on National Healthcare with Rebuttal

The fact that 5 NHS doctors were just arrested in relation to the latest attacks says that the UK screening process for foreign doctors is shitty, not that a universal health care system breeds terrorism. There are a zillion other universal health care systems in the world and we’ve never heard anything like this from anywhere else.

You know, they could have just given Sicko a bad review, was this really necessary? One of the things they failed to mention is that doctors from around the world leave places with national healthcare to try to make it rich in America, If America had national healthcare and the government no longer allowed Doctors and Hospitals to rip people off, then the doctors in those other countries would have no incentive to leave Britain for instance, and go elsewhere to practice. The fact is the United States is one of the only industrialized nations without national healthcare. If the United States had national healthcare then the only other options doctors would have would be in the third world where they would make even less money than a state run system. Therefore, places like Britain wouldn't have to import so many doctors and the United States would become a less desirable destination for doctors from the Middle East.

The other thing the critics of national healthcare fail to realize is that we don't have to copy anyone else’s imperfect system. We have the freedom to design our own system which would eliminate the short coming of other countries healthcare systems. That being said, our current system has plenty of faults as well. Since when do Americans get the help they need right away? Since when do Americans not have to wait to see their doctor or to schedule a surgery?? Sure, with the way everything is now, maybe the government couldn't bear that magnificent of a financial burden but that's not the problem, it's the solution.

So, how could we afford to provide everyone with healthcare? That's simple, you take the 528 billion dollar tab that Americans already pay out in life and health insurance premiums and you feed that into the new system just like our social security deductions. Americans who are already paying premiums will now continue to pay that same rate but now in the form of a tax that goes towards healthcare. The only difference would be that they will no longer have to pay deductibles and copays. You can also take the 200 million per year the industry spends on lobbying congress. You also regulate costs and put price caps on drugs and medical procedures and services just like Wal-Mart does to their vendors. The main thing is you would go from a system that benefits from keeping us sick and medicated to a system which focuses on keeping us healthy. At last, if you wan't to provide healthcare to the people in the US, you stop bombing people in Iraq only to provide them with free medical care when dealing with their burns.

Here are some facts:

*The American healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world.
*Americans already spend over 2 Trillion dollars, 16% of their GDP or $6,697 per year, on healthcare and that number will only increase over the next couple of decades.
*In Canada, they spend 9.7% of their GDP on healthcare for everyone.
*The US Government is already the largest insurer in America and government programs already account for over 44% of healthcare expenditures.
*More than 30% of US healthcare costs go towards administrative overhead which could be greatly reduced under a single national system.
*Germany, Australia, Canada and Sweden all provide national healthcare and have more nurses per capita than the US.
*Sweden, Germany and France all have more doctors per capita than the United States.
*There is a nurse shortage in the United States.
*Americans spend roughly $200 million per year for prescription drugs.
*For prescription drugs, Americans spend more than 50% more than what is paid by people in other industrialized nations because costs aren't monitored by any oversight.
*Over half of all family bankruptcies today are caused by medical bills.
*There are more than six prescription drug company lobbyists for every United States Senator.
*Society already pays for the gang/gunshot victims, the drug overdoses and other uninsured emergency room visitors in the form of higher taxes, hospital costs and insurance premiums for everyone.
*With private healthcare, Americans have one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancy rates in the industrialized world and this administration claims it is pro-life.
*For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for just seven families, and provided healtcare for every single American citizen.

*Instead,we have spent about $440 Billion so far in Iraq and estimates speculate it could cost over 1 trillion before wars end.

Yes, in case you are wondering, I saw Sicko this weekend.

If you are wondering how we could afford to pay for national healthcare look at the numbers below.

Quick math with annual round numbers:

520 billion in health/life insurance premiums we are already paying so we can obviously afford this part
110 billion in useless wars (which we are currently spending)
600 billion in overhead savings (30% of 2 trillion)
100 billion if we paid what Europeans pay for prescription drugs
3 billion in aid to Israel
200 million in lobbying money
= Approximately 1.3 trillion dollars

I just paid for over half of a national healthcare system without raising taxes, cutting services or hiring terrorists and putting over 810 billion dollars back into consumers hands. Guess what an average 6% sales tax on 810 billion dollars would be?? Its about another 48 billion dollars. Add that to the list of sources that could fund a national healthcare plan without any additional costs. That's not counting the savings that would come from taking a preventative approach to healthcare which would keep people from getting sick as opposed to waiting until they're sick and then profiting from them when they become sick.

Imagine how competitive a company like GM would become overnight if they no longer had to bare the burden of health care and could again compete with companies such as Toyota, Honda and Volkwagen who have no such concerns due to their country's national healthcare plans. Sure, this would hurt insurance industry stocks but imagine what it would do for every other company in this country that provides health coverage for their employees. They could afford to hire all the laid off insurance employees.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Hey Kids, President Bush Condones, Authorizes and Excuses Criminal Activity

From CNN 6/2/07
Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

What a shocker, Bush commutes Libby's sentence for his role in the treasonous act, the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

"Scooter Libby is a traitor", says Joe Wilson, Valerie Plames husband. I agree, he should die a traitors death.

Essentially, this administration has just avoided all accountability for how they have handled the war and pre-war "intelligence". Well, except for the obvious fact that they are losing the war and creating more terrorist than has ever existed at one time generating an unprecedented world-wide hatred of the United States.

You know, I'm not saying Bill Clinton set a good example for kids with his blow but when someone is convicted of a crime and the President says it's ok and not fair to punish him, what does that say to the children? I know, if you are rich and white and have even richer, whiter and more powerful friends, you can get away with anything.

Bush: "I respect the jury's verdict, but I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison. My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Could you imagine if an attorney used that as an excuse to defend a poor black kid who got caught with cocaine? He would be laughed out of the courtroom.