2009.04.30
Thursday open thread
"I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."
"So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."
What are you doing with your time today?
RSS feed 
For all you liberal socialist Dems (and you know who you are!) who don't trust Rasmussen polling, here is a recent Gallup poll for your interest. Can Gallup be trusted?
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.
Five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 9:17 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118054/100-Days-Obama-Approval-Broad-Deep.aspx
This one says 65, did you transpose your numbers. Post a link to yours please.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Well aren't you just a bright ray of sunshine on this Thursday morning John.
Polls are like butts, seems like everyone has one and they come in all shapes, sizes and colors. I suspect you can frame questions in a poll to obtain just about any kind of result you want (or so I learned in my college statistics class). So if you're bent on having a poll that makes W look wonderful and Obama look awful, you can do it.
That won't change the fact that 1. Obama is now the President and 2. Both houses of Congress are weighted toward Democrats.
I guess now you're feeling some of the same misery that we Liberals felt during the past 8 years.
On a side note, just so you'll know...I gave W the benefit of the doubt after he was elected in 2000. I believed his rhetoric about being a uniter after listening to some of the discussions about how he united the Texas statehouse. Reality of that was shortlived however. His actions and the actions of the Republican Party told a remarkably different story.
Republicans love you so long as you march lockstep with their ideologies...but you'll be damned if you dare to question their motives or logic.
So thump away, John.
Comment by Will — April 30, 2009 @ 9:54 am
Gallup can be trusted, John. But, as Sandi points out, you are not accurately portraying what Gallup found.
I guess the better question is, can your reporting be trusted?
Care to explain the error?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 9:56 am
What was that thing on tv last nite all about? I had to wait until 9 to watch Bill Oreilly. Doesn't the guy ever shut up? I thought he was going to take out some tennis balls and do a juggling act while playing a harmonica between his long winded answers. I know how to blow my nose. wash my hands and put air in my tires...I got this guy telling me about it...oh geez
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 10:23 am
See the Washington Times editorial for April 28.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/28/baracks-in-the-basement/
Editorial writers are never wrong , are they?
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 10:30 am
According to Gallup, yes, some editorial writers are wrong.
Those editorial writers certainly were.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 10:37 am
By the way, John, it looks like you copied quite liberally from The Washington Times editorial in your initial post. Two of the three paragraphs in your post were pulled directly from the editorial without attribution.
That's plagiarism, and is unacceptable here.
In the future, please make it clear when you're quoting someone else and attribute them to the proper source.
Thanks.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Probably within the margin of error!
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 10:43 am
I read this a different way. Obama was elected to do a difficult, and sometimes unpopular, job of working to try and fix the economy, revive our standing worldwide after it took a beating for the past many year, work to resolve our overseas military actions, and address a plethora of domestic issues that previous politicians have been too yellow to tackle. He is not going to win the wide-ranging support of the country by doing these things, because people will vehemently disagree with how he goes about it. If he were just trying to placate the masses and do a little here and a little there, without significantly rocking the boat, he'd have better numbers. I don't care if he only serves one term, so long as things are better when he leaves than they were when he entered office. He'll likely have to take many unpopular actions to accomplish this, and he's already demonstrated a willingn ess to do so by going after GM for their mismanagement, targeting the mega-banks for their misdeeds, and working to change the course of our foreign policy and military policy overseas. I'd much rather have an effective President who gets things done, even if he's unpopular, than to have someone biding their time being a caretaker and not doing anything one way or the other. I wonder how much of that is factoring into the poll results.
Comment by Other John — April 30, 2009 @ 10:51 am
LOL, Your second sentence says it all wayne p. Sorry the "serious" journalism of BillO was interrupted by the POTUS. You poor put upon soul, I feel your pain.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 10:53 am
John R, even if you use Real Clear's poll of polls number of 61, you are still granting an AWFUL big margin of error to the poll you "trust". So the RTEB editorial writers are to be vilified (because you do not agree with them) and the Washington Times editorial writers are to be "borrowed" from (because you agree with them). No double standard there is there? We are all so predictable. We like to think we are not sheep, but we sure follow our shepherd.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 11:03 am
The funny thing is if you actually watched Bill O'Reilly last night you would have seen he was exteremly fair to him. His only issue was that Rham, David, Obombs have the entire thing orchestrated. I miss the days of journalists standing up and shouting their questions and then getting called on. Now its a production that is extremely well orchestrated. I bet they high fived through the morning.
Comment by billyoboy — April 30, 2009 @ 11:50 am
billyoboy, I maintain that "fair", like "funny" is an 'eye of the beholder' type judgment. Bill O'Reilly and his red faced rants, distortions and partisan bluster has destroyed any credibility he could have had with any audience that is not a FOX audience. I would not watch his show just to debate the issue point by point, but I believe your version of fair is different than mine. You and he may miss the days of reporters jumping up like a jack-in-the box and shouting, but I miss the days when we watched a POTUS news conference and had to form our own opinions without the talking heads before and after.
BTW, I thought FOX was not going to carry the news conference because it would interrupt an "important" show.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Look I just want to say:
I'm surprised by the range of topics discussed here.
I'm troubled by the lack of humor.
I'm humbled by the intelligence and array of opinion.
I'm enchanted by this wonderful venue of free speech.
Comment by BUD — April 30, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Biden's office clarifies his earlier remarks about The Flu That Must Not Be Named by....well....lying about what he said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/21925
“It’s not that it’s going to Mexico. It’s [that] you’re in a confined aircraft."...VP Joe Biden
"The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico."...Biden's office
Hilarity ensues.
Comment by Henry — April 30, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
How can you discuss any show if you didn't watch it?
Comment by Danny — April 30, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
I think its a sure bet that VP Biden is never going to be accused of being the dark genius and mastermind behind this president's administration
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Sandi, we obviously didn't have the same news conference on. I form my own opinion just fine. My apologies for not always getting the tickle.
As a matter of fact, being a former media studies student, I watched both Rachel (Olbermann) Maddow and Bill O'Reilly last night. I also watch MSNBC, PBS, and Fox News programs. I have a subscription to Newsweek and the National Review. I check the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and Michelle Malkins blog. I like Jon Stewart and Andrew Breitbart.
See not everyone is black and white. Some are grey. It's needed to form ones own opinion and important to listen to all sides.
Comment by billyoboy — April 30, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Hello John R, you said, "For all you liberal socialist Dems (and you know who you are!) who don't trust Rasmussen polling, here is a recent Gallup poll for your interest. Can Gallup be trusted?"
I'm not positive but, I believe I am one of the people you are referring to. That is okay since I hope I am one of them, besides, I like being the center of attention. If you have time, how about explaining what it is that makes me socialist. I definitely know, and am thankful, that I am not a free market advocate. I'm just not sure how the socialist part fits.
Comment by allen bunch — April 30, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Good bet, wayne P. #18 that will be a slow pool. "God love him"
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
billyoboy, thanks for the odd "resume"...always nice to cite your sources I guess.
I do not believe I was characterizing EVERYONE as either black or white (just Billo) so that reference is lost on me. I know grey, pink and blue also. I have formed my own opinions for 50 years now, thanks. KeithO and Rachel are relative newcomers (and a welcome relief) in my neck of the woods. The hard right has controlled all talk for a very long difficult time. You start the conversation complaining about the POTUS interrupting your commune with Billo and "fair" in the same sentence and think I should accept that as proof of you using multiple sources to form the "fair" analysis? I am good but that would have been a stretch. You cited some well rounded as well as partisan sources, good on you, but that was not germane to your original post nor to mine in my opinion. I will grant you that I am dense, but what are you arguing about? Using Bill O'Reilly as a source or an example of fair journalism will grab my attention every time because he is not "fair and balanced" and I will not let the inference slide, ever.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
I didn't complain about it interrupting at all. I looked forward to hearing what our president had and has to say.
Listen, reading your posts you see one color. I respect that. I guess thats what you get with 50 years of only looking in one direction.
Comment by billyoboy — April 30, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
In my opinion, those liberals who believe in government controlled universal health care, government take over of banks, the automobile industry, and total takeover of the energy sector by EPA reguation, just to name a few items, constitute socialists. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Since I was the one trumpeting the true biased source of Rasmussen polling, I'm just going to say that I do trust the Gallup polls due to their business practices of not being held to either democrat or republican interests. Compare this to Rasmussen who is an evangelical activist and former consultant for the George W. Bush campaign. Add this to his family's troubled history of corruption, and you expect me to believe that his stats aren't fixed to serve his own purpose and beliefs? Come now, please try to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn.
Comment by scott — April 30, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Can't do the bridge in Brooklyn, but I've got some future oceanfront property south of Richmond (assuming the climate models of sea level rise are correct)...
Comment by Other John — April 30, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
billyoboy, Seriously I have never seen you here before today, so did you search archives or did you make your snap judgment of me just from today's exchange? First, I apologize for lumping your reply in with wayne p's original complaint, you got caught in the cross hairs when you wanted to espouse O'Reilly as fair. I stand by all I have said and believe that objective people would not characterize him as fair either. I make no bones that I am not partisan but I have never maintained that I did not look at other sources and listen to other opinions, I just do not listen to O'Reilly as a fair or balanced source. If you feel he is that is your choice to bear. I look in all directions and while I have yet to see one that suits me better that does not mean I am one dimensional or see only one color as you put it. BTW, I support your right to look in any direction you like as well.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
John R #24: Whew, good news, that shoe does not fit anyone I know so all is still right with the world.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
My observation about last night was not about Oreillly it was about the President....Oreilly gets on my nerves always interupting his guests. But the press conference consisted of 13 soft ball questions, that he took forever to answer...including one girly-man one about what enchants him...oh well. We got a president who thinks its his job to advise us dimwitted folks how to sneeze, wash our hands, not get in elevators and how much air to put in our tires...I wish he would instead think about going after Osama bin Laden, the guy who had airplanes fly into our buildings causing people to jump out of windows 100 stories up
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
or, as he put it ....get the commander-in-chiefs eye back on the ball
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Well John R...
Try this shoe on for size. Let's let the banks fail, the auto industry fail, let's pollute til the cows fall over dead(I would say til the cows come home) and let's let healthcare get so expensive we can't pay for it.
Let's see...the banks fail so there is no credit and financing market at all for homes, cars, education, industrial or commercial activity.
Let's see...the auto industry fails so we've put several million people out of work.
Let's see...we let healthcare get so expensive, no one can afford it...could be a logical step to the next "let's see".
Let's see...we pollute til we die...maybe that's the alternative.
In a nutshell John R...if this is socialism, then I guess I'm glad I am one. I don't think anyone in the current administration wants to be owners of banks or auto manufacturers for long but if you let them fail, the entire infrastructure (that which we are all a part) will crumble affecting more than any can comprehend.
Comment by Will — April 30, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
I am for a big helping of socialism to save the banks, the auto industry and the cows if its done with money obtained by taxing the rich and borrowing from the chinese, passing the debt to future generations...that way I can feel good about what a great person I am and it doesn.t cost me anything
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
wayne p. I have to agree - I support Obama but I would much rather have him answer random questions that he may or may not know are coming instead of the very well planned out type of conferences we see today.
Comment by HCS — April 30, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it's free. The only way to limit health care expenses with universal coverage is to limit access, that is waiting periods for treatment. This leads to no treatment.
Health insurance coverage does not necessarily mean health care. The UK has universal health coverage but the survival rate for prostate cancer is 600% worse than in the US. The survival rate for breast cancer is 40% worse than here in the US.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
John R, if you want to be taken seriously you need to cite you sources for claims like the statistics you mention for the UK survival rates. They do not seem to be legitimate that I can find.
Health care is already rationed via waiting periods and limited access. If you have no insurance most doctors offices do not want to see you and cash in hand limits when you can go and what you can have done regardless of need unless it is an emergency situation. Do you really not know this? A dentist does not care if you have a severe toothache, without cash or insurance you are going to suffer or wait for the limited services of a free clinic and I do mean wait. No matter how bad you need an eye exam or new glasses, without insurance or cash in hand you go without. That is the reality for tens of millions of working Americans, I am not talking about the impoverished (they have some services at least).
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Did you get those stats from The Washington Times, too, John? Or was it another equally valid source? Fact is direct comparisons are difficult to make because we diagnose a lot more cases of prostate cancer than other countries (even though treatment of the slow-moving cancer is of dubious benefit).
Then, of course, there's the simple problem that Obama isn't proposing a UK-style universal provider program.
By the way, you say: "The only way to limit health care expenses with universal coverage is to limit access, that is waiting periods for treatment."
How do we limit those expenses under our system?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
I don't know the answers to the question you asked Dan, but I have a question of my own. Why is it that for 18 months Obama campaigned that his health care plan would cost between 50 and 65 billion dollars. In fact, that estimated cost is still listed on the White House web site. Why then, does the President's first annual budget set aside not $65 billion, but $650 billion for health care, with an acknowledgement that it won't be enough?
I guess it's like the 'make working pay' tax cut.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1
Just more change we can believe in, I guess.
Comment by C Ramsey — April 30, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
C,
The answer to your question is quite simple. Obama estimated his health care plan would cost between $50 billion and $65 billion a year. The $650 billion you are referring to is the estimate for the next decade's budgets.
If that math doesn't add up for you, I'm afraid I can't help you.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
John R, you said,
"In my opinion, those liberals who believe in government controlled universal health care, government take over of banks, the automobile industry, and total takeover of the energy sector by EPA reguation, just to name a few items, constitute socialists. If the shoe fits, wear it."
I can get that shoe on my foot but, it really doesn't fit too good. Since you expect us to continue this discussion based on your own definitions, where can I get one of your dictionaries to complement my Webster?
Comment by allen bunch — April 30, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Trust me, I am a doctor. Why don't you prove me wrong. The US has the best HEALTH CARE in the world.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
John,
You plagiarized a factually inaccurate Washington Times editorial. Why should anyone here trust you?
You never responded, by the way, much less apologized, when you were called on that.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
My VA state license no. is 0401003883. I practiced oral and maxillofacial surgery for 35 years. Check it out. I did not know I was being graded on my postings.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Of course you are graded on your postings. If you plagiarize inaccurate information from an unreliable source, people are going to think less of what you assert. Even now, you have not responded, much less apologized, for that unfortunate act.
By the way, what is the best way to go about checking out your medical bona fides? Most of us don't know how to verify a license number. In any case, should we take the word of one doctor about the state of the U.S. health care system over every other opinion? I bet I can find a doctor (say, Ed Murphy of Carilion) who questions whether the U.S. system is best. Who are we supposed to believe?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Nice attitude Dan. A newspaper that is losing money hand over fist deriding it's readers for not being able to do math. What a hoot!
So let me ask this. Why did the administration decide that we should pay for a whole decade's worth of healthcare bills in one year? Particularly now , in time of economic crisis? Were we not already engaged in enough deficit spending this year?
And in any event, he said the 650 wasn't going to be enough so maybe it's his math that doesn't add up. Plus it wasn't me who misfigured the withholding tables and is currently over crediting millions of Americans. So this time next year, 'average joe' gets a double whammy. Not only will the tax break end and his net income will decrease, but he will also have to pay some of it back. All of this when, according to Obama's own releases, utility taxes will sky rocket. I can hardly wait.
Comment by C Ramsey — April 30, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
C,
Where did you ever get the idea that we are losing money hand over fist? We aren't losing money at all. Even if we were, what does that have to do with your inability to differentiate between costs over a year versus a decade?
Meantime, Obama didn't expect anyone to pay for an entire decade's worth of health care bills in one year. The costs you're talking about are part of a 10-year budget plan - can you not simply admit your error there? Is that really so painful?
As far as the tax tables go, maybe you can explain how to make standard tax tables jibe with giving everyone a standard $400 rebate, somehow taking into account people holding multiple jobs or other unique circumstances.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
I don't know. You typically don't see businesses requiring employees to take 'unpaid furloughs' when things are going well. And if you guys reduce the page size any more, you could just put some spiral wire on the top and call it a notepad. Call me crazy, but those just don't seem like signs of boundless prosperity.
Yes, I know it's a ten year plan. Strangely, while you guys wailed incessantly when Bush grew the debt to $10 trillion, you have not a care in the world when Obama seeks to double it yet again. The CBO says under Obama's plan the debt will grow to 82% of the GDP by 2019. Economists agree that this level of debt is not sustainable, no matter how worthwhile the RT may deem the spending. If the projected level of spending and debt actually takes place and the economy remains stagnant, our moral position in the world will be the least of our concerns.
As for the tax tables and the rebate, I didn't realize it was up to me to explain the tax code to the alleged experts who dreamt up this plan. I know there isn't alot of experience in the Oval Office, but surely to God they have an accountant in the building somewhere. However, it does seem to me that if they wanted to give everyone a $400 tax credit and didn't understand the tax tables well enough to do it via decreased withholdings, perhaps they should have just cut everyone a $400 check. It would have likely spurred more spending than does giving everyone an extra $16 per paycheck. I mean what are we supposed to do with an extra $33 a month that will actually stimulate the economy? I guess we could take the family out to eat once a month, provided everyone drank water. Let's face it, this was a feel good political measure, as was the Bush rebate. In the end though, it won't accomplish much.
In the meantime, if the people running the government actually need that much help understanding the tax tables, I guess I could let them borrow my copy of TurboTax.
Comment by C Ramsey — April 30, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
Personally I have no problem being called a "liberal socialist" considering the options available, I'd say it makes me proud.
The Right had best keep in mind the fact that the wall has been down for 20 years and a huge chunk of the electorate neither remembers the touted "Red Threat"..nor cares much about it. Running around hysterically screaming "Communism! Socialism!" isn't going to play with many people anymore. Yet again, they're going to have to find another message if they're going to manage to push themselves back into the public forum in any meaningful way.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 7:42 am
And Henry..if we're going to talk about "hilarity ensuing"...I've seen few things as hilarious as a blogger being called out on plagiarizing - without giving credit - an opinion piece rooted in a typographical error. Hilarity indeed!
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 7:45 am
So Kristen,
I guess you are ok with Chavez.
Thats the way the whole socialist stuff starts.
It all boils down to people like yourself that wants govr to handle
everything and take no responsibility for your own actions.
Weather it is work or play.
Cant you see the Obama is doing the same thing as Chavez by taking over
private companies.
This is not to help the economy but to help his union brothers.
With the govt having 50% stake in the co.
They make the rules along with contracts.
You think a car is expensive now, wait till the union gets everything they want.
I will never buy another Chrysler and encourage all americans to buy nothing that the govt has its hands in controlling.
I would rather see it sink.
Then of course you will have the liberal socialist yelling, help us govt we can do this on our own.
We are heading down a dangerous path, on the way to govt takeover.
This is the way Hitler,Castro and Chavez started.
I see no differance between them and our current Admin.
Comment by HERB KREBS — May 1, 2009 @ 8:00 am
A blogger
A Vice President of the United States
Yes, I can see how those two things would be similar.
Comment by Henry — May 1, 2009 @ 8:17 am
Pssst, Herb, Chavez is not our President. President Obama was duly elected by people who love this country, not the hate filled right wing demagogues who have been trying to ruin it, but the patriotic, hard working, decent people who do not believe he is any of the bad things the "witch hunters" keep screaming about.
No one, including President Obama is advocating that government handle everything, but smart people recognize that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT and that we control what the government does to a very great extent (good like we are trying to do now or bad like the past 8 years were). We ALL take responsibility for our actions and I will match mine and their work ethic with the fat cat fascists you keep praising any day of the week. There are things our government does well for us all.
Our government has not taken over any companies and you trying to say it does not make it true. The companies come hat in hand asking to be bailed out and like ANY SMART INVESTOR, the government wants results and repayment. I am sure that YOU would be fine to let all those Chrysler and "union" jobs go, but the rest of us realize that the middle class is on the line and some of the last good living wage jobs making AMERICAN products deserve to be saved for the good of the country.
I will buy a Chrysler just to spite people who think like you as soon as I can and will encourage others to do so as well. WE are willing to invest IN America, because WE believe in America.
WE defeated Hitler, we will not become him or anything resembling Castro, Chavez or any other boogey man insult you can throw out to scare people with.
You may not like it, but you are wrong.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 1, 2009 @ 8:23 am
See the differance right now sandi is I can afford to buy anything
I want.
I work hard and dont live off the govt.
If you want just ask Obama I am sure he can help with a Chrysler for
you.
After all he is a President for the people that want everything for free.
Comment by HERB KREBS — May 1, 2009 @ 9:03 am
John R....
You perhaps may have been an oral surgeon at one time. That, however, gives you little knowlege of business and frankly if you tout yourself as an expert in one area, I'm not sure how great you were in the other. You really don't want to get me started on the issue of our grand healthcare in this country.
We have health insurers dictating what procedures can and can't be used in order to diagnose and treat patients because it affects the financial bottom line of the insurance companies. That's absolute and complete utter bullS$*&!
When doctors can get back to the business of real healthcare, talk to me. Until then, don't bother me with your demands that coming out of residency you expect to be making multi-million dollar paychecks and only working 4 days a week.
I am convinced that in the treatment of some illnesses, the profits made by continuing to treat rather than finding a cure outweigh the activities that surround finding a cure. In a nutshell, it's more profitable to treat cancer than it is to find a cure.
Comment by Will — May 1, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Will,
I am with you there.
The problem we have with health care is 3 fold.
First the lawsuits need to have a cap.
This will never happen as lawyers, which most are demcrats, dont want this.
2nd. Because of the first Doctors must carry outrages amounts of Insurance.
3rd. because of these lawsuits. Insurance co.s must recoup something not to mention that many hopsitals and Dr's get shafted for non payment's from lazy's or immigrants.
This to me is why a Advil cost me $12.00 bucks.
We need to start with lawsuits. Cap them. Then tell insurance co.'s you will bring down insuranace cost if you want to do business.
Then somehow, recoup the money from non payers.
We still have to have money for reasearch.
Your final statement rings true though.
I believe there is allready a cure for many things out there including cancer.
They wont let that out though becuase of earth overpopulation.
Comment by HERB KREBS — May 1, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Herb, if I ever get the sense that my party is going to nominate Chavez, I'll start worrying.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 10:03 am
@wayne p: "What was that thing on tv last nite all about?"
I'm like Fox... I didn't figure it was worth caring about.
Comment by Jack — May 1, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Well Kristen,
Looks like you are about 6 months late.
Allready happened.
Comment by HERB KREBS — May 1, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Well Herb then all I can say is that the GOP was incapable of coming up with a candidate who had the ability to beat Chavez.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
SO... FOX did not care to carry the POTUS press conference (you know the Chavez clone 'the right' should fear but not see on their network) and yet it interfered with wayne p's date with Billo and Jack who seems to think President Obama is going to ruin the world did not care enough to watch. You right wingers sure no how to party!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 1, 2009 @ 1:25 pm