Taking the country back, one talking point at a time
While data differ and the statistics aren’t fully reliable, a good bet is that the best answer is the 1940s. In that period, life expectancy increased about seven years. Could have a little something to do with the end of the depression and vastly better sanitation... heck even this guy admits his source is bullshit but what the heck? People got sick less in the 40s (and after) beause people didn't live in the same room as the pigs nearly as much... duh. I highly doubt killing the economy with more crushing debt is gonna help our country avoid the leading killer in the world... poverty. We'll try to cover 10% of our people many of which could afford insurance had they not taken out that adjustable rate mortague and screwed us all the first time arround only to screw the 90% of us that take care of ourselves just fine twice. Gee, thanks.But assuming this guy is correct... uh... we didn't have ObamaCare during the 1940s. There wasn't even a requirement for employers to provide insurance for full time employees back then. How on earth did that ever happen without the nanny state? Guess we'll never know- because on Sunday health care will be the property of the nanny state. Oh wait... still nobody will be covered by it, for like what, about 10 trillion years or whatever it is till the thing starts?It’s astonishing that Republicans today are lined up overwhelmingly against a health care package that is more modest and moderate than one that Richard Nixon proposed in the early ’70s. The Republicans, and Democrats, probably opposed it in the 1970s for the same reason they do today... beause it's a bad idea. Nixon had a lot of those.The tide of history has taken us and other Western countries toward steadily greater access to medical coverage Yup, if you classify "being covered" as waiting on a waiting list for 2 years like they do in England, Canada and where I live in Germany. You don't get to see a doctor with socialized medicine... but at least you have insurance. That has to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. What kind of access is that?Lastly, um why do you blame Republicans for holding this thing up? News flash guys, but you won in 2008. You won big. You have a majority now. How the hell are Republicans stopping your crew from doing anything being that they're so impotent? Oh wait... it's because even many Democrats realize this is a stupid idea. I forgot. We'd be better off if we took the 1 trillion and just divided it by 30 million and sent the uninsured a check... it would be more efficient than another bloated governemental waste.
Also, the discovery of antibiotics in 1928 alexander flemming in 1928 probably had a thing or two to do with expanded life expectancy. Why not just legalize penacillin over the counter and skip the government quagmire.
Okay. I now understand the argument. This column did it for me and I am now FOR this health care bill. NOT!I reject Kristof's premise that this bill will provide greater access to health care. This may be the case initially, but there is a lot of corroborated data showing that many doctors will either retire or leave the medical profession if this bill becomes law.Again, if you have 30 million more people added to the "demand" side of the equation and you signficantly reduce the amount of doctors providing service on the "supply" side of the equation, simple economics would dictate that access to doctors will decrease and costs for seeing such doctors will increase.Lastly, "Put aside quarrels over the mechanisms used to pass the bill, and focus on the central question of Americans’ access to decent medical care." This statement is indicative of what the @#$% is wrong with the mindset of many in our country. Never mind that this process and indeed the bill itself is un-Constitutional. Lets pass this anyway for the greater good. No thanks Mr. Marx/Obama!
Post a Comment