It’s been quite a while since I was actually positively excited about anything political. Today was exciting. [breitbart video]
Why was it exciting? John McCain made me proud in picking a true conservative as his VP. [yahoo][reuters] A maverick conservative at that. One with a reputation for clashing against the establishment, including the Republican establishment, when it’s corrupt… which is GREAT by me because I’m a conservative first.
Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, is a wife and mother of five. She was previously the mayor of a small Alaskan town. Her husband is part Eskimo and a semi-pro snowmobile racer. She hunts moose (those smelly global warmers) and is a life-long member of the NRA. Her son is shipping out to Iraq next month. She’s smart, eloquent, young (for a pol), attractive, ballsy and unafraid. Holy smokes… what’s not to like?
But seriously now… is the United States ready for the Palins? They’re like a “real” family! What’s that about? I mean… she’s a hockey mom with five kids (including a Down syndrome baby she “boldly” decided not to have her doctor slice up)… this is like the family living down the street. Hmm… that sounds like “change” to me. Perhaps even “change we can believe in”?
So the Barack Hussein folks are saying that she has no foreign policy experience. Ok, sure… her weakest point may just that. BUT, she’s a #2… and since Obama, the blue team’s #1, has no foreign policy experience either I’d say that’s advantage GOP. And besides… if Battlestar Galactica has taught us anything it’s that a seemingly-inexperienced female educator can be thrust into leadership amid catastrophic circumstances and do just marvelous. [paste]
Dems are ones to talk about VP picks… didn’t they say McCain was an old, crusty Washington insider unfit for reforming the beltway? Yeah… so Obama goes and picks a VP who is an old, crustier, deeper insider in Washington. Real smooth.
And nothing says you’re ready for change like finding one of the biggest problems in partisan DC politics and making him your VP. Whereas McCain has chosen someone far, far, FAR removed from the beltway, even by liberal media accounts. Indeed, McCain and Palin may represent a party ticket combining for the largest reputation for intra-party critique of any potential duo ever. Did someone say “change”?
Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Hussein. The other side likes to babble on about hope ‘n change incessantly. I say keep the change — we’ve got a change for the better.
I'm a Christ-follower, compelled by my faith toward reason, which points directly toward conservatism. This world's daily onslaught of lunacy offends my intellect and senses, so this is my venue to blow off steam.
Yay! A kick-ass woman who is still feminine. I was thinking that McCain had better pick someone who was young, attractive and charismatic. I think he’s outdone himself. Finally!
Steve, are you aware that she graduated from University of Idaho (an hour south of us), attended North Idaho College (five minutes from us; David and I have both taken classes there) and was born in Sandpoint (an hour north of us) Idaho? She did spend a good chunk of her life in Alaska, but she has strong local ties here. University of Idaho already has her on their website promoting the leadership potential for U of I students (can you blame them????). Just thought you would like to know some relevent trivia!!!
Sorry, I try to avoid being overly antagonistic on this blog, but can’t resist pointing out at least one thing –
Dems are ones to talk about VP picks… didn’t they say
McCain was an old, crusty Washington insider unfit for
reforming the beltway? Yeah… so Obama goes and picks a VP
who is an old, crustier, deeper insider in Washington.
Real smooth.
could as easily have read:
Rebs are ones to talk about VP picks… didn’t they say
Obama was a young, photogenic neophyte, too inexperienced
in foreign affairs to handle the job? Yeah… so McCain
goes and picks a VP who is younger, prettier, and even
less experienced in the realities of Washington.
Real smooth.
I was actually checking in to see if Steve had any opinions on Chrome. I suspect so, as I have never found
you to lacking in opinion.
@Montane
Yes… BUT, the big difference is that the Dems put their inexperienced person into the #1 slot (mentor) rather than the #2 slot (more befitting the mentee).
I actually haven’t tried Chrome yet. Initial benchmarks are promising… seems to hold it’s own versus Firefox 3′s latest beta build.
Here’s the thing (as an Obama suporter), we as a country have been without vision or hope for a long time. What you want in leadership is someone who is a visionary with the ability and desire to surround himself with wise counsel that will make his visions a reality. What you don’t want is someone as president who is the wise counselor but doesn’t seem to have the ability to inspire anyone, and someone in the VP seat, with much less power, who has the vision (which we don’t even know if she has).
I tell ya what Scott,Obama will kill any hope that we have left. Obama is a visionary living in a dream world, and is trying to enact his dreamy visions in the real world. With the 2 worlds being incompatible, the only result can be disaster.
Another thing, I have an update on my plan to join the Army if Russia ever messes with Poland. Obama is not a Commander-in-Chief I can trust. Thusly, if he is president at the time the conflict begins, I will inlist directly in the Polish Army, not the American Army.
@Scott
Yes, truth be told I’d rather have Palin as prez… she’s certainly the best of the four of them. I could really care less what gender or color she is, or whether she has any time on the DC pond. Better to vote for the ticket with one good person on it than no good people.
Obama’s got charisma for sure… and he’s probably a really likable guy. But attorneys turned politicians are verbal tricksters… and hope and vision are empty words with no meaning in and of themselves — they can be filled either with good or evil. Hitler “hoped” to eradicate the Jewish problem and Bin Laden had a “vision” for striking terror within infidel society.
Now is Obama the devil? No, of course not. But he brings “hope” of (among other things) higher taxes, socialized medicine, and pro-abortion judges. MY “hope” is for lower taxes (and in many cases the abolition of such), tighter borders, less government programs, removal of most entitlements, tort reform, medical liability limits (to name a few)… and what I’d really like is for it to be illegal to kill infants. Thus I “hope” that Obama loses… because his “vision” (as best as I can discern through the clouds of eloquent rhetoric) is diametrically opposed to mine.
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I don’t think as a Christ-follower it’s even an option for me to vote for a pro-choice candidate.
not to mention the fact that socialized medicine ain’t all its cracked up to be. My mother is a Brit and my aunt waited three long years for carpel tunnel surgery. Because its not life threatening. We live an hour from the Canadian border and I have heard that the waiting room up at Bonner’s county hospital is just full of Canadians willing to pay out of pocket to get good care now. Instead of so so care when their name comes up on the list in a few months. They don’t tell you how many people die waiting for care in socialized medicine. So you can choose good care for some and no care for some or mediocre care for everyone.
The thing with Obama too, is where is the plan? He’s all just talk and vague principals. And these people are just eating it up. With a spoon.
@Liz
As a physician, I have both hope and trepidation imagining reform in medicine. The system is broken, of that there is no doubt. No one should have to go without health care. And health care is not going to the emergency room when you are so sick you can’t stand it anymore.
How to fix the mess is trickier. I believe there are ways that it could be done such that everyone gets the essential emergency, preventive, and routine care that the need in a timely manner. It would require many changes, including not paying for some care. But, given how politically charged any one medical subgroup is, no one without autocratic powers could realistically ration care in the US, whether the plan was rational and reasonable or not. Who can tell a neonatal intensive care unit to not to spend a half million dollars keeping a 24 week gestation birth alive for three months until it finally succumbs to multi-organ failure. And you know if someone said people with years of uncontrolled diabetes should not be allowed to be on dialysis to replace the kidney function their diabetes killed, said person would be lucky not to be lynched.
the idealist thinks there are ways to address the many problems in healthcare, but the cynic in me is pretty sure America won’t do anything until the creaky system finally throws a rod.
@Liz
I forgot how close you guys live to Canada. Idaho is a great place! I spent a good part of the day on the phone with some of our guys on the big gov’t reservation (I forget what it’s called now… they keep changing the name).
@Montane
I don’t think the solution the idealists are looking for even exists… any more than does the solution to poverty or the solution to greed. People are an idiotic lot and resources aren’t infinite.
The Constitution doesn’t grant the right to free health care… and good thing, too, since “free” is a misnomer — someone ALWAYS pays.
I’m assuming that when you suggest nobody go without health care that you weren’t planning to forgo your paychecks, but rather use taxpayer money to provide for the “free” part. In that case, I think everyone has the right to free nuclear power… and free web development… and free guitar lessons (mega $m$o$n$e$y$ for mmeeeeeee!!!!).
Tami works in trauma… a bunch of those people are in there because of their own stupidity. And sometimes uninsured people waltz into the ER, expecting care with no ability to pay, yet they have iPhones!?! WTF!?
@WarAxe
The constitution likewise does not say anything about providing roads, clean water, public schools, or safe food. I do not think that universal ‘free’ health care is needed, but I do think that people should not have to go without medical care because they can’t afford it. Choosing, as Liz put it, some people to get good care and some none, does not suit a great country like the USA. I do give free or reduced cost care to people without insurance.
I agree that resources are limited, which was my point of talking about the political difficulties. In order to provide necessary care to everyone, limitations need to be put in place. However actually placing limitations will anger someone who thinks they have a right to government paid Viagra. I can imagine the protests now.
Also I am pained by people who are sick or injured because of stupidity or neglect – they do stupid things, eat too much, exercise too little, smoke, drink, drugs, and just overall stupid recklessness. Still, I can’t let that effect anything. I can’t really say ‘you deserved that hemorrhage in your brain for riding a motorcycle 120mph without a helmet’.
And yes, plenty of people not getting health insurance but using the money for other things. But then I see people driving SUV’s to the market to spend their food stamps. It doesn’t make food stamps a bad idea.
And again yes, someone ALWAYS pays. right now people go to emergency rooms for care whether they have insurance or not. They get a bill but often don’t pay. Who does then? Taxpayers and people paying for insurance (higher premiums). It would have been cheaper if taxpayers had paid for that person to get routine medical care and maybe prevent whatever that heart attack in the first place.
I dislike writing this much, and could go on and on about the reasons health care is expensive, things that could be changes, things that probably won’t. So…
We agree on many points:
– people are idiots (“Idiocy abounds” – WarAxe)
– resources are limited
– someone always pays
I think that there are ways that everyone could have basic health care. I started typing it out and, again, much too long. But it comes down to is the politically difficult thing of limiting what is paid for. For example, free preventive health care, a list of conditions and procedures which would be covered, meds paid for. i think that a combination of streamlining the system, limiting what was universal to “basic care”, some other changes, might work. I am cynical and doubtful that such a system would be put in place, and suspect that whatever bloated package does get passed will not be particularly effective.
@Montane
I think I agree with everything you just said.
Yeah, I’d like to see a system with NO medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. BUT, there isn’t sufficient charitable avenues in place to take care of the TRULY needy just yet if the government handout blitzkrieg ever went away.
I still super-duper-strongly feel that in a free society people need to be given the freedom to make choices and be expected to accept the consequences (good or bad). If someone squanders away a billion dollars on a stupid wasteful lifestyle, but then gets sick, can’t work, and requires expensive meds… they should have to appeal for mercy from their friends, family, neighbors, whoever… rather than get a free handout.
I like most everything about her but, only a BA in journalism…she could be a little bit more educated.
back to health care. When I was a kid (looong time ago) we had insurance in case of a catastrophe. You budgeted for your shots, your well kid visits etc. You really thought about whether you needed to go to the doctor. Every time you saw a doctor wasn’t covered by insurance. But it has expanded. A lot. Perhaps we should reduce that back down. YOu pay for prevention. You pay for inexpensive insurance for catastrophes. It CAN be cheaper because it is not covering every throat swab, every tetanus shot, etc etc. Second, I think the AMA needs to get with the program, follow the lead of the American Bar Association and require a certain number of pro bono hours for docs to keep their licenses. This would help those who cannot pay for the basic care. With those who can paying out of pocket for routine care, perhaps there will be more resources available for the poor. And even the not so poor who get slammed with a very expensive bill.Maybe I am missing something, but this doesn’t seem that hard to implement, compared to other solutions that have been proposed. And it seems like you don’t have the “trading one set of problems for another” that you get with socialized medicine.
For the first time this election cycle, I am positively enthused about voting for McCain,, and even made a contribution yesterday to help ensure a victory. I googled Sarah Palin and found a blog site of liberal females that was the most horrific, hypocritical, obscene blog I have ever read. They could surely use some of your cryptic observations. I knew that sooner or later they would start ridiculing her Christian faith, and sure enough, by about the 97th blog, she was being referred to as “Evangelical Barbie”. Like you, I wish she were #1, but I’m thrilled she’s on the ticket. AMEN to all of your comments. By the way, is Montane who I think he is? Love you.
I think the leftist feminists are showing their true colors. You will also note that its the WOMEN who are being the most vicious about Palin’s appearance. Its as if they wouldn’t take her seriously unless she was overweight, with a bad haircut and a manly man suit.
“Hell hath no fury like a womens scorn.” I first saw this quote in X-Men 3. Simple fact, the Feminazis (as Rush likes to say) will have no tolerance whatsoever for a female simply being a good woman. The Feminazis all have to adopt manly clothes and behaviors, and basically be just as good as men by being men. They have this complex where they think that women are being oppressed, so they wage war against man. Its nuts. Now this female comes along and just trys to be a good Christian woman, the feminists can’t stand it. It’s funny. The one example they should follow, they redicule.
@Liz
there is already a lot of unreimbursed health care out there. all ED departments are required by law to see patients regardless of ability to pay, and hospitals have a certain percentage of care given away free. it is more for the large university hospitals (hence part of their financial difficulties). additionally there is poor reimbursement, and physicians office might collect 70% of what they bill, regardless of what they already give away in discounted or free care. i will agree, that more physicians could be more generous with their time, but that would be only a small portion of the problem. there are medicines to pay for, hospital care to pay for, routine blood tests, etc.
and unfortunately, there would be issues with the systematic plan for people to pay for preventative care. first, the preventative care is less expensive than emergency care, and people are going to put off the preventative care if they have to pay for it. it may therefore be cheaper to pay for preventative care (if fact require it as a requisite for care) in order to decrease the need for emergent care. the people who need routine care are the least likely to pay for it out of pocket. i think that many people reading this blog would agree, including myself despite WarAxe’s and my base philosophic differences, on the need for personal responsibility.
@ Your Mother
Indeed it is whom you think.
I am living and practicing Neurology in Ithaca, NY. (I would suspect quite too liberal for your taste). I keep an eye on the blog, but make comments only rarely, this thread being an exception.
Hi there!
My English is too bad and limited to write an intelligent comment; but, I’ve seen that youre English had to be as bad as mine.
Frankly, Palin is too stupid to be a vicepresident of United States, and everyone should be aware of that.
In Europe we are aware of that, at least.
@ Fran
Well, Europe can stay out of America’s business. But then again, the politicians in Washington can’t stay out of anyone elses business. I guess one bad turn deserves another. . . eye for an eye you know.
@Fran
On what grounds can you call Sarah Palin stupid?
And dont even mention because she only has a BA in whatever.
And quite frankly, i could care less what people in Europe think. They are not in the U.S. and SHOULD have no voice in it’s elections (i.e. the moronic VMA host that began the entire show my bashing Bush and blindly promoting Barack Obama)
@John
“So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.” -Star Wars (tee hee)
oops…
didnt finish my comment
@John
About how politicians in Washington can’t stay out of others business.
I agree to a certain point.
Being one of the most powerful nations in the world (though the lead seems to be slipping away) it is our duty to deal in other countries affairs. As a nation in the world that affects every other nation in the world it is our responsibility to at least try and fix some of the world’s problems.
I agree with you, TJ Mock. At the same time, the countries we try to help ought to have some interest in being helped. If they say, “hey, US, shove off” we should. We have no business being friends with a country like that. We have to be better at picking and choosing where we throw our resources, so they can be put to good use instead of being wasted by dictatorial and corrupt governments. Oh, and the UN should be abolished. They’re incompetent and a collosal waste of money.
Well, I know some of you will say “non of your business”, but in Europa everyone is following the election, just as much as any american. And it seems to me that most europeans would prefer er democratic president. Why?, well it seems like a democratic president, is more open to start end strengthen realationships with europe, where the republicans are more likely to say;” America can handle alone if nessesary”, which is not true. U.S. Depends on export to asian and european markets.
Fran,
Their names were John Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. etc. You called them “traitors” we call them “forefathers”. So thank you for giving me more confidence in my choice for president because your description of my canidate was “stupid”. You were wrong before and you are wrong now. We know you love to hate america, as does the world, but this globe is soaked with envy.
Just wondering if your views of the Palin’s have changed over the course of last month. I personally believe that she is not ready to be president of the United States and it is scary that she is so close.
My opinion of her has not changed… because her position on the issues has not changed (which is what I base my support on).
Your question is almost a funny one. People like me aren’t swayed by extraneous clammer… which is why we’re RARELY selected as jurors.
Steve, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that you have a great blog. I appreciate your coding work- you have done a great job!
Go McCain/Palin!
http://www.JeremyBuff.com
Steve, I think a (ridiculously long) comment I tried to make to this post this morning may have gotten flagged as spam, since it disappeared into word press purgatory after I clicked “post comment” and it’s not currently showing up as “awaiting moderation”. Your spam filter is probably extraordinarily suspicious of how many links I like to use
Should I re-post? Re-word? De-linkify? Or is it just sitting in moderation limbo and I should go do something constructive
Thanks! Lemme know.
StanTheMan
@StanTheMan
I SO wish I could turn off moderation for certain folks (like yourself), but as of yet I cannot. All of your comments I found this morning, seeing the thoughtfulness and value you put into them, I immediately approved without reading any further. I appreciate your comments greatly and am glad you stopped by… your insights are valued here.
With regard to the comment on this particular post… I didn’t see it in my moderation queue, so it might have gone into the “great ether”.
Please post it again!
Cool man, I’ll try again.
No worries on moderation, I saw your post that your spam count has hit 150,000! That’s pretty funny. And makes spam filtering a definite necessity.
Alright, let’s see if I can get this other thing posted now…
Two months after you originally posted this, I’m amazed at how the media has absolutely and unapologetically maligned Palin– wait, stop. Actually, I’m not surprised. The media in this country is corrupt. But what makes me angry is the fact that the media coverage (and barely hidden hatred) for Sarah Palin has probably made a difference of several percentage points in the polls. O’Reilly made the point this week that if the media–who are supposed to be the watchdogs and guardians of freedom–is corrupt, then the implications for our democracy are troubling indeed. Who is “watching the watchmen” so to speak? And what do you do when the watchmen have turned against you? Especially with a voting population so unfortunately swayed by video clips and sound bytes…
Nevertheless, I think (hope?), to a certain extent, all the negative coverage of Palin may also backfire against the liberals. They’ve come out against her so strongly and so hatefully that surely (I hope) people are seeing the true colors of the media. CNN’s refusal* to do much more than acknowledge the blatant and hurtful lie they made in an interview with her this week is something that may come back to bite them. I don’t know… This close to the election it may be a wash. The people whose view of Palin was damaged may be cancelled out by those whose view of Palin was strengthened. But the video clip linked to here is excellent. Greta cuts right to the heart of the matter in my humble opinion.
*I have to give them some kudos for coming clean at all, and I give Griffin the benefit of the doubt. Interviewers are generally using questions researched by interns, etc, so it’s entirely possible he didn’t know that what he was saying was false. However, I agree w/ Van Susteren that the apology was owed to Ms. Palin, who is the one person to whom no public apology was made.
Anyway, random responses to comments time:
Montane, I think your comment is a good one. The Republicans certainly aren’t squeaky clean when it comes to campaigns. However, the difference (in my own humble opinion) is that Obama *is* a young, photogenic neophyte, too inexperienced in foreign affairs to handle the job. And that Palin *does* have more executive experience than him.
So, although I agree that the Repubs ain’t perfect, in this case I think it’s the Dems who are playing dirty.
Scott: what price are you willing to pay for vision and change? If the Democrats control all branches of government for the next four years, we will completely lose our system of checks and balances upon which this democracy was founded. Further, many are predicting the Dems to win a filibuster-breaking 60 seats in the Senate. Meaning they will be able to do essentially whatever they want. Pass any law. Any legislation. Without accountability. That makes me more than nervous in any direction. And even if Obama wanted to be a “moderate” liberal, his record shows that he lacks the political capital to resist his party (96% party-line voting record). And that, of course, assumes he would even want to. Thus, the country will truly be being run by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and the consequences will last for years. Speaking only of economics, the results this could have on our economic recovery and free-market enterprise could be devastating.
Liz: I agree about socialized medicine. After living in Germany, I’m convinced that socializing health care would be a disaster. Not just for our country, but for the world. The free-market competition of medicine in our country has fueled innovation that has benefited everyone. It has its problems, yes. Insurance is totally cracked, yes. But socializing? Please no…
WarAxe: “The Constitution doesn’t grant the right to free health care — and good thing, too, since “free” is a misnomer — someone ALWAYS pays.”
Bingo
Montane: picking one of your examples of “stupidity or neglect”: motorcycle helmets. Why can’t we say someone deserved a brain hemorrhage for riding 120mph without a helmet? I know that may sound harsh, but there is this massive tendency in our country for people to avoid personal responsibility for their stupid decisions. Riding a motorcycle is an inherently risky endeavor. I should know, I’m a rider myself. And while you/we may not *want* someone to get a brain hemorrhage, I would argue that they deserve the *consequences* of their actions. Before you all concluded I’m heartless, let me clarify: the consequences are *not* certain. I’m not saying they specifically deserve a brain hemorrhage, but rather that they deserve the risk, which means they need to accept the potential outcome. The consequences of riding a motorcycle at high speed without protective gear are a fantastically increased risk of serious injury or death. In other words, the odds get real long. And they deserve the long odds, because they chose freely. I deserve the odds every time I get onto my motorcycle. It is always a risk. Period. Wearing a motorcycle helmet does not ensure I won’t be injured or killed. All it does is help to mitigate that risk. But the difference is that I accept the consequences of my choice. Riding a motorcycle is worth the risks to me because I try to do it wisely: by educating myself about motorcycle helmets and by learning about motorcycle safety. For example by taking motorcycle safety classes, and by trying to ride with wisdom, not with recklessness. Statistically I’ll probably still fall off my bike at some point. But the hope is that my choices will help keep me safe even *if* something happens, and more importantly that I’ve chosen to *accept responsibility* for my decision.
When people believe they deserve expensive health care for their foolish choices like riding without a motorcycle helmet or spending 50 years smoking, I would argue that they deserve no such thing. Now I, as a compassionate person, may choose to help them anyway, but it’s not because they deserve it, it’s because I freely choose to love them.
I agree with your conclusion that maybe we should have some basic, limited coverage for everyone, but for me it’s not because anyone deserves it, it’s because I choose to love them in spite of their stupidity (or, in the case of uninsured children: difficult circumstances beyond their control; which is definitely a different category).
Your Mother: “Evangelical Barbie”? *sigh* you’re right, that’s angering. Not surprising, but I mean, come on, can’t these people come up with even constructive criticism?
Holy cow this is getting long. I’ve gotta cut back… Okay, skipping through all the fun-to-read comments, despite my desire to converse with all…
WarAxe: “People like me aren’t swayed by extraneous clammer — which is why we’re RARELY selected as jurors.”
lol, of course, if our country were wise, we’d choose our jurors very differently, but I digress
As always, all of the above is just my two cents. I have many opinions. But I hope that I always stay willing to consider the other side. Thus, any and all responses are always welcome.
-StanTheMan
@StanTheMan
i agree with personal responsibility. i do have a problem with ‘deserves’.
there is some things i would support. for example, organ transplant. it is expensive upfront and on a continued basis, and sometimes is for self induced injury, especially the liver. i had a family member who was an alcoholic and would have benefited from liver transplant. i’m kinda glad it didn’t happen and am still against liver transplant for alcoholics or people with hepatitis C from drug abuse.
my problem with ‘deserves’ is who decides that? i’m going to to frame this in religious terms for you. say there’s a person in your congregation who smoked years ago, despite that they knew it was bad for them, but after a difficult battle, with Jesus as there support, have since quit. now, years later, they have bladder cancer. certainly from smoking. should physicians say, sorry, we can’t treat you at all, it’s due to smoking, you’ll die in a few years. or should they operate, maybe cure the cancer?
otherwise they are an excellent Christ-follower and overall good person. there’s a wife and three children still depending on the person.
there is the easy flip answer saying ‘yes, don’t treat them’. i don’t see that ever happening, and don’t support it. and it leads further to more difficult questions. what about a fat person with a heart attack? did they deserve it? should we give them an expensive cardiac catheterization or let them die? and to slide ever further down the slippery slope, what about the atheist who dies of some nasty degenerative disease. do they ‘deserve’ it for not believing as you do?
there are many problems in health care, from all sides. there are patients who live unhealthy, abusive lives and need care. there are anxious patients who have nothing wrong with them but cost a lot of money. there are physicians who do lots of procedures which make money. there is an enormously complex insurance landscape adding some much bureaucracy to the system (the coding and billing framework by itself is so complex that many physicians don’t really understand it very well), for-profit insurance companies (i am not again free markets, but have a STRONG opposition to for-profit health insurance), and many others. high drug costs, for example, i have mixed feeling on. i don’t like them, but realize there is risk and expense to bringing a drug to market. i think there is some abuse and the process can use some tweaking, but do gainsay the high costs overly much. i use the new drugs when they are better, and old drugs when they are cheaper and not inferior.
sorry, i could go on and on, and have a long list of reasons why health care is expensive, and a small list of things that aren’t too hard to change which might make medicine less expensive – 1) get rid of for-profit insurance, and i wouldn’t be upset with a single payer system, but it would have to be a good one. 2) stop paying more for procedures – this last would actually cost me some money personally, but medical procedures are overpaid. there is incentive to do procedures (doing things to people, injections, surgeries, etc.) which are paid a lot more than office visits. i’ll give you a personal example. i believe a new office visit for a full hour might cost a bit under $300 in our office. i can do electrical studies on nerves and muscle, and might bill $500 to $1000 dollars in an hour. yes, it took extra training and expertise, expense for the equipment, and there is slight extra risk, but overall, the practice makes more money. this is true of just about all procedures. now i and the others in the practice do our best not to abuse this, and we give away plenty of care. there are people who abuse this, and it can be true for many procedures.
again, to all, sorry, a long post, but one that i have some personal expertise and opinion on (and that can be aired in this particular forum without being too antagonistic
)
LIE! palin is a bim! im glad she didnt win!
OBAMA/Biden a change we can believe in! XD (tun head on side if not yellow smiley)
i feel alone here, being the only democrat…. *yip!*
XD is one of the more mysterious emoticons. I first caught it in some IM-type interface (don’t remember which) and it threw me a bit.
It is a huge laughing/beaming smiley for those who don’t know. The ‘X’ for the eyes is a convention used by animé artists for years to illustrate squinted/closed eyes… either from extreme pain or a big smile/laugh.
Ahhhh…so sad! We’ll get ‘em next election.
2 Trackbacks
[...] 99, in the post McCain/Palin – A Change for the Better! says: “…if Battlestar Galactica has taught us anything it’s that a [...]
[...] Dooce has to say on the matter, and can (almost) stomach Steve Mooradian’s love of the “maverick” (everybody stop saying maverick now, please). But I’ll briefly say that I think the [...]