delawareskins Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Kilmer, W already has Ohio locked up, vote away!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow Remember as you make your vote, Kerry is the most Liberal senator this country has. Misinformed again. I love factchecking conservatives, but it's turning into a full-time job! ---------- Said Bush: "On issue after issue, [Kerry] has shown why he earned the ranking as the most liberal member of the United States Senate." Bush bases that remark on annual rankings given by "National Journal," a non-partisan magazine about government. But does the magazine really rank Kerry as the most liberal member of the Senate? "The way the Bush campaign has used this is misleading," said Patrick B. Pexton, the magazine's deputy editor. "We feel that our rating shows that John Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003. Over his lifetime he was the 11th-most liberal senator. This has been used by the president, by the vice president, constantly over the past few months to portray Kerry as the most liberal senator ever, and that is just not the case." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward I thought the old "unAmerican" diatribe was discarded after we invaded Iraq. Oh, well. Some people just like the old favorites I guess. If you're really giving out tickets to Canada (or could that be one of those "exaggerations") send me one. I'd love to go. Here are some facts for you to chew on. • the top U.S. drug makers spend 2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research This means that they are spending twice as much to convince you that you need a drug than actually finding new ones that help you. •at least a third of the drugs marketed by industry leaders were discovered by universities or small biotech companies, writes Angell, but they’re sold to the public at inflated prices. She cites Taxol, the cancer drug discovered by the National Institutes of Health, but sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb for $20,000 a year, reportedly 20 times the manufacturing cost. The company agreed to pay the NIH only 0.5 percent in royalties for the drug. If a drug is discovered and developed with public money, it should be available to the public at cost. •The majority of the new products the industry puts out are “me-too” drugs, which are almost identical to current treatments but “no better than drugs already on the market to treat the same condition.” Around 75 percent of new drugs approved by the FDA are me-too drugs. •The drug companies used free market rhetoric while avoiding compettition at all costs. This means they can slightly modify a drug yet extend the monopoly on it. •In 2002, the top 10 American [pharmaceutical] companies in the Fortune 500 made 17 percent of their sales in profits, whereas they spent only 14 percent on R&D. The median for the other Fortune 500 companies was between 3 percent of sales. So, you can’t make an argument that they’re just eking out a living, just managing to cover their R&D costs. OH NO. They are making a PROFIT!@!@$# Put them in jail. Or better yet, put the government in control of R&D. Sounds like a good idea to me:rolleyes: Just say it, your a socialist. It will make you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Misinformed again. I love factchecking conservatives, but it's turning into a full-time job! ------- Oh, I'm sorry. The SECOND most liberal Senator. Thanks for the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow Oh, I'm sorry. The SECOND most liberal Senator. Thanks for the correction. I can see why you are so misinformed. Are you intentionally ignorant or just lacking on reading comprehension? "Over his lifetime he was the 11th-most liberal senator." That means middle of the road. You have been corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward I can see why you are so misinformed. Are you intentionally ignorant or just lacking on reading comprehension? "Over his lifetime he was the 11th-most liberal senator." That means middle of the road. You have been corrected. 11th is the "middle of the road". And since we are talking over his 20 year lifetime that must mean he is the 11th most liberal senator over the last 20 freaking years. MY POINT STANDS. As far as the most liberal senator. Shall we agree that stands for current standing senators? MY POINT STILL STANDS. Spin away...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by delawareskins Kilmer, W already has Ohio locked up, vote away!!!! My understanding is Ohio is a battleground state that is basically even at this point. The 3% still undecided will decide the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Today I was involved in an information session in one of the nations best MHA (Masters in Healthcare Administration)programs offered. One of the professors brought up a quote about Bush during the debate. In this quote he mentioned that if healthcare organizations can use technology effectively and correctly that we can drive healthcare costs by 20%. According to the professors in this program Bush was completely right. They mentioned currently IT projects in the healthcare industry have a 50% failure rate. They were very specific about certain projects that Kaiser has done and wrote off 100's of millions in 1 failed project. It was very interesting to see them talk about the future in healthcare and what we need to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 His lifetime. BWAHAHAHAHAHA...... snicker,snicker...... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... thanks for the correction, now that I think of it. THE 11TH MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY!!!!!!!!! :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 And according the Jackson's Ward's world, THE 11TH MOST LIBERAL SENATOR OF ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY is quote " MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" :whew: :doh1: :doh1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "(tort reform has been shown to be irrelevant to medical costs)" Can you give us an example of where Tort reform has failed? From the (large) article that Jackson's Ward published, in this thread, earlier: (My emphasis) According to a new study by Weiss Ratings, while caps on non-economic damages reduced the amount medical malpractice insurers had to pay out between 1991 and 2002, these payout reductions did not lead to lower premiums. In fact, the median annual premium during this period increased more in states with caps (48.2 percent) than in states without caps (35.9 percent). (June 2003)An analysis by Business Week found that premiums increased at a slower rate in states with caps during the past two years than states without caps. But in 1999 and 2000, the opposite was true: states without caps had slower premium increases than states with caps. (March 3, 2003) From Kilmer (the right-wing one): "Dear God, why do people always bring up tort reform when discussing health costs?"Because it's the single biggest reason for the skyrocketing costs. Last study I'd seen, malpractice lawsuits and insurance to cover them we 4% of the total cost of health care. If those wascally wawyers were able to increase their damages by 1,000%, then it would cause a 40% increase in the cost of health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow OH NO. They are making a PROFIT!@!@$# Put them in jail. Or better yet, put the government in control of R&D. Sounds like a good idea to me:rolleyes: Just say it, your a socialist. It will make you feel better. Ahh, name-calling - the greatest skill in political debating... The problem with health care in this country is that it's neither socialist nor capitalist. There is no industry in America that gets more handouts from the government than the insurance industry. The rates are regulated and the market is controlled. The end result is that we have less competition and more expensive health care. ...You'd be surprised how much basic R&D work is done with government money on university campuses and in federal labs - there aren't a lot of corporate R&D departments winning Nobel Prizes in Medicine. This problem isn't as simple as socialism vs. capitalism. There are obviously some things that are better funded by government (military, police, basic scientific research) and there are things that are better in the hands of private enterprise (manufacturing, retail, financial markets). America has done a pretty good job of balancing the two - we are neither a purely socialist nor a purely capitalist government. Health Care requires a balance of government and private enterprise, and right now the balance is way off. The insurance companies and the lawyers are making out like bandits while doctors and patients are getting squeezed. If you expect the free market to solve the problem, you'll be waiting a long time because we've never had a free market in health care and nobody in power is pushing for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 They mentioned currently IT projects in the healthcare industry have a 50% failure rate. They were very specific about certain projects that Kaiser has done and wrote off 100's of millions in 1 failed project. That is typical for large IT projects across all industries. Mostly has to do with the fact that many large IT projects are very exspensive and have very little added value early on, so they get cut short to save costs. Normally it is the most important phases of the projects that get cut, planning and scope at the beginning and testing at the end. This is what typically leads to the failures. Business people do not understand that you can actually be succeeding as a project when you are not actually in construction. Shortsitedness and focus on the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by delawareskins Kilmer, W already has Ohio locked up, vote away!!!! Hey, hey, hey, let's not be getting a little crazy now...Bush does not have Ohio lockled up. Frankly I hope Kilmer votes for Bush or he is in for a hell of a dissapointment...especially considering he said he is a Christian Conservative. (I can't imagine a Christian Conservative thinking that it is a good idea to let John "Litmus Test" Kerry into the white house.) Anyway my point is that no vote should just be taken for granted and any vote should be appreciated, especially in such a close election. Especially in Ohio where there is a lot of anti-Bush feeling already and where it could swing the election easily for Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by DjTj Ahh, name-calling - the greatest skill in political debating... The problem with health care in this country is that it's neither socialist nor capitalist. There is no industry in America that gets more handouts from the government than the insurance industry. The rates are regulated and the market is controlled. The end result is that we have less competition and more expensive health care. ...You'd be surprised how much basic R&D work is done with government money on university campuses and in federal labs - there aren't a lot of corporate R&D departments winning Nobel Prizes in Medicine. This problem isn't as simple as socialism vs. capitalism. There are obviously some things that are better funded by government (military, police, basic scientific research) and there are things that are better in the hands of private enterprise (manufacturing, retail, financial markets). America has done a pretty good job of balancing the two - we are neither a purely socialist nor a purely capitalist government. Health Care requires a balance of government and private enterprise, and right now the balance is way off. The insurance companies and the lawyers are making out like bandits while doctors and patients are getting squeezed. If you expect the free market to solve the problem, you'll be waiting a long time because we've never had a free market in health care and nobody in power is pushing for one. If your point is that we need to move the healthcare industry BACK to the free market....then you and I are on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Anyone who thinks that tort reform is not a problem or that letting Kerry put Edwards and his buddies in charge of policing it is a good idea, needs a serious reality check... If Edwards and Kerry get a chance to mess with Tort Reform doctors in this country are going to be royally screwed. Seriously if you do not believe me ask a doctor, they are scared to death of Edwards and the fake tort reform that Kerry is waving around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow Remember as you make your vote, Kerry is the most Liberal senator this country has. According to a doctored "study" that the GOP released (not just "paid for", but actually wrote from whole cloth), after Kerry won the Democratic nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer They mentioned currently IT projects in the healthcare industry have a 50% failure rate. They were very specific about certain projects that Kaiser has done and wrote off 100's of millions in 1 failed project. That is typical for large IT projects across all industries. Mostly has to do with the fact that many large IT projects are very exspensive and have very little added value early on, so they get cut short to save costs. Normally it is the most important phases of the projects that get cut, planning and scope at the beginning and testing at the end. This is what typically leads to the failures. Business people do not understand that you can actually be succeeding as a project when you are not actually in construction. Shortsitedness and focus on the bottom line. The problem is people want a fix-it software to do everything but they don't take the time to plan exactly what they need to do. What we need to do and I am going to try and be a part of this is bring in new blood in that industry. We need people that are not stuck thinking the current ways that have an open mind that they can bring to the table and create plans that haven't been thought of before. We don't need the government taking it over because then it will get worse. I currently work with goverment and an area such as healtchare is not one where they need to run. It will slow everything down, and make it worse in the long term. I do agree government should be involved of course, but not the main part. I was listening today to some of the amazing things now such as robotic surgeries and surgeries that a doctor can do in Cali with the patient in Russie, truly amazing. Healthcare is in a bad shape because they have taken forever to change their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 (I can't imagine a Christian Conservative thinking that it is a good idea to let John "Litmus Test" Kerry into the white house.) Explain this please...if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow Ahhhh. American was not built on SOCIALISM!! How about defending your own turf instead of trying to flame my points. How about sticking to defending your own points and not resorting to name-calling. That doesn't help your case, it only hurts it. It's not a good technique if that's what you're using it as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Larry According to a doctored "study" that the GOP released (not just "paid for", but actually wrote from whole cloth), after Kerry won the Democratic nomination. So, how liberal is Kerry, really. Please tell. Do you have him ranked middle of the road like Jackson's Ward? Look back a few posts to see what the real liberal thinks Kerry ranks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by visionary Anyone who thinks that tort reform is not a problem or that letting Kerry put Edwards and his buddies in charge of policing it is a good idea, needs a serious reality check... if Edwards and Kerry get a chnace to mess with Tort Reform doctors in this country are going to be royally screwed. Seriously if you do not believe me ask a doctor, they are scared to death of Edwards and the fake tort reform that Kerry is waving around. The problem is US we have an issue we sue for millions, we sue when ever we want and against whatever, and now it is starting to take a toll on everything. We need to create a system that if the doctor does what is required then he or should not be open for a lawsuite. Now if he does something he is not supposed to do then yes he or she are open for anything. My statistics professor brought up a good point. In legal issues regarding staticians you can not sue them if the numbers are wrong unless they did something in their procedures that waswrong, that is the only way you can sue. Hospitals and other healthcare organizations need to so something similar to protect their doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer (I can't imagine a Christian Conservative thinking that it is a good idea to let John "Litmus Test" Kerry into the white house.) Explain this please...if you will. First off we don't elect our leaders because of religion, remember Or at least we shouldn't :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by atlhawksfan How about sticking to defending your own points and not resorting to name-calling. That doesn't help your case, it only hurts it. It's not a good technique if that's what you're using it as. If calling a Socialist Un-American, is name calling, then a name caller I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma The problem is US we have an issue we sue for millions, we sue when ever we want and against whatever, and now it is starting to take a toll on everything. We need to create a system that if the doctor does what is required then he or should not be open for a lawsuite. Now if he does something he is not supposed to do then yes he or she are open for anything. My statistics professor brought up a good point. In legal issues regarding staticians you can not sue them if the numbers are wrong unless they did something in their procedures that waswrong, that is the only way you can sue. Hospitals and other healthcare organizations need to so something similar to protect their doctors. Actually that is how our system works. Malpractice means that the doctor did something procedural that was incorrect. You can never lose a malpractice suit unless another doctor testifies that the procedures you followed were incorrect. That's why it's malpractice and not just tort law where if you're injured and it's not your own fault you get compensated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.