Good post.

And really if most of the uninsured looked like this...








I would totally be for free mammograms.

Coach those are fictional.....a man of your stature can do better than that.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Ah the Postal Service, fine govt institution.
http://www.augustagazette.com/opinio...s-for-survival

http://www.usps.com/communications/n...9/pr09_066.htm


Another govt run blackhole, Amtrack

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consum.../amtrakawg.htm

Riot must be at the Post Office

I love where Obama compared the USPS to Fedex and UPS and how much better Fedex and UPS was as compared to the USPS. It is amazing how private businesses actually work? By making this point isn't private health care the way to go? The government run agency is failing, but the private ones are profitable and paying dividends to shareholders.

Also for those of you who believe that you need to be rich or have a high paying job to have good health care are completely incorrect. My wife's company (privately owned advertising agency) has employees making as little as $18k annually receiving health care benefits. This plan that they receive required us to pay $100 deductible for medical bills of over $125,000 for the birth of my daughter. The problem is employees don't always see the benefit of health care as part of total compensation until they use it.

I love when he says this will somehow save money. And we're going to use the misspent money on Medicaid/Medicare and somehow make a larger programme with no wasted money or fraud?

Here in Chicago the big news has been inferior students being put on a list to the U of I Champaign and the Chicago Magnet High Schools (that are near the top in the nation) and admitted much to the chagrin of qualified students who were out.. Of course you needed to know 'a guy' who knows a politician or Board Member. Will you have to know 'a guy' for a hip replacement of stress test?

LOL ... high-pitch Hannity uses that moronic argument all the time too.



Not like our private insurance system has set the bar real high ... I mean, dead last overall in that Commonwealth Fund report ... and a laughable 37th-place finish in the WHO report.


What an EMBARRASSMENT for the world's most powerful economy...

You obviously have no experience with the current public health care system. That is already very, very, true. However, once you get the help, it beats Northwestern by a New York mile.

OMG Stroger v. Nothwestern

where you going?

I've been to both and got much better care at the former. Studies have shown that most people think the more expensive something is, the better it is, but, as horseplayers, we SHOULD all know that is not ALWAYS the case.:D

That explains a lot.

Here's a list of awards given to NW Memorial show me what Stroger has done..


http://www.nmh.org/nmh/aboutus/aandw.htm

an op-ed from the wall street journal on obama's sagging popularity:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...543314054.html


Despite the vote in November, it is clear that when Americans are not in an abject panic, we dislike government fiscal promiscuity. The president's sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration's free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president's economic policies was, literally, "spending too much."


70% of respondents agree that, "people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time." There is no evidence that more than a minority of Americans accept the idea that a $17 trillion national debt, greater reliance on government for jobs and health, and hyper-progressive taxation offer the hope they deserve for themselves and their children.

and this, on obama and rationing of health care...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...780260914.html


The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.
In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."


'Like virtually every economist I know, I believe the right approach to limiting health spending is by reforming the tax rules. But if that is not going to happen, let's not destroy the high quality of the best of American health care by government rationing and misplaced egalitarianism. '

Sounds like another case of a Govt. trying to usurp power away from the People. Reel in the lawyers! That would be change we could all believe in! That won't happen while we are ruled by lawyers. Pay for 2/3 of this by eliminating fraud and waste? Why not just eliminate fraud and waste? Then we (the Govt.), could afford to put anyone who needs it on Medicaid or Medicare and give the rest of the $$ back to the taxpayers to buy insurance of their choice ( remember freedom of choice?). That's where it all came from in the 1'st place. These elected officials will say or do anything to stay in power and ignore the constitution. I'm dismayed by those who fought the previous administration for infringement of constitutional rights, yet turns a blind eye as this one does pretty much anything it wants, mostly with no regard for the constitution... all for our collective good.

When you have to deal with the likes of Chuckles who'd rather be treated in County Hospital named Stroger and the guy it was named for and family chose to go to Northwestern when he had a stroke (as did Rene D. and most anyone w/common sense) and Riot who still believes she is a Republican while reading Jimmy Carter's latest anti-semetic novel using a Karl Marx bookmark, it's a tough run. But as we hit the bottom of the market, with jobs that will never come back, Hummer owned by China, Toyota and Honda getting the lion's share of cash for crap despite bailing out GM and taking over, the revelation 2/3 of Medicaid has been wasted, a record deficit, increasing troops in Afghanistan, THE STOCK MARKET IS FINE.

And now we're supposed to trust the government with our health? Don't think so! How about a Hillary Obama House for the uninsured? If this is as popular and necessary as the left portrays surely the donations will come flying in....

I really could not care less about the awards N'western has won. As I said before and will say again, it is where rich people go to die. Stroger-dead; Douglas-sorry to say he got f@#$ed there, got pnemonia, an infection, and talk Saturday is about why the Jockey Club isn't helping him yet. They're Republicans like you, they know chances are he is not going to make it. I certainly do not care what a hospital's name is or who it was named after; you have some pretty thin logic when making life or death decisions, is that how you play horses?

Yea those stupid rich people if only they knew what you do.... And as far as horses, yea I'll take a Darley homebred over a Paragallo any day. :D

if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have typed that....

Paragallo had some good horses, just did not take care of them properly. Why does that ring a bell?


if you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have typed that....
I know what I heard, what do you know?