Clinton Allies Suppress the Vote in Nevada

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Hitler gassed Jews so such reference is deplorable. Stalin killed millions of Jews himself, but making a reference between Hillary and Communist Russia is not bad. Hmmmm....

how quaint. happy now?

Remember NAZI stands for National socialism. See the common thread? National Socialist and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They both are socialism. One just had a fatherland flair.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't even have to get all the way to communism to get the oppression. You only need to go down the road to communism's little brother socialism to destroy freedom. Because government must force people to do things that they would not normally do to enforce socialism.

I think there has to be at least some middle way between "oppression" and neglect. There are few clearly defined, outright positions these days - there's a little socialism, a little privatisation and free market capitalism. The balance fluctuates back and forth on certain issues, but little seems to change. Isn't that what people are supposedly hoping for from this election?

I don't hope for the change that is being talked about lately. This country thrives when the government stays out of the way. That is how we have become the most prosperous nation this world has ever known in a mere 200 years. A blink in the eye of some countries. The constitution limits the power of the federal government to the things enumerated in the constitution. It's not the power, but the limit of the power that creates our success. The change that is being proposed oversteps the constitution and threatens our future.

Well... what change, specifically?

All I see is the suggestion that government intervenes in certain ways on certain policy issues, and less so than others. Its hardly across the board - part of the ebb and flow of our process surely... Not some radical, revolutionary change...

As far as the politicians talking about change well for the most part that's just marketing... Obama uses that word in his campaign and people respond favourably so everyone else has to jump on the bandwagon.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Remember NAZI stands for National socialism. See the common thread? National Socialist and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They both are socialism. One just had a fatherland flair.

It stands for that, sure but names are ultimately meaningless when you're talking about totalitarian dictatorships.

Most, if not all of the European social democracies are pretty far removed from either of those folks - nor are they likely to go down that route. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany share similarities in that they promoted aggressive nationalism to support their regimes. We had plenty of that (agressive nationalism) here after 9/11 - and that was without any socialism at all - in fact that groundswell of nationalist sentiment got us into two wars...

Of course Nazi Germany is forever associated with Adolf Hitler for the obvious reason that neither survived the other, but the USSR is pretty much still associated with its most iconic leaders, like Stalin. There's no difference there in that respect. The point is that however far you go left or right - you essentially end up with the same thing. There's not all that much difference between one totalitarian government and another.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Remember NAZI stands for National socialism. See the common thread? National Socialist and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They both are socialism. One just had a fatherland flair.

It stands for that, sure but names are ultimately meaningless when you're talking about totalitarian dictatorships.

Most, if not all of the European social democracies are pretty far removed from either of those folks - nor are they likely to go down that route. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany share similarities in that they promoted aggressive nationalism to support their regimes. We had plenty of that (agressive nationalism) here after 9/11 - and that was without any socialism at all - in fact that groundswell of nationalist sentiment got us into two wars...

Of course Nazi Germany is forever associated with Adolf Hitler for the obvious reason that neither survived the other, but the USSR is pretty much still associated with its most iconic leaders, like Stalin. There's no difference there in that respect. The point is that however far you go left or right - you essentially end up with the same thing. There's not all that much difference between one totalitarian government and another.

Yes both ending up in socialism. Both are exactly the same and it has nothing to do with the nationalist nature of either one. It is the socialism that does it.

For example national health care, In most of Europe and the world for that matter has national health care. Since the adoption of this system the quality has declined, the lines have grown longer, it is rationed to the point of needless death and their has been little or no innovation coming out of any of these countries since they adopted socialized medicine. Canadians that can afford to pay for health care come to America to get treatment. Britons that can afford to travel to other third world countries to get care. Why? Because without the profit motivation innovation dies and the quality declines the system breaks down and grinds to a halt. They argue that some people are without health care, well 93% of us have the best health care that money can buy. So we destroy this to provide it to the other 7%? I would rather have a society with 93% very healthy people, than a society where 100% are moderately poor health and equal in their misery.

Socialism's first misconception is that people are incapable of making their own decisions for their own wellbeing. Instead they force them to accept a compromise that is not ideal for anyone. Free market institutions supply exactly what the people need. If they don't they fail and disappear. If a socialist system fails it does not go away it just consumes more and more resources that could be used for good, but instead are wasted and squandered. Public school systems come to mind, no matter how much we dump into the schools they will fail. It is just down to when do we change the system to a free market that rewards success instead of failure. success as measured in well educated children not in a strong teachers union with lots of political power for one party.

My point is that if socialism is present it will always result in oppression. Just not in the terms that you are narrowly viewing it, how about the oppression of not being allowed get a life saving cancer operation when it would save your life. Or being forced to grow up with a poor education just because the government is too inefficient to provide a quality one, and you are denied the good education because the resources have already been squandered and the powers that control the system real goal is to maintain their power, not to educate your child. That seems pretty oppressive to me. Some may even argue totalitarian. I will fault on the side of freedom every time. Socialism erodes freedom because it erodes my freedom to chose what is right for me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Remember NAZI stands for National socialism. See the common thread? National Socialist and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They both are socialism. One just had a fatherland flair.

It stands for that, sure but names are ultimately meaningless when you're talking about totalitarian dictatorships.

Most, if not all of the European social democracies are pretty far removed from either of those folks - nor are they likely to go down that route. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany share similarities in that they promoted aggressive nationalism to support their regimes. We had plenty of that (agressive nationalism) here after 9/11 - and that was without any socialism at all - in fact that groundswell of nationalist sentiment got us into two wars...

Of course Nazi Germany is forever associated with Adolf Hitler for the obvious reason that neither survived the other, but the USSR is pretty much still associated with its most iconic leaders, like Stalin. There's no difference there in that respect. The point is that however far you go left or right - you essentially end up with the same thing. There's not all that much difference between one totalitarian government and another.

Yes both ending up in socialism. Both are exactly the same and it has nothing to do with the nationalist nature of either one. It is the socialism that does it.

For example national health care, In most of Europe and the world for that matter has national health care. Since the adoption of this system the quality has declined, the lines have grown longer, it is rationed to the point of needless death and their has been little or no innovation coming out of any of these countries since they adopted socialized medicine. Canadians that can afford to pay for health care come to America to get treatment. Britons that can afford to travel to other third world countries to get care. Why? Because without the profit motivation innovation dies and the quality declines the system breaks down and grinds to a halt. They argue that some people are without health care, well 93% of us have the best health care that money can buy. So we destroy this to provide it to the other 7%? I would rather have a society with 93% very healthy people, than a society where 100% are moderately poor health and equal in their misery.

Socialism's first misconception is that people are incapable of making their own decisions for their own wellbeing. Instead they force them to accept a compromise that is not ideal for anyone. Free market institutions supply exactly what the people need. If they don't they fail and disappear. If a socialist system fails it does not go away it just consumes more and more resources that could be used for good, but instead are wasted and squandered. Public school systems come to mind, no matter how much we dump into the schools they will fail. It is just down to when do we change the system to a free market that rewards success instead of failure. success as measured in well educated children not in a strong teachers union with lots of political power for one party.

My point is that if socialism is present it will always result in oppression. Just not in the terms that you are narrowly viewing it, how about the oppression of not being allowed get a life saving cancer operation when it would save your life. Or being forced to grow up with a poor education just because the government is too inefficient to provide a quality one, and you are denied the good education because the resources have already been squandered and the powers that control the system real goal is to maintain their power, not to educate your child. That seems pretty oppressive to me. Some may even argue totalitarian. I will fault on the side of freedom every time. Socialism erodes freedom because it erodes my freedom to chose what is right for me.

Well I lived in a "socialist country", though the "socialist" label is really laughable when applied to the European democracies and dare say I received high school education there that is of an equal or higher standard than the equivalent US public school system. I've also experienced the healthcare system in both countries and I can honestly tell you that the standard of care I received was not "significantly better" in the US. So whereever you're pulling this rhetoric from - it sure doesn't match my experience.

I have to laugh at the US healthcare system being the "best that money can buy". Its the most bloated, expensive and bureacratically inefficient programme ever. Now if you have lots and lots of money, you can indeed buy the best healthcare and cut through that red tape. Good for Mr Trump of course, but not so much for everyone else, especially when you have to financially ruin yourself to pay for an operation - and not having enough money... well that's your fault for not earning enough... survival of the fittest and all that A system that makes people afraid of it and loath to get things (like cancer) checked out is hardly "the best", in fact it makes our society a rather brutal and bleak place. Cancer biopsy for me a couple of years ago cost $20,000. With insurance. That's a staggering amount of money.... for a diagnostic procedure. I think anyway...

Not sure about "eroding your freedom to chose what is right for you", but being in a financial hole for the rest of your life, clipping coupons and working 3 jobs because your wife had a life-threatening disease and you had to sell everything to pay for the care sure would erodes my freedom and options.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Remember NAZI stands for National socialism. See the common thread? National Socialist and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They both are socialism. One just had a fatherland flair.

It stands for that, sure but names are ultimately meaningless when you're talking about totalitarian dictatorships.

Most, if not all of the European social democracies are pretty far removed from either of those folks - nor are they likely to go down that route. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany share similarities in that they promoted aggressive nationalism to support their regimes. We had plenty of that (agressive nationalism) here after 9/11 - and that was without any socialism at all - in fact that groundswell of nationalist sentiment got us into two wars...

Of course Nazi Germany is forever associated with Adolf Hitler for the obvious reason that neither survived the other, but the USSR is pretty much still associated with its most iconic leaders, like Stalin. There's no difference there in that respect. The point is that however far you go left or right - you essentially end up with the same thing. There's not all that much difference between one totalitarian government and another.

Yes both ending up in socialism. Both are exactly the same and it has nothing to do with the nationalist nature of either one. It is the socialism that does it.

For example national health care, In most of Europe and the world for that matter has national health care. Since the adoption of this system the quality has declined, the lines have grown longer, it is rationed to the point of needless death and their has been little or no innovation coming out of any of these countries since they adopted socialized medicine. Canadians that can afford to pay for health care come to America to get treatment. Britons that can afford to travel to other third world countries to get care. Why? Because without the profit motivation innovation dies and the quality declines the system breaks down and grinds to a halt. They argue that some people are without health care, well 93% of us have the best health care that money can buy. So we destroy this to provide it to the other 7%? I would rather have a society with 93% very healthy people, than a society where 100% are moderately poor health and equal in their misery.

Socialism's first misconception is that people are incapable of making their own decisions for their own wellbeing. Instead they force them to accept a compromise that is not ideal for anyone. Free market institutions supply exactly what the people need. If they don't they fail and disappear. If a socialist system fails it does not go away it just consumes more and more resources that could be used for good, but instead are wasted and squandered. Public school systems come to mind, no matter how much we dump into the schools they will fail. It is just down to when do we change the system to a free market that rewards success instead of failure. success as measured in well educated children not in a strong teachers union with lots of political power for one party.

My point is that if socialism is present it will always result in oppression. Just not in the terms that you are narrowly viewing it, how about the oppression of not being allowed get a life saving cancer operation when it would save your life. Or being forced to grow up with a poor education just because the government is too inefficient to provide a quality one, and you are denied the good education because the resources have already been squandered and the powers that control the system real goal is to maintain their power, not to educate your child. That seems pretty oppressive to me. Some may even argue totalitarian. I will fault on the side of freedom every time. Socialism erodes freedom because it erodes my freedom to chose what is right for me.

Well I lived in a "socialist country", though the "socialist" label is really laughable when applied to the European democracies and dare say I received high school education there that is of an equal or higher standard than the equivalent US public school system. I've also experienced the healthcare system in both countries and I can honestly tell you that the standard of care I received was not "significantly better" in the US. So whereever you're pulling this rhetoric from - it sure doesn't match my experience.

I have to laugh at the US healthcare system being the "best that money can buy". Its the most bloated, expensive and bureacratically inefficient programme ever. Now if you have lots and lots of money, you can indeed buy the best healthcare and cut through that red tape. Good for Mr Trump of course, but not so much for everyone else, especially when you have to financially ruin yourself to pay for an operation - and not having enough money... well that's your fault for not earning enough... survival of the fittest and all that A system that makes people afraid of it and loath to get things (like cancer) checked out is hardly "the best", in fact it makes our society a rather brutal and bleak place. Cancer biopsy for me a couple of years ago cost $20,000. With insurance. That's a staggering amount of money.... for a diagnostic procedure. I think anyway...

Not sure about "eroding your freedom to chose what is right for you", but being in a financial hole for the rest of your life, clipping coupons and working 3 jobs because your wife had a life-threatening disease and you had to sell everything to pay for the care sure would erodes my freedom and options.

NHS death rates four times higher than US

by TIM UTTON, Daily Mail - More by this author » Last updated at 12:48pm on 8th September 2003

Patients having major surgery in NHS hospitals face a much higher risk of dying than those in America, research has revealed.

Doctors found that people who have treatment here are four times more likely to die than US citizens undergoing similar operations.

The most seriously ill NHS patients were seven times more likely to die than their American counterparts.

Experts blame the British fatality figures on a shortage of specialists and lack of intensive care beds for post-operative recovery.

They also suggest that long waiting lists mean diseases are more advanced before they are treated.

Researchers from University College London and Columbia University, in New York, studied 1,000 surgery patients at the Mount Sinai Hospital, Manhattan, and compared them to nearly 1,100 people who had similar operations at the Queen Alexandra Hospital, in Portsmouth.

The results showed that just under ten per cent of British patients died in hospital afterwards compared to 2.5 per cent in America. Among the most seriously ill cases there was a seven-fold difference in the death rates.

The New York patients had paid for treatment through private medical insurance and were therefore likely to be "wealthier and healthier", whereas the NHS patients were from all social classes.

However, the study aimed to "iron out" these differences by rating each patient on their clinical status.

Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust is one of the largest in the country, providing acute and specialist care services for almost a million people throughout south-east Hampshire.

Professor Monty Mythen, head of anaesthesia at University College London and Great Ormond Street Hospital, said: "In America, after surgery, everyone would go into a critical care bed in a highly-monitored environment. That doesn't happen routinely in the UK.

"In the Manhattan hospital the care (after surgery) is delivered largely by a consultant surgeon and an anaesthetist.

"We know from other research that more than one third of those who die after a major operation in Britain are not seen by a similar consultant."

Prof Mythen said waiting lists in the NHS would "put patients at greater risk". He added: "We would be suspicious that the diseases would be more advanced simply because the waiting lists (in the UK) are longer."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1774

I am not saying that our system could not be better. If we were to enact health savings accounts coupled with catastrophic insurance coverage. Where people made their own health care decisions and seen the cost and paid the price themselves. Competition would lower the costs of our health care. It would also inject efficiencies into the system as the doctors would now have to compete to provide the best care at the lowest cost. Right now they don't modernize or lower the prices because of the disconnect between the insurance company that pays the bill and the customer (the patient) who does care what the doctor charges because in their mind it is paid by someone else. A national health care system will only degrade the system further while increasing costs. Absolutely the wrong way to go.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Remember NAZI stands for National socialism. See the common thread? National Socialist and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They both are socialism. One just had a fatherland flair.

It stands for that, sure but names are ultimately meaningless when you're talking about totalitarian dictatorships.

Most, if not all of the European social democracies are pretty far removed from either of those folks - nor are they likely to go down that route. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany share similarities in that they promoted aggressive nationalism to support their regimes. We had plenty of that (agressive nationalism) here after 9/11 - and that was without any socialism at all - in fact that groundswell of nationalist sentiment got us into two wars...

Of course Nazi Germany is forever associated with Adolf Hitler for the obvious reason that neither survived the other, but the USSR is pretty much still associated with its most iconic leaders, like Stalin. There's no difference there in that respect. The point is that however far you go left or right - you essentially end up with the same thing. There's not all that much difference between one totalitarian government and another.

Yes both ending up in socialism. Both are exactly the same and it has nothing to do with the nationalist nature of either one. It is the socialism that does it.

For example national health care, In most of Europe and the world for that matter has national health care. Since the adoption of this system the quality has declined, the lines have grown longer, it is rationed to the point of needless death and their has been little or no innovation coming out of any of these countries since they adopted socialized medicine. Canadians that can afford to pay for health care come to America to get treatment. Britons that can afford to travel to other third world countries to get care. Why? Because without the profit motivation innovation dies and the quality declines the system breaks down and grinds to a halt. They argue that some people are without health care, well 93% of us have the best health care that money can buy. So we destroy this to provide it to the other 7%? I would rather have a society with 93% very healthy people, than a society where 100% are moderately poor health and equal in their misery.

Socialism's first misconception is that people are incapable of making their own decisions for their own wellbeing. Instead they force them to accept a compromise that is not ideal for anyone. Free market institutions supply exactly what the people need. If they don't they fail and disappear. If a socialist system fails it does not go away it just consumes more and more resources that could be used for good, but instead are wasted and squandered. Public school systems come to mind, no matter how much we dump into the schools they will fail. It is just down to when do we change the system to a free market that rewards success instead of failure. success as measured in well educated children not in a strong teachers union with lots of political power for one party.

My point is that if socialism is present it will always result in oppression. Just not in the terms that you are narrowly viewing it, how about the oppression of not being allowed get a life saving cancer operation when it would save your life. Or being forced to grow up with a poor education just because the government is too inefficient to provide a quality one, and you are denied the good education because the resources have already been squandered and the powers that control the system real goal is to maintain their power, not to educate your child. That seems pretty oppressive to me. Some may even argue totalitarian. I will fault on the side of freedom every time. Socialism erodes freedom because it erodes my freedom to chose what is right for me.

Well I lived in a "socialist country", though the "socialist" label is really laughable when applied to the European democracies and dare say I received high school education there that is of an equal or higher standard than the equivalent US public school system. I've also experienced the healthcare system in both countries and I can honestly tell you that the standard of care I received was not "significantly better" in the US. So whereever you're pulling this rhetoric from - it sure doesn't match my experience.

I have to laugh at the US healthcare system being the "best that money can buy". Its the most bloated, expensive and bureacratically inefficient programme ever. Now if you have lots and lots of money, you can indeed buy the best healthcare and cut through that red tape. Good for Mr Trump of course, but not so much for everyone else, especially when you have to financially ruin yourself to pay for an operation - and not having enough money... well that's your fault for not earning enough... survival of the fittest and all that A system that makes people afraid of it and loath to get things (like cancer) checked out is hardly "the best", in fact it makes our society a rather brutal and bleak place. Cancer biopsy for me a couple of years ago cost $20,000. With insurance. That's a staggering amount of money.... for a diagnostic procedure. I think anyway...

Not sure about "eroding your freedom to chose what is right for you", but being in a financial hole for the rest of your life, clipping coupons and working 3 jobs because your wife had a life-threatening disease and you had to sell everything to pay for the care sure would erodes my freedom and options.

NHS death rates four times higher than US

by TIM UTTON, Daily Mail - More by this author » Last updated at 12:48pm on 8th September 2003

Patients having major surgery in NHS hospitals face a much higher risk of dying than those in America, research has revealed.

Doctors found that people who have treatment here are four times more likely to die than US citizens undergoing similar operations.

The most seriously ill NHS patients were seven times more likely to die than their American counterparts.

Experts blame the British fatality figures on a shortage of specialists and lack of intensive care beds for post-operative recovery.

They also suggest that long waiting lists mean diseases are more advanced before they are treated.

Researchers from University College London and Columbia University, in New York, studied 1,000 surgery patients at the Mount Sinai Hospital, Manhattan, and compared them to nearly 1,100 people who had similar operations at the Queen Alexandra Hospital, in Portsmouth.

The results showed that just under ten per cent of British patients died in hospital afterwards compared to 2.5 per cent in America. Among the most seriously ill cases there was a seven-fold difference in the death rates.

The New York patients had paid for treatment through private medical insurance and were therefore likely to be "wealthier and healthier", whereas the NHS patients were from all social classes.

However, the study aimed to "iron out" these differences by rating each patient on their clinical status.

Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust is one of the largest in the country, providing acute and specialist care services for almost a million people throughout south-east Hampshire.

Professor Monty Mythen, head of anaesthesia at University College London and Great Ormond Street Hospital, said: "In America, after surgery, everyone would go into a critical care bed in a highly-monitored environment. That doesn't happen routinely in the UK.

"In the Manhattan hospital the care (after surgery) is delivered largely by a consultant surgeon and an anaesthetist.

"We know from other research that more than one third of those who die after a major operation in Britain are not seen by a similar consultant."

Prof Mythen said waiting lists in the NHS would "put patients at greater risk". He added: "We would be suspicious that the diseases would be more advanced simply because the waiting lists (in the UK) are longer."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1774

I am not saying that our system could not be better. If we were to enact health savings accounts coupled with catastrophic insurance coverage. Where people made their own health care decisions and seen the cost and paid the price themselves. Competition would lower the costs of our health care. It would also inject efficiencies into the system as the doctors would now have to compete to provide the best care at the lowest cost. Right now they don't modernize or lower the prices because of the disconnect between the insurance company that pays the bill and the customer (the patient) who does care what the doctor charges because in their mind it is paid by someone else. A national health care system will only degrade the system further while increasing costs. Absolutely the wrong way to go.

That doesn't really prove anything - there's umpteen articles on the performance of the NHS. You don't even have to go back 5 years either. If you believe what the government says - the system has actually improved over the last 5 years. From what I understand.

Saying this of course... if you don't like the NHS noone forces you to use it. We do have actually private healthcare programmes in the UK... My dad had one for a while...

That said - I fail to see why its in my best interests to pay a variable fee for prescription drugs here in the US (even on those that are researched and manufactured here) while in the UK and Canada you can pay a subsidised fee. Given the whole "choice" thing - making it illegal for US patients to import prescriptions from Canada seems a little off to me.

As for competition lowering the cost of healthcare - I see a lot of assumptions there. Without specific plans on the table - I think commenting on this is rather silly - as though kneejerking to "National/Private healthcare is bad" can be established on ideological grounds without a specific policy plan to apply it to.

Health savings accounts, as they stand are a ripoff. We have one of those programmes offered at work, the wife does too. Essentially you have to know in advance if you are going to be sick, and if you don't use the money paid into the account during the calendar year you lose it. Dunno about you - but that model is a pretty poor to me. That and of course, the whole "pre-existing condition" clause - with folks who aren't medically trained being able to mandate treatment for you. Happened to my FIL about 3 years ago - some bright chappie decided that because he hadn't had a "heart episode" in a while that he didn't need his cardiologist appointments. Nearly killed him.

I can also tell you the horrified reaction I got at my old job when I mentioned that I had to have surgery. Virtually everyone I spoke to said "I would take my chances if I were you", which given the nature of the problem I thought... was a pretty horrific attitude. People shouldn't be so concerned with how much it costs to decide whether or not they should get treatment.

I mean what should I have done - with lymph nodes popping up all over my neck. Might be nothing, might be lymphoma... I'm no hypochondriac but "assuming that all's well" seens rather foolhardy..

Edited January 16, 2008 by Number 6

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

"That said - I fail to see why its in my best interests to pay a variable fee for prescription drugs here in the US (even on those that are researched and manufactured here) while in the UK and Canada you can pay a subsidised fee.

Why is it my responsibility to subsidize yours or anyone else's medication?

That money will come out of taxpayer's pockets of which I am one! Buy your own, it is part of personal responsibility.

"Given the whole "choice" thing - making it illegal for US patients to import prescriptions from Canada seems a little off to me."

Why because the Canadian and UK government will not pay the pharmaceutical companies the true cost of the research and development costs of the drugs. If the don't sell them to them then they will just pirate the patent and sell them anyways. The American public subsidizes the research and development costs of all the new drugs brought to market. If you circumvent the system then the profit will disappear from the system and so will any innovation in the life saving drugs of the future.

Is every analysis always static with you? Do you ever take into account the dynamics that come into play?

Edited January 16, 2008 by Don_Joy's Prince

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"That said - I fail to see why its in my best interests to pay a variable fee for prescription drugs here in the US (even on those that are researched and manufactured here) while in the UK and Canada you can pay a subsidised fee.

Why is it my responsibility to subsidize yours or anyone else's medication?

That money will come out of taxpayer's pockets of which I am one! Buy your own, it is part of personal responsibility.

"Given the whole "choice" thing - making it illegal for US patients to import prescriptions from Canada seems a little off to me."

Why because the Canadian and UK government will not pay the pharmaceutical companies the true cost of the research and development costs of the drugs. If the don't sell them to them then they will just pirate the patent and sell them anyways. The American public subsidizes the research and development costs of all the new drugs brought to market. If you circumvent the system then the profit will disappear from the system and so will any innovation in the life saving drugs of the future.

Is every analysis always static with you? Do you ever take into account the dynamics that come into play?

The insurance companies apply huge markups to products regardless of where they are R&D'd. I don't think its unreasonable to ask why that is... Or indeed why at retail one person should pay $6, while another must pay $60 or $600 for the same exact product. If were talking about anything other than prescription medication - people would be rightfully outraged about that.

Unfortunately when it comes down to what people can afford it always seems there's some sort of blame attached as to why they can't pay variable, ill-defined charges (and lets be honest here - I was getting new bills for months after I had my surgery with next to no explanation of what services I received for them. In fact, it seemed all someone had to do is read my chart and they could apply a charge to the insurance company), or have otherwise been priced out of the system by pre-existing condition clauses, that under the spurious catch-phrase of "personal responsibility" that its somehow their fault for not earning the money to pay for the care. Essentially "Survival of the fittest" using PC language and sanctimonious rhetoric.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Number 6

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Seems like sour grapes over losing the endorsement prompted the Clinton camp to call in a favor on this one fearing a change in the tide for Obama. It's dirty underhanded politics that should only be used against Republicans.

[no name 1]

Bill Clinton gets heated with reporter

Posted: 02:12 PM ET

(CNN) — Bill Clinton became visibly combative with a reporter Wednesday after being questioned about a lawsuit in Nevada that is seeking to ban caucus meetings in nine casinos on the Las Vegas strip.

The lawsuit, filed by the state teacher's union — an organization that has backed Hillary Clinton's White House bid — came Friday, shortly after Barack Obama was officially endorsed by the Culinary Union. Culinary Union members primarily work in casinos, and could constitute the majority of participants at caucuses held at those locations.

The teacher's union is claiming the at-large caucus sites would unfairly have more weight in terms of delegate allotment than caucuses throughout the rest of the state. The lawsuit also takes issue with caucuses being held midday at those sites – which could make it easier for culinary workers to caucus than it will be for other Nevadans.

Critics of the lawsuit say it is a clear attempt to suppress Obama’s support, a notion with which the former president sharply disagreed.

"Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody who voted in a casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct? Did you know that?" the former president said, growing visibly upset.

"What happened is nobody understood what had happened. Now everybody's saying, 'Oh, they don't want us to vote.' What they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more."

Clinton also maintained that his wife’s campaign had "nothing to do" with the lawsuit," and claimed the reporter was taking an "accusatory tone."

"Get on your television station and say, 'I don't care about the home mortgage crisis, all I care about is making sure that some voters have it easier than others should count five times, and when they do vote, when its already easier for them, their vote should count five times as much as others," Clinton said in a raised voice.

"If you want to take that your position, get on the television and take it," he added, as aides pulled him away. "Don't be accusatory with me, I had nothing to do with this lawsuit."

UPDATE: A federal judge has ruled that the Democratic Party can go ahead with the 9 at-large caucuses on the strip. The ruling could have a decisive effect on the result in the state given that recent polls show a dead heat between Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards.

source

[mawilson 2,133]

Health savings accounts, as they stand are a ripoff. We have one of those programmes offered at work, the wife does too. Essentially you have to know in advance if you are going to be sick, and if you don't use the money paid into the account during the calendar year you lose it. Dunno about you - but that model is a pretty poor to me.

Well, you can always spend whatever's left in your account before it expires - buy contact lenses for example, or something else you always need.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For what it's worth (in reference to the original post)

Judge rejects lawsuit challenging Vegas caucus sites

It’s become quite a dispute in Democratic circles. The Nevada Democratic Party created “at-large” casino precincts about eight months ago, so that casino employees (most notably, members of the Culinary Workers Union) would be able to participate in the Democratic causes easily and conveniently. At the time, the Nevada Democratic Party said the precincts were designed for the “4,000 or more shift workers per site who could not otherwise take the time off to go to their home precincts.” The precincts were approved unanimously.

This wasn’t at all controversial until last week, when the Culinary Workers endorsed Barack Obama. After the union endorsement, the Nevada State Education Association, which is backing Hillary Clinton, filed suit, asking that the nine “at-large” precincts be eliminated altogether.

Today, a state court rejected the lawsuit.

Democrats with ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for Clinton rival Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts on the Las Vegas strip.

“State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules,” Mahan said…. [Mahan added,] “We aren’t voting here, we’re caucusing. That’s something that parties decide.” He said it is “up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them.”

In retrospect, I can’t help but wonder if, politically, the NSEA would have helped Clinton’s campaign more by simply remaining silent. Not only was the lawsuit a long shot, and not only did it cause unnecessary division, it actually created a stronger incentive for Obama backers to participate in the caucuses. Indeed, the Culinary Union said the suit was an attempt to disenfranchise its members. “Backers of Hillary Clinton are suing in court to take away our right to vote in the caucuses,” a union flier said.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama is going to get creamed in the Latino vote out west. Nevada is totally up for grabs.

[no name 1]

For what it's worth (in reference to the original post)

Judge rejects lawsuit challenging Vegas caucus sites

It’s become quite a dispute in Democratic circles. The Nevada Democratic Party created “at-large” casino precincts about eight months ago, so that casino employees (most notably, members of the Culinary Workers Union) would be able to participate in the Democratic causes easily and conveniently. At the time, the Nevada Democratic Party said the precincts were designed for the “4,000 or more shift workers per site who could not otherwise take the time off to go to their home precincts.” The precincts were approved unanimously.

This wasn’t at all controversial until last week, when the Culinary Workers endorsed Barack Obama. After the union endorsement, the Nevada State Education Association, which is backing Hillary Clinton, filed suit, asking that the nine “at-large” precincts be eliminated altogether.

Today, a state court rejected the lawsuit.

Democrats with ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for Clinton rival Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts on the Las Vegas strip.

“State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules,” Mahan said…. [Mahan added,] “We aren’t voting here, we’re caucusing. That’s something that parties decide.” He said it is “up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them.”

In retrospect, I can’t help but wonder if, politically, the NSEA would have helped Clinton’s campaign more by simply remaining silent. Not only was the lawsuit a long shot, and not only did it cause unnecessary division, it actually created a stronger incentive for Obama backers to participate in the caucuses. Indeed, the Culinary Union said the suit was an attempt to disenfranchise its members. “Backers of Hillary Clinton are suing in court to take away our right to vote in the caucuses,” a union flier said.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

Real Hillary supporters/voters won't be swayed by some union flier. Thought that wasn't her fanbase anyhow?

Obama is going to get creamed in the Latino vote out west. Nevada is totally up for grabs.

My vote is certainly not for O.