I guess I need to quote @chingalera:
Monsanto is the reason heath care is unaffordable-
Monsanto is the reason gasoline no longer lubricates rubber and composites in combustion engines

As for Percy Schmeiser, I agree he should have won in his case, and it was a bad legal wrangling. I also, however vehemently disagree with your characterization of him as one of the many small farmers just like everyone I know.

Schmeiser admits that he deliberately sprayed his own seed crop with round up, harvested the surviving plants, and used them for seed the following year. You can't make a much more concerted and deliberate effort than that to get seed that is from Monsanto's GMO plants. Schmeiser's complaint was not that his seed that he'd used for decades was contaminated, his complaint was when Monsanto found out and came to sue him for planting their seed without paying the patent tax. I agree he was legally correct and should not have had to pay anything to Monsanto. But I don't see how Schmeiser is anything like farmers intentionally buying and planting Monsanto GMO crops, or anything like farmers choosing to continue to grow and replant their own seed. Nobody growing and raising their own heritage seed has made it part of their rotation to deliberately kill off their seed crop before they could harvest it. Even if they did, there would plainly never be any seed there to plant. Monsanto's 'attacks' on small family farms have not come against those that buy from Monsanto, nor have they come against those that choose to user any other seed from any other source including their own. Monsanto's suits have been limited to those farmers that ARE planting and growing Monsanto's seeds without buying it from them.

The situation between Monsanto and farmers is nothing like the ridiculous half truth extremes shown in this video or the one you linked. I didn't just base this opinion on some video a watched, but instead on multiple first hand accounts, and extensive searches through scientific journals on Google Scholar. If you want to dismiss that as anecdotal while pointing at some agenda laden video as 'real' evidence then you may have hit upon the problem here...

M Malevolent
O Oligarchic
N Nazified
S Succubal
A Anti-Neutraceutical
N Nonvegetarian
T Treachetourial
O Organo-assassins

The following address should be on every death to eco-terroristists' organization's, "Raze This Motherfucker", hit list:

World Headquarters Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167. Phone: 314/694-1000

Everyone who works for this corporation should be considered complicit in the undoing of species-

Monsanto is the reason bees are disappearing worldwide-
Monsanto is the reason heath care is unaffordable-
Monsanto is the reason gasoline no longer lubricates rubber and composites in combustion engines-
Monsanto is responsible for the disappearance of heirloom variety seed banks the world over-(hybrids notwithstanding, their originating variants tucked-away in bunkers)
Monsanto is a poisonous cabal of eugenicists, working to help other cunts reduce the world population through systematic, experimental means, with the world's sentients as her guinea pigs.

Someone needs to mail them some anthrax powder mixed with ricin, to get that full effect.

>> ^bobknight33:

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.

If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.



sorry i live in a "single payer system"

i know people who work in multiple departments/sectors of healthcare...everything from doctors, to home care, to IT

and i can say with full knowledge and satisfaction, that your statement that a single payer system drives up costs/inefficiencies is either ill informed, or completely full of bs...

the notion of competition as being the great equalizer is moronic, in a system where insurance companies spend 100s of millions of dollars lobbying to get the game rules changed in their favor... insurance companies main goal is to make profit... they do that by minimizing cost/quality of service while maximizing return... if you can't see how that contradicts the purpose of health care, you are either naive or morally bankrupt

the arguement that businesses are held to be more financially responsible than government is also a lie... a business only has the financial obligation to report accurate numbers while being fiscally sound... the government has that exact same obligation, but further more has to show VALUE for what it is doing

your argument about Coke mystically assumes Coke is the only drink, thus they could set the price at whatever they want... I assume you are making the arguement that Coke is healthcare? but a company who's goal is to sell coke to make profit... that's an insurance company.... a company who has to be accountable to the people giving it money while making sure that the MOST people have cheap and easy access to coke... that'd be the government

you can either argue that government operates the same as business (as you are trying to do with your horrible coke analogy), or you can argue that they operate differently (as most people who back the business produces better financial results than government argue)... but you don't get to argue both in the space of 2 paragraphs

you, sir or madam, have taken a big old swig of the kool-aid

>> ^bobknight33:

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.

If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.



Medicare is extremely efficient, the only thing that makes it cost more money and be inefficient is that it has to deal with the current healthcare system. Also we have examples of other industrial countries systems which are way WAY more efficient than ours and produce better outcomes for it's patients overall.

It's absolutely pathetic where were ranked in health worldwide, we should be doing better.

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.


If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.


>> ^Yogi:



>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.

>> ^bobknight33:

Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.

The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.


Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.

Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.

from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.


The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

*promote 100 votes+

Walmart heath care update:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49791189

STRIKE NEWS:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171222/when-walmart-workers-strike-what-you-need-know-and-what-happens-next

@lantern53 is your head just an empty vessel that's been filled with right-wing hate radio?

First, it's contraception we're talking about, not abortion.

Second, the left doesn't like death of any kind. No death penalty, no war, no denying heath care to people because they're poor.

Third, I want to reduce abortions as much as possible by reducing unwanted pregnancies by making sure everyone of all ages, genders, and incomes has access to contraceptives.

And finally, I have a question for you. How do you reconcile all that BS about being opposed to government coming between you and your doctor, when you want the government to come between women and their doctors anytime they get pregnant?

Obviously people don't care for the "DESTROYS" part of the title, so let's vote on a new title. Please PM me with your favorite choice below:

1. Al Franken angry he can't explain bill
2. Al Franken Attacked, Frustrated. VideoSift Angered.
3. Jason Mattera's new book: Obama Zombies
4. Al Franken gets DESTROYED by Tea Bagger on Heath Care Bill
5. Republicans kicking ass!

Just kidding! Believe in Jesus! CaptainPlanet420 OUT!

Now, imagine how influential you were as a kid, and remember how much those cartoons meant to you and how invested you were within each of them. I do believe there's a disingenuous plot afoot, although I'm sure to some degree it sounds vaguely conspiratorial.

I read with my own eyes a letter from Sundance Film Festival, which was a reply to a letter from a filmmaker asking why he wasn't accepted, and it essentially said in so many words that if you do not have a name actor or you are not an established director then the only way into Sundance (outside of a comedy for their after midnight screenings) is to include an agenda with the film that emboldens modern liberal beliefs such as global warming or, I suppose now, heath care reform. Whatever is the political push button topic of the moment will get you noticed.

That's insidious because they pretend to be a festival discovering and promoting new filmmakers, but the truth is they have an agenda and they want to promote that.

Think for a second about that process. A pro-collective, anti-individual message in all your cartoons, then as your tastes become more sophisticated you start taking an intellectual liking to independent films. Somewhere along the way, the koolaid seems to go down somewhat easily as if it always tasted good and right.

>> ^dag:
People with your perspective generally haven't had the experience of another healthcare system to compare with. National Healthcare really, really works in other countries around the world and there's no reason why it can't work in the US- if we can just get past the astroturfing, fear-mongering and baseless propagandizing of the insurance companies and big Pharma. >> ^bobknight33:
>> ^rougy:
>> ^bobknight33:
Thank GOD he has done nothing this year. Health care IS working, It works just fine it only needs a little tweaking. This man is a well educated fool.

Yeah, it works just great except for the millions who can't afford it or who are refused coverage.
Not that you would give a shit.


People can afford it if they wanted to. Get a high detectable plan and stop buying games and large screen tv. Save you money and stop getting into dept. Sure there are a few million who just can't. let the local/ state help, but to nationalize the whole system is suck a fucked up solution that will make this issue worse. P.S. learn your constitution. There is no provision for health care in the constitution.



I do slightly agree to a point that heath-care in other countries work. I believe for small countries it is possible to weed out the corrupt officials is an efficient manner. In the USA the Federal Government has yet to run a decent program and when things F up at Democrats point the finger at the Republicans and the Republicans pointing it back the Democrats. We the American people are left with the mess and the ever increasing dept currently the rate of 4 Billion a day that WE the people will have to pay back. Sorry but my bank account can not carry my share of this dept. Can yours? This health care plan is a worse plan that is in place now.

Seriously man, you're smoking something. First, let's touch on social security. You say:

Social security is healthcare, what else do you call money thats used for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and disabilities?

It's a government pension program. You may as well take everyone's 401k's and call that private heath care spending. Why not add in all food sales, all clothing sales, Food Stamps, defense spending, plus all housing sales, and call those health care spending too? Seriously, doesn't that strike you as perhaps being more than a touch dishonest, especially since just that one line item more than doubled the number you thought was being spent?

As for the cost per person for Medicare, it's mostly a non-sequitor since we're not talking about giving any additional people Medicare. If we were, it might cost less than what the bill will do, in absolute share of the total economy, but people who're squeamish about converting a huge segment of private spending into public spending will prevent that from happening.

As for statistics on how many people fall into each category, it's on the first page of the CBO analysis, though it's expressed in terms of the projected number of people in each category under current law, with a delta based on projected effects of HR 3200.

By 2013 it's expected to reduce the number of uninsured by 23 million, only 6 million of which would be receiving direct government coverage via Medicaid, at a predicted cost of $29 billion, or approximately $4,833/person (which is about half what the cheapest plan available through my employer costs, incidentally). Another 11 million people would be covered by the exchange, whose costs would primarily be borne by the individual, but the government will provide $33 billion in subsidies to individuals purchasing plans from the exchange, which averages out to $3,000/person (but it won't be evenly distributed). Another 10 million are expected to be covered by employer mandates, while 3 million are expected to give up their existing individual plan in order to participate in one of the aforementioned groups.

Like I said, I don't have estimates of the private cost. I also haven't read a modern study of a Medicare-for-all plan that took a real look at the cost, rather than your approach of taking the current per-capita cost and assuming it scales linearly (which is dishonest, and lazy!).

As for your two bolded questions, they're both more or less moot, but I'll answer a version of the first one: Why does every man, woman, and child need health care?

Because it should be a basic human right. Once you're willing to take the step of saying that you're willing to tell Emergency Rooms to save people, even if they have no means of payment, you're acknowledging that. This is mostly an effort to say that the ER isn't the humane or cost-effective way to service that basic right. There is plenty of room to debate what kind of care one should be able receive via government assistance alone, but the way we do things now is both expensive and immoral, and has to stop.

Controlling costs is a whole other kettle of fish. If your chief objection to the plan is that it does not do enough to control the growth of cost, I think that's fair. But I don't think your fears of some sort of government-induced problem with runaway costs is justified.

>> ^deedub81:
You think Obama has been vetted? By whom? The only thing about Obama that has been under the microscope is his personal life before politics. The media has spoken about his mother and his place of birth and his religion and his skin color and his wife until they were blue in the face.

That's what vetting for political office entails -- searching a candidate's past for any tabloid-style scandals that could come out of nowhere to torpedo your chances, regardless of your policy positions. People have been doing that to Obama all over the world for some 20 months now.

Just because people are comfortable with him, doesn't mean they know anything about him. It's because he won the popularity contest that is the DNC by first landing in the good graces of the media.

Not to be too snide, but you do understand how elections work, right? People very often will vote for who they feel "comfortable" with, above any other consideration. Generally speaking (and I realize that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn't work this way), the person who gets more votes gets the Presidency. I suppose that's a popularity contest.

As for winning the media's attention, I would point out that even the right-wing media spends more time covering Obama than McCain, just the nature of the coverage is even more negative than other outlet. He's new, and he's interesting -- people are going to naturally talk about him more.

They've kinda forgotten him for Palin in the last week, 'cause she's newer, and potentially more interesting.

Again, I don't like McCain and I know that there are people out there that are much more qualified to be VP than Palin.

On this we agree.

Obama favors "pay-as-you-go" accounting so new spending or tax cuts are offset by program cuts or increased revenue, but he hasn't said how he would pay for all his tax proposals.
One thing in particular eats at me: How is he going to pay for universal-health-care and all his other promises? Is he going to give us all heath care by the time he leaves office? WHEN he doesn't make that happen, are the democrats going to hold him accountable?
What about the $482 Billion deficit? He's gonna save the American economy by cutting taxes, providing $300 Billion in guarantees for mortgage renegotiations, providing universal-health care and still, somehow, he'll manage to pay down the deficit?

Before I address your specific concerns, I'll note that you're phrasing the argument in terms of Obama's plan, rather than touting the superiority of another candidates'. Perhaps you're part of the media elite that the DNC controls who can't stop talking about Obama?

I also need to ask when Republicans are planning on holding Bush accountable for his deficit? You know, that $482 billion one you mentioned, plus the "emergency" spending levied for the war in Iraq that wasn't on the budget. Never? Is McCain somehow immune from being held responsible for the Republican party's failings over the last 8 years, despite being that party's standard-bearer?

Politics aside, you're making a valid (if one-sided) argument -- based purely on policy promises from Obama, the proposed tax plan doesn't pay for the spending proposals. But McCain's doesn't either.

In fact, the Tax Policy Center's most recent study shows that McCain's plans would put us about $500bn further in debt than Obama, even with his "unspecified spending cuts provided by the campaign" included.

I haven't read the fine print of the study, but Obama's health care plan does include charging people for its use (even if it is a sliding scale based on income), and I'm not sure if that revenue is being factored in. For that matter, I'm honestly not sure if the sliding scale with actual prices has even been developed or published.

I would also point out, that Obama has ruled out balancing the budget in his first term. Restoring PAYGO rules just means new spending has to be offset, it doesn't put the existing set of taxes & spending back into balance after the Republican party's drunken sailor policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending.

McCain's promised to balance the budget, but he's offered no numbers or collection of promises that would make that even remotely possible, even if he gets a full 8 years.

I think politician's policy proposals aren't worthy of a study like the TPC did -- they're not going to become word-for-word policy if the candidate is elected. They're just there to give you an idea of the kinds of changes the candidate plans on making.

If a balanced budget is your primary economic concern (and it's not my primary one, personally), here's what the two candidates offer:

Obama does not commit to balance the budget, just reduce the deficit, and his plan looks to reduce the level to approx $250bn/yr.

McCain on the other hand commits to balancing the budget in his first term, but his proposals point to a $370bn/yr deficit.

Which makes you more comfortable?

You think Obama has been vetted? By whom? The only thing about Obama that has been under the microscope is his personal life before politics. The media has spoken about his mother and his place of birth and his religion and his skin color and his wife until they were blue in the face.

Just because people are comfortable with him, doesn't mean they know anything about him. It's because he won the popularity contest that is the DNC by first landing in the good graces of the media.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828309,00.html

Again, I don't like McCain and I know that there are people out there that are much more qualified to be VP than Palin.

Obama favors "pay-as-you-go" accounting so new spending or tax cuts are offset by program cuts or increased revenue, but he hasn't said how he would pay for all his tax proposals.

One thing in particular eats at me: How is he going to pay for universal-health-care and all his other promises? Is he going to give us all heath care by the time he leaves office? WHEN he doesn't make that happen, are the democrats going to hold him accountable?

What about the $482 Billion deficit? He's gonna save the American economy by cutting taxes, providing $300 Billion in guarantees for mortgage renegotiations, providing universal-health care and still, somehow, he'll manage to pay down the deficit?

All these promises have been vetted?



>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^deedub81:
@Fjnbk:
Yep. That's the difference. We haven't had an opportunity to vote for or against Palin. That's how it works.
The fact that Obama has campaigned longer doesn't mean he has more experience.

The bit about voting has become something of a lefty talking point, but saying "Everyone in the world has been vetting Obama since he declared his candidacy in January of 2007, and a majority of primary voters still chose him" is still a pretty sound argument that Americans have reached a comfort level with his ability to lead.
Add in that his campaign has employed more people, and commanded a larger budget than the Governor's office has, and the argument gets stronger still. Then consider that the Governor will naturally be focused on state-level concerns, while the Obama campaign has had to respond to questions about every area of the political landscape, from affirmative action to trade relations with China, and it gets stronger still.
Palin is unknown to most people, no one selected her in a primary, and the election is 62 days from now. McCain is 72 years old, with a medical history that includes cancer -- if he dies, she'll be President. What do we know about her?
Not a lot, and in just 4 days, the press has found quite a bit to be concerned about.