Five Myths about the Canadian Health Care system from AARP

woodworkerjunkie wrote:I'm not a fan of CNN, but, they do occasionally ask a democrat a tough question. When asking Harry Reid a tough question, he blew it. I believe he was caught off guard and actually spoke how he feels. Since it "is" a question about very sick children, how do you liberals feel about "his" answer? This is "the" man, along with Obama that has stomped their feet and said "they will not budge" on obamacare, including letting children with cancer participate in a federally funded study trial! The link below is a video of the whole episode.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3

About 200 new patients come to the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland every week. Patients are now being told they will have to wait until the government starts up again to begin their trials, according to NIH spokesman John Burklow.

"In fact, six new studies would have started this week that we are deferring," Burklow said. Approximately 30 of the 200 new patients are children, he said, and about 10 of those children are cancer patients.

Pressed further if Reid would move legislation if it meant helping even one child, the Nevada Democrat grew more irate.

"Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting at home. They have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing means you're as irresponsible and reckless," he said to Bash.

What a guy! Willing to toss children to the side, to try to force republicans to let the democrats have their way! Great guy that Harry Reid, a man you can be proud of!

If the House of Representatives voted on a "clean" budget bill -- one that opened up the closed federal offices but did not attempt to defund the Obama health care program -- that bill would pass, and the shutdown would be over. Nearly all Democrats would vote for it, as would enough Republicans to end the shutdown and its related damage. (And of course it would pass has already passed the Senate, repeatedly, unless the minority dared filibuster it, and would be signed by the president.) For illustrations of the wanton damage, see here and here.

So far House Speaker John Boehner has refused to let this vote occur. His Tea Party contingent knows how the vote would go and therefore does not want it to happen; and such is Boehner's fear of them, and fear for his job as Speaker, that he will not let it take place.

These two points are why the normal D.C.-poohbah moanings about the need for compromise do not apply. The Democratic administration, and a sufficient number of Republicans, already agree and are ready enough to compromise to solve this problem. If the normal machinery of democracy were allowed to work, the manufactured crisis would be over. The only reason the senseless damage is being done is that hostage-takers have terrorized members of their own party.

Seriously, what has happened to my party? I watched in disbelief as my GOP, the party of fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility, gleefully caused the government to shut down.

Most pundits and political observers didn't really believe that the strategy reversal of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, would actually cross the threshold of sanity. Back in March, the speaker made clear that tying defunding or delaying Obamacare to funding the government was bad strategy and not going to happen. But Boehner turned 180 degrees.

House Republicans were whipped into a frenzy by some three dozen members, whose political ideology and hatred of all things Obama trumped their ability or desire to govern.

deerhound wrote:

woodworkerjunkie wrote:I'm not a fan of CNN, but, they do occasionally ask a democrat a tough question. When asking Harry Reid a tough question, he blew it. I believe he was caught off guard and actually spoke how he feels. Since it "is" a question about very sick children, how do you liberals feel about "his" answer? This is "the" man, along with Obama that has stomped their feet and said "they will not budge" on obamacare, including letting children with cancer participate in a federally funded study trial! The link below is a video of the whole episode.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3

About 200 new patients come to the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland every week. Patients are now being told they will have to wait until the government starts up again to begin their trials, according to NIH spokesman John Burklow.

"In fact, six new studies would have started this week that we are deferring," Burklow said. Approximately 30 of the 200 new patients are children, he said, and about 10 of those children are cancer patients.

Pressed further if Reid would move legislation if it meant helping even one child, the Nevada Democrat grew more irate.

"Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting at home. They have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing means you're as irresponsible and reckless," he said to Bash.

What a guy! Willing to toss children to the side, to try to force republicans to let the democrats have their way! Great guy that Harry Reid, a man you can be proud of!

Harry did it for the children. Like Obama closed the WWII Memorial for the vets. Dems are really nice people.

khauser wrote: I think that ANY civilization has to help people in need of help.

Julie wrote:thank goodness it's all free!

OhHelpMe wrote:

khauser wrote: I think that ANY civilization has to help people in need of help.

You just don't want to get your hands dirty helping them yourself. You don't want to participate in charity. You use a government proxy to do the dirty work.

You don't want to come in close contact with the poor while helping them. You want the government to be a barrier between you and the poor. You want to sit comfortably and fiddle away your time by making proud pronouncements on an internet forum

You want to organize governments and give them guns and prisons with which to forcibly take citizens money to feed a bureaucracy which does more to enable poverty than eliminate it.

Your votes are moving this country in the direction of the toilet.

49er wrote:

deerhound wrote:

woodworkerjunkie wrote:I'm not a fan of CNN, but, they do occasionally ask a democrat a tough question. When asking Harry Reid a tough question, he blew it. I believe he was caught off guard and actually spoke how he feels. Since it "is" a question about very sick children, how do you liberals feel about "his" answer? This is "the" man, along with Obama that has stomped their feet and said "they will not budge" on obamacare, including letting children with cancer participate in a federally funded study trial! The link below is a video of the whole episode.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3

About 200 new patients come to the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland every week. Patients are now being told they will have to wait until the government starts up again to begin their trials, according to NIH spokesman John Burklow.

"In fact, six new studies would have started this week that we are deferring," Burklow said. Approximately 30 of the 200 new patients are children, he said, and about 10 of those children are cancer patients.

Pressed further if Reid would move legislation if it meant helping even one child, the Nevada Democrat grew more irate.

"Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting at home. They have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing means you're as irresponsible and reckless," he said to Bash.

What a guy! Willing to toss children to the side, to try to force republicans to let the democrats have their way! Great guy that Harry Reid, a man you can be proud of!

Harry did it for the children. Like Obama closed the WWII Memorial for the vets. Dems are really nice people.

Wow, there are so many distortions, I don't even know where to begin. First off all, it is a little disingenuous to be expressing concern about children when so many of them have died to to lack of insurance. And many may continue to be without coverage thanks to many states run by Republican governors turning down medicaid.

And since you seem to hate the government so much and think it is so evil, again, it seems a little disingenuous to be expressing concern about children who are not getting experimental cancer treatment or the people at the air force base who are sitting at home.

Also, if the roles were reversed and the Democrats shut down the federal government because they didn't like a law that was passed legally and upheld by the Supreme Court as the Tea Party folks have done, you would be crying bloody murder and accusing them of treason. You can't have it both ways.

49er

hyperlexis wrote:The Republicans on wall street must be horrified. They should rightly fund anything possible into the next elections to help purge these people from the party. They are a dangerous, frighteningly dangerous, irresponsible minority faction. I have never, ever been afraid for the basic, future operations of the government, until now.

OhHelpMe wrote:

Julie wrote:thank goodness it's all free!

A prediction is that you will live your entire live thinking your medical care is free.

ironhands wrote: A rich persons baby should not have access to superior medical care just because they have more money to throw at the problem.

Can I assume your name is in reference to psychiatry?

hyperlexis wrote:

49er wrote:

deerhound wrote:

woodworkerjunkie wrote:I'm not a fan of CNN, but, they do occasionally ask a democrat a tough question. When asking Harry Reid a tough question, he blew it. I believe he was caught off guard and actually spoke how he feels. Since it "is" a question about very sick children, how do you liberals feel about "his" answer? This is "the" man, along with Obama that has stomped their feet and said "they will not budge" on obamacare, including letting children with cancer participate in a federally funded study trial! The link below is a video of the whole episode.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3

About 200 new patients come to the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland every week. Patients are now being told they will have to wait until the government starts up again to begin their trials, according to NIH spokesman John Burklow.

"In fact, six new studies would have started this week that we are deferring," Burklow said. Approximately 30 of the 200 new patients are children, he said, and about 10 of those children are cancer patients.

Pressed further if Reid would move legislation if it meant helping even one child, the Nevada Democrat grew more irate.

"Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting at home. They have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing means you're as irresponsible and reckless," he said to Bash.

What a guy! Willing to toss children to the side, to try to force republicans to let the democrats have their way! Great guy that Harry Reid, a man you can be proud of!

Harry did it for the children. Like Obama closed the WWII Memorial for the vets. Dems are really nice people.

Wow, there are so many distortions, I don't even know where to begin. First off all, it is a little disingenuous to be expressing concern about children when so many of them have died to to lack of insurance. And many may continue to be without coverage thanks to many states run by Republican governors turning down medicaid.

And since you seem to hate the government so much and think it is so evil, again, it seems a little disingenuous to be expressing concern about children who are not getting experimental cancer treatment or the people at the air force base who are sitting at home.

Also, if the roles were reversed and the Democrats shut down the federal government because they didn't like a law that was passed legally and upheld by the Supreme Court as the Tea Party folks have done, you would be crying bloody murder and accusing them of treason. You can't have it both ways.

49er

It's even worse than that. What will come next time? The crazies demanding default or shutdown over Roe v. Wade? Over the income tax act? Over one of a myriad of other laws? If you give in to a bully or a terrorist, the demands will never ever cease. They will get worse and worse and worse.

These dangerous, backbencher hillbillies are not only destroying the GOP brand, but endangering our entire government. John Boehner is a feckless, ball-less coward who refuses to stand up to the bullies destroying his own party. The man should do the right thing, end this madness, and if he gets forced into retirement as a result so be it. At least he could keep his dignity, and salvage a bit of his integrity. It is a shame John McCain isn't the Speaker -- he would have never allowed such madmen to run wild in the House like this. The Republicans on wall street must be horrified. They should rightly fund anything possible into the next elections to help purge these people from the party. They are a dangerous, frighteningly dangerous, irresponsible minority faction. I have never, ever been afraid for the basic, future operations of the government, until now.

deerhound wrote:

Progressives

OhHelpMe wrote:

deerhound wrote:

Progressives

So you bought in to their naming convention?

You know they spoiled the name "liberals" so badly with failed policies in the twentieth century. Now as part of their cover up they rebrand themselves as "progressives". I wonder how long it will take them to need another even another name?

Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and lack of effort by governments to address these problems.[3] Progressivism has influenced various political movements. Modern liberalism was influenced by liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill's conception of people being "progressive beings".[4] British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli developed progressive conservatism under "One Nation" Toryism.[5][6]

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.[8]

United States[edit]
Main article: Progressivism in the United States


Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) was a leader in the Progressive Era.
In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the start of the 20th century.[17] This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several positions in state government.[18]

Today, members of the Green Party of the United States are most likely to self-identify as liberal progressives. In the U.S. Congress, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and it is often in opposition to the more centrist or conservative Democrats who form the Blue Dogs caucus. It is also in near-continuous opposition to the Republican Party.[citation needed] However, some long time Republicans have spoken out for more steeply progressive taxation than their leadership has supported, including Bruce Bartlett, Paul O'Neill, David Stockman,[19] and Sheila Bair.[20] Similarly, Republican Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Peggy Noonan has called for a renewed focus on jobs instead of debt and deficit.[21]

Relation to other political ideologies

Liberalism[edit]
The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal". Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. In the U.S. in particular, the term "progressive" tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat, which is scarcely used in American political language.[citation

American progressives tend to advocate progressive taxation and oppose what they describe as the growing and negative influence of large corporations. Progressives are typically in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a "large tent" policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs. Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party. In Canada, liberals usually support the national Liberal Party while progressives usually support the New Democratic Party, which traditionally has had provincial electoral success in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and since the recent federal election, in Quebec.[