On February 01 2012 13:00 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 10:00 Derez wrote: In a normal primary at this point both Santorum and Paul would drop out at this point. Gingrich probably should too.
Why would they? You need 1114 delegates to win the nomination and there's only been less than 200 awarded. So, do you know how to do math?
Do you know history?
Nominations are usually locked up way before there's even half of the delegates are awarded. Candidates with no viability, such as someone dragging in a solid 7% of the vote, run out of money and concede the race. Next to that, it also makes strategic sense for the republican party as a whole to stop the infighting and actually focus on Obama. The 2008 democratic nomination was the exception not the rule.
Gingrich is not going to be the nominee (too hated), the same goes for Santorum and Paul (fringe candidates). The sooner they actually realize this, the better shot the republicans have in the general
If you know history then you know why we shouldn't vote for warmongers. The only reason Romney got this far is because of his millions of dollars he spent on ads. Without it he wouldn't even be the front runner without being financed by big banks and goldman sach's.
On February 01 2012 13:00 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 10:00 Derez wrote: In a normal primary at this point both Santorum and Paul would drop out at this point. Gingrich probably should too.
Why would they? You need 1114 delegates to win the nomination and there's only been less than 200 awarded. So, do you know how to do math?
Do you know history?
Nominations are usually locked up way before there's even half of the delegates are awarded. Candidates with no viability, such as someone dragging in a solid 7% of the vote, run out of money and concede the race. Next to that, it also makes strategic sense for the republican party as a whole to stop the infighting and actually focus on Obama. The 2008 democratic nomination was the exception not the rule.
Gingrich is not going to be the nominee (too hated), the same goes for Santorum and Paul (fringe candidates). The sooner they actually realize this, the better shot the republicans have in the general
If you know history then you know why we shouldn't vote for warmongers. The only reason Romney got this far is because of his millions of dollars he spent on ads. Without it he wouldn't even be the front runner without being financed by big banks and goldman sach's.
How is that related in any way to what you two were talking about?
On February 02 2012 17:15 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 20:58 Derez wrote:
On February 01 2012 13:00 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 10:00 Derez wrote: In a normal primary at this point both Santorum and Paul would drop out at this point. Gingrich probably should too.
Why would they? You need 1114 delegates to win the nomination and there's only been less than 200 awarded. So, do you know how to do math?
Do you know history?
Nominations are usually locked up way before there's even half of the delegates are awarded. Candidates with no viability, such as someone dragging in a solid 7% of the vote, run out of money and concede the race. Next to that, it also makes strategic sense for the republican party as a whole to stop the infighting and actually focus on Obama. The 2008 democratic nomination was the exception not the rule.
Gingrich is not going to be the nominee (too hated), the same goes for Santorum and Paul (fringe candidates). The sooner they actually realize this, the better shot the republicans have in the general
If you know history then you know why we shouldn't vote for warmongers. The only reason Romney got this far is because of his millions of dollars he spent on ads. Without it he wouldn't even be the front runner without being financed by big banks and goldman sach's.
How is that related in any way to what you two were talking about?
He supports Romney. Another warmongering idiot that wants to bomb Iran.
On February 02 2012 17:15 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 20:58 Derez wrote:
On February 01 2012 13:00 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 10:00 Derez wrote: In a normal primary at this point both Santorum and Paul would drop out at this point. Gingrich probably should too.
Why would they? You need 1114 delegates to win the nomination and there's only been less than 200 awarded. So, do you know how to do math?
Do you know history?
Nominations are usually locked up way before there's even half of the delegates are awarded. Candidates with no viability, such as someone dragging in a solid 7% of the vote, run out of money and concede the race. Next to that, it also makes strategic sense for the republican party as a whole to stop the infighting and actually focus on Obama. The 2008 democratic nomination was the exception not the rule.
Gingrich is not going to be the nominee (too hated), the same goes for Santorum and Paul (fringe candidates). The sooner they actually realize this, the better shot the republicans have in the general
If you know history then you know why we shouldn't vote for warmongers. The only reason Romney got this far is because of his millions of dollars he spent on ads. Without it he wouldn't even be the front runner without being financed by big banks and goldman sach's.
How is that related in any way to what you two were talking about?
He supports Romney. Another warmongering idiot that wants to bomb Iran.
I don't support anyone, there's not a single candidate in either the democratic or republican field that comes close to my personal political views. I'm not even American, I just watch american politics for my own entertainment. I don't want to bomb Iran.
I was commenting on the viability of certain campaigns. Nothing else. Do I think Romney will win in the end? Yes, it's inevitable based on how primaries have gone historically. Doesn't mean I support him. All you do in this thread on the other hand is post terrible one-liners, RP propaganda and misinterpret people in order to fit your own worldview (or well, Ron Pauls. Independent thought is overrated).
On February 02 2012 20:55 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 02 2012 20:50 kwizach wrote:
On February 02 2012 17:15 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 20:58 Derez wrote:
On February 01 2012 13:00 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 01 2012 10:00 Derez wrote: In a normal primary at this point both Santorum and Paul would drop out at this point. Gingrich probably should too.
Why would they? You need 1114 delegates to win the nomination and there's only been less than 200 awarded. So, do you know how to do math?
Do you know history?
Nominations are usually locked up way before there's even half of the delegates are awarded. Candidates with no viability, such as someone dragging in a solid 7% of the vote, run out of money and concede the race. Next to that, it also makes strategic sense for the republican party as a whole to stop the infighting and actually focus on Obama. The 2008 democratic nomination was the exception not the rule.
Gingrich is not going to be the nominee (too hated), the same goes for Santorum and Paul (fringe candidates). The sooner they actually realize this, the better shot the republicans have in the general
If you know history then you know why we shouldn't vote for warmongers. The only reason Romney got this far is because of his millions of dollars he spent on ads. Without it he wouldn't even be the front runner without being financed by big banks and goldman sach's.
How is that related in any way to what you two were talking about?
He supports Romney. Another warmongering idiot that wants to bomb Iran.
I don't support anyone, there's not a single candidate in either the democratic or republican field that comes close to my personal political views. I'm not even American, I just watch american politics for my own entertainment. I don't want to bomb Iran.
I was commenting on the viability of certain campaigns. Nothing else. Do I think Romney will win in the end? Yes, it's inevitable based on how primaries have gone historically. Doesn't mean I support him. All you do in this thread on the other hand is post terrible one-liners, RP propaganda and misinterpret people in order to fit your own worldview (or well, Ron Pauls. Independent thought is overrated).
You see, if you are not part of the solution, you are automatically part of the problem
On February 01 2012 09:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote: I'd vote for bachman simply because she's such a fucking nutjob, the United States would be a living hell if she won. Good luck with your money-infested lobbyism aka the white house.
How is this blind hate for America relevant to this thread at all?
Even tho it might look like blind hate, it's not. I truly believe that in order for a "broken" society to become a great society for everybody, it has to collapse first.
If a society is twisted and things are wrong and corrupt, but it it'll keep on going, people who arent directly affected by the decadence or the corruption in a very bad way wont care (and even then ignorance is a bliss appearently, eg religion).
What im trying to say is; does it really matter who wins when corporations and lobbyism are controlling politicians with money anyway? In order for the US elections to become anything more than a source of amusement to me, it has to get rid of the way money is controlling and corrupting the politics.
On February 02 2012 21:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote: What im trying to say is; does it really matter who wins when corporations and lobbyism are controlling politicians with money anyway?
In a practical sense, yes.
despite the terrible handling of the health care situation at least now I can stay on my Dad's insurance a few more years. before, I would have to buy health insurance.
GOP front-runner Mitt Romney said this morning that he's not concerned about the plight of the country's very poor because there are social safety nets that take care of them.
"I'm in this race because I care about Americans," Romney told CNN's Soledad O'Brien this morning after his resounding victory in Florida on Tuesday. "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."
"I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."
The CNN anchor pressed Romney: "You just said I'm not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?"
"Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad," said Romney. "I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them…The - the challenge right now - we will hear from the Democrat Party, the plight of the poor, and - and there's no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign - you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on social security, people who cannot find work, folks who have kids that are getting ready to go to college. That - these are the people who've been most badly hurt during the Obama years."
lol this just heard this, it was hilarious. Here's a youtube clip of him saying it, "I'm not concerned about the very poor..."
Sure, it could be argued that he just misspoke or that it was taken out of context, but that's what happens every election. It is indeed huge ammo in the general election. I can already see the TV ads now, Romney in the Bain Capital picture holding money, and the audio clip comes, "I'm not concerned about the very poor- poor- poor- poor....."
Romney is just such a terrible candidate to face Obama, he's doomed.
On February 02 2012 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney gives Gingrich more ammo to shoot at him, Obama has to be loving this:
GOP front-runner Mitt Romney said this morning that he's not concerned about the plight of the country's very poor because there are social safety nets that take care of them.
"I'm in this race because I care about Americans," Romney told CNN's Soledad O'Brien this morning after his resounding victory in Florida on Tuesday. "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."
"I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."
The CNN anchor pressed Romney: "You just said I'm not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?"
"Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad," said Romney. "I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them…The - the challenge right now - we will hear from the Democrat Party, the plight of the poor, and - and there's no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign - you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on social security, people who cannot find work, folks who have kids that are getting ready to go to college. That - these are the people who've been most badly hurt during the Obama years."
Sure, it could be argued that he just misspoke or that it was taken out of context, but that's what happens every election. It is indeed huge ammo in the general election. I can already see the TV ads now, Romney in the Bain Capital picture holding money, and the audio clip comes, "I'm not concerned about the very poor- poor- poor- poor....."
Romney is just such a terrible candidate to face Obama, he's doomed.
How can you focus on 95% of the population and then say you're not worried about the very poorest? That's pretty funny. No matter how he meant it, there's no other way to look at that than to see it as retarded. Republican politicians just make me so angry.
On February 02 2012 21:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote: What im trying to say is; does it really matter who wins when corporations and lobbyism are controlling politicians with money anyway?
In a practical sense, yes.
despite the terrible handling of the health care situation at least now I can stay on my Dad's insurance a few more years. before, I would have to buy health insurance.
Same here. I have also received more grants for my university studies. I have certainly felt a very direct impact of Obama's presidency.
Ill just go ahead and post the direct quotes from Santorum:
“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” the candidate explained. “But paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”
The mother replied that she could not afford her son’s medication, Abilify, which can cost as much as $1 million a year without health insurance.
“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”
“He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” the candidate continued. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here. I sympathize with these compassionate cases. … I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”
Oh Rick, telling people that it would be nice if their kids could stay on medicine but market worship is more important is just not going to go over well. Oh well, he's done anyway but this sort of thing is just as bad as what Romney said. At the very best it makes him look callous.
Health care should not be a business. It should be an essntial service. Period. Corporations cut corners to maximize profits, they artificially inflate prices, they try to deny expensive services in an effort to make moe money. The Canadian system isnt perfect, but it is very very good. I just had to rush my grandma to the hospital after she had a blood test, which was processed within hours, and the lab doctor called our house at 11:30pm (the lab is open 24 hours) to let us know her hemoglobin level was critically low and to rush her to emergency (she had 4 hours before her heart would have seized). We rushed to the hospital, she was in the ER with 2 doctors and a team of nurses within 1 minute of arriving, she got a blood transfusion (5 bags). She got a stomach scope, they found she was bleeding from her stomach, they fixed it immediately. She stayed in the hospital for 4 nights, and it cost us 0 dollars. Shes at home happy and healthy.
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option.
I dont understand how Santorum could look a woman in the eye and say that to her. Its really sad. When did being conservative become being bat shit crazy. None of the remaining candidates have realistic positions that benefit normal people, and they have even less to show for the poor.
538 predictions on 4 new states are up. Only Ohio is a toss-up between Romney and Gingrich, rest is heavily favoring Romney at the moment. All preliminary, all highly unreliable, yet still interesting.
“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”
“He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” the candidate continued. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here. I sympathize with these compassionate cases. … I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”
“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”
“He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” the candidate continued. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here. I sympathize with these compassionate cases. … I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”
Dafuq? No drug should be that expensive.
The drug isn't expensive, the research is (chances are it is a drug that only helps a small number of people if it costs that much)
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option
Someone had to pay for that. The doctors/nurses don't work for free, and the equipment/drug manufacturers don't work for free, and the researchers don't work for free (and their equipment isn't free either)
A true pure free market insurance system probably wouldn't work given the high levels of uncertainty and significant effects that an individual can have on their health.
On February 03 2012 07:40 Krikkitone wrote: Someone had to pay for that. The doctors/nurses don't work for free, and the equipment/drug manufacturers don't work for free, and the researchers don't work for free (and their equipment isn't free either)
yeah what you do is have a really, really big insurance program that only charges people enough to cover the cost of care and research. everyone has to buy in but everyone gets it. that way, the risk is spread over such a large group of people that no one person has to sacrifice much to make sure this little kid gets his meds.
aka a single payer system.
where the government is running a not-for-profit insurance program.
“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”
“He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” the candidate continued. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here. I sympathize with these compassionate cases. … I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”
Dafuq? No drug should be that expensive.
The drug isn't expensive, the research is (chances are it is a drug that only helps a small number of people if it costs that much)
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option
Someone had to pay for that. The doctors/nurses don't work for free, and the equipment/drug manufacturers don't work for free, and the researchers don't work for free (and their equipment isn't free either)
A true pure free market insurance system probably wouldn't work given the high levels of uncertainty and significant effects that an individual can have on their health.
Of course somebody has to pay for it, but somewhere down the line, somebody is probably being paid too much.
I remember reading an article about movie theatres and their business model, primarily on the fact that every product they sell is expensive and every low level pay they give is so small. Basically, it doesn't add up. With many movie theatres going digital, their film expenses have been lower than ever, but prices have continued to rise and pay has remained stagnant. Bottom line, there are people who make an absolute killing in the movie (theatre) business, and they prefer to keep it that way.
The same applies in other business structures as well. Some more than others, but healthcare seems to be in the same boat. Some layers of the healthcare structure always seem to turn some level of profit, while others continue to struggle. As prices rise, it's eating into the reimbursement of frontend workers (doctors, nurses, and low level admins). Meanwhile, the manufacturers and research administrators make very safe returns on their investments, regardless of the usefulness or investment smarts on their part. The market competition is only working for half of the supply chain.
On February 03 2012 07:40 Krikkitone wrote: Someone had to pay for that. The doctors/nurses don't work for free, and the equipment/drug manufacturers don't work for free, and the researchers don't work for free (and their equipment isn't free either)
yeah what you do is have a really, really big insurance program that only charges people enough to cover the cost of care and research. everyone has to buy in but everyone gets it. that way, the risk is spread over such a large group of people that no one person has to sacrifice much to make sure this little kid gets his meds.
aka a single payer system.
where the government is running a not-for-profit insurance program.
EPT
