Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2016, 08:36:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97915 Posts in 2334 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

 on: October 21, 2016, 10:58:14 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
ccp:  "Keep in mind that many of the policy makers and evaluators are in their hearts, for a single payer system.

That's right.  Isn't it sick that it's actually the left, the designers and supporters of Obamacare who wish it to fail, oblivious to the human tragedy of that.  Conservatives just want it repealed, not wish harm on the recipients.

Government healthcare in every other nook of the world is helped by what's left of private sector innovation here.  When we go under, there isn't some other US for people to turn to.  The leading edge treatments are the most expensive and scarcity is always rationed one way or another.  If not by price then by queuing.

Waiting times for medically necessary treatments in Canada are up 97% in 20 years.
4 week wait for oncology radiation, that doesn't hurt outcomes, does it?
Waits for orthopedic procedures are far worse.
43.1 week on Prince Edward Island for "medically necessary treatments"?
8.4% of the populations in Newfoundland & Labrador are waiting for treatment.
Same system here would yield far worse results.

The top 1% don't wait, at least 52,000 came to the US last year for non-emergency treatment, up 25% in one year.
Where would Americans go after we abandon private care?

In the UK, the top 10% buy private coverage in addition to their NHS membership.

62% in the UK believe the private sector has a role to play in reducing NHS waiting lists.

I wonder if anyone has polled Venezuelans recently (or socialist North Koreans) on healthcare satisfaction.  Hugo chose Cuba over the Mayo Clinic for his treatment, ideology over outcomes.  How is that working out?

 on: October 21, 2016, 10:54:55 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Have not had a chance to read this yet, but it comes recommended.

 on: October 21, 2016, 10:38:55 AM 
Started by Mad Scientist - Last post by ccp
How the LEFT is succeeding in shutting down discourse even in sports.  Do we need a thread in the "politics of sports?":

The NFL obviously has made the business decision that not letting players play who insult a good number of fans would be a MSmedia onslaught and ACLU law suits that would be worse.

But to deceitfully ignore even saying this is just beyond our freedoms.

 on: October 21, 2016, 10:28:00 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Soros influencing Clinton:

Of course it is all about increasing the Democrat voter rolls.

 on: October 21, 2016, 10:21:45 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG

Fewer Americans Have Private Health Insurance Now Than in 2007

No progress whatsoever in 10 years since Democrats took Washington.  More people can't stand on their own, need government assistance.  Remember when we used to judge their effectiveness by how many people no longer need the program?

Now lefties tout how popular free sh*t is with the public.

Yes, rob Peter to pay Paul.  And Amanda, Julia, Maria, Laquisha, Jose and Youssef.  And only getting the latter group's consent.

We made private healthcare unaffordable through government interference while pushing tens of millions into healthcare subsidies.

The argument their side makes is do more of it.  Kill off other people's money while making nearly everyone dependent on it.

The argument our side fails to make is that shutting down the vibrant and dynamic private sector that allows wealth creation to pay for public benefits hurts the recipients of the public benefits system more than it hurts the wealthy - if you can look past your next check.  How are the public benefits recipients doing in Haiti, Venezuela and Republic of the Congo - where wealth doesn't exist?  Not possible that could happen here?  We went from 6% growth to 1% growth and it is the low growth that is unsustainable, held up only by temporary, artificial measures like quantitative expansion and massive debt spending schemes.  We jeopardize our real safety net when we shut down our productive, private economy.

Free shit in Sweden including health care (along with open border migration) eventually brought in crime, riots, violence, police no-go zones and civil war. Native people quit reproducing and new people came for the wrong reasons.  Generous Minnesotans have known that for decades.  Murders in the worst areas have a Chicago migrant connection to them and dozens of Somalis have been arrested for joining al Qaida.  Screw up the price, cost and incentive systems and people respond with the rewarded, unproductive behaviors.

No one aspires to be Peter anymore, the one they all want to rob from.  But without Peter's continued income, we don't pay Paul and all the rest.

 on: October 21, 2016, 10:15:57 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp

Keep in mind that many of the policy makers and evaluators are in their hearts, for a single payer system.

 on: October 20, 2016, 11:26:22 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M

Fewer Americans Have Private Health Insurance Now Than in 2007

No progress whatsoever in 10 years since Democrats took Washington.  More people can't stand on their own, need government assistance.  Remember when we used to judge their effectiveness by how many people no longer need the program?

Now lefties tout how popular free sh*t is with the public.

 on: October 20, 2016, 11:25:14 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
How long until the People's Liberation Army Navy (yes, that is what it's called) has a base there?

 on: October 20, 2016, 09:43:29 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog

    Opinion Review & Outlook

Hillary’s New Constitution
Clinton explains how she’ll gut the First and Second Amendments.
BakerHostetler Partner David Rivkin on what the final debate revealed about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s vastly different plans for the Supreme Court.
Oct. 20, 2016 7:26 p.m. ET

Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesday’s presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than did Hillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trump’s bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.

Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s question about the role of the courts. “The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”

Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”

The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support “reasonable regulation.” She said she criticized Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely “to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

Toddlers had nothing to do with it. What Mrs. Clinton calls “reasonable” was an outright ban on handguns. The D.C. law allowed the city’s police chief to award some temporary licenses—but not even the police officer plaintiff in the case could persuade the District to let him register a handgun to be kept at his home.

Anyone who did lawfully possess a gun had to keep it unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ensuring it would be inoperable and perhaps useless for self-defense. As Antonin Scalia wrote for the Heller majority, “Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban.”

If Mrs. Clinton supports such gun restrictions, then she thinks an individual’s right to bear arms is meaningless. If the Justices she appoints agree with her, then they can gradually turn Heller into a shell of a right, restriction by restriction, even without overturning the precedent.

Then there’s the First Amendment, which Mrs. Clinton wants to rewrite by appointing Justices she said would “stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”

Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that found that unions and corporations can spend money on political speech—in that specific case for a movie that was critical of Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat seems to take the different view that while atomized individuals might have the right to criticize politicians, heaven forbid if they want to band together to do it as a political interest group.

As for “dark” money, she certainly knows that territory. Does money get any darker than undisclosed Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business magnates tied to uranium concessions in Kazakhstan?

There is at least one right that Mrs. Clinton did suggest she believes to be absolute—to an abortion, at any time during pregnancy right up until birth. She claimed merely to oppose the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which allows some regulation of late-term abortions. But she somehow overlooked Gonzales v. Carhart , the 2007 decision that upheld a legislative ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Carhart opinion that ruled such restrictions are consistent with Roe and the Constitution. Mrs. Clinton kept invoking “the life and the health of the mother” to justify her opposition to any limit on abortion, but Carhart found the life of the mother can be sufficient.

To put all this another way, Mrs. Clinton believes there is no restriction on abortion she would ever support, and there is no restriction on gun rights she would ever oppose. Carhart, Citizens United and Heller were 5-4 decisions, and Mrs. Clinton wants each of them to be litmus tests for her Supreme Court appointments. She mocks Mr. Trump for saying he won’t abide by the election result, but she wants to rewrite the Constitution to fit her own political views.

 on: October 20, 2016, 06:22:34 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
"When the president gives the order to launch a nuclear weapon, that’s it. The officer has to launch. It can take as little as four minutes."

   - Wouldn't this information be strategic, if not classified?  Snopes denial that it is classified (they don;t know) makes me think it is classified.

"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

PolitiFact says they don't know, therefore true.  Sounds like they made a requested, political determination, subject to change.  Was she also going to reveal methods? 

Same 17 agencies think sending and received classified material of the highest order, like the location of our Ambassador in a war zone, in an unsecured manner, is treason.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!