Truth is stranger than fiction - The Sarah Palin Chronicles

[VictorCharlie]

Miles that is a view point looking in from the outside. I understand the relief of completely different look than the previous Admin, but as a citizen and federal employee I assure you from the inside looking out, I am rather disappointed in my President's foreign policy at the moment. I am currently withholding judgment on his domestic side only b/c it hasn't even been a year yet. That being said I don't see much promise in his policies. I hope I am wrong.

[Gandalf]

Miles that is a view point looking in from the outside. I understand the relief of completely different look than the previous Admin, but as a citizen and federal employee I assure you from the inside looking out, I am rather disappointed in my President's foreign policy at the moment. I am currently withholding judgment on his domestic side only b/c it hasn't even been a year yet. That being said I don't see much promise in his policies. I hope I am wrong.

What is it you are disappointed with in terms of foreign policy? I'm just curious to know.

[Kirkland Laing]

I definitely don't want the government (federal that is) in education or healthcare.

It works out much better if they are. Every first world country has a national healthcare and education system, it's something we've learnt is necessary over decades of experience with various systems. America has no choice but to have a national healthcare system like other countries or the current system will bankrupt the country.

[Kirkland Laing]

I was thinking that last night.Joining a network,namely Fox.I dont think that she is the sharpest knife in the drawer but is effective on camera in small doses and does ok when rehearsed with an audience.A talk show?

As far as a national stage and politics.I think she is finished.She let the marketing and packaging get in front of her substance and was force fed to the public.If the heat in Alaska was too much...she melts on a national stage again.I think she's a trivia question or a punchline now.

They'll definitely give her the opportunity though. One in three voters near enough will definitely vote for her. If they can graft a bit of substance, a bit of gravitas onto the you betcha she could change people's perceptions of her, win a few independents and centrist voters. They did the same thing with Nixon when he originally quit in the sixties and he managed to win. She's actually very similar to Nixon but without the smarts, they both use resentment as their main issue. And the guy who masterminded Nixon's return from obscurity currently runs Fox News.

Ive said it before and its come back to smack me in the face but I really think we as voters will do better than the ever present reality shows we have seen labeled as campaigns.We must....we are too easily led around by the leash and stand high on labels and hardened party lines.Ive voted on either side and down the middle but off the top I dont think she could hold a candle to Nixon.....closest relation may have been their 'wtf' moments on camera but prior to that he had 7,8 years of VP under him.Shes minor league.

Someone seriously needs to take the shovel out of her hands...at the rate she is going I'm betting she finds oil.I have nothing against her and am not promoting either party,but should the republicans go this route again...I honestly think that they will continue to sit on the sidelines come the next election.......side note bud.Those huge articles are a b!!!ch.Have to scroll the entire page

I agree she's nowhere near up to the job but they've got six years to rebrand her. It's not like there are a vast number of potential GOP presidential candidates out there so they'll work with anything they can get. I would guess her future involves lots of well-paid speeches, a few books, plenty of fundraising for GOP candidates and Fox News though rather than the White House.

[Kirkland Laing]

Yes, thank you Kirkland for making this thread unbareable to post in.

Also your xenophobia towards anyone with a political view right of Karl Marx is really annoying...ok, we get it you don't like Capitalism, so I'll be a good sport about it, you will give Saddo half of your total wealth and he will in turn distribute that out to the rest of the posters here. I'll get to work on setting up a bread line for you too, you're going to need it.

I'm one of the few remaining pure capitalists left on the earth. I'm one of the very few not relying on government bailouts of banking systems keeping me in a job or keeping my business afloat unlike all the clowns who cheerleaded us into the current unfolding disaster. I absolutely love capitalism Lyle, what I don't like is the corporate socialism system that has taken over the world's largest economys in recent years.

[VictorCharlie]

I definitely don't want the government (federal that is) in education or healthcare.

It works out much better if they are. Every first world country has a national healthcare and education system, it's something we've learnt is necessary over decades of experience with various systems. America has no choice but to have a national healthcare system like other countries or the current system will bankrupt the country.

We definitely need some dramatic changes in health care and I agree that to obtain affordable coverage for all Americans some measure of Federal control is necessary. I just don't trust the US Government to run an affordable, timely and high quality health care program for its 300 million citizens. What kills me with the President/Democrats is their effort to create this program w/o an overall raise in taxes. They are scrambling to pinch a penny here and find a dime there. I understand a National Health Care Plan will provide some big savings but how in hell can you look me in the face and say we can afford it w/o a large increase in revenue? I'd like to take some smaller steps first and see where we are at that point.

1. Find a mechanism to create competition between doctors/hospitals price wise. Most doctors can't tell you their actual prices b/c w/ insurance companies it is irrelevant and static regionally. I don't really know how one would go about doing this or even if its possible within our current system

2. All though I am typically against federal databases and I will hate to see GE make a ton a money on this, a creation of a national medical data base and singular nationalized means of insurance filing regardless of company would greatly reduce the bureaucracy/paper work/paperwork load

3. Cap or change in malpractice suits to reduce the large amount of money Doctors pay for malpractice insurance

4. Provide more state/federal money to help Doctors with the staggering amounts of student loans they incur while spending near or more than a decade in school

These four things would in theory lower overhead for medical practitioners, increase efficiency and reduce the price for the customer. If in fact these things happened and the overall price of insurance didn't drop remarkably then we would have to take another look.

p.s. Pretty sure Switzerland doesn't have a nationalized health care plan. Maybe they are a model to look at.

[Kirkland Laing]

What kills me with the President/Democrats is their effort to create this program w/o an overall raise in taxes. They are scrambling to pinch a penny here and find a dime there. I understand a National Health Care Plan will provide some big savings but how in hell can you look me in the face and say we can afford it w/o a large increase in revenue? I'd like to take some smaller steps first and see where we are at that point.

1. Find a mechanism to create competition between doctors/hospitals price wise. Most doctors can't tell you their actual prices b/c w/ insurance companies it is irrelevant and static regionally. I don't really know how one would go about doing this or even if its possible within our current system

2. All though I am typically against federal databases and I will hate to see GE make a ton a money on this, a creation of a national medical data base and singular nationalized means of insurance filing regardless of company would greatly reduce the bureaucracy/paper work/paperwork load

3. Cap or change in malpractice suits to reduce the large amount of money Doctors pay for malpractice insurance

4. Provide more state/federal money to help Doctors with the staggering amounts of student loans they incur while spending near or more than a decade in school

These four things would in theory lower overhead for medical practitioners, increase efficiency and reduce the price for the customer. If in fact these things happened and the overall price of insurance didn't drop remarkably then we would have to take another look.

p.s. Pretty sure Switzerland doesn't have a nationalized health care plan. Maybe they are a model to look at.

You're not going to get competition between anybody with the current system. Half a dozen huge health insurance companies have their own regional monopolies and spend hundreds of millions on lobbyists to restrict competition and preserve their monopolies. The way the Democrats (some of them) want to create competition is by creating a public insurance option which will allow the government to offer a competing insurance scheme with the big health insurance companies. But the insurance companies are terrified of the competition and are lobbying to block a public plan. All the GOP and some Democrats are now dead against it and it looks like nothing is going to change.

Malpractice suits total costs are less than half of one percent total spending.

The medical malpractice myth. - By Ezra Klein - Slate Magazine

Blaming the cost of healthcare on malpractice is just something the GOP do to press peoples' buttons, blame it on lawyers instead of on health insurance companies who've increased premiums 80+% in six years and increased their profits 400%.

A great way to cut healthcare costs is to stop healthcare companies authorising super expensive treatments that are ten or more times more expensive than similar treatments. It's hard to believe that a private business would take advantage of sick, scared people to sell them expensive stuff they don't need but maybe there's a first time for everything. Some studies say the insurance companies inflate bills by up to 30% by pushing various types of treatment. Obama recently got a billion dollars in funds to carry out comparative effectiveness programmes that would find out which types of treatments were expensive rubbish and which could be done at a fraction of the cost by other treatments. The GOP fought the billion dollars all the way and have now introduced a bill which if passed will ban anybody from using the findings of the studies to try and get the insurers to stop pushing expensive bill-inflating treatments.

[VictorCharlie]

Not competition between insurers Kirk, competition between doctors. Because most Americans only pay a co-pay neither them or their doctors can tell you what an ordinary office visit actually costs. There is no mechanism in place causing doctors or hospitals to compete with each other and provide the same service but for a cheaper price.

The cap on malpractice suits is not a major factor but it simply meets a complaint by doctors. When they cant bitch about it anymore then they have no excuse. It also is a bipartisan issue. Both parties are full of lawyers and the ABA lobbys both.

Nobody is forced to get a specific treatment here. If someone has a serious illness and doesnt take the time to research it and get multiple opinions then they are equally to blame for the service they get

I agree though, more comparative research is imperative. Ultimately I want to decide what kind of treatment I get though not the government. Those steps I mentioned were simply the first to be take in health care reform. The US is moving towards single payer system of some type whether Lyle and I like it or not, but a sudden dramatic shift is the wrong answer. It will take a long time and several changes for the US to get a system that is best for its citizens.

[Kirkland Laing]

Not competition between insurers Kirk, competition between doctors. Because most Americans only pay a co-pay neither them or their doctors can tell you what an ordinary office visit actually costs. There is no mechanism in place causing doctors or hospitals to compete with each other and provide the same service but for a cheaper price.

The cap on malpractice suits is not a major factor but it simply meets a complaint by doctors. When they cant bitch about it anymore then they have no excuse. It also is a bipartisan issue. Both parties are full of lawyers and the ABA lobbys both.

Nobody is forced to get a specific treatment here. If someone has a serious illness and doesnt take the time to research it and get multiple opinions then they are equally to blame for the service they get

I agree though, more comparative research is imperative. Ultimately I want to decide what kind of treatment I get though not the government. Those steps I mentioned were simply the first to be take in health care reform. The US is moving towards single payer system of some type whether Lyle and I like it or not, but a sudden dramatic shift is the wrong answer. It will take a long time and several changes for the US to get a system that is best for its citizens.

You're not going to get any competition in the system while it's dominated by half a dozen big companies who all have local monopolies.

The GOP use malpractice suits to blame lawyers for inflating medical bills when in actuality it's only a tiny amount of overall healthcare costs. The issue is a red herring.

Nobody is going to be forced to have a specific treatment, they're just going to have cheaper more effective treatments advocated over useless superexpensive treatments.

Sarah Palin already started her non-GOP base outreach. She's definitely thinking ahead :

Brushing aside the criticisms of pundits and politicos, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she plans to jump immediately back into the national political fray — stumping for conservative issues and even Democrats — after she prematurely vacates her elected post at month's end. The former Republican vice-presidential nominee and heroine to much of the GOP's base said in an interview she views the electorate as embattled and fatigued by nonstop partisanship, and she is eager to campaign for Republicans, independents and even Democrats who share her values on limited government, strong defense and "energy independence."
"I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation," she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla — population 7,000 — where she began her political career.
"People are so tired of the partisan stuff — even my own son is not a Republican," said Mrs. Palin, who stunned the political world earlier this month with her decision to step down as governor July 26 with 18 months left in her term.


EXCLUSIVE: Palin to stump for conservative Democrats - Washington Times

[VictorCharlie]

classic Kirk post

[El Kabong]

You're not going to get any competition in the system while it's dominated by

...GOVERNMENT


You can use anti-trust legislation to bust up monopolies you're whining about, but you can't do anything to break up big government.

[CFH]

You're not going to get any competition in the system while it's dominated by

...GOVERNMENT


You can use anti-trust legislation to bust up monopolies you're whining about, but you can't do anything to break up big government.

Viva la revolution!




Just kidding... don't crucify me Lyle.

[CGM]

You're not going to get any competition in the system while it's dominated by

...GOVERNMENT


You can use anti-trust legislation to bust up monopolies you're whining about, but you can't do anything to break up big government.

Viva la revolution!




Just kidding... don't crucify me Lyle.

yeah!!!!! Down with big government, viva la revolution!

oops, just kidding lefty, I mean CFH.

[CFH]

...GOVERNMENT


You can use anti-trust legislation to bust up monopolies you're whining about, but you can't do anything to break up big government.

Viva la revolution!




Just kidding... don't crucify me Lyle.

yeah!!!!! Down with big government, viva la revolution!

oops, just kidding lefty, I mean CFH.

What does that even mean?

Good ole' Yeltsin.

[Kirkland Laing]

You're not going to get any competition in the system while it's dominated by

...GOVERNMENT


You can use anti-trust legislation to bust up monopolies you're whining about, but you can't do anything to break up big government.

They should use anti-trust legislation to break up the banks, the medical-industrial complex and a bunch of other dangerous monopolies but they never will because their lobbyists own all the important legislators. A single payer system (the government) would save a huge amount over the current corporate socialist healthcare system. Eventually the budget situation will get so bad that the GOP will cave and agree to one but I'm not sure we're quite there yet. If Obama can at least get a public plan passed to compete with the private ones that'll be a good start.