The future of medicine

[romed81]

---

Members do not see this ad.

so let's see if I get this right... we can pretty much agree that the biggest problem faced by doctors these days is malpractice lawsuits. In the same time we have two choices when it comes to elections. On one side is Bush - who for better for worse said that he is against all the malpractice lawsuits, and he is FOR capping the awards, on the other side is Kerry/Edwards, who are outspoken for continuing the malpractice lawsuits, because of -and I love this - "seriously injured children and families" (taken from the CNN article). I can almost feel tears filling up my eyes...and yet, hang on...why the hell does mr. Edwards take me for a *****???? I posted this previously - nobody ever argued the instances of crass medical malpractice, but that's not the case in present day situation, it is the freaking sea of lawsuits that have no reason other than get to a settlement and get the doctor's money. So let me ask you this question...most people here want to become doctors, and we also know what our biggest fear will be when we will start practicing. So why is it soo hard to choose?? It's like wanting to enter a cage full of hyenas because you believe you are so much better, that they will not attack you...

 

[Gleevec]

You're the biggest idiot on this site. Republicans help out doctors and have tried to pass reform many times. It passes the House of reps but never passes Senate because Dems shoot it down. It needs 60 votes to pass and Republicans only have 51 people in the Senate. It will never pass in the Senate, and as a result will never pass.

Haha look its Luck, the MD bashing, ignorance-spewing, arrogant piece of crap that only reads Allo so that she might make a jab at MDs because you feel your DO degree is inferior.

You know about as much about politics as you do medicine-- which is jack crap. Each reform the Republicans tried to pass simply tried to LOWER THE CAPS ON MALPRACTICE.

I will try and break down the logic in smaller steps so that even you can understand, Luck:

1. Lowering caps does not lead to lower premiums for doctors. It just means insurance companies and HMOs can have higher profit margins.

2. If Republicans REALLY cared about doctors, they would pass legislation LIMITING PREMIUMS. If they tried to pass such a bill, I would support it 100%. But REPUBLICANS DONT CARE ABOUT DOCTORS. They are beholden to business interests.

3. Frist is a doctor and hasnt done ANYTHING to help out other doctors. States are in crisis, yet all they have done is pass a privatizing drug reform that has INCREASED prices for most seniors.

4. Republicans are all about removing controls on HMOs and insurance companies. By doing this, they allow for collusion and an actual increase in rates for doctors. Once again, if Republicans actually cared about doctors, they would take action to lower premiums, but instead they simply try to place caps so insurance companies can maintain a higher profit margin.

Its unfortunate that individuals such as yourself are so gullible Luck, but maybe if you tried to educate yourself on the issues instead of bashing allopathic medicine you would be better equipped to handle these discussions.

 

[georgebush43]

so let's see if I get this right... we can pretty much agree that the biggest problem faced by doctors these days is malpractice lawsuits. In the same time we have two choices when it comes to elections. On one side is Bush - who for better for worse said that he is against all the malpractice lawsuits, and he is FOR capping the awards, on the other side is Kerry/Edwards, who are outspoken for continuing the malpractice lawsuits, because of -and I love this - "seriously injured children and families" (taken from the CNN article). I can almost feel tears filling up my eyes...and yet, hang on...why the hell does mr. Edwards take me for a *****???? I posted this previously - nobody ever argued the instances of crass medical malpractice, but that's not the case in present day situation, it is the freaking sea of lawsuits that have no reason other than get to a settlement and get the doctor's money. So let me ask you this question...most people here want to become doctors, and we also know what our biggest fear will be when we will start practicing. So why is it soo hard to choose?? It's like wanting to enter a cage full of hyenas because you believe you are so much better, that they will not attack you...

i see ariel sharon's hookers have knocked some sense into you.

good on ya, laddie!!!!!!!

 

[romed81]

glevec - when it comes to politics maybe you are pretty good; when it comes to medicine - maybe you are good as well (although I wouldn't bash the DO's if I were you). But believe, when it comes to economics, maybe you need to keep silence. If you cap the awards, there is a good chance that malpractice insurance companies will have enough money left to lower the premiums. After all they are businesses, and as we still live in a free society, if they keep the same premiums, and therefore make huge profit, then what will happen is other insurance companies opening up, that are willing to cover doctors at lower premiums - simple law of competition. If on the other hand you put a cap on premiums, and you leave the awards run rampant like now, then what you have is an artificially induced price ceiling, which will lead to insurance companies going out of business - PLEASE do remember, as much as I and everyone else hate insurance companies - they are after all businesses (more over corporations) - whose ETHICAL goal is to make as much money as possible (so that you give back as much possible to the shareholders). I work in the ER, and the hospital I work in has contracted a group of ER physicians to staff the ER. Their insurance company decided to drop them, because it could not cover the liability anymore - and that is with NO, absolutely NOT ONE lawsuit against any of those physicians. The insurance company simply did not have the money to cover for the liability...so glevec - for everybody's peace of mind - leave economics alone.

 

[Luck]

glevec - when it comes to politics maybe you are pretty good; when it comes to medicine - maybe you are good as well (although I wouldn't bash the DO's if I were you). But believe, when it comes to economics, maybe you need to keep silence. If you cap the awards, there is a good chance that malpractice insurance companies will have enough money left to lower the premiums. After all they are businesses, and as we still live in a free society, if they keep the same premiums, and therefore make huge profit, then what will happen is other insurance companies opening up, that are willing to cover doctors at lower premiums - simple law of competition. If on the other hand you put a cap on premiums, and you leave the awards run rampant like now, then what you have is an artificially induced price ceiling, which will lead to insurance companies going out of business - PLEASE do remember, as much as I and everyone else hate insurance companies - they are after all businesses (more over corporations) - whose ETHICAL goal is to make as much money as possible (so that you give back as much possible to the shareholders). I work in the ER, and the hospital I work in has contracted a group of ER physicians to staff the ER. Their insurance company decided to drop them, because it could not cover the liability anymore - and that is with NO, absolutely NOT ONE lawsuit against any of those physicians. The insurance company simply did not have the money to cover for the liability...so glevec - for everybody's peace of mind - leave economics alone.

You said that very well. I apologize on behalf of the idiot gleevec. He bashes DOs and doesn't know his economics. He shoots his mouth often even though most of the time he is wrong. He has problems.

 

[georgebush43]

glevec - when it comes to politics maybe you are pretty good; when it comes to medicine - maybe you are good as well (although I wouldn't bash the DO's if I were you). But believe, when it comes to economics, maybe you need to keep silence. If you cap the awards, there is a good chance that malpractice insurance companies will have enough money left to lower the premiums. After all they are businesses, and as we still live in a free society, if they keep the same premiums, and therefore make huge profit, then what will happen is other insurance companies opening up, that are willing to cover doctors at lower premiums - simple law of competition. If on the other hand you put a cap on premiums, and you leave the awards run rampant like now, then what you have is an artificially induced price ceiling, which will lead to insurance companies going out of business - PLEASE do remember, as much as I and everyone else hate insurance companies - they are after all businesses (more over corporations) - whose ETHICAL goal is to make as much money as possible (so that you give back as much possible to the shareholders). I work in the ER, and the hospital I work in has contracted a group of ER physicians to staff the ER. Their insurance company decided to drop them, because it could not cover the liability anymore - and that is with NO, absolutely NOT ONE lawsuit against any of those physicians. The insurance company simply did not have the money to cover for the liability...so glevec - for everybody's peace of mind - leave economics alone.

stop betraying your fellow texan.

now, do you wanna lick ariel sharon's assss with me????

 

[georgebush43]

You said that very well. I apologize on behalf of the idiot gleevec. He bashes DOs and doesn't know his economics. He shoots his mouth often even though most of the time he is wrong. He has problems.

you tell em sonnie. Them yankees dont know nothin

 

[georgebush43]

stop betraying your fellow texan.

now, do you wanna lick ariel sharon's assss with me????

there's room for two there, ya know

 

[ForensicPath]

If you cap the awards, there is a good chance that malpractice insurance companies will have enough money left to lower the premiums. After all they are businesses, and as we still live in a free society, if they keep the same premiums, and therefore make huge profit, then what will happen is other insurance companies opening up, that are willing to cover doctors at lower premiums - simple law of competition. If on the other hand you put a cap on premiums, and you leave the awards run rampant like now, then what you have is an artificially induced price ceiling, which will lead to insurance companies going out of business - PLEASE do remember, as much as I and everyone else hate insurance companies - they are after all businesses (more over corporations) - whose ETHICAL goal is to make as much money as possible (so that you give back as much possible to the shareholders).

First off, I am the first to admit that I am quite ignorant when it comes to economics. However, I can't say that I necessarily agree with this. Think about it in terms of video stores. How many independently owned video stores are in existence nowadays? Not many. We are overrun by the overpriced Blockbuster Videos. Often times small upstart businesses are bought by the larger, more established corporations in America even if the upstarts are offering something better or cheaper. So if you have a small insurance company offering much cheaper insurance to doctors, chances are one of the larger established companies will be making a large offer to buy out that small company. Thus, there really is no major incentive to lower the premiums on malpractice insurance. This consolidation is one of the biggest problems with the American marketplace, in my humble opinion. It removes that competition necessary to drive down prices.

This problem needs to be attacked from both fronts and both of those fronts are being blocked by the interests of the two political parties in America. Until doctors become a force to be reckoned with, we will not see any change.

 

[papertiger]

It's doesn't matter who wins the elections in Nov. because neither side is going to help the medical community. Bush & Co. are in the pockets of the insurance companies and they are against any science that doesn't support their political agenda (like stem-cell research). Kerry & Co. are with the trial lawyers one this one. 😡

We have no choice for a real candidate for this election. They both come off as the biggest and most incompetent *****s on this planet. How much do you want to bet that the race for presidency was a bet among Bush and Kerry when they were both in Skull & Bones at Yale.

If only enough people voted third party (wishful thinking).

 

[Tallguy]

glevec - when it comes to politics maybe you are pretty good; when it comes to medicine - maybe you are good as well (although I wouldn't bash the DO's if I were you). But believe, when it comes to economics, maybe you need to keep silence. If you cap the awards, there is a good chance that malpractice insurance companies will have enough money left to lower the premiums. After all they are businesses, and as we still live in a free society, if they keep the same premiums, and therefore make huge profit, then what will happen is other insurance companies opening up, that are willing to cover doctors at lower premiums - simple law of competition. If on the other hand you put a cap on premiums, and you leave the awards run rampant like now, then what you have is an artificially induced price ceiling, which will lead to insurance companies going out of business - PLEASE do remember, as much as I and everyone else hate insurance companies - they are after all businesses (more over corporations) - whose ETHICAL goal is to make as much money as possible (so that you give back as much possible to the shareholders). I work in the ER, and the hospital I work in has contracted a group of ER physicians to staff the ER. Their insurance company decided to drop them, because it could not cover the liability anymore - and that is with NO, absolutely NOT ONE lawsuit against any of those physicians. The insurance company simply did not have the money to cover for the liability...so glevec - for everybody's peace of mind - leave economics alone.

U are spinning economics in your favor...what you fail to mention is that caps are questionable in lowering premiums because we currently have competition amongst malpractice insurance companies and the premiums are still high... Evidently the simplistic Supply vs. Demand equilibrium model is not always accurate in that we do not live in a perfect world... All caps will do is lead to collusion amongst malpractice insurance companies..and lead to a model resembling OPEC (how about those oil prices?)...

 

[principessa]

Spain did not do nearly enough as it should have done... inside of its own country! What did you expect us to do? Go into Spain and fix the problem? 🙄

So it's okay to intervene in countries that don't share our ideology, but when someone attacks our allies because of their support for us, it's their own fault.

The ONLY reason Spain was attacked was because Aznar was Bush's b****.

 

[Eyecon82]

So it's okay to intervene in countries that don't share our ideology, but when someone attacks our allies because of their support for us, it's their own fault.

The ONLY reason Spain was attacked was because Aznar was Bush's b****.

G3po is an immature wannabe pre-med.....all of his arguments are based on false logic and mental delusions...so don't worry about him...he will soon move on to his hideous life

 

[dmoney41]

But believe, when it comes to economics, maybe you need to keep silence. If you cap the awards, there is a good chance that malpractice insurance companies will have enough money left to lower the premiums. After all they are businesses, and as we still live in a free society, if they keep the same premiums, and therefore make huge profit, then what will happen is other insurance companies opening up, that are willing to cover doctors at lower premiums - simple law of competition.

Or maybe you do. Go buy an intro to micro book, go to the chapter titled Market Failures, and look up Imperfect Market Structures - Oligopoly. Those extra profits will, unless they're coerced by law, just go right into the pockets of the insurers.

But it's incredibly irrelevant either way, because you ALREADY ADMITTED you need 60 senate votes to pass medmal caps, which won't happen in the next presidential term whether you elect Bush, Kerry, or Bobo the chimp. I don't understand why people don't fricking get it: medmal reform is not coming in the next four years. Vote Bush or vote Kerry, but if you vote solely based because you think one is going to get medmal caps passed, you're dumb.

 

[McP]

Gleevec is right to say that you can't vote Left or Right because you think they'll look out for your interests. In my opinion, it would be the lesser of two evils to elect Kerry/Edwards into office. Not enough people outside of medicine realize how bad things are. But I also think if things got a little worse in the medmal arena as to affect a wider audience, then people will finally wake up and side with us.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. You seem to be implying that if we elect Kerry/Edwards, we can let things get worse than they are already and THEN people will finally see the plight of doctors being vicitimized by the likes of Edwards himself. Excellent.

I have a better idea. Vote for Bush this year. Just for kicks. Then start standing up for medmal reform. Do research on changes that will actually make a difference. Write letters, petitions even, to your representatives at the state and federal level advocating positive change. Let your non-doctor friends know the ways that frivolous malpractice suits affect their health care. Then, ten years into your medical practice, send John Edwards $10 million dollars to add to his already amassed fortune of $70 mill in doctor's well-earned money, to make up for your temporary lapse in loyalty to American liberals.

That way, you can be proactive and helpful while at the same time suffering the would-be consequences of allowing the downward spiral of malpractice suits to continue. Everyone wins! 🙂

 

[g3pro]

G3po is an immature wannabe pre-med.....all of his arguments are based on false logic and mental delusions...so don't worry about him...he will soon move on to his hideous life

 

[MErc44]

didn't edwards primarily work on class action law suits, this is where there may be up to hundreds of thousands of people against a company or a hospital or whatever. So if the settlement is 50 million dollars and there are 100,000 people in the lawsuit the most they could get is 500 dollars, but uh oh we forgot about the firm the lawyers are working for (edwards) they probably get about 10 or 15 million so this decreases the amount of money awarded to the people who actually "need" it. I heard Edwards being described as fighting for the little man, if this is how he fights and I believe it is, his philanthropic image isn't as warm and fuzzy as he would like you to believe.

Secondly, someone here said that terrorist attacks are up since 9/11 and Bush's policies of dealing with the bastards. An increase in terror attacks may signify that they are being disrupted, they are fighting for their lives, the attacks in Iraq are against muslims primarily and although US soldiers lose their lives the Iraqi people are dying in greater numbers. I don't believe terrorists are better off now then they were four years ago.

 

[hy2026]

Hopefully, in my lifetime I hope to see a doctor become the President.

I am sure one of you in this forum has that ambition. Please we need smart people like doctors running for the presidency.


A+ students become professors.
A students become doctors.
B students become lawyers and businessmen.
C students become politicians.

 

[sammyhagar19]

So you believe your hatred is more important than the lives and well-being of patients? 😕



Bush defeated terrorism, rejuvenated the economy from the Clinton-Gore recession, took an aggressive stance towards terrorism.

But you don't hate him for that. You hate him because he's conservative and christian. Go figure. 🙄

Clinton-Gore recession? Would that be the same recession that created 20 million jobs? Or maybe its the recession that caused the astronomical increases in stock profits? Damn, i must be reading the wrong dictionary if thats what qualifies a recession. But its a good thing that economy is finally coming out of recession. After all, there were 157,000 or so new jobs created last month (with 300,000 new people entering the workforce).

 

[Tallguy]

g3pro is so misguided that he believes Bush defeated terrorism....What fantasy land is he living in?

I bet he will start linking the CLinton/Gore economy boom to Reaganomics pretty soon...

I thought Democrats were supposed to be big spenders...but Republicans are always the one's with the huge deficits when they are in office

 

[bahala na]

Republitroll

 

[flighterdoc]

g3pro is so misguided that he believes Bush defeated terrorism....What fantasy land is he living in?

I bet he will start linking the CLinton/Gore economy boom to Reaganomics pretty soon...

I thought Democrats were supposed to be big spenders...but Republicans are always the one's with the huge deficits when they are in office

The "Clinton-gore" boom was a continuation of the Reagan recovery, caused by the Reagan tax cuts. The recent downturn is a cyclic downturn that started on Clintons watch, and is normal. It's also over, and the economy is growing pretty darned fast right now.

And we have a big deficit now because of the 911 attacks. Government revenues following the tax cuts are UP across the board, for all levels of government.

 

[g3pro]

The "Clinton-gore" boom was a continuation of the Reagan recovery, caused by the Reagan tax cuts. The recent downturn is a cyclic downturn that started on Clintons watch, and is normal. It's also over, and the economy is growing pretty darned fast right now.

And we have a big deficit now because of the 911 attacks. Government revenues following the tax cuts are UP across the board, for all levels of government.

Finally, someone who actually took some Econ classes in undergraduate!!! 🙂

 

[flighterdoc]

Finally, someone who actually took some Econ classes in undergraduate!!! 🙂

Why, yes I did, thanks. One upper-division class I took was taught by a professor who was actually a member of the IWW, and who's parents were arrested in the '30's as communist labor agitators. We didn't agree on much, but he at least was honest.

I was already working full time as an engineer when the tax cuts went into effect. I was on active duty when Reagan was elected, I had the very singular privilege of meeting him at his ranch in Santa Barbara one day.

 

[Tallguy]

The "Clinton-gore" boom was a continuation of the Reagan recovery, caused by the Reagan tax cuts. The recent downturn is a cyclic downturn that started on Clintons watch, and is normal. It's also over, and the economy is growing pretty darned fast right now.

And we have a big deficit now because of the 911 attacks. Government revenues following the tax cuts are UP across the board, for all levels of government.

Looks like the Republican brain-washing is working.... I have some bridges to sell if you want them...

Clearly your general notions of economical growth are misguided and display your ignorance... Have u looked at the statistics with regard to job growth in the manufacturing sector? THe Bush administration does not realize or covers it up that the Jobs that are being created are mostly at Walmart and McDonalds...

Let's put Kerry in office and Warren Buffet as financial advisor...

 

[flighterdoc]

Looks like the Republican brain-washing is working.... I have some bridges to sell if you want them...

Clearly your general notions of economical growth are misguided and display your ignorance... Have u looked at the statistics with regard to job growth in the manufacturing sector? THe Bush administration does not realize or covers it up that the Jobs that are being created are mostly at Walmart and McDonalds...

Let's put Kerry in office and Warren Buffet as financial advisor...

The bridges I sold to your econ professors? No thanks.

And the US economy has been moving away from manufacturing and to service (including high tech) for 40 years. Not significant, except as a sound bite for synaptically challenged individuals.

 

[Tallguy]

The bridges I sold to your econ professors? No thanks.

And the US economy has been moving away from manufacturing and to service (including high tech) for 40 years. Not significant, except as a sound bite for synaptically challenged individuals.

Are these the same high tech jobs that the U.S. is sending overseas?

 

[flighterdoc]

Are these the same high tech jobs that the U.S. is sending overseas?

No, actually most of the tech jobs outsourced are low-tech - like phone support. And, they're being brought back, it turns out that managing a phone bank in bangalore is more difficult than first thought and quality suffers.

 

[velo]

G3po is an immature wannabe pre-med.....all of his arguments are based on false logic and mental delusions...so don't worry about him...he will soon move on to his hideous life

I'd just like to thank flighterdoc and G3po for saving me some time, I ussually like to watch a little bit of fox news each week to get a feel for the opposition arguments, but I think I've gotten the jist of the latest neocon talking points just by reading this board!

 

[Tallguy]

I know you Republicans enjoy personal attacks...but if u looked closely I made statements with regard to your opinions...unlike u that resorts to insulting one's intelligence... Even though u do not even know me...

 

[flighterdoc]

I'd just like to thank flighterdoc and G3po for saving me some time, I ussually like to watch a little bit of fox news each week to get a feel for the opposition arguments, but I think I've gotten the jist of the latest neocon talking points just by reading this board!

Sorry, I'm not a neocon. I'm a paleocon, and have been for years and years before you were a sperm swimming upstream.

 

[flighterdoc]

I know you Republicans enjoy personal attacks...but if u looked closely I made statements with regard to your opinions...unlike u that resorts to insulting one's intelligence... Even though u do not even know me...

Poor baby, did you get your feelings hurt?

You're right, I don't know you. I can judge your intelligence from your posts, and they're not too bright.

 

[velo]

Sorry, I'm not a neocon. I'm a paleocon, and have been for years and years before you were a sperm swimming upstream.

if you're an old school conservative why do you support a fiscally irresponsible neocon administration?

 

[flighterdoc]

if you're an old school conservative why do you support a fiscally irresponsible neocon administration?

Because it's better than a fiscally irresponsible democratic administration. I base that on experience, btw, I've lived through more than one or two examples of each.

Now, if someone who held the ideals of John F. Kennedy was running, I'd very likely vote for him. But, the closest we have to that right now is Bush.

 

[Tallguy]

Poor baby, did you get your feelings hurt?

You're right, I don't know you. I can judge your intelligence from your posts, and they're not too bright.

Evidently the large number of U.S. medical schools that accepted me did not feel that way... I am sure you will still be in this pre-allopathic forum 30 years from now

 

[flighterdoc]

Evidently the large number of U.S. medical schools that accepted me did not feel that way... I am sure you will still be in this pre-allopathic forum 30 years from now

Wow, good for you. Want to whip out GPA's, majors and MCAT Scores?

 

[Tallguy]

I am tired of this childish arguing... So, I will just wish u the best of luck and respect your opinion. 🙂

 

[ad_sharp]

I am tired of this childish arguing... So, I will just wish u the best of luck and respect your opinion. 🙂

Now, that's the best post I've read in here in two days.

 

[velo]

Because it's better than a fiscally irresponsible democratic administration. I base that on experience, btw, I've lived through more than one or two examples of each.

Now, if someone who held the ideals of John F. Kennedy was running, I'd very likely vote for him. But, the closest we have to that right now is Bush.

Kerry is one of the few democrats I can think of who has run on a platform of fiscal responsibility...say what you will about his senate record, but it included fighting for a balenced budget and deficit reduction. I don't think the current administration could be any more irresponsible with the budget/deficit, so I have hope that Kerry would be better--based on his own record and that of the current administration. I know candidates don't always follow through on campaign promises, but you seem to trust that bush is actually for malpractice reform like he claims--even though last election he claimed to be a uniter, an education president, and "against nation-building"...none of which turned out to be true. just my 2? but I'd really like to hear what you think

 

[flighterdoc]

I am tired of this childish arguing... So, I will just wish u the best of luck and respect your opinion. 🙂

"Childish" is right. You're the one who brought it up, and now, like most idiotic blowhards, are running away.

Goodby!

 

[Eyecon82]

Wow, good for you. Want to whip out GPA's, majors and MCAT Scores?

For a older, more wise person...you sure don't seem that way...your comments are pretty immature

The most wise people I know don't talk about their age and "had to walk uphill to school" crap...so start using your so-called intelligence instead of your age group as credibility

 

[Tallguy]

"Childish" is right. You're the one who brought it up, and now, like most idiotic blowhards, are running away.

Goodby!

See u at dinner Grandpa...

 

[flighterdoc]

Kerry is one of the few democrats I can think of who has run on a platform of fiscal responsibility...say what you will about his senate record, but it included fighting for a balenced budget and deficit reduction. I don't think the current administration could be any more irresponsible with the budget/deficit, so I have hope that Kerry would be better--based on his own record and that of the current administration. I know candidates don't always follow through on campaign promises, but you seem to trust that bush is actually for malpractice reform like he claims--even though last election he claimed to be a uniter, an education president, and "against nation-building"...none of which turned out to be true. just my 2? but I'd really like to hear what you think

The way he tried to balance the budget (higher taxes, less defense) isn't a good idea. That was tried by Carter, and it didn't work particularly well. You can't tax your way out of a deficit.

The budget deficit we have now is because of the Sept 11 attacks. And, having a deficit (within reason) isn't a bad thing (it's like buying a house with a mortgage), the deficit as a percentage of GDP (the only way to compare it that is valid) is lower than it's been in the past, and the revenue to the federal, and other governments, is increasing thanks to the tax cuts and improving economy.

As far as nation-building, the attacks again had an effect, obviously. During the campaign, the nation-building he was talking about was in Bosnia, what has 12 years of involvement there brought to the US?

If you look at Kerry (and edwards) voting record and statements and think they've got a good plan, you should reconsider.

 

[flighterdoc]

See u at dinner Grandpa...

Again, who's being childish? I thought you were leaving, now go stand in the corner.

 

[flighterdoc]

For a older, more wise person...you sure don't seem that way...your comments are pretty immature

The most wise people I know don't talk about their age and "had to walk uphill to school" crap...so start using your so-called intelligence instead of your age group as credibility

LOL. If someone (like tallboy) wants to brag about the schools he's been accepted to thats OK, when I accept the challenge it's not?

Right, OK. Thanks for your participation.

 

[Eyecon82]

The way he tried to balance the budget (higher taxes, less defense) isn't a good idea. That was tried by Carter, and it didn't work particularly well. You can't tax your way out of a deficit.

The budget deficit we have now is because of the Sept 11 attacks. And, having a deficit (within reason) isn't a bad thing (it's like buying a house with a mortgage), the deficit as a percentage of GDP (the only way to compare it that is valid) is lower than it's been in the past, and the revenue to the federal, and other governments, is increasing thanks to the tax cuts and improving economy.

As far as nation-building, the attacks again had an effect, obviously. During the campaign, the nation-building he was talking about was in Bosnia, what has 12 years of involvement there brought to the US?

If you look at Kerry (and edwards) voting record and statements and think they've got a good plan, you should reconsider.

Ok..thank you for some intelligent posts now..

I feel torn this year voting, simply because I don't support any of the 2 candidates. I just have to vote for the lesser of the two evils....

The reason why I don't like Bush is because his aggressive stance has caused America's reputation to go down and he flushed foreign relations down the drain...look what happened in spain, france, and what is soon to happen in italy...and during election time in England, it is almost a gaurantee that the new PM won't support us

I just think it's time for a change and Kerry offers that

 

[flighterdoc]

Ok..thank you for some intelligent posts now..

I feel torn this year voting, simply because I don't support any of the 2 candidates. I just have to vote for the lesser of the two evils....

The reason why I don't like Bush is because his aggressive stance has caused America's reputation to go down and he flushed foreign relations down the drain...look what happened in spain, france, and what is ston to happen in italy

I just think it's time for a change and Kerry offers that

What has happened in france is that Chirac (who is up to his elbows in the oil-for-food scandal) has been deflecting attention by blaming the US. He's not a neutral party in evaluating the US. What happened in Spain is that the terrorists won.

Today on the radio I heard a sound bite of Edwards saying that he'll make "America what it was" or some such BS, that he and Kerry will make america friendly with the rest of the world.

The trouble with that is it puts the rest of the worlds positions ahead of the US's. Thats NOT what a president is supposed to do.

 

[Eyecon82]

What has happened in france is that Chirac (who is up to his elbows in the oil-for-food scandal) has been deflecting attention by blaming the US. He's not a neutral party in evaluating the US. What happened in Spain is that the terrorists won.

Today on the radio I heard a sound bite of Edwards saying that he'll make "America what it was" or some such BS, that he and Kerry will make america friendly with the rest of the world.

The trouble with that is it puts the rest of the worlds positions ahead of the US's. Thats NOT what a president is supposed to do.

Well maybe if we had better foreign relations, the President would be more adapt to taking care of business that's needeed the most....domestic issues...

And I also really believe by Bush's aggressivness...he has made the world a more dangerous place for americans....it's impossible to refute that

 

[Eyecon82]

What has happened in france is that Chirac (who is up to his elbows in the oil-for-food scandal) has been deflecting attention by blaming the US. He's not a neutral party in evaluating the US. What happened in Spain is that the terrorists won.

Today on the radio I heard a sound bite of Edwards saying that he'll make "America what it was" or some such BS, that he and Kerry will make america friendly with the rest of the world.

The trouble with that is it puts the rest of the worlds positions ahead of the US's. Thats NOT what a president is supposed to do.

Also, I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. Do you think Bush lied to us for going to war against Iraq? Did Iraq pose a threat to the US? If so, please give me facts as to why this war was justified..

Clinton lied about personal affairs..which i have no problem with...but Bush is lying about international affairs...i have a huge problem with that..who needs a deceiving president?

 

[velo]

The way he tried to balance the budget (higher taxes, less defense) isn't a good idea. That was tried by Carter, and it didn't work particularly well. You can't tax your way out of a deficit.

The budget deficit we have now is because of the Sept 11 attacks. And, having a deficit (within reason) isn't a bad thing (it's like buying a house with a mortgage), the deficit as a percentage of GDP (the only way to compare it that is valid) is lower than it's been in the past, and the revenue to the federal, and other governments, is increasing thanks to the tax cuts and improving economy.

As far as nation-building, the attacks again had an effect, obviously. During the campaign, the nation-building he was talking about was in Bosnia, what has 12 years of involvement there brought to the US?

If you look at Kerry (and edwards) voting record and statements and think they've got a good plan, you should reconsider.

Yeah I see your point...but you're treading on very thin ice with all of these...they're all opinions. Granted all I have are my opinions, but I can just as easily say...

He was trying to balence the budget with higher taxes and less defense because #1 reagan had cut taxes too much and trickle down economics doesn't work. #2 defense was a good thing to cut at the time, our military was HUGE because we thought we were fighting a cold war, and people started realizing "hey, we're the only superpower...we can cut $$$ from teh military to get the budget back on track"

The economy didn't go into a recession because of the terrorist attacks...but to be fair the recession isn't bush's fault--the recession happened because the internet bubble burst, and that was unavoidable...what was avoidable was the ballooning deficit we now have because bush believes, incorrectly, that you can tax-CUT your way out of a recession.

Nationbuilding? how is that related to teh attacks...we got attacked by a terrorist network, we invaded a soveriegn nation....riiiiight. Saudia arabia had more involvement with the attacks than iraq, so don't tell me 9/11 dictated to bush that he had to flip flop on his nationbuilding position and invade iraq (BTW we should NOT invade saudia arabia...that would be a tall bad idea...a lot of us would die and our economy would collapse 🙁 so I'm not going to critisize GW for not going after them...that's a necessary evil) Nationbuilding was tacked on at the end of the war as justification and then all of the conservatives who yelled at clinton for doing the same thing in kosovo (but--suprise suprise being up front with us that that's why we were interveening!) and backing bush as a great leader for liberating the iraqi's...double standard? i think so.

So there's arguments on both sides...i have a congenital condition making my left leg a bit shorter than my right....so i tend to lean that way...and the fact that we went from 8yrs of peace and prosperity to 4 years of war and recession plays into my thinking as well