Obama '08?

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Universal Healthcare has been the norm in Canada for decades and yet the number of diabetes-related kidney disease has more than doubled there in the last 10 years.

It's not quite that simple. It's a very particular type of diabetes which is on the rise - Type II - obesity-related, and luckily, or unluckily, Canadians haven't caught up to the U.S. on obesity-related diabetes or its effects - including diabetes-related renal failure.

http://www.icis.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_07feb2007_e

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/

It's certainly a concern, but we're hoping not to catch up to the U.S. in this, and a number of other areas.

[quote="nappyheadedhohoh said:Good points. Universal Healthcare has been the norm in Canada for decades and yet the number of diabetes-related kidney disease has more than doubled there in the last 10 years.

dyslexia wrote:

Once again your ignorance is strongly displayed, social workers are, by law, restricted to follow state statute (children's code) written by their respective state legislatures; not follow their personal inclinations, all actions by child protection workers are directly in accordance of the court of jurisdiction. when you displace such profound ignorance about matters of which you know nothing, your credibility sinks even lower.

I am fully aware of what you are talking about, but to say the social workers have no power to make any judgements whatsoever, wherein they have no choice of judgement about what to tell the judges what the conditions are, then I think you are wrong. And also, legislators make laws for a reason, and probably in part due to the advice given to them by the so-called experts in the government bureaucracies, dys.

Your explanation sounds like a beautiful copout, typical of a bureaucrat.

If only diabetes were that simple, I would understand what you propose.

So, those smokers who develop problems - are they going to be forced to quit smoking, or get kicked out of the system? Are fat people going to be forced to lose weight, or get kicked out? Are people who don't exercise going to be forced to run? I think that you will see that no matter how much prevention we give people there will still be a large amount who don't take advantage of it.

I guess what I mean is that there are difficult questions to solve about who is getting a 'fair deal' and who is cheating the system no matter whether you have mandates or not.

And like Soz said, people don't like being forced to do things. It's better to make it attractive enough that they would be fools not to do it.

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Once again your ignorance is strongly displayed, ............ your credibility sinks even lower.

I am fully aware . .............Your explanation sounds like a beautiful copout, typical of a bureaucrat.

Okie, we seemed to have had a truce, you quit your personal attacks on me and I quit calling you a lying scum sucking pig with the cognitive abilities of a slug finishing off a saucer of beer................that burden directly on your pin-headed brain for it's obvious you have no ethic to see you through your dark times.

Heads they win the bet. Tails the public loses because they join the system later and reap the benefits paid by those who got insured in the first place.

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Once again your ignorance is strongly displayed, ............ your credibility sinks even lower.

I am fully aware . .............Your explanation sounds like a beautiful copout, typical of a bureaucrat.

Okie, we seemed to have had a truce, you quit your personal attacks on me and I quit calling you a lying scum sucking pig with the cognitive abilities of a slug finishing off a saucer of beer................that burden directly on your pin-headed brain for it's obvious you have no ethic to see you through your dark times.

AAAAAaaargh! Please, Dys, not those burning black churches again! Okie, Dys is actually a good guy (he doesn't like his military record mentioned, so you'll have to take my word for it) so please drop it. Thanks

The second point is that there is a shared assumption here and in the West that we own the world. Unless you accept that assumption, the entire discussion that is taking place is unintelligible. For example, you see a headline in the newspaper, as I saw recently in the Christian Science Monitor, something like "New Study of Foreign Fighters in Iraq." Who are the foreign fighters in Iraq? Some guy who came in from Saudi Arabia. How about the 160,000 American troops? Well, they're not foreign fighters in Iraq because we own the world; therefore we can't be foreign fighters anywhere. Like, if the United States invades Canada, we won't be foreign. And if anybody resists it, they're enemy combatants, we send them to Guantanamo.

what does continue to stick in my craw is when OBama stated that he would consider invading Pakistan if he had evidence of Osama's location in Pakistan. Another freakin' invasion justification? If we had intelligence of Osama hiding in Lebanon or German would he also consider invading? Shock and awe?

Mary Jo Kopechne and Marilyn Monroe endorse Hillary.....

dyslexia wrote:

what does continue to stick in my craw is when OBama stated that he would consider invading Pakistan if he had evidence of Osama's location in Pakistan. Another freakin' invasion justification? If we had intelligence of Osama hiding in Lebanon or German would he also consider invading? Shock and awe?

I would consider sending in a task force to get Osama no matter where he was at.

There's a big difference between that and conquering a country.

Cycloptichorn

what does continue to stick in my craw is when OBama stated that he would consider invading Pakistan if he had evidence of Osama's location in Pakistan. Another freakin' invasion justification? If we had intelligence of Osama hiding in Lebanon or German would he also consider invading? Shock and awe?

Senator Clinton was the only Democratic member of Congress seeking the presidential nomination to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which, among other things, called on the Bush administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps - the largest branch of the Iranian military - as a foreign terrorist organization. To designate a branch of the armed forces of a foreign state as a terrorist organization would be unprecedented and was widely interpreted to be a backhanded way of authorizing military action against Iran. Indeed, Virginia Senator Jim Webb referred to it as "Cheney's fondest pipe dream."

It's correct to attack the plan for the mandates. I support him doing so. And I think the flyer was an effective message. That's why they used it. There's nothing dishonest about it; tell me, what part of the ad isn't true?