![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Thursday, 3 Jan 2008
I know, I should stay out of this, but I can't help it. The race this time is just too stupid on both sides. There are no fun candidates. I was hoping for Rumsfeld to run (imagine the White house press interviews?), but the dude is staying at home. Same with Condi. A Condi/Hillary election would've given feminists ulcers and Black people headaches. But no, I can't get my dream candidates, and I have to settle for this reality. And boy does reality blow.
On the Left, we have Hillary, who is so mechanical and downright evil that I can't fathom how she has real supporters anywhere. There is Edwards, who looks good, and talks well, and like, that's about it. And then there is Obama, and there is nothing funny about Obama. No one can make fun of Obama. You can call him Braka Hussein Osama all you want, but, like, nothing beyond that. He is kind of like Edwards, only still in the senate and Black. But he admitted to doing drugs when he was young, which gives him high marks in my book, and he is giving Hillary a real run for her money, which just makes me love him. The remaining dems, well, there is the UFO dude, and that Biden guy who wants everyone to know he is running, but no one knows why. It's all very stupid.
But on the right, things are even worse. You have a Pro-abortion, womanizing Catholic from New York in an anti-abortion, family values Protestant party that just loves and lives in the South; You have a Mormon ex-governor of Massachusetts, who lives the family values shtick with his 74937902 children and grandchildren, but panders so much he is making Kerry look like a straight talker; You have a so-called isolationist Libertarian, who wants to abolish the IRS (yay) but abolish the CIA (boo), gets supported by Neo-Nazis and has the craziest online trolls the internet has seen, ever; You have an Actor who everyone wanted to run because he was on fuckin Law and Order (hate that show and all of its bastard children spin-offs), and yet who managed to convey half of the Charisma Al Gore had through out the Clinton Presidency; You have an Arizona Senator who America loves but his own party kinda despises because he is too much of a centrist for them, not to mention he is like 150 years old, so there probably won't be a second term, and who wants that?; And finally you have a Southern Preacher who thinks God wants him to win, which is weird, since God told me that he is staying out of this one, especially that the people didn't like his endorsement of Bush very much. It's all Fantastically crappy.
Now, since I am not american, let alone belong to either party, I am gonna endorse one from each side, and hope they end up running against each other, cause then either way my candidate wins. Because when you realize that the most important election in the world is taking place and you don't have a say and there is nothing you can do about this, you might as well take a step back and enjoy the show. Maybe even have your own Fun, just like I plan to. So, without further ado, I endorse:
Why McCain? Because he is an old nice guy who is Pro Military but knows how to play nice with the other party, which is what everyone keeps saying is "what America needs now". He won't fuck around on national security or Fiscal responsibility, and he is anti-Torture, which makes him very Ok in my book. Plus, if things go bad with him or he goes senile, he will be out in 4 years. No Harm done really!
Why Obama? Well, because I find him fascinating. He shouldn't be running now, and people shouldn't be supporting him due to experience/ achievement/ethnic background/drug-use reasons, but yet, here he is kicking Hillary and Bill's collective asses. He is changing the rules of the game, and it's making me not want this to end for him. I want to see what's gonna happen next. Nothing bad is sticking to that guy. Nothing. I want to find something that i dislike about him in person and I can't. It's been driving me nuts. So I am betting if he stays in the race long enough, someone will find something and I will let out a sigh of relief due to having my cynicism restored. Also, he has Obama Girl. What is there more to say?
So there it is people, my picks for 08. Like 'em or hate 'em, they make no difference really.
In other news, here is the most important issue this election.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Sandmonkey! love your blog. The secret police haven’t caught up with you yet?
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Nice analysis. Very interesting to see what someone says that is familiar with the US but also has an outside view. I really enjoyed the “mechanical” thing about Hillary. I never thought of her that way but it is a perfect description.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Dude, you may not technically be “American”…but in reality you are WAY more American than half of America!!!
Oh, and…screw Obama…and I’m from Chicago
Happy New Year MonkeyNuts!
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
You should get Dave Barry’s book “Boogers are my Beat”. you would really appreciate the first part.
Funnily enough, these two are the ones I would vote for no matter what party they are in.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Here is another way to pick:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346
Sandmonkey, you are spot on about Obama, but McCain is not a nice old man. McCain is a dick. He is my first choice from the Republicans, but he is a stubborn guy and his foreign policy will be a little pushy. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” without the speak softly part.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
If I were an American woman, Obama would not get my vote based on that video. Maybe he’s a nice guy but things like this don’t appeal to me…ciao
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Rudy “Fucking” Giuliani will be the next president of the U.S. and leader of the free world and you will say that Samseven said it. Why so, because he is the worst candidate by far and that is just the way these things work and turn out. i would love Obama to kick his ass but we all know that, will not happen.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“Why so, because he is the worst candidate by far and that is just the way these things work and turn out”
Paul, Kucinich, Richardson and Huckabee are all way worse than Giuliani imo. If he loses in NH he is pretty much done.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Standby for the self-financed, centrist independent campaign of Mike Bloomberg. The most likely effect of such a candidacy would be to split the middle/left vote, allowing the victory of a right wing republican who might ordinarily be too right for the general election. On the other hand, he’d turn New York into an electoral free for all, especially if either Hillary or Rudy were their respective party’s nominee.
Personally, I love Rudy and I like Bloomberg, but my current prognostication is Huckabee in a tight three-way race against Bloomberg and Hillary…unless there are some Electoral College shenanigans, which is entirely possible in such a scenario, in which Hillary would be president, and Bloomberg maybe the Treasury Secretary.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
My choice was Newt Gingrich but he’s not running so I’m doomed to relative unhappiness with the outcome.
Hillary is, of course, an awful choice. She’s a socialist, having tried the last time she got her grubby mitts on power to nationalize one seventh of the US economy (health care) because she implausibly claims that the gubbamin can do better than private business. Show me where that’s true anywhere. She is a savage bully who launched a federal investigation against White House travel office, wiping out their life savings and smearing their reputation, just so that she could give their jobs to her crooked little pals. She’s a thief who has yet to return the hundred thousand she stole in the cattle futures scam to its rightful owners. Should she be elected, we can expect more of the same, only bigger.
Obama is hardly impressive. He’s the same old liberal crap in a silk suit. His voting record is 100% liberal, which means he’s never had an original idea in his life but rather votes with the liberal herd every time. He makes grandiose claims that he’s gonna save the world, but doesn’t seem to have any specifics. His only contribution to the race is that he doesn’t dwell in negativity, which means he’s swimming against the Democratic tide. He is an honest Democrat, though wrong on the issues. He hasn’t made a fortune shaking businesses down with bogus accusations of racism, as Sharpton and Jackson have done. He’s a charming and well-educated guy. That’s good. However, on foreign policy, Obama is a dolt. He thinks America is carpet-bombing Afghan civilians, which is akin to saying we’re trampling them with our war elephants. It’s just nuts.
It’s worth pointing out that neither Hillary nor Obama have run any organization. Hillary claims experience but most of that is experience in failure, like the Hillarycare fiasco where she tried to ram her political program down the throats of America using an opaque process.
McCain is a great man but he hasn’t run anything either, has rather squishy liberal positions on many things, and has a rather unhinged temperament.
Giuliani is a pretty good choice, despite his turbulent personal life. He has run New York City, which is the equivalent of being the governor of a mid-size state. He’s battled the mafia, which is good training for defeating radical Islam. He is economically literate, unlike his Democratic opponents, and conservative on most of the important issues. He also can be one mean bastard. We may need one of those in charge if the Muslims hit us again. He also is hard core with the Saudis. We need somebody to come down hard on our Saudi enemies.
Romney is my favorite, though he seems to be handicapped by his Mormon religion with the electorate. He has run several organizations and been successful in all of them. He’s turned a couple around from failure to success, a difficult managerial task. He has the right conservative ideas on almost all the issues and can articulate them. He presents everything in a positive way, which is an art. He can work with both sides of the political divide. He’s my pick, though I don’t think he’ll get the nomination.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
RUDY is my choice but i trust and respect John McCain, I am from Chicago sorry obama FEH. NO WAY.
BUT THE ONE WHO IS RUNNING WHO I HATE IS RON PAUL
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
OFF TOPIC
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article3300987.ece
Kenya looks like the beginning of the Rwanda genocide and as usual the world sits by and does nothing
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
10. Brooklynjon, if Huckabee gets the nomination it will destroy the republican party. Bloomberg would pick up the voters and maybe challenge Hillary.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Other Mike,
Huckabee may very well splinter the Repubs. But a three way race (particularly with a sane, well-financed independent candidate) is highly unpredictable. I suspect that Bloomie would siphon more votes from Hillary than from Huckabee, and he just might win. Of course, if there is no outright majority in the Electoral College, all hell could break loose.
Look for McCain to be his running mate, although a Bloomie/Rudy ticket has a certain panache, IMHO. The all-mayor ticket. Ya gotta love it!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Sandmonkey, If you go to New Hampshire you can vote if you say you might move there. Thought you should know.
Asher
January 4th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Good to see you back SM. I’m late to the party because my web time has been cut by the addition of another sweet little girl.
But I just wanted to say that actors have a way with people, especially if they are not liberals or socialists or nutcases.
Nobody much thinks Fred has a chance (including me) but something is going on behind all the bullshit and the misleading, lying ass media.
Let’s just see how it works out.
It is a long time until people actually vote, lots can happen.
But don’t lose hope for America, the Radicals, the Socialists, the Illegals nor the media will force their will on the millions of those American’s that you never hear from until the shit hits the fan.
Papa Ray
January 4th, 2008 at 3:14 am
As a self-proclaimed “Fox News Democrat,” this is my ideal match-up. I could go either way and could quite possibly vote Republican for the first time in my life. McCain knows what the hell he’s doing, even if you dont agree with it.
Against any of the other candidates (including Rudy, who I like), I go Obama as the voice of change. Not high on experience, he’d have to surround himself with some really good advisors, which makes me nervous.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:35 am
I am quite surprised about all those who support Guilliani…albeit he is 4% in Iowa..he will lose NH…he is behind in Florida…his strategy is weak…Although he did wonders for the city of NY…where I live…my hometown…he alientated Blacks from Whites and controlled it truly like a police state. He is more smarmy than a used-car salesman especially with his wife Judy…That Vanity Fair expose on her was thrilling….great man to use state funds to chauffeur her around town bc she was being “threatened” prior to anyones knowledge of their torrid affair.
I support Bloomberg a lot and will vote for him if…yes…Edwards is not the nominee.
Why Edwards? Well he isn’t Clinton and he isn’t Obama…Although I love Obama, I think he lacks experience…Although Edwards is a one FULL term senator, that is still more experience than Obama.
I am pleased with the Caucus results but shudder to think a republican won who doesn’t believe in evolution…sigh…
January 4th, 2008 at 4:31 am
egyptchick7,
I agree that Rudy has more smarm than charm, but I’m mystified by your comments about black-white relations. I vividly remember the pathetic state of race relations he inherited, coming fresh off the Crown Heights riots, which his predecessor permitted to continue until someone got killed. His aggressive tactics were necessary in a city spiraling out of control, and the effect on crime and on the welfare roles speaks for itself.
Huckabee? Evolution? oy.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Go McCain!
As for Obama and Hillary, not sure who to pick.
One thing is for sure though. HELL NO to dickhead Rudy! If he wins, it will be a disaster!
January 4th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Drima, you don’t want McCain. I like McCain, but if I lived in the Sudan I would hope for anybody but McCain. I don’t know the man, but I know many men like him and they are not going to fuck around. He is old-breed mean.
B-jon, if Huck wins the Republican party is done. He is the answer to “what’s the matter with kansas” mix of old time populism and christianity. Check his execution record as governor, it’s really fucked up. Pardons for some and death for the non-believers. He is the worst candidate I have noticed in the US.
Also, are you a doctor? If so, what do you think of Edwards? I heard the man made his fortune suing doctors over questionable decisions. Then he has the nerve to claim that problems in health care are due to high insurance prices. Wtf?
January 4th, 2008 at 8:06 am
What’s wrong with McCain, other mike? Besides what SM already said, the guy was a Vietnam vet, he has great experience and more importantly he’s the one with the most integrity amongst the Republican candidates.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
So yeah, go McCain!
(and Obama)!
January 4th, 2008 at 8:29 am
[...] When it comes to the Elephants I’ve been saying for a year now that I support John McCain. As for the Donkeys, it’s either Hillary or Obama. I’m sort of undecided but I gotta say I’m leaning more towards Mr. Hope. And yeah I pretty much agree with Sandmonkey. [...]
January 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Being a SandMonkey and all, I can understand how you wouldn’t have a feel for US politics. But you really ought to reconsider Ron Paul. Sure he may have some wacky supporters, but that’s only because there are lots of different kinds of people who prefer not to have a government looking over their shoulder.
And you should be pleased as punch to know that he’d be cut off funding for the military dictatorship that currently oppresses Egyptian bloggers. Next time those darned Egyptian police want to sodomize some political dissident with a nightstick, they’d damn well have to buy their own nightstick! No more US equipment for them. You might still have to deal with an unreasonable government, but at least you could know that the US wasn’t paying for it.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what your part of the world would be like if if Uncle Sam weren’t giving guns to both sides and telling them to play nice? Wouldn’t y’all rather be left to sort out your problems on your own?
Never-mind. That’s too scary even to contemplate.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Duncan Hunter, Fred Thomson, who’s that ? I have read they are the favorite choice for many republicans
January 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Ron Paul’s opinions on the UN are spot on. it is nothing but a useless assembly full of thugs and tyrants who have equal status to the democracies and who spend half the time sniping at the US anyway. He’s right, the US should leave.
Other MIke;
I hope you’re not suggesting the US needs to get militarily involved in the Sudan. I think Americans are tired of having to save people from themselves.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Jack,
Ron Paul is a very intelligent nut case. Last week he was castigating America for fighting the Civil War. Isolationism is not an option when America is 5% of the world population but generates nearly a quarter of world GNP. Our commerce leads us into relationships with the world which we can not ignore nor neglect. America can not become a giant turtle and withdraw its head into its shell.
We are not paying two billion bucks per year to Egypt to cure its internal ills but to influence its foreign policy, ie to make Egypt more stable, to bribe its politicians to support US policies, to maintain access to the Suez Canal, and to bribe it to keep peace with Israel. The US is not responsible for the internal politics and transgressions of the Egyptian government. The Egyptians are.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
[...] And The Sandmonkey endorses… …if he stays in the race long enough, someone will find something and I will let out a sigh of relief due to having my cynicism restored. [...]
January 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Pick your candidate link provided @ message 6
I just got Giuliany as my #1 candidate, which is pretty much what I want.
Got Thompson as #2 and Hackabee as #3. I do not think I would like either.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
yochanan;
Maybe you ought blame the Kenyans, instead of everyone else.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
[[A Condi/Hillary election would've given feminists ulcers and Black people headaches. ]]
Condi/Obama will be even more fun….
OK., back to realities, if that is all the two parties of the greatest nation on earth can give, i suggest to american buddies to:
A: change the constitution and give Bush 8 more years, [still will not make him worse than Chavez]
B: offer Putin US passport and let him run for presidency, [personally i favor this option], and i bed he will sittle all the political coas in USA for the next half century.
some one left me from the ground, i can’t breath, laughting to death :))))
January 4th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I still contend that Giuliani is by far the worst candidate. As honest and direct as this is gonna sound and perhaps offend a few of the overly zealous-pro-Israeli readers on this blog, sorry I mean not to stir up any poo-poo. But the powerful Zionist lobby has already assured Giuliani that he has this election in the bag, just as he has made clear that he will not turn his back on them, gaining sweeping support after the 911 whatchamacallit saga. His credentials dont mean shit so long as he represents the majority of voters, correct me if I am wrong. I for one support consumer satisfaction and harmony, altho I appreciate a good show down and am watching the Obama Hillary fight, but That’s as far as it goes, am not an idiot.
I like to fight battles I can win and as far as the next President of The United states of America is concerned, it wouldn’t matter if he was a harsh Muslim, he still wouldn’t get away with any derogatory shit towards Israel, as Israel gets what they want in the end, they would just have to work a little harder at it. I can understand that is not something they would want to have to do in the midst of war like last summers in Lebanon and thats precisely why they want their man Giulliani in office. If I were Jewish (sometimes i think I am), I would definitely vote Bloomberg or Giuliani as they represent the greatest ratio of customer satisfaction just as the majority of Jewish house hold name brands and consumer goods do. We will always give half our GNP away in the form of AID there will always be crooks and crime, we will always need foreign oil, so why not just have a harmonious election, leave the fights for Vegas.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
The caucus means nothing, Obama has voted for Ethanol & guess what Iowa grows Corn, The Pharmaceutical Co’s own him, and I would like to believe he’s the one, Hillary if she wins hope she has a page under her desk to keep her calm.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I can’t believe anyone could possibly think Barack Hussein Obama could run the US of A - forget him. Hill-bill-y is such trash, it is mind-boggling that she may even have a chance. Pretty much anyone else could do a better job than these two.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:30 am
#34, hahaha. The “powerful jewish lobby” is going to be “rigging the election” no matter who wins. You don’t live in the states do you?
January 5th, 2008 at 3:20 am
[...] SamSeven created an interesting post today on Comment on And The Sandmonkey endorses⦠by SamSevenHere’s a short outline [...]
January 5th, 2008 at 5:14 am
@ 37 relax, plz keep your thinking cap on. never said nothing about vote rigging, not in America God forbid, but the lobby will win without vote rigging - hands down! never mind senate votes and congressional support etc, such tactics are fair and square in the game of politics.
I keep my word pretty well and I like to put my money where my mouth is. Does anybody wanna make a mans bet $50 to $50 Rudy will indeed be the next President? I got so many waivers like that already, I guess I even started unknowingly finding myself voting for the guy.
Everytime america talks about change there is a return to conservatist values, Rudt represents just that with a twist of lemon.
A REALLY GOOD QUESTION FOR FELLOW COMMENTORS HERE: Does anyone know if there has ever been a Catholic or Jewsih President of the United states of America before, EVER?
January 5th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Another reason why every one likes your blog. Good post!
January 5th, 2008 at 6:32 am
” but the lobby will win without vote rigging - hands down!”
The “lobby” always wins because you always fail. In eight years you will be accusing anyone and everyone of every random, stupid and pointless conspiracy to try and salvage the dignity you do not deserve. You are the failure and if you refuse to deal with it nothing will change. The US does not support Israel because we have been bought or tricked.
“A REALLY GOOD QUESTION FOR FELLOW COMMENTORS HERE: Does anyone know if there has ever been a Catholic or Jewsih President of the United states of America before, EVER?”
JFK. You are failing in a bad way and nobody is going to care a few years from now.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:26 am
@ 39
Yes for Catholic. JFK.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Glad you picked someone SandMonkey, because I haven’t picked a candidate yet.
There is no one worth voting for…and I’m tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am
@41- ‘other mike’, you said: The “lobby” always wins because ‘you’ always fail. Who are you referring to as the ‘you’ in your sentence there buddy? I knew I might ruff a few feathers but t come on really…I sure hope you are not referring to me, going on to say “In eight years you will be accusing anyone and everyone of every random, stupid and pointless conspiracy to try and salvage the dignity you do not deserve. You are the failure and if you refuse to deal with it nothing will change. The US does not support Israel because we have been bought or tricked. ”
That is so condescending and hypocritical, don’t be coming down on me like I’m some antisemitic jihadi character man. I have so many Israeli friends it isn’t fair that you try talking to me in that manner, even though this is a free world. If I misunderstood you than please accept my apologies.
@42 Then I guess their has never a jewish president eh?
Anyone on that Guiliani wager btw ?
January 5th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
SamSeven,
As I understand it, many Southern slaveowners counted blacks among their friends, so I’m not sure what your claim about Israeli friends means. For what its worth, I probably have lots more Muslim and Arab friends than you have Israeli friends.
Anyway, I just got back from the annual convention of the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy - I’m on the political committee. I can assure you that we have all the candidates in the bag, so you can stop worrying now about which one is best for you. And my buddies on the media committee assure me that they can assert enough control to keep this information from leaking. If Ron Paul forgets about our “aggreement”, he will be referred to the military wing.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
This is some of the best analysis, if only because I agree, that I have ever read! No way you’re Egyptian, and if you indeed you are, know that I am on my knees now. Too funny as well!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
You can have the guest room if we get you out in time. You crack me up. I just love a good conspiracy..count me in!
January 6th, 2008 at 12:47 am
@ brooklynjon and others LOLOL hahaha Have you guys ever heard of Zionophobia LOL. YOU GUYS HAVE IT GOOD, DON’T HATE YOURSELVES FOR THAT, I AM JUST GIVING YOU GUYS KUDOS, AS I AM SURE YOU CAN SEE the SANDMONKEY DOES AS WELL, ALTHO HIM AND I MIGHT NOT ALWAYS SEE EYE TO EYE ON EVERYTHING!
And nobody wants to take that bet about Rudy becoming President cuz they know that in fact he will become president or that there is at least a very good chance of it. Affirming my so called conspiracy theory LOLOL that he will be successful because more than any other candidate, he will have the vote of a certain pluralistically influenced ancient people. How naive of anyone, who denies such a great blessing from God?
Read my lips - K.U.D.O.S!
January 6th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Oabama won in Iowa but freakin Iowa is a very very small state. I don’t think he has a chance in becoming a president. He is black, and a lot of Americans will not vote for him just because he’s black. Another Karl Rove will show up warning Americans from the dangers of having a black president and Americans will listen to him.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:06 am
America ‘08
The Sandmonkey:Now, since I am not american, let alone belong to either party, I am gonna endorse one from each
January 6th, 2008 at 4:32 am
BJ,
Since you are in the medical field like myself tell me which one will improve the medical health coverage for the average American ?
January 6th, 2008 at 4:32 am
“He is black, and a lot of Americans will not vote for him just because he’s black. ”
Heheheee welcome to America
January 6th, 2008 at 4:33 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7104030.stm
The book analyses the lobby’s sources of influence - notably its financial muscle and the reluctance of critics to speak out.
Pro-Israeli contributions to US campaigns dwarf those of Arab-Americans or Muslim groups.
Many attacks have been highly personal. [Many critics] tried to smear us by either saying or hinting that we are anti-Semitic.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:37 am
“Two US academics, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard”
Sure when it comes to the daring slut Israel no intellectual dare to criticize the influence of the Zionist lobby.
Again Welcome to America the land of the free
January 6th, 2008 at 5:20 am
McCain and Huckabee have long records of unqualified support for illegal immigrants and their employers. I could never vote for either of them. Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson I could vote for. None of these candidates who stand a chance at winning the nomination in either party look very good to me, however.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Are you on crack? Iowa is one of the whitest states in the country — if he could win there, he could win anywhere. He even beat Hillary among white women voters in Iowa. (White women in their mid-20s and 30s seem to have a thing for Barack.) It isn’t 1965 anymore. There are many, many times more Americans who will vote for Obama precisely because he is black than will vote against him because of his race. I’m tired of hysterical people acting like there is a Ku Kluxer hiding behind every mailbox in the United States.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Two,
That entirely depends on what you think is needed to improve health care. My views are informed not so much by my being a physician, but more by my own political philosophy, which leans heavily towards the libertarian.
Personally, I feel the problem with 30% or whatever of Americans lacking health insurance is that it means that 70% of Americans still have it. Having health insurance means that someone else is paying for your health care, and so 1) the consumer has no interest in limiting expenses, 2) physicians are reimbursed totally out of proportion to the quality of the health care that they deliver, and 3) a bunch of MBAs get to make health care decisions, while the physicians absorb all the legal liability for those decisions. Universal health care replaces the MBAs with government employees, and injects a little politics into the whole thing, and we can see how good that is.
My feeling is that the more people pay their own way, the more rational their own health care decisions will be, and ultimately the healthier they will be, even if they actually consume less health care in the process (particularly in the last few weeks of life, when the Average American expends over half of his life’s medical expenses).
But full disclosure: this opinion is representative only of me, and is derivative from my political, rather than my medical, philosophy. Then again, I take care of uninsured people all the time. They don’t pay me, and that’s life.
P.S. At the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy meeting (in a secret overseas location that I cannot disclose) it was decided to allow a small amount of criticism of Israel, so that we can plausibly deny that we control everything, even though we do, so feel free to criticize Israel a teeny bit.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:14 am
#11
>Romney is my favorite, though he seems to be handicapped by his Mormon religion with the electorate. He has run several organizations and been successful in all of them. He’s turned a couple around from failure to success, a difficult managerial task.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:33 am
[...] Here’s another interesting post I read today by brooklynjon [...]
January 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Why are the candidates so incredibly bad this time around?! It is not a choice between ok and less ok, or bad and worse but rather of badly weird versus badly stupid vs badly…Yikes!
January 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
why Giuliani should be president :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2y1IM17sM
because he can play all the parts
I like the man, he assumes the 2nd degree, and has enough distance to manage politicies.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
59.
Actually, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Guiliani, Romney and Thompson are decent candidates by world standards. You just have to realize that we haze our politicians before we elect them. We put the flaws of our candidates, both real and imagined, up on giant screen TVs and broadcast them around the world. Nobody looks good after that kind of treatment.
The big charge against Hillary is that she is divisive. That’s a bad rap, because the only people she upsets are rabid right-wingers who are mostly afraid that she will actually get elected. That’s no reason to vote against her. I don’t like her ideas on health care, not because I disagree with the goal, but because I think the mechanism for payment will be counterproductive. This woman is smart, however, and she has the nerve to stand up to the challenges she will face in office.
Barak Obama gives intelligent, wonderful speeches, and he has a decent and conciliatory attitude toward the other side. I think the conciliatory attitude is precisely the “change” the American people want.
For me, the real reason to vote against either Democratic candidate is that they do not have a party, any more. Some of the Democratic leadership have been taking foreign money, and have been trying to throw out the Liberals and moderates, leaving only the old communists. They hate Hillary, and they will eat Obama for lunch. Hillary could probably handle them, but Obama might get turned into the next Jimmy Carter.
I like McCain, I don’t think he’s too old. I wonder just how many revolting consequences his policies would have. Has he learned enough from the McCain-Feingold debacle? I fear he has not.
Guilani is a gold-plated SOB, and tough enough for what we will face. He might be the guy whose character fits the times.
Romney - dunno.
Thompson - this guy started out in politics and then became an actor. This background is not as bad as it looks from afar.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
brooklynjon,
You do realize that you are going to have your jokes about the “Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy” quoted as if they were factual admissions by an actual committee member, don’t you? You are going to see them coming back at you, and you’ll deserve it.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
As predicted huh twosret, all are voting Guiliani even after I had bothered to post the fact that Guiliani has the Israeli lobby behind him, isn’t it wonderful how correct I am but how dismally uncontested I am too, I mean where’s the challenge? I will up the bet from$50 to $200 that Guilliani will be the next leader of the free world while all eyes are on the Hillary Obama Huckabee side show! That is unless Bloomberg jumps in which I doubt anyways.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Because our media elites have basically picked our possible candidates for us.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
You can check out for yourself which candidate would suit you best:
http://www.dag.nl/Nieuws/kieskompas.htm
(its bilingual (English and Dutch))
January 6th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
of course RUDY is a SOB i want a SOB as POTUS not some feel good wussie.
who would bin laudin fear RUDY or OBAMA
January 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Great analysis—and I agree with you.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
@44,@37,
Why beat around the bush?
You could’ve asked this “@42 Then I guess their has never a jewish president eh?” from very beginning. I would’ve told you “No”.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GO DIG UP REGAN. WE NEED HIM!
January 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
REAGAN. SORRY.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
http://www.answers.com/Reagan?cat=entertainment&gwp=11&method=3&ver=2.1.1.521
January 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Delurking after a year or so of checking out your excellent blog .
Obama and McCain– These two are the same candidates I am backing(thus far) Either one would make a decent president(although I am really hoping a Democrat gets electd finally next year) I have always admired McCain, but am a more liberal American and it would be too depressing if the Republicans win again. If it has to be a Republican, let it be McCain, though(NOT Huckabee or Romney, please!!) I don’t know if Obama has the experience, but I can’t stomach Clinton’s flip-flopping and Professional Politician style(and I am a woman, and would love a woman candidate to win, but can’t stand Clinton) AND she gave the go ahead to the Iraq Invasion–at least Obama is untainted by that.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Tommy,
I hope you’re right, but many intellectual people from the South told me that a lot of American will not vote for Obama just because he’s black and that is very believable. they’re not the KKK but they don’t want their president to be black. I think there are a lot reasns to make this believable.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Valerie,
I’m available for interviews. I’ll even show them the secret handshake!
bj
January 7th, 2008 at 3:51 am
hareega,
There are certainly people who won’t vote for a black candidate. Mostly these people wouldn’t pull the lever for a Democrat anyway, so I’m not so sure it matters much. It would be a bigger factor for a black Democrat,than for a black Republican, but I suspect it wouldn’t matter much for either.
OTOH, in my Congressional district, a candidate in the last election was told repeatedly that he had no right to run because he WASN’T black. Although highly qualified, he lost by a landslide. So this racism thing, abominable as it may be, cuts both ways.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:11 am
heh. Twoset has a crazy sockpuppet. Samseven, your special kind of crazy sucks. Please move far, far away.
“There are certainly people who won’t vote for a black candidate. Mostly these people wouldn’t pull the lever for a Democrat anyway, so I’m not so sure it matters much.”
It’s probably true, but if you really want to dig into it the old-time “hate non-whites” party was the democrats. I wouldn’t be suprised if the old white guy who would never vote for a black man voted democrat out of habit thinking he was voting against obama.
What do you think of Edwards and his career as a lawyer?
January 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
@
http://sandomine.blogspot.com/2008/01/israeli-sues-egypt-for-kassams.html
January 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
other mike (whatever) don’t let your hate for Twosret impair yout already sad judgement, seems that anyone not subscribing to your own point of view or that is different than you ticks you off, quite funny yet sad at the same time really.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
brooklynjon, love your sense of humor.
I’ve had issues with democrats since the mid-70s. I saw the Forum on FNC last night, 6 Sep and I’ll have a difficult time deciding who of them I think should be the next President.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Oabama won in Iowa but freakin Iowa is a very very small state. I don’t think he has a chance in becoming a president. He is black
He is HALF black. He has one white parent, although lots of people like to conveniently forget that.
BrooklynJon;
So this racism thing, abominable as it may be, cuts both ways.
Indeed it does, but black racism against white people doesn’t follow the standard script, so the media ignores it. Maybe white folks need a victimhood lobby group.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Herlie,
“but black racism against white people doesn’t follow the standard script, so the media ignores it.”
True.
Remember Al Sharpton’s obviously racist protest against Korean storeowners? The media was mightily confused about how to cover that.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:59 am
bj,
Thanks for your response but my views are driven from everyday life and from the average American. What kind of health insurance does the 70% have? what kind of deductible they have to pay in order to see a doctor. What kind of private plans they have through insurance companies that not only pay the physician less than a nail job but also shift the responsibility on the patient to pay the balance.
America owes it to it’s citizens that works hard and pay taxes to have health insurance coverage. I don’t think I see any of those candidates that will care for the health care for the citizens.
Maybe you can be an advocate for the average American in the next Zionist meeting
January 8th, 2008 at 4:01 am
SamSeven,
Thanks for being nice to whatever mike.
I will simply respond to him and say go and fuck yourself if you don’t like what I say son of a bitch
January 8th, 2008 at 4:27 am
Two,
I suspect that (universal health care/socialized medicine) is where the country is headed. I suspect that we won’t like it once we get it, but it will be too late at that point, as no government bureaucracy has ever dismantled itself. A pity.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Bj,
Would you invite me for that secret meeting in the undisclosed place?
Then the insurance company needs a slap to lower it’s profits, stop delaying payments for Physicians, and stop giving bonuses for employees who rejects claims the most. I have a feeling you are in a hospital setting but you can ask any physician with a clinic that would tell you how frustrating it is to practice medicine and how demotivating to the best physicians in the country to practice.
When an OBGYN do cosmetic surgeries in one of the largest medical communities in the country then something is wrong with the system.
I guess you can tell that I’m advocating for the crushed Americans by the pharmaceuticals and Insurance companies.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Quit talking to yourself two.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Only thing left to do is ask your readers to take out their photoshop and work on those pictures.
SK
January 8th, 2008 at 6:22 am
[...] Here’s another interesting post I read today by Twosret [...]
January 8th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Two,
The essential question is this:
Is “insurance” (really a third-party payer system) medicine’s salvation or its downfall?
I believe having “someone else” pay the bills encourages increased consumption of health care, and in an irrational way. Insurance companies (or the government) try to ration care to limit expenses, and enterprising (though questionably ethical) physicians work their way around the roadblocks, convincing their gullible patients that it’s in their interest.
Insurance companies used to pay handsomely for vaginal deliveries. No longer. So is it worth an obstetrician’s while to sit around for hours on end to collect a meager reimbursement that doesn’t cover his expenses? And we wonder why the cesarean section rate is so high? OTOH, they still reimburse for ultrasounds, so some Obstetricians I know now scan every patient on every visit. Rational? No way. But what do the patients care if someone else is paying.
My take?
Insurance IS the problem. When people pay their own way, they tend to make decisions that are at least somewhat rational, or at least rational FOR THEM. What about the poor? I’d advocate a voucher system of sorts. Annual payments into a medical savings account. And I’d trash the 7.5% of AGI deductible before health care payments are tax deductible. I’d make them deductible from the first dollar. Except I’d change it a bit. Rather than a deduction, I’d make it a 50% refundable tax credit, so that there would be no issue with rich people (higher bracket) paying less.
For a select few things (especially infectious disease) as a public health matter it’s best if everyone has treatment available. For public health items, for which there is a common benefit, I’d let the government pay. But I don’t want to pay for anyone else’s gall bladder or fertility treatments or cancer therapy. That’s up to them. Not me.
The funny thing is, in such a system, there would be less health care, and doctors would probably make less money. Of course, terrific ones would make more, as the world beat a path to their door. Quacks would probably end up flipping burgers.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Two,
I almost forgot! I’d LOVE to have your company at the annual worldwide conspiracy meeting! We’d have to get together first so I could teach you the secret handshake. And don’t worry - it’s really just red food coloring in the cookies!
bj
January 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
And we wonder why the cesarean section rate is so high?
Mainly because of liability, the Other Big Problem in the american health care system.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Xylo,
Well, that’s a part of it. But that’s certainly not all of it. If physicians were practicing in an environment in which they could set their own prices, it would just get passed along to the consumer. But physicians cannot set their own prices for the most part. They’re stuck taking whatever the insurance company decides is appropriate compensation, so the only alternative to the obstetrician is to deliver as many babies as he/she can. This does not lend itself to a practice that includes hanging out with a laboring patient for 12 hours. Instead, he/she can schedule cesarean sections to work around office hours, and deliver twice a many babies in half the time.
Malpractice certainly accounts for a lot of cesarean sections performed on women in labor, but it doesn’t -on its own - adequately explain the deluge of elective, planned cesarean sections we’re seeing. For this, you have to look at how obstetricians have been incentivized.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Hmmm, you don’t want to pay for anyone else’s cancer treatment? So for many that would mean no treatment at all, not even palliative care in the end.
Thank g-d a relative of mine who lives in the States is part of a clinical trial for her very aggressive cancer, because when her insurance ran out her treatment would have stopped.
And thank g-d I live in Canada where drs. complain a lot but don’t seem to be lacking in vacations and summer homes and fancy cars (especially the specialists). Some may work like dog, but they aren’t the only people on the planet who work long hours. I had one dr. friend who complained that he only made $10 an hour. So I offered him $10 and hour cash to do some manual labour around my house. Guess what? He didn’t want the job
January 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“Guess what? He didn’t want the job”
What kind of job did you offer? Trading $10/hr for $10/hr is not exactly step up by any means.
Next time try offering more and more until your friend will not be able to resist.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
It was cash, Leo. That is the difference. And believe me, he doesn’t make $10 per hour as a dr. unless he factored in every little unbillable thing he did which people in other professions do for free.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
The President has to be a governor from the south. It’s been the case in 7 of the last 8 elections. Huckabee is it.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Karen, that was funny
I see how the doctors get weak wages in America, while ours get 2 ,5 x 10 € for the average and x 3 till x 4 for the specialists, not talking about those who work in hospitals or clinics that are more paid ; and they are complaining
January 9th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Nomad,
I think that almost everyone thinks that they are underpaid, but most drs. are not. Here in Canada you can look up on this website how much $ a dr. makes because they are public employees and their incomes available for anyone to see. Let me tell you the specialists do VERY well. And think about it, the procedures that they perform here are in publicly funded hospitals. They don’t pay the nurses who assist them or for the equipment and supplies that they use. Anyways, I’ll end my rant here.
p.s. The offer of a job to my friend was a joke. I knew he wouldn’t take it, but it did stop his whining
January 9th, 2008 at 3:07 am
karen,
No, I neither want to pay for someone else’s cancer care, nor do I want someone else to pay for mine. I think palliation is all well and good, but here in the states (I don’t know about the great white north), on average, half of someone’s medical expenditures occur in the last week of their life. Naturally, one doesn’t always know when it’s the last week of one’s life, but often a pretty good guess can be made.
As far as physician’s compensation is concerned, it entirely depends on what you compare them to. If you compare my salary to a teacher’s, it would seem like I am paid much better. However, if you consider that
Teachers do not have to worry about getting sued for malpractice.
1) I got my first job 8 years after I would have had I gone into teaching, and I would have taken that job with a lot less debt.
2) Teachers in the NY school system work on average 22 hours per week (according to my mother, who was a NYC teacher for 25 years), which compares favorably to the 60-90 I average
3) Teachers also get fringe benefits in addition to their salary - I don’t
4) Teachers have a pension - I don’t
5) Teachers work 38 weeks per year, and (in NYC at least) can get paid religious holidays off
6) Teachers generally do not get needle-sticks, stabbed with scalpels, or have a whole lot of on-the-job injuries
7) Teachers make their money at a lower tax bracket over a longer period of time, so that even if they make the same amount, they pay less taxes, and are eligible for a variety of other tax goodies and other benefits that I’ll never see.
9) Teachers do not bear legal responsibility for something someone else has done (e.g. errors or fraud by a billing clerk)
10) Teachers get tenure, and cannot be fired, even when they’re old and beyond their prime.
11) Teachers who want extra cash can tutor the kids they teach after hours. In my bizarre neighborhood, teachers routinely charge (and get) $200 per hour for after school homework help. In fact, one teacher I’m friends with quit teaching and became a tutor - working three days a week, from 3-7 PM, making $2400 a week, off the books. Not bad!
And that’s just assuming teaching is the default “other choice” for a budding doctor to choose as a career. Frankly, though, my neighborhood is full of people who, with an educational background similar to mine, became lawyers and bond traders and such. Many of them have an annual bonus that exceeds what I may very well earn for my entire career. And their biggest personal risk is a paper cut unless they personally break the law.
Anyway, my big gripe is not actually that docs are underpaid. Its that docs are not compensated based on how good they are. Only based on how they game the system. A terrific diagnostician who can size you up in 10 minutes based on your history and a quick physical exam should be on the gravy train. But he is not. He wears shoes with holes in them and drives a 1984 Renault Le Car. The bozo who performs unnecessary tests on every patient mindlessly does well. Patients, since they don’t have to pay for these ridiculous tests generally don’t care.
If you can come up with a system in which practitioners are compensated based on the quality of their service, and in which clients naturally hold down costs by consuming only those services they think will benefit them, you will naturally have a better system than what we’ve got now in the states (and better than what you guys have up there where the sun don’t shine). But we already have such a system. It’s called the free market, and it works best when governments interfere with it the least.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:40 am
perry,
That’s not all. If you consider California to be part of the south (which Californians might disagree with) you have to go back to JFK to get a president who did his politicking in the north. We’re due!
January 9th, 2008 at 4:18 am
Karen,
I tried to make a joke. Not very good at it I suppose.
Anyway, earning $10/hr is possible for a doctor.
I have a friend who is dentist/dental (whatever is correct) surgeon.
Little less than 20 years ago he was resident in one of NYC hospitals.
If I remember correctly, he worked 60-100 hr weeks for $40K salary.
Of cause, today things are very much different for him but back then I do not think he had even $10/hr.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Is Texas considered as part of the South?
Was Ford Southerner?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:27 am
Bj,
I’m not sure if I understood your response above (today I worked too many hours) but how can you expect a cancer, stroke or a heart failure patient to pay for their hospital bills? or the cardiologist bill? or the outrageous expenses of the detailed bill i.e. $30.00 for 2 Tylenol pills and $100.00 warm blanket bill in the ER in most hospitals. The average cost for vaginal delivery is $6K to $8K and C-Section $10K to $12K not to mention any complications.
The fact that some abuse the health system doesn’t mean that ALL should be punished….I don’t think the Government will care for it’s citizen either because if they do they won’t go to a false war and spend billions instead of helping the average American and the older citizens who paid their taxes and were good citizens.
Physicians best performance evaluation is their patients trust in them not by how much they are paid. You are putting too much emphasis on patients insurance knowledge. Did you ever pick up the phone to verify a patient eligibility yourself? I would like to invite you to do so then you will know that some plans is written most probably by lawyers that even office managers struggles to get the plan right and even when they do if they call again they get a different benefits representative that will give them totally different information.
What is the solution? in my opinion Insurance companies needs a big slap as mentioned before in my other post and they need to have some organization on top of them that will care for the patients and the average Americans.
And BTW Doctors in many parts of the country now is open for private pay only because they are simply fed up with the system and the patients are finding it appealing. I know many practices that doesn’t take any insurance and they do well based on 35% discount from the medicare fee schedule so in brief there has to be a change in the system otherwise there will be a crisis.
I have to agree with you on the long list of teachers vs. physicians although I would love to add more to your list
-Credentialing services fees
-License fees
-Association fees
-Hospital credentialing fees
-Lawyers fees to form an association if you are in a private practice
-Mal Practice insurance fees
-Accountant fees
-Salaries of receptionists, office manager, PA, nurses and MA’s
-Renting space and buying medical equipment
Oh the list can go on and on!!!
Do I get to wear my Black Gown to the Zionist conspiracy meeting?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Leo,
Texas is the south
January 9th, 2008 at 4:38 am
bj,
And for God’s sake why would a lawyer start his watch clock talking to clients when a Physician discuss a case with a patient’s family for 45 minutes and he gets paid NOTHING!
Those high profile accountants are charging $300 an hour and the freaking drug company CEO makes triple of what a Neurosurgeon makes.
There were times when there were shortage of Family Medicine Doctors due to the low pay they get compared to specialist. I recall back in 2000 there were only 200 family doctors across the nation and no one was interested in joining medical school and becoming a family doctor.
I think I ranted too much tonight and better go to sleep
January 9th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Oh shit! the witch won NH oh well enjoy your 15 minutes Hillary
January 9th, 2008 at 4:47 am
BJ,
All I need to know from you is summed up in your first sentence. You belong in the States where it is all about me, myself and I. Canadian drs. who feel the same way have gone to practise in the States where they can make even more money than they can here.
I know a couple of diagnosticians here. One is a cardiologist and the other is a gastroenterologist. A year ago they billed over $1 million and $600,000 respectively.
Not too shabby!! Hey, maybe you should come work here in the great white north. No holes in the diagnosticians shoes here
Leo,
Dentists and medical dr.s are not comparable. I’d say the former pays way more in overhead costs than the latter.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Karen,
Maybe I should come up there. Diagnosticians are not making that kind of dough down here, trust me.
But again, my complaint is not so much with how much we get paid, but with the complete disconnect between quality and compensation, to the point that no one has a whole lot of incentive to deliver rational and high quality care.
And, by the way, Canada is not without its problems… A friend up there is pregnant, and has been told that she cannot go to an obstetrician. She has no choice but to use a family practitioner. Unfortunately, there are no family practitioners with available slots. Finally she was able to prevail upon one to take her on without compensation.
Two,
I expect a cancer patient to pay for their own care in much the same way that they pay now, except that now there are a bevy of mid-level functionaries that have nothing to do with delivering health care that all have to get their cut. Get rid of the preferential tax deduction for insurance (over medical expenses directly paid), and employers could just pay their employees the difference. My insurance costs my employer $3000 per month. I could take this and save it for a rainy day. If I’m so stupid as to spend it, then that’s my tough luck. But considering my family, every year we spend $36,000 for health insurance, and consume around $5000 in health care (which is mostly not covered by insurance anyway. If I had this option back when I started working 10 years ago, I’d have roughly $300,000 in my medical savings account.
And as far as the expensive heath care costs are concerned, with people actually paying for their care, they would be able to keep the costs down by voting with their feet. Therapies of questionable benefit but high cost would wither on the vine, and people would insist on bringing their own damn Tylenol with them to the hospital. As it is, we have people loafing around the hospital for no apparent reason for days after birth. Could they afford to? Maybe not. So they’d go home, which is frankly where they mostly belong. (Full disclosure: my wife signed out of the hospital “against medical advice” 12 hours after my baby was born to be taken care of in the BJ Care Unit)
Costs would go down. Quacks would end up flipping burgers. I’d make a mint selling a medical Zagat’s Guide. And some provision (vouchers?) could be made for the poor in a way that does not interfere with market forces.
C’mon, competition and free markets work for restaurants and hotels. Why not for hospitals and doctors’ offices?
January 9th, 2008 at 7:34 am
the fees I have shown, are ment pro/visit, knowing that a visit could last 10 mn till 45 mn ; most of them would last not more than a quater of an hour ; that are also ment for the national health insurance care ;
but you do have drs who don’t want to be conventionalised, they then make the price they want, according to the market ; if your living in a nice quater in Paris, the sums are quite high pro/visit ; generally those persons have a good reputation and belong to the elite ;
I myself had to use the service of one of these supra-drs, for one of my sons having allergy problems (we were living in north Paris surburbs) ; a tv journalist of our friends advised us him ; that doctor had a monthly chronicle on TV…
hehe, we were not aware that this dr didn’t practice the healthcare prices, but his ; the first visit which determined what kind of allergy he had, therefore longer than a normal treatment, cost 250 €, the following one 175 € ;
but I don’t regret to have paid that much, cause the dr was really good, took the time to talk and consider my son as a person while he was 7 to 8 years old. Even so if the fees were free, I can’t see how the drs would be all good. so I am OK to agree that the really best ones chose their customers by the prices ; if your poor and if you want the best for your child, then you manage to pay.
recently I learnt that my dr for the eyes walk out the healthcare system too, that his fees have risen up … so, as I think he is good, then I ‘ll have to follow or look for another one ; the problem with the specialists in the healthcare system, you can’t have a date in the week or month, you’ll have to wait 3 months to 6 months
January 9th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Obama supports Israel, read the Haaretz article, bye-bye Hillary and bye-bye guiliani. Hello Obama! http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
January 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Nomad,
It sounds like a good system if you can get better care if you pay up, but you can get some low level of care for a nominal fee. Of course, you are ultimately not really getting it for free, but rather paying for it through your taxes, with added administrative costs.
I have no shortage of patients who begrudge my fee, or who have Medicaid, which is government sponsored insurance for the poor (which pays me so little it doesn’t cover my expenses), yet dress nicer than I do and have a much nicer car than I do. They can’t pay the $12 co-pay, but they have no interest in relinquishing their right to sue me for millions if something goes wrong, G-d forbid.
karen, rereading your post 107, if you mean that I belong in the USA because I have the expectation of compensating people fairly for their time, effort, and expertise rather than having the government coerce them to take care of me by threat of force, then I’ll humbly agree with you and take that as a compliment.
I gladly pay a premium to have skilled and honest craftsmen work on my house and my car. I don’t see why it should be any different when it comes to my body.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Leo;
Is Texas considered as part of the South?
Geographically, yes. Colloquially, it’s considered part of the southwest.
The colloquial ’south’ consists of the geographical southeast states.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
after n.h. the hildabeast will be sharpening her claws. OBAMA will not know what hit him. hehehehe
January 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Hey Jon,
Therapies of questionable benefit but high cost would wither on the vine, and people would insist on bringing their own damn Tylenol with them to the hospital.
I suspect more people would challenge questionable labs and other procedures as well. It’s been blatantly obvious to me on a number of occasions that a doctor was ordering tests that didn’t need, just because he wanted to bill my insurance for it. If I had to pay for those tests out of my own pocket, I’d want a pretty good explanation about why they were necessary. I only blame the insurance industry for half of the problem we have with high health care costs. I blame greedy doctors for the other half. In fairness, if I was a doctor and I knew I could bill somebody’s insurance for extra procedures and nobody would challenge me, I’d be tempted to do it too.
We’ve got a problem with healthcare in the US, but turning over health care to the government is not an option. The military does a decent job of delivering healthcare, but I don’t know of a single agency run by the civil government that operates at a level of quality and efficiency that I would find acceptable. The government can make promises about how effective a government run healthcare system would be all they want, but until I can go to DMV to renew a license or vehicle registration without standing in line with 500 other people for 2 or 3 hours, I’m not buying into it.
As for the elections…. these are the crappiest elections I can remember. I don’t want any of these candidates to be President. This is even worse than the Dole/Clinton choice in 96.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
[...] example@example.com (infagsswaks) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptJohn Dale wrote an interesting post today onHere’sa quick excerptInsurance companies (or the government) try to ration care to limit expenses, and enterprising (though questionably ethical) physicians work their way around the … [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Jon,
It is not a compliment. And EVERYONE expects to be compensated fairly. Maybe drs. should make what mechanics make. You pretty much do the same thing
Maybe your Canadian friend should try a midwife. I did with my last and the care I received was far superior to what I received from drs. I’m sure it cost the government less too. No one needs an obgyn to deliver a baby unless you are high risk.
p.s. I am not totally crazy. I did give birth in a hospital, not at home.
Oh and I know we have problems with our medical system here in Canada. But at least we are compassionate enough to take care of people with cancer regardless of their income.
Hello Craig!! How have you been? Nice to see you around again.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Xylo,
I think Texas isn’t part of anything. I think it’s in it’s own galaxy.
Craig,
Depending on what you mean by laboratory tests, they may not be benefitting the doc directly so much as covering his behind from liability claims. But some of the extra diagnostic work does benefit the doc for sure. The smart and honest guy who uses his brain to avoid unecessary tests does so at his own financial peril.
As far as this election is concerned, I hearken back to the wise words of my kids’ school’s fix-it-guy, spoken while on a ladder changing a bulb, “Don’t worry, we survived four years of Carter. We’ll survive this, too.”
January 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
[...] on And The Sandmonkey endorses… by Car Insurance » Blog … unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptJohn Dale wrote an interesting post [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
[...] on And The Sandmonkey endorses… by Health Insurance » Blog … admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptunknown wrote an interesting post [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Xylo @112,
Exactly.
Thank you
January 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
BJ,
we have also that health system for the poorests : they don’t pay anything at all though ;
I know that there are many exagerations, for exemple one of my former employees (who was most of the time in vacations for sickness) changed her glasses each year (her whole family too), and that weren’t the cheaper ones, but the last models, went to the dentist to get a nice dentition, goes each week to the doctor… all paid by our taxes … so that lots of specialists refuse, now, to give apointments to these people ; though it’s forbidden by the legal medical order, but they have enough of these people squatting their offices and lead the good customers away.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
The last senator that won a presidential election was Nixon. There’s a good reason Huckabee leads in national polls. He was a southern governor. He could still lose,but odds are against it.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
BJ,
It sounds to me that your main complaint here is about how Physician perform their job, every state has it’s medical board that deals with complaints from patients if the Physician is not meeting the criteria.
On top of it insurance companies give you a hell of a time if you file a claim that is not supported by the correct CPT code. You lose your contract with Medicare and insurances if you are performing unnecessary tests or billing for incorrect code.
Eventually committing fraud when it comes to insurance companies is a major issue that no practice takes lightly and if they do they are at high risk of closing down.
I have to agree with you on the clear abuse to Medicaid it shocks me to see patients who definitely can afford their insurance but if you refuse giving care to them then the Gov. sues you for negligence it is like catch 22.
I’m still scratching my head over some of your comments trying to figure out what you are proposing
January 9th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
As for Physician salaries I have to disagree with the assumption that Canadian doctors make more than Americans on the contrary American Physicians have much higher compensation.
When you talk Cardiologist there are many of them Invasive, Non-Invasive, academic, out of residency, etc…. many different salaries and the State they are in and the setting and equipements and the kind of work they do. I know of many Caridologists in our area the will make more than a million a year.
I guess it depends what is your life style are you a hardcore Cardiologist that does in patient and out patient care or you perform procedures in the office or do you golf twice a week.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Another historical tidbit. It’s been 32 years since a Republican won in South Carolina without becoming the eventual nominee.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“I think Texas isn’t part of anything. I think it’s in it’s own galaxy.”
Nope, not our own galaxy, but I like the idea! Our own Republic. The Republic of Texas was a sovereign state in North America between the United States and Mexico that existed from 1836 to 1845. Formed as a break-away republic from Mexico by the Texas Revolution, the nation claimed borders that encompassed an area that included all of the present U.S. state of Texas, as well as parts of present-day New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming based upon the Treaties of Velasco between the newly created Texas republic and Mexico. The eastern boundary with the United States was defined by the Adams-Onís Treaty between the United States and Spain, in 1819. Its southern and western-most boundary with Mexico was under dispute throughout the existence of the Republic, with Texas claiming that the boundary was the Rio Grande, and Mexico claiming the Nueces River as the boundary. This dispute would later become a trigger for the Mexican–American War, after the annexation of Texas. Texas was never a territory, it went straight from Republic to state. It’s an urban legend that Texas can still cede from the US, but we kinda like the myth so we don’t like to dispel it! LOL!
January 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
LOL@tedders
January 11th, 2008 at 8:13 am
tedders,
But I understand that Texas retains the right to split into five states, and thereby have 10 senators. Seriously.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
bj,
You are correct. But then, it wouldn’t be Texas any more.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Thanks, Twos! I’ve never heard that one BJ, is that true Valerie? Where did y’all learn about that? Right now there is North Texas(where I hang my hat), West Texas, South Texas, East Texas and the Panhandle. Each area has it’s own traditions, culture, industries and Texan accent! I’m working in Memphis right now and the first thing that I noticed was if you drive any direction, except east, you can be in four other states in under an hour, 5 minutes for Arkansas and under 20 minutes for Mississippi. You can drive for two days and still not be out of Texas!
10 senators? Can they all be Republican please! LOL! I’ve read recently that Kay Bailey Hutchison is being considered as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate for Republican Mitt Romney. I suppose to negate any gender gap if Hillary actually wins the nomination.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Tedders,
It is true. In Texas, they require every high school student to take Texas history, and that’s one of the things they teach. One of the considerations at the time when the state joined the Union was the potential disadvantage a very large state might have in Congress. Each state gets representation in the House of Representatives that is proportional to the population, but a state only gets two Senators. So, as part of the agreement to join, Texas asked for, and retains, the right to divide into 5 states.
Texas is NOT going to divide. Everybody knows they have the right to divide. They talk about seceeding, instead, because they don’t want anybody to get the idea they are serious.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
who’s going to win the elections ?
depends on sex in the polls :
http://gawker.com/343497/poll-everyone-too-busy-screwing-to-vote
January 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
tedders,
It’s my understanding that in Texas even the Democrats are Republicans.
OTOH, in my home city, the Republicans are all Democrats. One needs only look at Rudy, who was a “fascist” as mayor, and is now too liberal to get nominated.
Nomad,
There’s sex in the polls? That’s it! I’m voting this year!
January 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
a bit more precisions :
a Frank Luntz ’survey for Playboy :
“Following are selected results from Luntz’ survey:
— More people under 40 have sex at least once a week than vote for
president once every four years.
— 25 percent of all Republicans and 35 percent of all Democrats have had
more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime-a higher percentage
than vote in congressional and local elections.
— 55 percent of Republicans have sex at least once a week, compared with
just 43 percent of Democrats.
— 14 percent of Thompson supporters and 12 percent of Obama supporters
claim to have sex “almost every day.” 5 percent of Clinton and
Giuliani supporters have sex that frequently.
— On average, Republicans say they were 18.4 years old when they first
had sex. Independents were 17.6 and Democrats 17.5.
— 58 percent of respondents think Bill Clinton was the sexiest president
of the past 40 years; Ronald Reagan is second, with 22 percent. 38
percent say Richard Nixon was the least sexy; Bill Clinton is second,
with 18 percent.
— 23 percent of all Republicans and 24 percent of all Democrats would
“definitely” or “probably” say yes to a one-night stand in the Oval
Office with a president they found physically and sexually attractive.
— 51 percent of all Republicans and 67 percent of all Democrats have
watched porn with their sexual partners.
— 55 percent of people who attend church every week consider themselves
to be “sexually adventurous.”
— Americans of both parties say they are more turned on by intelligence
than by physical appearance.”
January 13th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I agree with the last statement nomad!
January 13th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Americans of both parties say they are more turned on by intelligence than by physical appearance HUH?
This statement is false for sure
tedders are you kidding me?
January 13th, 2008 at 1:36 am
“It’s my understanding that in Texas even the Democrats are Republicans.”
bj,
I thought so too apparently NOT!
January 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Tedders, do you mean then that they have a big ass QI ?
January 13th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
No, I’m not kidding Two’s, and I don’t mean someone who outweighs a sumo wrestler Nomad! LOL. Physical attractiveness is what gets you interested but if they’re dumb as a rock, it’s a complete turn off. Nobody wants a partner thats super great looking but is an embarrassment during a conversation.
(http://www.metacafe.com/watch/788563dingy_beauty_queen/)
At least I wouldn’t want that. I’ve dated some great looking but intellectually challenged girls, my interest was always short lived. Fortunately I married someone who’s better looking than me and happens to be the most intelligent woman I’ve ever met. You have to feel sort of sorry for her though!! ; )
January 14th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I absolutely agree with both your choices. Go McCain!!