PDA

View Full Version : Sorry to all the Giuliani fans on SF.


Dynasty
01-29-2008, 11:37 PM
Just read it on comcast.net.

//

ORLANDO, Fla. ? Rudy Giuliani, who bet his presidential hopes on Florida only to come in third, prepared to quit the race Tuesday and endorse his friendliest rival, John McCain.
The former New York mayor stopped short of announcing he was stepping down, but delivered a valedictory speech that was more farewell than fight-on.
Giuliani finished a distant third to winner John McCain and close second-place finisher Mitt Romney. Republican officials said Giuliani would endorse McCain on Wednesday in California. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the public announcement.
"I'm proud that we chose to stay positive and to run a campaign of ideas in an era of personal attacks, negative ads and cynical spin," he said as supporters with tight smiles crowded behind him.
"You don't always win, but you can always try to do it right, and you did."
Asked directly if he was dropping out of the race, Giuliani said only: "I'm going to California."
Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to debate in Simi Valley Wednesday night.
Tuesday's result was a remarkable collapse for Giuliani. Last year, he occupied the top of national polls and seemed destined to turn conventional wisdom on end by running as a moderate Republican who supported abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.
"Elections are about fighting for a cause larger than ourselves," he said at one point, echoing one of McCain's most popular refrains.
The results seriously decimated Giuliani's unconventional strategy, which relied heavily on Florida to launch him into the coast-to-coast Feb. 5 nominating contests.
He largely bypassed the early voting states, figuring that the early states would produce multiple winners and no front-runner.
But Florida proved to be less than hospitable. The state's top two Republicans ? Sen. Mel Martinez and Gov. Charlie Crist ? endorsed McCain. And Giuliani, who once led in state polls, saw his support swiftly erode.
Surveys of voters leaving polling places Tuesday showed that Giuliani was getting backing from some Hispanics, abortion rights supporters and people worried about terrorism, but was not dominating in any area.
McCain, addressing his own supporters moments later in Miami, gave Giuliani a warm rhetorical embrace, a possible prologue to accepting Giuliani's expected support.
"I want to thank my dear friend, my dear friend Rudy Giuliani, who invested his heart and soul in this primary and who conducted himself with all the qualities of the exceptional American leaders he truly is," McCain said. "Thank you Rudy for all you have added to this race and being and for being an inspiration to me and millions of Americans."
Giuliani hung his bid for the Republican presidential nomination on his leadership. His stalwart performance as New York mayor in the tense days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks earned him national magazine covers, international accolades and widespread praise.
Yet, Giuliani was always a Republican anomaly ? a moderate-to-liberal New Yorker who backed abortion rights, gay rights and gun control in a party dominated by Southern conservatives.
In the end, as he saluted his backers Tuesday night, Giuliani hardly sounded wistful. But his remarks had the air of finality, of a campaign that had run its course.
"The responsibility of leadership doesn't end with a single campaign, it goes on and you continue to fight for it," Giuliani said. "We ran a campaign that was uplifting."
Giuliani, 63, first gained prominence as a crime-busting federal prosecutor in Manhattan. During a nearly seven-year stretch ending in 1989, Giuliani steered dozens of high-profile cases to completion, garnering more than 4,000 convictions. He tangled with mob bosses, Wall Street executives and corrupt politicians ? and was never afraid to invite the bright lights of TV cameras to accompany his quests.
Giuliani's record as a crime-fighter helped propel his next career as a politician, but it wasn't an immediate success. He lost the first time he ran for mayor in 1989 before winning in 1993.
As mayor, he fostered a take-charge image by rushing to fires and crime scenes to brief the press, but some critics felt he was more concerned about taking credit from others for what became a historic decline in the city's crime rate during his tenure.
And, while the cleanup of New York in the 1990s helped the city take advantage of the nation's economic boom, critics ? especially in minority communities ? complained that Giuliani's tactics were too aggressive and trampled on civil rights.
A bout with prostate cancer and the very public breakup of his marriage with second wife Donna Hanover ? she first learned he was filing for divorce when he made the announcement at a televised news conference ? forced Giuliani to withdraw from a race for the U.S. Senate against Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2000.
By the summer of 2001, public esteem for Giuliani was at a low ebb. On the morning of Sept. 11, Giuliani did what he always did: rushed to the scene.
In the minutes, hours, and days that followed, he presented a calm, determined presence ? urging people not to panic, but reminding them of the grim toll of the terrorist attacks. The image of a dusty, sweaty Giuliani walking near Ground Zero, surrounded by firefighters and police, was seared into the national memory.
In December 2001, Time magazine named him "person of the year" and its cover showed Giuliani standing atop a skyscraper in front of the New York City skyline with the label "Rudy Giuliani ? tower of strength."
In the years after the attacks, that reputation helped launch a hugely successful consulting business, and got him a major piece of a Washington, D.C.-based law firm with a long list of big corporate clients.
Yet, while Giuliani has long been known as efficient and tough-minded, he also can be brusque, rude and occasionally harsh.
His past associations in business and politics have come under scrutiny. President Bush, at Giuliani's urging, nominated Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner and one-time close associate of Giuliani to head the Homeland Security Department. Kerik withdrew his nomination, and later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of accepting a gift from a company suspected of ties to organized crime.
In the final days of his Florida campaign, the former mayor trailed badly in polls but insisted he would win an upset victory. As the actual votes were counted, only about one in six GOP voters chose Giuliani.
With no working strategy, no primary victories, and dwindling resources, the mayor's third-place finish spelled the end of his campaign, even if his crestfallen supporters couldn't believe it.
"They'll be sorry!" a woman with a New York accent called out to the mayor as he spoke. "You sound like my mother," Giuliani joked.

ShutDown24
01-30-2008, 12:01 AM
I wonder what Jeremy would have to say about this... lol

On a more serious note, he made a decent run. Good try Rudy :)

Dynasty
01-30-2008, 12:06 AM
oh just realized i spelled his name wrong... can a mod fix it if they get the chance?

Borski
01-30-2008, 12:07 AM
I'm hoping he endorses Romney and not McCain, but I dont see him dropping out til after Super Tuesday

HometownGal
01-30-2008, 08:00 AM
His strategy to focus solely on Florida may have hurt him though I really didn't believe in my heart that he had a chance, especially against McCain. He will endorse McCain because that is where the GOP nomination is going. Romney was my second choice after Rudy but he's not going to last after Super Tuesday unfortunately. Looks like it's going to be an Obama-McCain election. Ughhhh. McCain would be smart to put Romney on his ticket, imho.

Though I'm not a fan of McCain's, I'd still rather have him in the White House than Obama.

revefsreleets
01-30-2008, 09:02 AM
He backed McCain. McCain is gaining momentum, and it's now pretty much a two man race in both parties (man and woman for the Dems if you give Billary the benefit of the doubt).

Hey, I think I predicted that would be the case for Super Tuesday!

Anyway, I hope all the McCain doubters read up some more on him and give him the benefit of the doubt. I like him more and more because I think of all the candidates left, he's the most apt to reach a hand across the aisle, and God know this country needs as much bi-partisanship as we can get now. Sure he's made some gaffe's, but who hasn't?

I also can't shake the weird feeling that McCain will pick Thompson as his running mate.

83-Steelers-43
01-30-2008, 09:54 AM
At this point, I'll take anything over Hillary or Obama even though I've always felt McCain was a RINO.

I'm happy to see pretty boy Edwards drop out while we are at it. Sorry Tim Robbins. :coffee:

Godfather
01-30-2008, 10:28 AM
McCain has a strained relationship with the party base mainly because of his feud with Bush in 2000...although Bush was clearly in the wrong. The push polls about McCain's black child (actually from Bangladesh, and adopted) and the attacks on his service are the lowest I've ever seen politics sink in this country.

Another major sticking point is McCain-Feingold. McCain should get a pass on that...it was misguided, but McCain understands that we will never reduce the size of government until we reduce the influence of special interests.

PisnNapalm
01-30-2008, 01:35 PM
:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny: :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:


Bahahahahahahahahaaaaa!!

Sorry Rudy.... Don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out. :flap:

SteelCityMan786
01-30-2008, 07:15 PM
:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny: :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:


Bahahahahahahahahaaaaa!!

Sorry Rudy.... Don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out. :flap:

Ron Paul is on the way with his.

Good Run Rudy. If you are interested again, start in Iowa. I'm not stunned by this. I knew this was coming back to bite him. Anyway. Time to declare my endorsement to John McCain.

MAC IS BACK! MAC IS BACK!

verks36
01-30-2008, 07:35 PM
no Rudy was my main man

ahh crawdad

SteelCityMan786
01-30-2008, 07:45 PM
His strategy to focus solely on Florida may have hurt him though I really didn't believe in my heart that he had a chance, especially against McCain. He will endorse McCain because that is where the GOP nomination is going. Romney was my second choice after Rudy but he's not going to last after Super Tuesday unfortunately. Looks like it's going to be an Obama-McCain election. Ughhhh. McCain would be smart to put Romney on his ticket, imho.

Though I'm not a fan of McCain's, I'd still rather have him in the White House than Obama.

Or Billary.

revefsreleets
01-30-2008, 08:16 PM
McCain is the one guy who WILL NOT piss off the gigantic majority of people who sit in the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton, for all his blubbering, was actually a pretty moderate Democrat, and that got him elected twice, and he was a scoundrel. McCain is a moderate Republican, and a true patriot and good man. The Country actually sits a little right of the line, and McCain is going to be a good President for all us moderates. He is also going to throw that age line back some...if he sits for 2 he'll be 84. But 80 is the new 60, or whatever...

Godfather
01-30-2008, 08:30 PM
McCain is the one guy who WILL NOT piss off the gigantic majority of people who sit in the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton, for all his blubbering, was actually a pretty moderate Democrat, and that got him elected twice, and he was a scoundrel. McCain is a moderate Republican, and a true patriot and good man. The Country actually sits a little right of the line, and McCain is going to be a good President for all us moderates. He is also going to throw that age line back some...if he sits for 2 he'll be 84. But 80 is the new 60, or whatever...

Before Katrina I was actively involved in one of the Kiwanis clubs in New Orleans. Our best member was in his 90s.

83-Steelers-43
01-30-2008, 08:31 PM
Ron Paul is on the way with his.

Guy was a complete joke to begin with.

JackHammer
01-30-2008, 08:47 PM
Ron Paul is on the way with his.

Good Run Rudy. If you are interested again, start in Iowa. I'm not stunned by this. I knew this was coming back to bite him. Anyway. Time to declare my endorsement to John McCain.

MAC IS BACK! MAC IS BACK!

And Ron Paul said "9/11" about 3 or 4 million fewer times in his campaign than Rudi :dang:

JackHammer
01-30-2008, 08:48 PM
Guy was a complete joke to begin with.

And so was Rudi :coffee:

83-Steelers-43
01-30-2008, 08:55 PM
And so was Rudi :coffee:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/P000583.jpg "Thank you sir, thank you very much. Somebody buy that man a drink."

*crawls back under the Texas crock he crawled out from under*

JackHammer
01-30-2008, 08:56 PM
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/P000583.jpg "Thank you sir, thank you very much. Somebody buy that man a drink."

*crawls back under the Texas crock he crawled out from under*

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter :thumbsup:

83-Steelers-43
01-30-2008, 08:58 PM
McCain is the one guy who WILL NOT piss off the gigantic majority of people who sit in the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton, for all his blubbering, was actually a pretty moderate Democrat, and that got him elected twice, and he was a scoundrel. McCain is a moderate Republican, and a true patriot and good man. The Country actually sits a little right of the line, and McCain is going to be a good President for all us moderates. He is also going to throw that age line back some...if he sits for 2 he'll be 84. But 80 is the new 60, or whatever...

I respect the man out of all the candidates. The man went through something I could never even begin to imagine (POW camp). I'll definately give him a chance and I'm now pulling for him.

He just tends to make me nervous when it comes to national security/border control. Definately willing to hear what he has to say though.

83-Steelers-43
01-30-2008, 08:58 PM
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter :thumbsup:

But Ron Paul supports you!!! :thumbsup:

JackHammer
01-30-2008, 09:01 PM
But Ron Paul supports you!!! :thumbsup:

Does that make him an athletic supporter???

83-Steelers-43
01-30-2008, 09:04 PM
Does that make him an athletic supporter???

Hmmmm......

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/P000583.jpghttp://www.fitbuy.com/images/cn1421h.jpg

There is a resemblance. :wink02:

Stlrs4Life
01-30-2008, 10:47 PM
I'll take anybody over any Rep out there. My guy Edwards dropped out today. Rudy never had a chance anyway. Mccain, will end up bieng another Bush clone. Face it, Obama, or Hillary couldn't do any worse than Dumbya.

SteelCityMan786
01-30-2008, 11:09 PM
I'll take anybody over any Rep out there. My guy Edwards dropped out today. Rudy never had a chance anyway. Mccain, will end up bieng another Bush clone. Face it, Obama, or Hillary couldn't do any worse than Dumbya.

Billary yes she could do much worse. She is trying to impose more spending then the taxpayers can afford to put out. Some of these measures she is trying to take are too drastic.

As for Obama? He can do better.

McCain is one of the few Republicans who actually have a damn mind. He didn't even vote in favor of the war in iraq, now that we are there, he wants to finish it.

Godfather
01-30-2008, 11:25 PM
Billary yes she could do much worse. She is trying to impose more spending then the taxpayers can afford to put out. Some of these measures she is trying to take are too drastic.


Bush is exactly the same. Except we'll be paying for his spending later, with interest tacked on :dang:

SteelCityMan786
01-30-2008, 11:31 PM
Bush is exactly the same. Except we'll be paying for his spending later, with interest tacked on :dang:

Amen to that. He's the laughing stalk of the Republican Party.

JackHammer
01-30-2008, 11:53 PM
Amen to that. He's the laughing stalk of the Republican Party.

I'm sure he's laughing right with them anyway. :banging:

HometownGal
01-31-2008, 08:48 AM
Face it, Obama, or Hillary couldn't do any worse than Dumbya.

Obama - there is something about him (other than being a Democrat) that screams mistrust.

Bitchary - you want socialized medicine????? :dang: Ask the people in Canada or England how they feel about having to wait 6-10 months to see a doctor.

As I said - I'm not big on McCain and if he gets the nomination (which I think he will), I'll vote for him as an "anything but Bitchary or Obama" vote. I normally don't vote that way but with this cast of characters, I don't feel I have any other options.

revefsreleets
01-31-2008, 09:20 AM
I'll take anybody over any Rep out there. My guy Edwards dropped out today. Rudy never had a chance anyway. Mccain, will end up bieng another Bush clone. Face it, Obama, or Hillary couldn't do any worse than Dumbya.
I have no idea where you are getting the "clone" thing from. McCain's apple will FAR from the Bush...well, bush (pardon the pun). George Will calls McCain a Democrat. He's worked well with the opposition. Hard core conservatives HATE John McCain with a passion. I think you should read up on him some more.

And the one major difference between McCain and just about anyone who has even run for President in the last 40 years, let alone won, is that the man has earned and should command a great deal of respect.

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-31-2008, 10:06 AM
I find it hilarious that there are those who are just now seeing that the percieved "Clintons VS the vast right wing conspiracy"...was in reality the "Clintons VS. anyone who dares oppose them".
Watching the Dems jump ship from the Clinton Titanic to the S.S. Obama fills my conservative heart with joy.

Being from Illinois I can tell you that Obama has NO HISTORY to hang his coat on...(hence the "time for a change" campaign)

Out of the two...if I had to pick the less of two evils...i would take Obama....BUT I would prefer a leftist Conservative over a leftist Liberal anyday!!!

This is the slimmest pickings for a Republican that I have ever seen....but I am going to have to lean towards Romney.

stlrtruck
01-31-2008, 01:09 PM
Last night at one of the people at a meeting quoted hilary as saying, "It takes a village to raise our kids." I leaned over to the guy next to me and said, "Yeah but no one has realized that her village is full of idiots!"

I guess you can say that I'm not voting for her (LOL)

SteelCityMan786
01-31-2008, 05:05 PM
Last night at one of the people at a meeting quoted hilary as saying, "It takes a village to raise our kids." I leaned over to the guy next to me and said, "Yeah but no one has realized that her village is full of idiots!"

I guess you can say that I'm not voting for her (LOL)

She's the queen of them.

tony hipchest
01-31-2008, 05:33 PM
And the one major difference between McCain and just about anyone who has even run for President in the last 40 years, let alone won, is that the man has earned and should command a great deal of respect.

im with you 100%

it will never happen, because it is counterproductive to the quagmire we seem to thrive in, but i would love the day we could see the likes of mccain and bill richardson break the shackles and party lines and run on the same ticket.

revefsreleets
02-01-2008, 04:09 PM
You know, back in "the day", the loser of the presidential race became the VP. That's not an entirely crazy idea.

SteelCityMan786
02-01-2008, 04:15 PM
You know, back in "the day", the loser of the presidential race became the VP. That's not an entirely crazy idea.

Yeah, and McCain and Giuliani are good friends. So it won't stun me if they are the Republican ticket.

HometownGal
02-01-2008, 04:23 PM
Yeah, and McCain and Giuliani are good friends. So it won't stun me if they are the Republican ticket.

I wouldn't mind seeing a McCain/Rudy ticket, but McCain is going to choose whoever can help him raise the most cashola to fund the campaign and right now as it stands, Romney seems to be the best at being able to raise funds.

revefsreleets
02-01-2008, 04:25 PM
I still have the sneaking suspicion that Fred Thompson is the VP. The base needs to be appeased.

Stlrs4Life
02-02-2008, 10:18 AM
Obama - there is something about him (other than being a Democrat) that screams mistrust.

Bitchary - you want socialized medicine????? :dang: Ask the people in Canada or England how they feel about having to wait 6-10 months to see a doctor.

As I said - I'm not big on McCain and if he gets the nomination (which I think he will), I'll vote for him as an "anything but Bitchary or Obama" vote. I normally don't vote that way but with this cast of characters, I don't feel I have any other options.


Not the Scared Socialized Medicine view. Damn shame the Reps don't want every American to havehealthcare. (Free) I spent 2 years in Germany, and the Germans loved it. Never copmplained about it either.

And your feelings about Obama? I feel the same about Rudy and Mitt, (Other than being a Republican) that they are mistrusting.

fansince'76
02-02-2008, 10:53 AM
Not the Scared Socialized Medicine view. Damn shame the Reps don't want every American to havehealthcare. (Free)

That might be because there's no such animal as "free" healthcare. You want socialized medicine? Fine, but don't bitch when your tax burden shoots through the roof to help pay for it. Yep, socialized medicine is just peachy, alright: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490233

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-02-2008, 11:05 AM
Five Myths to Socialized Medicine


MYTH: ?A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE?
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a ?right? to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true. If you?re a citizen of Canada, you don?t really have a right to any particular health care service. You don?t have a right to heart surgery. You don?t even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you?re the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you?re not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot - Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets. The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.

MYTH: ?HIGHER QUALITY?
Another myth has to do with the quality of care that patients receive. British ministers of health have told British citizens for years that their health system is the envy of the world. Canadian ministers of health say much the same thing. In fact, Canadian and British doctors see 50 percent more patients than American doctors do, and, as a consequence, they have less time to spend with each patient. In Britain, the typical general practitioner barely has time to take your temperature and write a prescription. And even if they discover something wrong with you, they may not have the technology to solve your problem. Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis. The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is three or four times what it is in Canada, and five times what it is in Britain. Britain is the country that invented the CAT scanner, back in the 1970s. For awhile it exported more than half the CAT scanners used in the world. Yet they bought very few for their own citizens. Today, Britain has half the number of CAT scanners per capita as we do in the United States. A similar problem exists in Canada.

MYTH: ?MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK?
Yet another myth is that although the United States spends more on health care, we don?t get more. That argument is often supported by pointing to life expectancy, which is not that much different among developed countries, and infant mortality, which is actually higher in the United States than it is in most other developed countries. What do we get for our money? The first thing we need to do is separate those phenomena that have little to do with health care from those that do. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for African American men is 68 years, while for Asian American men it?s 81 years. We find wide differences in life expectancy among women, too. Nobody thinks that those differences are due to the health care system. What, then, would we want to look at if we really wanted to compare the efficacy of health care systems? We would look at those conditions for which we know medical services can make a real difference. Among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.

MYTH: ?EQUAL ACCESS? Perhaps no notion is more closely tied to national health insurance than the idea of equal access to health care. Every prime minister of health in Britain, from the day the National Health Service started, has said that is the primary goal of the NHS. Similar things are said in Canada and in other countries. The British government - unlike most other governments - studies the problem from time to time to see what kind of progress they?re making. In 1980, they had a major report that said, essentially: ?We really haven?t made very much progress in achieving equality of access to health care in our country. In fact, it looks like things are worse today, in 1980, than they were 30 years ago when the British National Health Service was started." Everybody deplored the results of that report, and they all promised to do better. There were a lot of articles written, a lot of conferences, and a lot of discussions. Another 10 years passed and they pondered another report, which said that things had deteriorated further. Today we are long overdue for a third report, but no one expects the situation to have improved. It?s true that racial and ethnic minorities are underserved in the United States. But we are hardly alone. In Canada, the indigenous groups are the Cree and the Inuits. In New Zealand, they are Maoris. In Australia, the Aborigines. Those populations have more health care problems, shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality, more health care needs, and they get less health care. When health care is rationed, racial and ethnic minorities do not usually do well in the rationing scheme. A Canadian study showed vast inequalities among the health regions of British Columbia. In some cases, there were spending differences of 10 to 1 in services provided in one area compared to another. That probably would not surprise most health policy analysts; you just don?t usually get this kind of data. But if we had the data, we would probably find similar inequalities in access to health care all over the developed world. I?m especially interested in the elderly, because I find that - not only in Britain and Canada, but also in the United States - when people have to make decisions about who is going to get care and who is not, they frequently choose the younger patient. Surveys of the elderly show that senior citizens in the United States say it?s much easier to get surgery, see doctors, see specialists, and enter hospitals, than say seniors in other countries.

MYTH: ?LESS RED TAPE?
Then we have the myth that national health insurance is an efficient way to deliver health care. I hear this frequently repeated by advocates in the United States. Probably the most telling statistic for hospitals is average length of stay. In general, efficient hospitals get people in and out more quickly. By that standard, the U.S. hospital sector is the most efficient in the world. And I think by many other standards it would not be much in dispute that the U.S. hospital sector is far more efficient than the hospital sectors of other countries. In Britain, where at any one time there are a million people waiting to get into British hospitals, 15 percent of the beds are empty, and another 15 percent are filled with chronic patients who really don?t need the services of hospital; they?re simply using the hospital as an expensive nursing home. So, effectively, almost one-third of the beds are closed off to acute care patients. A study compared Kaiser in California with the NHS and concluded that, after you make all of the appropriate adjustments, Kaiser spends about the same per capita on its enrollees as Britain spends on its population. But the Kaiser enrollees were getting more care, more access to specialists, and other services. We often hear that Medicare and Medicaid are efficient. The government says Medicaid only spends about 2 percent of its budget on administration. But that ignores all the costs that are shifted to doctors and hospitals. When you incorporate all those costs, it turns out that actually Medicare is not very efficient at all.

Stlrs4Life
02-02-2008, 02:12 PM
You would get the same care you get today. Only change would be it would be cheaper for you. Doctors would make a little less. Regardless, the healthcare system we have now is not working.

SteelCityMan786
02-02-2008, 02:28 PM
Not the Scared Socialized Medicine view. Damn shame the Reps don't want every American to havehealthcare. (Free) I spent 2 years in Germany, and the Germans loved it. Never copmplained about it either.

And your feelings about Obama? I feel the same about Rudy and Mitt, (Other than being a Republican) that they are mistrusting.

I want Americans to have healthcare, just those of us who are legal citizens should be getting our healthcare. The Illegal Immigrants should be getting in line with the rest of them and waiting to get theirs. I don't want to be eventually paying taxes higher then my parents do/did at their age. Free Healthcare is what you may think is coming, but in reality it's not as 76 said. No healthcare is free. They make it up in tax increases for all Americans. I don't want a mass tax increase with the current state of our economy and where it could end up going.

Preacher
02-02-2008, 02:50 PM
You would get the same care you get today. Only change would be it would be cheaper for you. Doctors would make a little less. Regardless, the healthcare system we have now is not working.

Sorry, but you are very wrong. My family lives in Canada. Do you really want to hear about the year plus wait my aunt is dealing with in agony waiting to get surgery on her liver? Then, when the surgery is available to she will have to fly hundred of miles away, because BC provincial healthcare only does those surgeries in a couple places.

Or do you want to discuss how long my uncle had to wait for knee replacement surgery?

In the US, both operations would have been done within a couple WEEKS.

Those prolonged surgeries are costing Canada BILLIONS of dollars in EXTRA health care costs (see link in quoted portion) because other problems are being caused by the original issue that is not yet taken care of.

Instead of me going on, let me quote from a post I wrote in another forum

3. On the general state of health care. I read that we are ranked 37th, and how bad is that. I say, what a crock. We are ranked 37th (World Health Organization) because the system used to rank us is tilted towards free healthcare and so-called "availability." Matter of fact, here are the five points which these rankings are dependent,

quote:
WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).


Look at each of these. All but the first one IS BASED ON FINANCES. So we are number 37, out of 180 plus health care systems in people being able to get decent health care. Furthermore, 2 or these are PURELY SUBJECTIVE. SO if you have been TOLD that your system sucks (as we have for years), then you reflect that in a survey. I have been to doctors in the states, I have been to doctors in Canada, I have been to doctors in Turkey, and I gotta say, of all three, my best experience, is IN THE USA. Is it affordable for all? No. But spinning it towards socialized medicine is simply wrong. Why? Thanks for asking....

4. Socialized medicine produces second rate health care for the masses. Right now in our country, ANYONE can get a job, and if they have health benefits, they can go to any number of excellent hospitals and doctors. However, if we moved to a socialized medicine, that all goes away. You are now assigned to a doctor/hospital. You have no ability to go outside that, and if you can, you still have to pay (via taxes) the wages for the doctor in the social system.

What is worse, is what has happened in Canada. In B.C., almost all major surgeries are now done in Vancouver. That means if you want a major surgery, you get put on a waiting list to be flown down there. I have an aunt that has been waiting for over a year for surgery to repair her liver(?) It is a necessary surgery as she is in major pain. However, because people from all over the province keep having problems (heart attacks, etc.) that are greater, she gets moved back further and further. Socialized medicine creates massive backlogs of patients (See Canada's discussion of its costs via backlog here) (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=253947) of its costs because of this backlog here. Someone here is going to pull out a small nation in Europe.. to which I will respond.. 300 MILLION people in this country. There simply is no comparison to small European countries.

The result, is that the top 1 or 3 percent of people fly to the US to get those surgeries. This is surprising like the old U.S.S.R., where everyone went to the average hospital, but the "Special" ones got "Special" treatment in top of the line hospitals.

Speaking of coming to America... socialized medicine also creates what is called the "Brain Drain." Canada is losing a number of its doctors, and now many other professionals, because the taxes continually increase, making it not feasible for professionals to live in Canada.

This is NOT what we want here. What we need to do in this country is NOT SOCIALIZE the medicine, rather, we need to bring the costs back under control. That is done in a number of ways, including limiting lawsuits and insurance premiums (please tell me you all do realize that doctors are paying upwards of HALF A MILLION A YEAR in insurance ALONE... and that is before they pay for their office, their staff, etc. etc. That includes lawsuits against drug companies. Turn on the TV during the day, and see how many adds there are by lawyers who are trying to get class action suits against drug companies. If just ONE of those wins, just how much money gets paid out.. most to the lawyers?

Also... Medicare needs to be complete revamped, as it is driving the ENTIRE HEALTH CARE COST SKYWARD. Here is what happens. Medicare pays a base rate for a visit. If the doctors don't take medicare, then they get cut out of a number of other things. SO most doctors take medicare. Now, when they see patients, they only get the medicare (MC) allowable rate, which is often times 70, 80, 90 percent below what is charged... and is set by the feds. The doctors and hospitals (having to cover their enormous insurance premiums) have to make up that money. So what they do, is they double their rates, knowing that the insurance companies will only pay contract anyways. that does three things. 1. It prices a visit out of reach for a non-insurance person. 2. It gives a better bargaining tool for the doctors to deal with the insurance companies next contract, and 3, and this is the biggest, it drives up the MC allowable for the next year, as MC fixes their rate based on percentage of charge (either a real number for many of the providers, or percentages for hospitals). SO the doctors will raise their rate from 50 dollars a visit to 150 a visit, so that medicare will pay 30 a visit instead of 20 a visit. Meanwhile, the uninsured are left in the cold.

The way to fix it is to drive medicare SOLELY through the health insurance companies, and allow the companies to make their own contracts with the providers and hospitals, within a set limit... much like, as is kinda funny, NFL teams do with salary caps.

that is just a first couple of steps.

HometownGal
02-02-2008, 02:57 PM
You would get the same care you get today. Only change would be it would be cheaper for you. Doctors would make a little less. Regardless, the healthcare system we have now is not working.

Why would I want cheaper health care if I have to wait months on end to receive it? :dang:I'd rather pay a little more and have access to my doctors and hospitals whenever I choose as I do now. That's a no-brainer for me.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to Global AIDS foundations, why doesn't our government start taking care of their own, damn it??? :banging: In his State of the Union address earlier this week, GW proposed allocating $30 BILLION dollars over the next 5 years for HIV/AIDS treatment/research. How about putting a fraction of that money towards getting the word out there that the best weapon against HIV/AIDS is practicing safe sex???? :dang: It's really not rocket science. Take the large balance of those billions and come up with a health insurance plan that would make insurance affordable to the 47+ million Americans who simply can't afford it. There should be NO American without health insurance. Not one.

fansince'76
02-02-2008, 03:06 PM
You would get the same care you get today. Only change would be it would be cheaper for you. Doctors would make a little less. Regardless, the healthcare system we have now is not working.

Doctors would make less? OK, what about the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance? That has a LOT more to do with the (non) affordability of healthcare in this country than doctors' salaries do. I agree, the healthcare system in this country as it currently stands is broken and needs fixing drastically, but I don't think handing the reins over to the government is the answer. I think it should be approached with the mindset of controlling and then gradually reducing costs, without compromising the quality of care, and I don't think the socialization of healthcare will fill that bill - look at how many billions of dollars a year Medicare is defrauded out of, as an example. When it comes to controlling/reducing costs in any industry, the federal government should be the last party involved.

HometownGal
02-02-2008, 04:00 PM
Not the Scared Socialized Medicine view. Damn shame the Reps don't want every American to havehealthcare. (Free) I spent 2 years in Germany, and the Germans loved it. Never copmplained about it either.

And your feelings about Obama? I feel the same about Rudy and Mitt, (Other than being a Republican) that they are mistrusting.

Dom - how long ago were you in Germany? Times have changed. As I said - ask any Brit or Canadian how they feel about socialized medicine. You'll get a much more negative response, I'm sure of it.

You seem to tow the party line, Dom, and that is fine. I don't vote that way normally and I took a good hard look at each candidate's (even Bitchary and Obama) platform. Truthfully, as I've said before, I'm not overly impressed with any of the candidates, not even the GOP'ers, but a vote for McCain or whoever gets the GOP nom is a vote taken away from Bitchary or Obama.

P.S. If John Edwards had stayed in the race and had secured the nom, he would definitely have had my vote.

fansince'76
02-02-2008, 04:05 PM
In his State of the Union address earlier this week, GW proposed allocating $30 BILLION dollars over the next 5 years for HIV/AIDS treatment/research. How about putting a fraction of that money towards getting the word out there that the best weapon against HIV/AIDS is practicing safe sex???? :dang: It's really not rocket science. Take the large balance of those billions and come up with a health insurance plan that would make insurance affordable to the 47+ million Americans who simply can't afford it. There should be NO American without health insurance. Not one.

Good point, Marianne - a government-subsidized health insurance plan should be the extent of "socialization" of healthcare in this country, IMO.

Private employers can also do things to reduce the cost of healthcare in this country. For example, my company, through its "employee wellness" program, is offering to cover the entire health insurance premium in 2009 (both employer and employee share) for 50 employees that are picked in a drawing. To be eligible for the drawing, you have to earn 30 "wellness points" by the end of 2008. To do this, you must actively participate in at least two company-sponsored programs that promote a healthier lifestyle (a weight loss program, exercise program, nutritional program, among others). In so doing, the employees that participate in these programs themselves become healthier and presumably less of a burden to the healthcare system which translates to reduced overall healthcare costs. BTW, I am participating - a chance at a year of free health benefits is a little too good to pass up. Initiatives like these by private employers en masse could really make a huge difference in the amount spent on healthcare in this country in the long run.

revefsreleets
02-02-2008, 08:14 PM
No offense, and I mean that sincerely when I say it, but the reason I am a moderate and not a liberal is that I live in the real World. Many liberal views are nice, and I actually share many of the same end goals, but living in Utopia is a dream, and not at all realistic.

I'd love for everyone to have affordable health care. I want everyone to have a job. I believe the environment needs to be cleaned up. I think cars should be more efficient. I think overpaid CEO's who rape companies then float down on golden parachutes while the rank and file get f*cked are filthy pigs that should be taken out in the street and shot. I want all people of varying ethnicities/religions to live together in harmony. Etc, etc, etc...

But that ain't how the World works.

Godfather
02-03-2008, 03:58 PM
The best solution is to take the shackles off HSAs. Instead of $12K a year (avg cost last I saw) going into the insurance company's pocket, it goes into your account, tax-free. When you need to use the health care system, you pay out of your account.

You can use the funds for any service from a licensed provider or any drug either already FDA-approved or going through clinical trials. You can donate funds to another person if you wish. It's your money, and you and your doctor know how to spend it better than government or insurance companies.

No more claims adjustors deciding what is and isn't medically necessary. No more lenghty delays in paying doctors. No more patients dying because they were defrauded by the HMO on an expensive procedure.