Beck on Iranian President Ahmadinejad: "This guy is Howard frickin' Dean"
On his radio show, Beck repeatedly compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Howard Dean, at one point exclaiming, "This guy is Howard frickin' Dean." On his CNN show, Beck previously said that Ahmadinejad "sounded ... a lot like Michael Moore" in a letter Ahmadinejad wrote to President Bush.
On the August 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Glenn Beck repeatedly compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, at one point exclaiming, "This guy is Howard frickin' Dean." Responding to Ahmadinejad's criticism of the Bush administration during an August 13 interview with Mike Wallace on CBS' 60 Minutes, Beck declared that Ahmadinejad "sounded like Howard Dean. ... You listen to this thing; the only word he didn't use was Halliburton." After airing an audio clip of Ahmadinejad stating through a translator that "45 million people don't have health care cover" in the United States, Beck stated: "That is the Howard Dean message. ... [T]his is the Democratic platform."
Beck is also the host of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck. As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck previously declared on that program that Ahmadinejad "sounded ... a lot like [filmmaker] Michael Moore" in a letter Ahmadinejad wrote to President Bush.
From the August 14 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: Stop, stop, stop this. There were two places where Ahmadinejad, President -- Tom as you and I know him -- actually sounded like -- well, there was a moment where I expected him to say: "And then, we'll go on to Wisconsin, then to Michigan, and to Ohio. Yowwww!" I -- he sounded like Howard Dean. Here's one of those places: "George Bush and his cronies want to control oil." You listen to this thing; the only word he didn't use was Halliburton.
AHMADINEJAD (through translator) [clip]: -- and 45 million people don't have a health care cover.
BECK: Stop! He's saddened that the American people, 45 million people, don't have health care coverage. Got it?
AHMADINEJAD [clip]: That is very sad.
BECK: Very sad.
WALLACE [clip]: And he was sad also not to hear any answer from President -
BECK: Stop! This guy is Howard frickin' Dean. That is the Howard Dean message. Why are you spending so much money in Iraq? It's meaningless, it's worthless, when you don't have health care. Your economy -- you're distracting people. You're going over and killing people as a distraction because the economy is so bad. I mean, this is the Democratic platform.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Beck is not addressing the points. He would rather use the points as the basis for an ad hominem attack on Howard Dean.
This is what we get for discourse these days. Pathetic.
Adolph Hitler: "The sky is blue."
Mother Teresa: "The sky is blue."
Hysterical Demented Beck: "Mother Teresa, she's HITLER! Same exact message!"
exactly the "thought" we expected from Beck from the git-go ... nothing but a steam of rightwing illogic.
Hitler invaded a country [Poland] that didn't attack his own. Herr dubyah invaded a country [Iraq] that didn't attack his own. So, dubyah = Hitler. Wow! That's nifty! All I need is a lobotomy and I can be a righty too!
Tex, how come you're so smart?! W/ all the phony arguments & strawmen thrown out there by righties ,I never thought of that lil' comeback of yours. I'll have to remember that 1! :^)
Howard Dean is a public figure and chairman of the Democrat party. Beck is making the valid point that Achmadinejad has borrowed some political rhetoric from the Democrats to criticize America.
A subtler point is that Achmadinejad will not say anything to praise America. Neither will Howard Dean.
I don't think you know what it means.
Where did Beck address the actual point made by Ahmadinejad?
Simply equating it to Howard Dean doesn't address the point at all. It is attacking the man. Hence ad hominem.
You dont have one, Beck didnt have one. I like Wagner, doesnt make me a Nazi. The fact you wingnuts are even trying things this astonishingly ludicrous shows how desperate and frankly bereft of both decency and logic you are.
A subtler point is that Achmadinejad will not say anything to praise America. Neither will Howard Dean. - from Clevelandsteamer
You're putting forth the classic right-wing lie (or error, in case you actually believe your garbage). Criticism of the current administration does not equate to criticism of the country. Dean loves America. That's why he's as dismayed as many of the rest of us by the damage this administration is doing to it.
I doubt very much that it would be difficult to find statements from Dean praising this country.
No wonder we have a moron for a President who can't speak third grade English and started the wrong war. We have too many simple-minded Becks in this country who insist on ignoracracy, rule by the most ignorant dumb a$$es you can find.
...that the talking point has gone out.
"Equate Democrats with Terrorists/Al Qaeda/islamic fascists"
I mean, why is it that these guys ALL do the SAME thing at exactly the SAME time?? I want to know. Maybe it's more of a lemming phenomenon.
So, we have Dean, LaMont... who's next?
"Why are you spending so much money in Iraq? It's meaningless, it's worthless, when you don't have health care. Your economy -- you're distracting people. You're going over and killing people as a distraction because the economy is so bad. I mean, this is the Democratic platform"
And, is this something to disagree with?? Who is this guy appealing to?
IF he thought that COMPARING President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Howard Dean was a SLAP.
Look I'm NOT gonna praise Ahmadinejad 100% here, the guy OBVIOUSLY is FAR from perfect OR an angelic benevolent character. HOWEVER, he certainly made sense with a NUMBER of things he said and appeared to be a lot more rational than the CURRENT administration.
Here are examples:
We think that Mr. Bush's team and the parties that support him want to monopolize energy resources in the world. Because once they have that they can impose their opinions, points of view, policies on other nations and, of course, line their own pockets."
"The problem that President Bush has is in his mind he wants to solve everything with bombs. The time of the bomb is in the past. It's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges."
Well, we are very saddened that the people of Iraq are being killed," Ahmadinejad replied. "I believe that the rulers of the U.S. have to change their mentality. I ask you, sir, what is the American army doing inside Iraq? Iraq has a government, a parliament. Iraq is — has a civilized nation with a long history of civilization. These are people we're dealing with."
"Well, Saddam's story has been finished for close to three years, I would say. He belongs in the past. … And the Americans are openly saying that 'We are here for the long run,' in Iraq that is. So, a question for you, according to international law, the responsibility of providing security rests on the shoulder of the occupying, rather army. So, I ask them why are not — why are they not providing security?"
I think that Mr. Bush can be in the service of his own people," Ahmadinejad said. "He can save the American economy using appropriate methodologies without killing people, innocents, without occupation, without threats. I am very saddened to hear that 1 percent of the total population is in prison. And 45 million people don't have a health care cover. That is very sad to hear."
I was hoping to open a new window for the gentlemen. One can certainly look on the world from other perspectives. You can love the people. You can love all people. You can talk with the people of the Middle East using another language, other words. Instead of blind support for an imposed regime, they can establish a more appropriate relationship with the people of the region."
Well, please look at the makeup of the American administration, the behavior of the American administration. See how they talk down to my nation. They want to build an empire. And they don't want to live side by side in peace with other nations."
=====
Here's another thought: The Bush administration's Mid East policy boils down to this:
It is a SIGN OF WEAKNESS to deal with those HE has designated as our enemies.
Why not put down the guns & put away the bombs and ORGANIZE a Middle East summit. And INCLUDE invitations to Iran & Syria. Show them SOME respect, and you MIGHT be pleasantly surprised at their attitude. Now, I'm NOT saying this will solve all or even most of the turmoil in that region [there will never,IMO, ever be complete Peace]...BUT opening a dialogue is NEVER a bad thing.
AND, it could cause Terrorists Groups a fitful existence. They THRIVE on the turmoil and contentious relations between the U.S. and Muslim nations. IF the U.S. repairs those relations--it MIGHT put a damper on the terrorists rationale for ATTACKING the WEST.
Ok I know my thoughts verge a bit on the simplistic...but just IMAGINE.
" AND, it could cause Terrorists Groups a fitful existence. They THRIVE on the turmoil and contentious relations between the U.S. and Muslim nations. IF the U.S. repairs those relations--it MIGHT put a damper on the terrorists rationale for ATTACKING the WEST. Ok I know my thoughts verge a bit on the simplistic...but just IMAGINE. "
Apppeasement won't work. The terrorists don't thrive on turmoil...they CREATE it. "If the US repairs those relations"? Do you mean if the US eliminates all of the moral ineptitudes of the liberal left wing so that those terrorists start thinking the US isn't such an immoral place? Those "relations"? I will agree you are thinking a bit simplistic. Especially when you say you agree with A-man "on a number" of issues. The guy is a terrorist and a leader of a country, that doesn't make him suddenly brilliant on the workings of the US economy. He is being fed lines to say to the American public and the liberal side fell for his "plea" lock/stock and barrel.
Time to become less "simplistic" and wake up to the realities that the terrorists hate the immoralities of the US, not the policies of the US. When is the liberal left wing ever going to change their moral stances? When cows fly over the moon. And, that's why the US will never be able to stop terrorism against our nation by these islamic extremists.
... of this administration. Get off your high horse (Jeter is no lazy liberal, by the way)...
Forget about what the Iranians actually believe or hope to achieve... Examine the actions of our gov't. If you honestly believe that we've been served well by our current administration (I'll make it easy... on ANY count)... I think you're fooling yourself. We have done more to create turmoil within the ME over the past 6 years than any terrorist organization. Where's that security we've been longing for in Iraq? Think before you spew the rhetoric.
I just figured it out....
"Do you mean if the US eliminates all of the moral ineptitudes of the liberal left wing so that those terrorists start thinking the US isn't such an immoral place? "
Is this what it boils down to for you? Immorality? Take a long LONG look at your beloved Right wing. If you can honestl say (believe) that the Right Wing is moral or the defenders of 'good', etc... well, then good luck to you. Sucker born every minute.
"Time to become less "simplistic" and wake up to the realities that the terrorists hate the immoralities of the US, not the policies of the US."
Republichater:
I'd be curious to see you explain this comment because, as simplistic thinking goes, this ranks up there with "they hate us because of our freedoms."
While you are partially correct in that Islamic fundamentalists see America and much of the rest of the West as libidinous and "immoral," your statement that their hatred has nothing to do with US policies in that part of the world is laughably naive. Western (and specifically American) behavior in the Middle East, pursuing oil interests while sponsoring corrupt autocratic regimes, has a long history and not surprisingly has stirred up resentment against us there. While it is true that many Islamic terrorists are Fundamentalists and dislike America because it is perceived as a secular colonial power (and an "immoral" one at that), they wouldn't be attacking our buildings if we were not involved in the Middle East.
"When is the liberal left wing ever going to change their moral stances? When cows fly over the moon. And, that's why the US will never be able to stop terrorism against our nation by these islamic extremists."
Very interesting. So in order to stop attacks by terrorists, we must stop being "immoral" and become more like them? Conservatives have a nasty word for people like you and that word is "appeaser." Personally I prefer living in a secular Democracy, but I suppose if we became a Fundamentalist state under Sharia law, the attacks might cease.
What specifically should America change about its internal moral behavior to make the terrorists like us?
squash them now! ALL OF THEM!
IF we are actually squashing terrorists. NOT everyone who looks vaguely like them. They dont glow in the dark, you did know that right?
you knowit Solon. I may lean right, but I am very liberal as well. I refuse to discriminate based on color. However, I do call a spade a spade, and am not exactly politicaly correct.
Have you signed up to fight? Come back after you've pulled a tour in a war zone, a**h*le!
I can not fight, I was hit by a drunk driver suffering a back and neck injury, who happened to be a democrat!
You like terrorists? What kind silly remark is that? I think I will flag that comment. You call me a a**h*le! Nice guy.....
What specifically should America change about its internal moral behavior to make the terrorists like us?
- christopher howard
----------------------------
what are you, a moron? why should we be trying to get terrorists to "like us"? we should be going after bin laden instead of trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the iraqi people.
if bush didn't like the bin laden family so much that he remains a business partner even after 911, maybe we would have got osama by now instead of saddam's pistol and a civil war on our hands.
Heru:
It seems you didn't really read my post properly. I was responding to Republichater's statement that liberal immoral behavior makes the terrorists hate us. I have no desire to have fundamentalist extremists "like us" by becoming more like them (Republichater's apparent prescription), but I do think we could have generated greater good will, both historically and recently, by not crashing around that region like an arrogant and drunken bully.
I agree with you on Bush, his Saudi business connections and bin Laden.
Hearts and Minds: I opposed going into Iraq from the start, but having done so we should have tried to win hearts and minds rather than turning the entire country into a cash cow for Bush, Cheney and their corporate cronies.
The hatred comes from our policies. Even the Pentagon admitted that
[link to www.truthout.org]
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
Then again why would the Iranians be mad just because we overthrew their democratically elected and wildly popular leader Mohamed Mossedegh and replace him with a dictator like Shah Pahlavi. The man Amnesty International called the worlds worst torturer. They only suffered under his brutality for 25 years, no reason to hate policies like that is there? Your projection is showing when you tell US to stop being simpleminded then spew the same simpleminded nonsense that even the PENTAGON has repudiated. I guess a propaganda parrots gotta do what propaganda parrots do but combining an incredibly ignorant baseless assertion about liberal moral ineptitude. Which is frankly stupid, I notice there were no examples or any attempt to even PRETEND you could show any of this supposed immorality. Combining it with the old, they hate our freedoms stupidity to pretend its a shiny new thought instead of the same worn out propaganda parrot nonsense you guys have been spewing since Limbaugh, Hannity and O'falfel told you that is what you thought is pathetic. One of these days an original thought will actually form in your head. When it does you will take an ibuprofen and hoping it goes away.
It's a sad state of affairs when Ahmadinejad sounds consistently more rational than our own President... What you speak of is diplomacy -- something Bush knows nothing about. Hell, the guy can't even put two word together without stumbling over them.
The most simple approach is often the most rational. Look how well this 'neocon dream' has done for us? Clean Break? Yes... from reality.
jeter, your insights are very refreshing on this issue. You have recognized that U.S. foreign policy is failing now. As a matter of fact, U.S foreign policy has almost always been prone to failure, as it is stridently self interested. That is not to say it is bereft of any positive history, or that the U.S. ought not gaurd its self interests.
I am usually in disagreement with you, but it's good to see common ground on things. We probably agree on imminent domain too. I oppose it as do many libs and cons. But so many windbags use issues that unite as a tool to divide by falsely stating their opponents position. For example, Limbaugh claims libs love it, Franken claims the conservative corporatists enacted it.
Anyway, I've rambled off point. At the end of your statement you claimed to be thinking simplistically. It was a simple thought and that kind of thinking is the best way cut through the BS.
You're correct--we do AGREE on eminent domain...AND it wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover we agree on a number of issues. I'm one of those more traditional/moderate Conservatives. And you're correct, there are issues that aren't Left or Right, they are for the good of all--BUT some take sides anyway. It's all too political at times.
Looks like you & Peet pretty much took care of republichater B.S. Those "they hate our freedoms" types who BELIEVE ANY dialog with our enemies is somehow a sign of weakness irritate me as much as they do Liberals ;-)
We are. Don't you read Jeff Gannon?
It is an apparent fact.
"Equate Democrats with Terrorists/Al Qaeda/islamic fascists"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It's not a talking point. It is an apparent fact." --clevelandsteamer
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is apparent is that you are a mere troll. Please argue intelligently in the future. That means avoiding the transparent, incendiary and ad hominem attacks you have amply demonstrated to this point.
What you just posted as well as your previous examples may pass for argument on "nutjob websites", but here you will most likely have your posts deleted or you may be banned eventually.
If you are indeed able to rise above the third grade level, then I welcome your addition and look forward to the discussion.
Thanks.
Funny, I don't seem to recall your advice to others who state much sillier things but happen to agree with you?
Cleveland made an assertion. Feel free to disagree, but to say his comments are far afield of most comments here is to live in an alternate reality. The only difference is that he agrees with Beck and you don't.
IMHO Cleveland's comments are no different in substance than your original post attacking Beck.
Equating Democrats to terrorists is far from an "assertion". You're just to obtuse to realize that. Of course, you are an unhinged righty so you wouldn't know the difference.
So a blanket statement associating Dems and terrorists is the same as saying that Beck isn't addressing the points.
Are you out of your damn mind? Don't you think that Open_mind can back that up? Do you think Cleveland can back up his "apparent fact" that Dems equal terrorists? If you question what they said, challenge it!
All assertions are not created equal. You're backing the wrong horse here. Standing up for someone who makes a comment like that makes you look like a jackass.
You are apparently so desperate to point out some sort of silly liberal hypocrisy you have resorted to equating a post that condemns an obvious ad hominem attack (by Beck) with a post that is nothing, but an ad hominem attack.
I suppose intolerance of bigotry is also an equal form of bigotry in your world as well.
What you apparently seem to ignore is that I can back up my post with a rational basis. I would really enjoy reading anyone's attempt to rationalize clevelandsteamer's "apparent fact".
Silly me. I thought facts were definite? How can facts be "apparent" anyway? It looks like we have found an oxymoron (please don't take that as another silly liberal ad hominem attack).
BTW, I have equally chided supposed liberal trolls for doing this as well. I cannot control your apparently selective memory on this.
Is YOU are a moron. There is a bridge with your name on it
But Rush Limbaugh is not Osama frickin' Bin Laden? I only make this comparison because if Limbaugh was ever cloned, I don't know, you make the call.
I don't understand. Is Beck trying to say that 45 million people don't deserve some sort of health care coverage?
Very sad. That is very sad.
" I don't understand. Is Beck trying to say that 45 million people don't deserve some sort of health care coverage? "
That's good, perhaps Beck should pay for the health care of those 45 million all by himself? Why don't those 45 million lazy arses go out and get their own insurance? They are either lazy or stupid, it seems that even illegal immigrants can get decent health care. Who are these 45 million that can't be bothered to get health care if 12 million illegals have no problem doing it?
"Who are these 45 million that can't be bothered to get health care if 12 million illegals have no problem doing it?"
Please direct me to the actual agency that records such information.
There is a HUGE difference between health insurance and health care. You are intellectually dishonest to blur the two.
explain the difference to help me understand.
If you can't see the difference between being cared for and being insured. Then you may not know the difference between a verb and a noun.
thanks for your help.....
even for a smart*ss like me. But, seriously to answer you. Health care is a service administered by physicians and nurses. Health insurance is a form of coverage one pays into to defray the costs of health care. I think that is a proper analogy.
I understand now. I just tend to oversimplify things at times. Thanks!
My background is in health services administration and let me tell you that a huge number of the uninsured are employed at jobs that don’t provide health insurance as a fringe benefit. They can’t afford to purchase non-group health insurance where risk is assumed across the entire group and thus the premiums are greatly reduced for individuals. The non group premium is out of reach for the average working class person who have to use their limited funds for pesky things like paying RENT and UTILITIES and buying FOOD for their families. Republican hater is like many of the empathy challenged, they see the world through the very narrow view of their own experiences. This can only explain his ignorant statement. If anyone cares to research the topic this web address will lead you to an excellent resource.
[link to www.kff.org]
you're a peach.
Illegals in the area I just moved from got health care by going to emergency rooms and then just not paying. That is not the model I want 1/6 of the US population to follow.
When Bill Clinton became President, he and the First Lady tried to address this issue and she was run out of town on a rail. So, who at least tried? Don't blame sick immigrants for failed Republican policies.
I fail to see how I blamed the illegals. I simply pointed out that the method of paying for healthcare was not one I wanted to see replicated on a larger scale.
As to the Clinton health plan, I could support a plan that let one go to a hospital and get any preventive medicine to include birth control and counseling presuming that it came with an explicit agreement not to sue. By gaining economy of scale and reducing the overhead of unnecessary tests to prevent litigation it would be affordable and individuals could later choose to expand the plan to cover things like alternative medicine or nonessential services.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence,
"By gaining economy of scale and reducing the overhead of unnecessary tests to prevent litigation it would be affordable and individuals could later choose to expand the plan to cover things like alternative medicine or nonessential services."
I'm sure it is probably just me. Maybe you could reiterate your point, that would be helpful.
This sentence is clear though,
"As to the Clinton health plan, I could support a plan that let one go to a hospital and get any preventive medicine to include birth control and counseling presuming that it came with an explicit agreement not to sue."
I'm not entirely in agreement. I don't think a patient's right to protect themselves from malpractice is ethical. Again, I may just be misinterpreting what you wrote.
At any rate, litigation is not the whole impetus for the outrageous healthcare costs in this country. Costs have a great deal to with medical manufacturers.
Here is an anecdotal example, a short one, but gets to the heart of my point. My wife is a veterinarian. Last Thanksgiving she fell ill and had to go to the emergency room. She was ok, but needed IV fluids. Later, we received the itemized bill. She pointed out that the same volume of saline solution her physician administered cost ten times what she charges for her patients. In other words, the same manufacturer that supplies her vet practice supplies hospitals at ten times the price. It's a scam that has little to do with litigation.
"By gaining economy of scale and reducing the overhead of unnecessary tests to prevent litigation it would be affordable and individuals could later choose to expand the plan to cover things like alternative medicine or nonessential services."
I'm sure it is probably just me. Maybe you could reiterate your point, that would be helpful. ------ I was saying that two forces would be at work. The first is economy of scale by having one billing system, one record keeping system, one procurement system. This is the very reason that companies go with ERP systems so that everything is transparent and global operations can be leveraged to get the best rate for all. The second force would be elimination of the tests that serve no clear purpose than to protect the staff from litigation. ------ This sentence is clear though,
"As to the Clinton health plan, I could support a plan that let one go to a hospital and get any preventive medicine to include birth control and counseling presuming that it came with an explicit agreement not to sue."
I'm not entirely in agreement. I don't think a patient's right to protect themselves from malpractice is ethical. Again, I may just be misinterpreting what you wrote. -------- I think you are saying you don't think a patient giving up the right is ethical. I believe that true malpractice should be addressed in the criminal courts. Any damage done to an individual should be corrected by the government but if that is not possible due to permanence (death, dismemberment, scarring, or emotional distress) then that should be compensated by the government (supplier) at the direction of a neutral arbitrator.
As far as a 'right' to sue, I am not so sure about that as by agreeing to the care you can waive that right much like what happens to military members on active duty. In that case if falls under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Feres Doctrine which prevents active duty personnel from suing even when due to gross negligence. I would go a step further in allowing for an arbitration agreement to compensate true victims of malpractice.
Since malpractice would be a criminal matter only, an inadvertent mistake could be quickly admitted to by the doctor or other staff member because there would not be the fear of litigation. ------- At any rate, litigation is not the whole impetus for the outrageous healthcare costs in this country. Costs have a great deal to with medical manufacturers.
Here is an anecdotal example, a short one, but gets to the heart of my point. My wife is a veterinarian. Last Thanksgiving she fell ill and had to go to the emergency room. She was ok, but needed IV fluids. Later, we received the itemized bill. She pointed out that the same volume of saline solution her physician administered cost ten times what she charges for her patients. In other words, the same manufacturer that supplies her vet practice supplies hospitals at ten times the price. It's a scam that has little to do with litigation. ---------- I cannot speak to your story except to ask if there is different licensing for vet saline and human saline such as FDA inspection etc. The increased cost may come from testing, regulation compliance, more secure distribution, etc. Don't forget that under the current system the hospital is attempting to make a profit and all costs may be inflated due to that as well. The hospital scam does have some to do with insurance costs and the need to cover indigent care that is not reimbursed.
I believe the current system is broken but I am open to ideas for correcting it even if they differ from my own.
Your explanation cleared up quite a bit.
'I don't think a patient's right to protect themselves from malpractice is ethical.'
Sorry, for that sentence. I meant to state that I advocate a patient's right to protect themselves from malpractice. And I agree with handing that to the criminal courts. But, I am wary of the courts given their record of siding with insurance companies ie Katrina claims.
"As far as a 'right' to sue, I am not so sure about that as by agreeing to the care you can waive that right much like what happens to military members on active duty." I'm in agreement there, too. No medical proceedure is gauranteeed nor should be.
"I would go a step further in allowing for an arbitration agreement to compensate true victims of malpractice."
Agreed.
"I cannot speak to your story except to ask if there is different licensing for vet saline and human saline such as FDA inspection etc."
Not sure on this point as to the FDA, but there is no difference in saline solution for animals and humans. In fact, very few differences in animal and human supplies and drugs are discernible. And that was my contention as to their diffferences in cost.
"Don't forget that under the current system the hospital is attempting to make a profit and all costs may be inflated due to that as well."
Trust me, my wife is attempting to make a profit, too. But since her supplies are less expensive she can charge less for services and supplies. However, I can not speak to the differences of malpractice insurance costs. She works on horses and must pay high premiums but in comparison to MD's I'll have to check.
The system is broke. I don't have answers to fix it, I guess that's for elected officials and legal process to determine. I think that much of the costs come from profiteering forces outside of the actual healthcare workers.
It's been a pleasure, thank you.
Here we are, having a discussion about how to fix things without attacks or rancor. I believe from your other posts that we have fundamental differences in our respective views of the role of government. It is heartening to see that we can be civil. I look forward to learning more about your views.
"I bet Beck has health coverage."
-----
I'll bet it doesn't cover mental disabilities.
....is Howard frickin Dean. And that is the D's message. Health care, benefits, etc. Beck is right on this one. He's Dean all right.
Yes, how awful to actually want to support the health of the people of your country. What kind of lunatic would want to see people insured?
I guess everyone has a different point of view. You see, I happen to like paying for my PPO. Yes it is expensive, but when I need to see my doctor they take me that day. When my child id sick, they will see him right away. So if universal healthcare is going to affect my coverage that I am MORE THAN WILLING TO PAY FOR, forget it. With all the illegals taking advantage of our welfare state, it ruins it for some of the American Citizens that are in need of it that can not afford insurance. You can not have open borders with a welfare state, as America is.
Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to have some sort of verification of citizenship tied to those benefits, would it? I don't think anyone's suggesting that someone could get free health care without any screening at all. How hard would it be to ask for social security card/number, birth certificate, passport or green card?
And if a few illegals slipping through that system outweighs the enormous benefits that such coverage would have to society...if that means more to you than relieving the burden the lack of coverage puts on so many people...then I think your values are far out of line with those of Americans and the principles America was founded on.
Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to have some sort of verification of citizenship tied to those benefits, would it?
Like the National ID card? If there is a good solution I am all ears.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that someone could get free health care without any screening at all.
But is happens.
How hard would it be to ask for social security card/number, birth certificate, passport or green card? Lets give it a try.
And if a few illegals slipping through that system outweighs the enormous benefits that such coverage would have to society...if that means more to you than relieving the burden the lack of coverage puts on so many people...then I think your values are far out of line with those of Americans and the principles America was founded on.
It is more than a few. You must be aware of that? Illegal immigration has put a huge drain on our system, from Anchor babies, to emergancy rooms, prisons, ect. There is no denying it. I do not mean to sound so shallow about, trust me. However, with the broken system we have, I would like to see it fixed first, or, as well. Americans first.....
I'm sure that illegals have their costs, but it seems to me whatever huge drain they create can be offset. Think about it this way;the companies that are hiring illegal workers have added profits because their employees make so little base pay and get no benefits (and according to many Repubs, those added profits should help the economy - balancing out the "huge drain"). So take it out of those companies' hides, if that's possible. That should help pay for it, and discourage hiring illegal immigrants in general. Get caught or reported, and you get hit in the wallet.
And I fail to see why we should not have coverage for all citizens because illegal immigrants are cheating emergency rooms now. They'll still do that anyway, so they're not as much of an issue as poor people. All this would do is cover Americans who can't afford it and whose employers won't provide it. Other countries do it, we have the biggest economy, so why not? I thought we were the "can do" country...or is that just for things the rich are interested in?
In any event there's an honest and rational argument for it (especially when the other side boils down to "I don't want to pay for it"). You can dislike Dean and/or Ahmadinejad all you want, but that doesn't mean everything either one of them says is radical.
very fair, no argument, just different views.
Illegal aliens accouted for 10% of the Social Security surplus, according to the New York Times. Illegal immigrants do pay payroll taxes on their wages, but often move back to their country of origin before becoming eleigible for social security, so in fact the ILLEGALS are contributing to U.S. social welfare programs while not receiving one dollar in return.
You are more afraid of illegal immigrants because of their different skin color and different language. Waiting lists for English classes are weeks long in this country, yet the U.S. government now has English as the official language, but won't provide more funding for ESL programs. THis backlash against immigration is racist and nativist in nature, and has nothing to do with security or economics.
I wasn't sure that they really were such a huge drain, but even if they were it didn't make sense that our poor should go without health care because of them.
Go to H#ll in a bucket with your retoric. I am not afraid of the skin color... LOLOLOL... how pathetic. The New York Times???? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Nice try. Yes, they are a drain. One lady alone in LA had 10 anchor babies, and her husband pulls in a wopping 400.00 a week. After living here for 22 years, still does not speak english. There are counless examples like this one. You dont call that a drain? Go back to school boy.
I bet Hitler said some things that both Beck and I can agree on.
It's when the core ideology is similar that we should take notice.
Who the hell listens to this crap?
they made out better than we did.
It's like any two people who make sense or state facts, no matter how different those people are, are exactly the same if they're not repeating the BushCo talking points.
Glenn Beck is a cheap copy of Rush Limbaugh say the most outrageous thing and sit back and listen to the outrage. The guy is about shock value nothing more, nothing less this guy say things so dumb even Hannity or the pig man he try to copy won't say them... I bet back in his day he used to be a campus Republican who likes to talk tough but plays D and D with the other campus Republicans.
thinks more of working class Americans than Beck. Wow what does that say about Beck?
HEY WHEN BECK CAME ON HE SAID HE WASN'T GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE SHOWS THAT ATTACK THE OTHER SIDE. WELL THAT WAS A LIE, HE WAS BLANCE FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS.
Whatever the hell BLANCE is...
In a heroic effort to overtly convey his covert feelings, CNN’s newly made-up mouth, Glenn Beck got cozy with his audience while spewing his proffered bile over the airwaves. From this new, touchie-feelie mugshot, it would seem Glenn-boy just might be wrangling for face time with Tweetie. Just the right amount of pink in his open-necked shirt and just the right amount of unseen neck hairs. While puckering for Mr. Camera, Beck’s pursed lips were combined with a goodly, conservative amount of gel-lube to attach that faux pince-nez to his punked noggin. Unfortunately, Tweetie don’t do MM stills. All that was actually conveyed was the stupefying hysterical shrillness of his ongoing rantings, via an MP3…in a forlorn attempt to wipe away his neo-elephantine tears of exasperation. Golly, Tweetie has again eluded the grim grasp of Glenn’s grinning grimace of grime! Would that we could, alas.
Glenn Beck strikes me as unstable...
that is NOT "unstable"? It's a trait required to be part of the loony right.
but he's full of something you usually find in stables...
"Yeah, but at least HE is funny during the delivery of the punch line."
At least you admit that the conflation Beck set out is a false one.
"Don't give up your day-job, you'll never do comedy as well as Beck."
Talk about setting the bar low. I don't know if Tex is funny, but I'd listen to his usually keen political observations over Beck's "comic" bloviations any day.
"When will people realize that's what he is AND does....comedy!?"
Oh, if only people would wake up to the realization of Beck's comic genius. Yes, Beck is a comedian, but I don't mean that as a compliment. In reality, Beck is a standard AM radio rightwing blowhard who is trying to re-invent himself as a funny-man of the right. Unfortunately he is not funny and he is seldom right.
This guy is John frickin' Birch.
"In reality, Beck is a standard AM radio rightwing blowhard who is trying to re-invent himself as a funny-man of the right. Unfortunately he is not funny and he is seldom right"
You're completely correct. You know that the launch of this show was no different than network execs sitting around and saying - "Ok, you run an antique store, you're funny, and people come in and you help them with their problems".
Glenn Beck is a failed sitcom. CNN needs to go back to the drawing board. This guy ain't funny.
stole that from Seinfeld.
At least you steal from the best.