Last Viewed Opinionated Blogs (1,909)

As our congress once again wrestles with an attempt to create a health care system that covers Americans without excluding many and a reasonable cost. Despite it’s best attempts, Obamacare simply is falling short, particularly in means of costs, but as many Republicans are discovering, meeting the presidents objectives is not only hard, it will take a level of sacrifice that our medical community is simply not willing to bear.

As shown by a PBS survey a few years back ( ) the US is much higher than many, many countries that are able to provide comparable care for their citizens. The problem is very simple. So many lobbying groups for the industry give vast amounts to congress on both sides of the aisle in order to keep their numbers, and ultimately their profits up, up, up.

There are many explanations for “why”. While the main one is the aforementioned reason issues like Medicare & the Veterans Administration being allowed to negotiate with drug makers for more reasonable prices. Consolidation of facilities offering specialized services like CT & MRI scans as well as smaller surgical centers could drastically cut costs along with similar consolidations. And frankly, at a time when most hospitals operated at a non-profit, costs were much more reasonable; not to eliminate the lucrative practices, but to offer services to lower middle class and lower class patients that needed the services without all the frills.

Frankly, I for one would not like to see government health care, but we are fast approaching a time when this may be our only option. The industry has proven again and again they are unable to regulate themselves and the same goes for those selling medical insurance. And, of course is being exacerbated by a growing older population that requires more health care than our grandparents required or expected.

There are a few steps that could help. Making Medicare available at age 50 and giving Medicare vast authority to negotiate prices and services is possible. Requiring every doctor, as a condition of their medical license to see and treat up to 50% of all medicate patients with very stiff penalties for any that refuse. Government funding of the education of doctors and specialists to include picking up all education costs in direct exchange for a doctor owing the government “x” number of years of service with the opportunity to extend their training for added years. Much stiffer penalties for any providers of medicine, medical practice, services, etc. that refuse to honor their obligation up to and include the authority to strip them of their licenses and certifications if they violate the rules.

The idea that the medical community can police themselves was disproven years and years ago and needs to be strongly regulated by independent boards with the authority to punish those that break the rules. Of course there must be exceptions, but these should be few, far between, and require serious and verifiable evidence and not just a bunch of “opinions” by fellow doctors that expect to be shown the same kind of rubber stamp approvals.

All of this works, but only when we get back to more stringent regulations that require each person to practice good behavior in keeping up their own health with heavy doses of exercise, good eating habits, etc. And this leads to stronger requirements on foods, ingredients, etc. that go a long way toward eliminating obesity and other food related illnesses.

Like any machine, our country is only as strong as it’s weakest links and good health is one of the maximums to keeping the country strong. If the president wants to make American great again, get down to the basics and let’s solve them one at a time.

Today from The Guardian;


(continued in my first comment below)

'It's easier to believe a man is mad, than to believe there could be Dragon's....'

Sometimes, in life, we KNOW something happened but cannot prove it did-no 'hard evidence' exists to back up your story- so, its easier for folks to think your a madman than to even think your tale of a monster might be true...and people treat you accordingly... as allegory, see my poem 'Dragons Domain' and /or my video post 'Dragons Domain- Space:1999'

Rick Monday saves the flag.

So in 1858 Colt sells the US Army a percussion revolving rifle. A few hundred of them. Within a year over 20 soldiers lose their hand or left forearm from chamber flash over during familiarization/training firing. The guns are recalled and surplused off @ $0.20 each.

Thereafter for many years the US military had a phobia against annything revolver that wasn't a pistol. Gatling's cranked multi revolving barrelled weapon was also tagged with this suspicion and phobia. Indeed his first 1861 model used revolving percussion chambers which also was prone to chain fire. Although the US did purchase a few Gatllings the revolver phobia persisted and very few shots were actually fired in hostility by the Union side during the US Civil War.

In 1866 Gatling came out with a cartridge model and contined to make refinements. In Europe and Russia the Gatling was viewed as a serious military weapon. England purchased many of them and used them effectively to allow their outnumberd soldiers to quell native uprisings until replaced by the Vickers.

Not so in the US. During the entirety of the Indian Wars there is no documented instance of Gatinnnnng use. By the 1870s Gatling had made a small lightweight (about 40 kilos) model designed to be fired from horseback, a ground mounted tripod or even from the back of a cammel. But the phobia of non-pistol revolvers still ruled. When General Cuuuster rode off to Little Big Horn he intentionally left 4 Gating 'camel' guns behind in the fort. Had hebrought themm the slaughter would have gun in the other direction.
continued

This article was written in 2012 but begs the same question be asked today.

The evidence is clear: Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress and don't believe their representatives share their priorities.


There's plenty of room for debate over whether Congress shares voters' priorities on political and policy issues. But when it comes to personal priorities, at least, voters have good reason to be skeptical of Congress. Most members of Congress simply don't share in the average American experience.

National unemployment has lingered above 8 percent for longer than 28 straight months. Congress, meanwhile, is a club that consists of 245 millionaires. Based on 2009 data, there are currently 66 in the Senate and 179 in the House (among current voting members). So while just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members.

Even the 2010 elections, with its promises to "take our country back," produced a freshman class of senators with a median net worth of close to $4 million. The median net worth of freshman House members is more than half a million dollars, according the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based, non-partisan research group that tracks the effect of money on elections and public policy.

Multiple factors contribute to this picture. It begins with campaigns that have become increasingly costly to run, making it all the more difficult for a person of modest income to run for office. National parties, looking for ways to bring down their own costs, actively recruit wealthy candidates.

Full article:

So.. we're seeing rainbows everywhere. with the new law that the US government made, there must be pros and cons. I, myself, am againts the law. not that I have homophobic or whatsoever. I tolerate their condition. yes. I have some friends that are LGBTs. I don't mind with them as long as they don't overacting or too vulgar. Because basically, PDA is just disgusting.

What I disagree is the law of the marriage itself. For me, marriage is supposed to create another human being. it's about a man and a woman, attracted by something and they're married and have children of their own. or maybe they adopt kids and nurture the kids together.

Maybe I'm a conventional person. On my mund, a family consists of a father, a mother and a child (or children). There's no a mother and a mother or a father and a father.a child needs both genders to be able to grow. a girl needs a mother to be a role model of how a woman should be, to help her when she has her first menstruation and all the womens thingies. a daughter also needs a father to be a role model on how a man should treat his woman.

the same thing goes to the son. a son needs a father how to be a gentleman and how to treat a woman (in a good way). a son also needs a mother for him to see what kind of person that he wants from a lady.

when the parents are the same gender, a child wont be able to see the difference. maybe, you will say, well I can be a mother and a father. yes, maybe we can, some single parent does it. But there will ve something missing in the childs life.


and from what I read, most people that are againts the law, are not againts the people. the supporters will mention tolerance. We tolerate the individuals. we don't mind (at least I don't mind). but I disagree with the law. not the person.

another thing about this debates, all my friends, who are pro woth the law, act like we're judging them, they are full of hatred toward the cons. while the cons, just giving informations. not a single bullying word came out from them.


anyway.. what I want to say is.. we all have this freedom of speech. people are allowed to speak their mind. but when the ones that speak out are the ones that againts us, we burst out in anger.

so, where is the freedom of speech??

I'm not condemning you who are pro to the law. I'm just writing to speak out my opinions. the law has been legalised anyway (not only in america, but also in other countries).

Have a good day/evening!

So it turns out the guy in charge of integrity at Twitter once claimed that members of the Trump Administration were actual Nazis.

Yoel Roth is the head of site integrity at Twitter. In 2016 he mocked Middle America – said people in fly over states voted for a racist tangerine – his words, not mine.

And in 2017 he likened Kellyanne Conway to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. In January of 2017 he said there were actual Nazis in the White House.

Now you understand why so many conservatives including yours truly are being blocked and banned on Twitter.

This is a big deal in light of Twitter’s announcement that they will be fact-checking President Trump’s tweets.



“No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies or enforcement actions, and it’s unfortunate to see individual employees targeted for company decisions,” a Twitter spokesperson told Fox News.

Twitter vice president Brandon Borrman said in a statement, “No one person here is responsible for our polices or enforcement actions. People who decide to target one person for decisions they don’t agree with know damn well what they’re doing.”

The president accused the social media powerhouse of meddling in the 2020 election – threatening to strongly regulate or even shut down the social media platforms.

It’s unlikely that threat would hold constitutional muster – but conservatives need to understand they will not get a fair shake on social media.