Nope, I will not be participating. While I am in favor of gay marriage, I find the tactics of left politicians against free speech and free enterprise to be revolting beyond description, and I would never associate myself with such drivel.
Disagreeing with CFA is very American, as is dissent in general, but attempting to ban them from your city for their beliefs is fascism.
Let's make it the new Affordable Care Act. I'll start with a proposition that some Republicans agree with. Do you support banning discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions? If so, how would you go about getting the support of private carriers without a mandate? If not, why not?
Also, in the case of pre-existing conditions, we're talking about problems people suffer from often through no fault of their own. Are you really so socially darwinistic as to say to an individual in this predicament, "Too bad that you cannot buy insurance. If you have to go bankrupt paying your medical bills as a result, that's your hard luck."
As a practical matter, your position illustrates why health care costs have exploded. We don't deny people without coverage medical care, and they usually wind up getting it when their condition has reached emergency proportions. Providers know they aren't going to get paid in full, maybe not even in part. So they charge more to those who have coverage. The insurance companies recoup these additional costs by charging more in premiums to their customers. Thus, the costs are shifted on to the rest of us, and we all wind up with bigger bills as a result.
Now I will freely admit the biggest weakness in the new law is the need for more cost controls, but even so the CBO projects some savings.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
...
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2
Canada 6
And now for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance? (Universal health)
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES
Check this last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked inthe private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt.................... 38%
Taft............................ 40%
Wilson ........................... 52%
Harding......................... 49%
Coolidge........................ 48%
Hoover.......................... 42%
F. Roosevelt................... 50%
Truman.......................... 50%
Eisenhower................ .... 57%
Kennedy......................... 30%
Johnson......................... 47%
Nixon........................... 53%
Ford............................ 42%
Carter.......................... 32%
Reagan.......................... 56%
GH Bush......................... 51%
Clinton .......................... 39%
GW Bush........................ 55%
Obama........................... 8%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?
How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.
Pass this on because we'll NEVER see these facts in the main stream media.
You'll have to scrolll down a ways. We're in 38th place.
We do slightly better in infant mortality. We're 34th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is why our health care system is ranked 39th by the World Health Organization.
Taiwan recently studied many countries' health delivery systems to determine which way to go. What did they have to say about the American system? "It taught us how not to do it."
As for the business experience argument, I've never understood why Republicans place such a premium on this.
Bush spent several yrs in the private sector, and look where that got us. The last president to spend virtually his entire life in business was Herbert Hoover. How'd that work out?
Do you think Paul Ryan lacks the requisite experience to be president? His private sector experience consists of driving a Wienermobile. Personally, I'm as anti-Ryan as anyone you'll ever meet, but it's not his lack of biz experience that troubles me.
Incidentally, perhaps you can explain to me why, if red ink is so important to right-wingers, Reagan is so revered. He more than tripled the debt and doubled the deficit during his eight yrs. In fact,he rang up more debt in his tenure than his 39 predecessors *combined* did in the previous 190 yrs of this republic's existence.
But you're drifting off subject. The issue is health care.
For the third time, please explain why it's right that, if you choose not to buy insurance and then have a serious medical problem, those of us who do carry coverage have to pay your care. If you don't answer, I have to conclude you cannot.
Incidentally, the mandate is the brainchild of the very right-wing Heritage Foundation. It was part of the GOP counter proposal to Clinton's health care bill. Of course, Heritage is very partisan, so, with a Dem president supporting it, they did a 180 and strenuously oppose their own idea.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/sea...
http://in.reuters.com/article...
Now I have a question for you. Do you think it's fair that, if you choose to forego health insurance and I don't, that I pay more in premium to subsidize your care if you require expensive care?