This man for president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.
This man for president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc
He definitely got my attention.
A turd who understands the Heathcare bill...so if a turd understands it and most of the senior dem's dont...want does that make them?Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Rogers is a turd.
The "innovation" he talks about in cancer research he's talking about wouldn't happen without government grants and the efforts of public universities.
So what does government grants and public universities have to do with healthcare? Other than the government trying to set Doctors pay, which will deture alot of people going into the medical field.!
I just told you, perhaps I should have broken it down into little pieces for you so you can chew it.
The reason we have better statistics on cancer survivability is that we have all of the research universities that come up with the innovative methods for detection and treatment of diseases. Government funded, government operated.
If the "private sector" were so "innovative," why haven't they cured cancer, aids, etc yet?
But yes you do not dispute the fact that he is right. With this system, and your proof is UK and Canada, that your survival rate chances with this system GO DOWN! What does that tell you?I just told you, perhaps I should have broken it down into little pieces for you so you can chew it.
The reason we have better statistics on cancer survivability is that we have all of the research universities that come up with the innovative methods for detection and treatment of diseases. Government funded, government operated.
If the "private sector" were so "innovative," why haven't they cured cancer, aids, etc yet?
Then that is pretty sad to admit. I guess did not agree with what Max. Baucus said about the bill either!
NO ADVERTISING
-IA MANAGEMENT
Can you tell me how to fit queen size sheets on a king size bed without the corners coming up? I'd like to save money next time I have to buy sheets.
Let me break this into far smaller pieces for you.I just told you, perhaps I should have broken it down into little pieces for you so you can chew it.
The reason we have better statistics on cancer survivability is that we have all of the research universities that come up with the innovative methods for detection and treatment of diseases. Government funded, government operated.
If the "private sector" were so "innovative," why haven't they cured cancer, aids, etc yet?
The govt handing out grants for research is not the same as the govt running the health care system.
Right back with your same question too. If the govt was so much better than the private sector, why havent they cured cancer in France, Germany, or England? Since you believe the govt is so much better run than the private sector, you would at least expect them to stay even with survivor rates, yet they lag FAR behind. I am also willing to bet that Aetna, Kiser, BCBS, and Cigna pay less in fraudulent claims every year combined than Medicare/Medicaid.
Why don't you attack his position instead of his character? Calling him a "turd" is pretty weak.Rogers is a turd.
The "innovation" he talks about in cancer research he's talking about wouldn't happen without government grants and the efforts of public universities.
Most of the innovation is happening at private universites with government funding. There's no way private industry can compete with an entity with almost limitless funds which were confiscated at essentially what is the end of a gun barrel. The problem with the government model, is that it can't work at a loss forever. See Soviet Russia.
LOL you have not been in the Politic's section long I see. That's what he does. He cant argue with logic and reason...therefore he makes fun of them.
Um... doesn't the private sector pay that with their own money that funds these universities (be it student loans, government loans, or private loans... all of which the student will have to repay back anyway)...I just told you, perhaps I should have broken it down into little pieces for you so you can chew it.
The reason we have better statistics on cancer survivability is that we have all of the research universities that come up with the innovative methods for detection and treatment of diseases. Government funded, government operated.
If the "private sector" were so "innovative," why haven't they cured cancer, aids, etc yet?
after all, a person who goes to Emory does have to pay their own way in for their education... or the person going in for their Ph.D has to pay their way in... yes there are grants that go to these people, but that is for their education for the future success that these people will bring to the overall wellness of the communities they'll serve. Also, I'd be curious to see how much money these research universities get from the government versus the upper middle class to the upper class of the private sector. I'm willing to bet that they get far more funding from the private sector than they do government programs.
Great post too btw. Reps for you!
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Congressman Rogers; however, it would be important to note that there are certainly a great number of factors that play into survival rates outside of funding methods alone.
This should be a fact we can all agree on.
It becomes very frustrating to see leaps in causality and in basic logic from both sides of the aisle at every turn.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
