Greetings from RNC

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by August

It's not really an improvement at least to anyone who has to pay for it.

While coverage has increased significantly the quality of health care has remained unchanged and in spite of being billed as an antidote to run away health care costs, the price of insurance premiums have jumped 5-10% every year since Romneycare was enacted, way above the national inflation rate.

doesn't look as rosy as Romney paints it. Well we have a similar problems with rising premiums and less service here, for the same reasons why Obamacare turned out to be a failure: too few efforts to stand up against the insurance and pharma lobby. Just a minor example: we pay about as much in Germany for a 10 pack of Aspirin as you guys pay for a container of 250

[Penguin]

Regarding the gridlock between Congress and POTUS:
I know many Americans see it as a kind of counter-balance, to keep one team from too much influence, however it can turn out to be a gridlock in the truest meaning:

This is what a congressman from team R says about the current state of affairs:

So far, the House of Representatives this year has taken over 1,000 separate votes which has surpassed the most recorded votes ever in the history of Congress. We also have been "in session" voting for 146 days so far, which is also headed to a record number of days in Washington, DC. So, that's the input.

But what about the output? So far, only 107 bills have been signed into law. Over half of these were either naming something (like a post office) or extending an existing law that was scheduled to expire. several more were simple land transfers from government to government. National Review has suggested that has been only one piece of legislation of any significance that has passed and been signed into law which was the increase in the minimum wage. This Congress is on track to pass the fewest bills since electronic records have been kept. Furthermore, Congress has failed to send a single appropriations (budget/spending) bill to the President after a full month into the fiscal year. The is the first time Congress has failed to do so since 1987.

(source:http://www.campbell.house.gov/index....rticle&id=2090)

USA Today confirms his stance:Congress churns out fewest laws since 1947

[Platapus]

Sadly, once again I will be in a position of voting against a candidate instead of voting for a candidate.

Kinda depressing but perhaps that is the future of American politics -- vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

As for Christian fundies, they are one reason (of several) why i shy away from the right wing now. I DO NOT like religious ramrodding, and team R is loaded with evangelicals now. The republican party of today, is not the republican party of yesterday.

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. (Barry Goldwater)

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Penguin

USA Today confirms his stance:Congress churns out fewest laws since 1947

These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, the least productive two-year gathering on Capitol Hill since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress, which President Harry S. Truman called the "do-nothing Congress" in 1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show.

Like i said, the country could crumble all around them. And they'll still be standing their pointing fingers at each other, with neither having done anything to prevent it.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Just a minor example: we pay about as much in Germany for a 10 pack of Aspirin as you guys pay for a container of 250

Btw Aspirin Price: USA (500mg Pill, 80 each Pack) 9.99 $
+ Postage and package
Aspirin Price Germany: (500mg Pill, 100 each Pack) 9 € (11.28 $)
+ Postage and package
Price per Pill US: 0.12 US cent
Price per Pill Germany: 0.11 US cents

Not really a big price difference if you ask me.




Edit:
Penguin you made me curious, so i searched for the Prices of one of the Medications i have to use daily and i found this one out:

Price Trimipramine Generic (100 Tablets, 50 mg) Germany: 20.28 € (25.41 $)
Price Trimipramine (100 Tabletss, 50 mg) USA: 78 $ (62.24 €)

But we are soooo expensive here in germany! Pfffffffff
Penguin you should not believe the Politicians!!

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

Btw Aspirin Price: USA (500mg Pill, 80 each Pack) 9.99 $
+ Postage and package
Aspirin Price Germany: (500mg Pill, 100 each Pack) 9 ***8364; (11.28 $)
+ Postage and package
Price per Pill US: 0.12 US cent
Price per Pill Germany: 0.11 US cents

Not really a big price difference if you ask me.

yeah, k, but those web-pharmacies likely offer you those re-imports. This is the sick system: The pills are manufactured here, shipped to Spain or other Euro-countries, then come back to Germany: voilá: only a fraction of the price. In my local pharmacy I pay about 5 Euros for a regular 10 pack by Bayer, for generic about 3.50-4 . If I happen to buy it after 7pm, you can add some extra cash at a "emergency pharmacy" In the US you get a big back for the same money over the counter in regular stores. Random example: http://www.supplylinedirect.com/anal...n-250-tablets/ 250 for $5.25
I don't attempt to defend the US health care system though, it is as sick as ours, just an example how people in Germany get milked.

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

non-profit health insurance plans The only people who make only few profit are the ones who actually work in healthcare, e.g. nurses

The rest of the explanation is good, but I think our health system is rotten to the core. Just remember since when you know the dreaded word "Gesundheitsreform" - just the same joke phrase as a "Steuereform". Much talk, no change in the fundamental perversions of both our tax and health system since decades.... Every single politician who attempted to change any of those got bombed down by the lobbies, resulting in even more screw-up.

EDIT. to react to the edit :
Yes, the price of medicine people actually need is a whole different chapter

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by Penguin

http://www.supplylinedirect.com/anal...n-250-tablets/ 250 for $5.25

Your link is a generic, i linked original Bayer Products and it's a 325 mg Pill (5 grains) and my link was the 500 mg original. But anyways i think you know what i mean, i think this talk that Prices for medication in germany are so high is part of an Agenda by those who want to opress us into a US Style Health care system and be sure i will fight that to the death!

Originally Posted by Penguin

The rest of the explanation is good, but I think our health system is rotten to the core.

Our Health Care isn't rotten to the core, it has some minor and some major flaws but calling it "rotten to the core" sorry Penguin but that's an utter exaggeration!
Sooner or later there will be a solution for the flaws of our health care system, but this will take years, but it will happen.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

Your link is a generic, i linked original Bayer Products and it's a 325 mg Pill (5 grains) and my link was the 500 mg original. But anyways i think you know what i mean, i think this talk that Prices for medication in germany are so high is part of an Agenda by those who want to opress us into a US Style Health care system and be sure i will fight that to the death!

Our Health Care isn't rotten to the core, it has some minor and some major flaws but calling it "rotten to the core" sorry Penguin but that's an utter exaggeration!
Sooner or later there will be a solution for the flaws of our health care system, but this will take years, but it will happen.

About the aspirin-link:That's why I wrote down the price fopr generic Aspirin, too.

Anyway, the agenda for affordable medication is a whole different thing than the "every-man-for-himself" agenda like those FDP-wankers want to do.
The latter is going on since years. Just look at all the privatization of hospitals, nursery homes,etc. It happened in a massive scale during the past 20,25 years. It didn't raise the standard of health care, nor lowered the costs for the patient, it only lowered the staff costs and their work conditions. The profit goes to those private companies.

Another example: It is an open secret that most people who take care of their elder relatives can only do so because they rely on illegal caretakers (who do a great job btw, and are the ones who keep the wheels spinning of a humane care for old people at home) Is anyone addressing this problem, that the so called "care insurance"(Pflegeversicherung) is nothing but a sad joke? No, Augen zu und durch. Pay more and more into any pocket but for the ones who need it the most and are the weakest members of society. Old and poor: a fatal combination...

The last "health reform": Several hundred insurance companies who all offer the same? And of course our premiums raised and also the subsides from taxes, who would have thought so?
No, man, our system needs a radical reform, not baby steps. This would mean
showing the middle finger to big pharma and all the other profiters from our health costs.
I am in favor of a tax based system, like in the Nordic countries. This is a thing where taxes do really make sense, the "tax ideal" so to say: invested into the common need. Better some money gets down the drain by some government screw-up, than feeding people who life off basic human needs. However this would directly be antagonistic to the very core of our corrupt banana republic. So: no hope for any change in Germany...

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Regarding the gridlock between Congress and POTUS:
I know many Americans see it as a kind of counter-balance, to keep one team from too much influence, however it can turn out to be a gridlock in the truest meaning

But a divided Congress is a very different situation than one between Congress and POTUS.

As I understand it, with a divided Congress each party can block the other by simple inaction. The POTUS on the other hand can veto any congressional legislation that is sent to his desk for signature but they can override his veto if they have a 2/3rds majority of congress willing to vote to override the veto

The idea is that legislative branch only gets it's way if their bill enjoys very wide and usually bipartisan support. That's the limit to their power.

The President, mindful of getting reelected in his first term and of his "legacy" in his second, only uses his veto power if he thinks that the bill enjoys only lukewarm support or he knows it'll be overridden and he wants to go on record as having opposed it. That's the limit to his power.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Regarding the gridlock between Congress and POTUS:
I know many Americans see it as a kind of counter-balance, to keep one team from too much influence, however it can turn out to be a gridlock in the truest meaning:

This is what a congressman from team R says about the current state of affairs:


(source:http://www.campbell.house.gov/index....rticle&id=2090)

USA Today confirms his stance:Congress churns out fewest laws since 1947

Ok. Says the House has passed over a thousand bills. House did their job. Probably most of the rest stalled in Senate, which if I remember correctly is held by the Democrats. The last piece of the pie is it being signed into law.

[1480]

Originally Posted by August

But a divided Congress is a very different situation than one between Congress and POTUS.

As I understand it, with a divided Congress each party can block the other by simple inaction. The POTUS on the other hand can veto any congressional legislation that is sent to his desk for signature but they can override his veto if they have a 2/3rds majority of congress willing to vote to override the veto

The idea is that legislative branch only gets it's way if their bill enjoys very wide and usually bipartisan support. That's the limit to their power.

The President, mindful of getting reelected in his first term and of his "legacy" in his second, only uses his veto power if he thinks that the bill enjoys only lukewarm support or he knows it'll be overridden and he wants to go on record as having opposed it. That's the limit to his power.

Nice to hear from you. You did neglect a very liberal use of executive order.

[August]

Originally Posted by 1480

Nice to hear from you. You did neglect a very liberal use of executive order.

Good to hear from you too Stranger. Welcome back!

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by August

I'm sorry to tell you but your parties planks on abortion and medicare have sunk your candidate. No way will Americans vote for a candidate who is going to ban abortions with no exceptions. No way will Americans support a voucher based medicare system.

2 points August....

First - Romney supports the three major abortion exceptions. Even the rather left leaning Huffington Post admits it - though they use it as an attempt to discredit Mitt for "flip-flopping" on the issue. For him to - even as recently as Monday - to clearly state that he supports exceptions - contrary to the party platform - makes you realize that his leadership will not be as extreme as some on the left claim. It takes one kind of courage to take a stand - it takes another to buck your own support structure - which he has done. Think about that before you "write him off"....

As for Medicare - I would have hoped that you would have taken the time to research things a little more than just accepting talking points. The Medicare plan that is supported by Romney will not make Medicare a "voucher system" - it guarantees standard Medicare for anyone 55 or over, and it allows those under 55 to have the choice of either standard Medicare OR different coverage through private enterprise. To call that a "voucher system" is simply a way for the left to demagogue it.

My mother has medicare. She took the time to look into it. She sees the likely changes as something that insures it survives. She doesn't think its perfect - there are concerns. Yet she realizes that some changes are necessary. Still - she is like a lot of older folks - they know that Obamacare took money out of Medicare - and they got nothing for it. Thinking that the older generations are blindly following this line of "Romney/Ryan want to kill old people by taking away Medicare" is simply incorrect.

Take the time to look into the reality of the subjects before you judge them. Don't fall for one side's talking points - check the facts instead.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Take the time to look into the reality of the subjects before you judge them. Don't fall for one side's talking points - check the facts instead.

Strange advice when you've just done the exact same thing in this post, and many others.

In fact, the law limits payments to health care providers and insurers to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Lawmakers said they hoped the measures would improve care and efficiency. Those savings, spread out over the next 10 years, are then used to offset costs created by the law (especially coverage for the uninsured) so that the overall law doesn't add to the deficit. Ryan***8217;s statement is exaggerated and we rate it Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ed-716-billio/