What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
211 Comments
- Wargala, on 06/02/2009, -13/+86Actually, it doesn't matter if you use your skills against the strong or the weak. It only matters if you use your skills for what's right over what's wrong. Sometimes the "strong" are in the right.
- Blinker1315, on 06/02/2009, -16/+75It'll be almost impossible for the GOP to stop Sotomayor, but I hope they put up a fight. Just as Alito and Roberts were scrutinized, she needs the same sort of grilling. The GOP's fear that Hispanic voters will be turned off by a confirmation battle shouldn't be considered; the first step for the GOP to recover politically is to rediscover the novel idea that principles come first.
- theskillwithin, on 06/02/2009, -14/+65Why did Obama vote for the reinstatement of the Patriot Act?
- dalittle, on 06/02/2009, -7/+55The GOP will recover when they make a concerted effort to get rid of social conservatives from their party. Radicals like the guy who just shot the abortion doctor are chasing away normal people who would otherwise be interested in a small government, fiscally responsible party.
- mgraham80, on 06/02/2009, -7/+34Interestingly, Obama opposed a filibuster of Roberts. Wonder why that little fact escapes the notice of our friends on the right.
- RyeBrye, on 06/02/2009, -6/+30Great article! I should put this in my time machine and send it back several years to when it was relevant.
- Strongo, on 06/02/2009, -4/+28I thought the title read 'Why Obama voted against robots' and I thought, who would ever vote against robots....but I was wrong
- robdazomba, on 06/02/2009, -30/+53"I'm sorry, Obama, but YOUR gut feelings are getting us deeper into the hole every day, by the TRILLIONS."
HA! I love this right-wing jerk fest. Nice try at the revisionism, btw. And where were you *****-knobs for the last 8 years when the real debt was being piled up? Oh, that's right, you all were too busy sucking off the Fox News teat and doing as you were told like good little sheep. - dalittle, on 06/02/2009, -3/+26Actually, I disagree. Look how the GOP has been ravaged by the narrow social conservative political agenda, which in the end has a minimal impact and chases away votes. To say that the GOP is on the right track and should continue to pander to social conservative is not paying attention to recent history (and the continual ass kicking that is getting worse). Who exactly are these crazies going to vote for if they stop supporting their religious police state causes? If the GOP wants to rebuild, they have to get rid of social conservatives.
- Barackalypse, on 06/02/2009, -9/+30You know I have yet to hear anyone give a good explanation for this, just like I have never heard a good reason why he voted for the FISA amendments bill that gave telcoms immunity for their compliance with warrantless wiretapping. Anyone who has an explanation that doesn't amount to "he had to our else the nasty Republicans would accuse him or being weak on terror" please feel free to throw it out there for my scrutiny.
- worseforwine, on 06/02/2009, -2/+18I agree with you but use the reply button!
- Unreal030, on 06/02/2009, -9/+25@Barackalypse
Because they don't have a good answer. They know what this type of action means in truth, in their hearts. They refuse to accept the reality of it and skip past it so as to debate on grounds where they can have some initial footing. This is the man we elected president, the one who voted to take away constitutional freedoms. If there is any sign that America has died by the hands of it's own voters it is this.
This and Bush's 2nd term are all the proof that is needed. I could care less about anything else he has done, this is all that is needed for prompt impeachment as far as I am concerned, and in a proper system that is exactly what would have happened (if for some reason he would be elected in the first place after people were aware of this action, and if such a horrible thing were to even be in the congress and up for a vote in the first place). Why? Because it breaks the oath he took at his inauguration.
He is not my president, because that decision is akin to turning your back on everything that America stands for. The very things all of those people back then died to protect. I guess he slept in a lot during his education as a Constitutional lawyer. Either that, or he just doesn't care.
I hate to be cheesy and quote from a Star Wars movie in this instance, and especially one of the lower quality ones...but I think they have a lot of relevance here.
"What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?"
"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause..."
-Padme - zgoos, on 06/02/2009, -0/+15I believe fontcraft is implying that what a judge should be concerned with is "right vs wrong" rather than "strong vs weak". Being weak doesn't mean you are in the right, despite the knee-jerk reaction to side with the underdog.
- JoeParanoid, on 06/02/2009, -19/+34Judging from Sotomayor's record, she, too, has often favored the strong over the weak.
- Jordan117, on 06/02/2009, -4/+18http://web.archive.org/web/20080207191740/http://o ...
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.
We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.
Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.
Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.
This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:
* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.
* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.
* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.
* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.
* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.
The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.
Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.
The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.
So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.
I thank the chair and yield the floor. - Dustin00, on 06/02/2009, -14/+26FALSE.
120 years ago we had children working in factories. It took decades of work to replace the conservative SCs on the bench with liberal judges that finally upheld the laws congress was passing to end the practice.
Conservative judges held us in the dark ages and they want to take us back there again. - jbella, on 06/02/2009, -3/+15@kalvinb..
Stop being a jackass. Of course we're talking about forced child labor and not your after school job.
And yes it is absolutely strong vs. weak because in some cases what we consider to be "right" is determined by the strong or the majority.
Look at slavery. Do you think that slave owners lost any sleep thinking that they were doing something wrong? Some maybe, but the vast majority thought that owning slaves was their right. It's easy for us to jump over all the work done by abolitionists and civil rights leaders and conclude that of course slavery is wrong... but hindsight is 20/20... we're looking for supreme court justices not historians.
Need a more contemporary example? Take a look at the whole gay marriage debate. You don't have to go too far to find someone that absolutely believes that it is wrong for gays to be able to marry each other. I guarantee you that 100 years from now that view will seem absolutely ridiculous. But it's not so clear cut today. - dalittle, on 06/02/2009, -5/+16You can listen to the social conservative argument now or after losing more seats in the mid-term election. GOP's choice.
- Unreal030, on 06/02/2009, -4/+15Ok honestly. A few things:
1. The fact that you got 17 diggs up for that post makes me extremely sad that I am of the same species.
2. I HATE partisan talk.
3. Don't call me a Republican in your response, I am a classical liberal, you probably don't know what that means.
4. What is this ***** about real debt? I don't know where you learned to do math, but Obama has created a larger deficit than Bush did his entire presidency. Not that this in any way justifies Bush's spending.
5. Where were we the last 8 years? I was complaining, where the ***** were you that you didn't notice? Also, where were you guys when the Democrats were putting up a pathetic attempt at slowing down Bush's antics?
6. As an economist by profession, I will tell you that, if your assumption is that all this spending is justified due to Keynesian Theory, I would be my life and the life of the rest of my family you have not opened up both a book on Keynesian Theory to better understand it (unlikely to begin with) as well as a book that opposes it (Such as Hayek's, because he wrote an entire book for the sole purpose of arguing against Keynesian theory), but yes, let's keeping spewing nonsense pretending we actually know something about economics because we heard someone on the news promoting it. Do you even know what the multiplier theory is? What it suggests? It's functional premise is ludicrous.
So let's keep in mind that when President Obama claims that "economists agree" or "economists endorse" his crazed plan for trillion-dollar budget deficits for the next several years, he is referring to a select group of perhaps 100 well-entrenched Keynesian and Chicago school academics who are paid well to fashion theory that benefits the state.
7. You are going to be singing a different tune in 2-3 years. Obama is currently reinflating the housing bubble (don't digg me down for this statement, if you want an explanation for this, let me know and I will reply in detail on why I think this), several other bubbles have not even popped yet, and all of the stuff that the Federal Reserve flushed out hasn't really entered the economy yet. When that does, there is going to be a problem, especially since they have no idea how to pull it back in. (Some of the "stuff" they put out is set to wind itself down and out of the economy naturally, but the vast majority of this is not setup in such a way and that is what I am referring to). - Shiftgood, on 06/02/2009, -2/+13Its amazing how the media always has something for us all to squabble about.
- whiledo, on 06/02/2009, -4/+14Wow, way to miss the point kalvinb. We're not talking about some 14 year old flipping burgers.
http://tinyurl.com/o9gnhj
Those kids? They worked in a coal mine. For 14-16 hours per day. Kids as young as 7. They were always hiring, what with children getting killed daily, most commonly being crushed to death. Of course, even if you dodged the crushings, there was the whole black lung thing.
"The National Child Labor Committee, an organization dedicated to the abolition of all child labor, was formed in 1904. It managed to pass one law, which was struck down by the Supreme Court two years later for violating a child's right to contract his work." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_t ...
"A child's right to contract his work" appears to be missing from my Constitution. I must have the abridged version. Clearly the right of children being crushed to death in coal mines was one of our forefathers most cherished liberties. - maz2331, on 06/02/2009, -4/+13Sotomayor is VERY strong on "IP rights" and will have no problem upholding suits against file-sharers.
Roberts has been surprisingly fair on IP issues - he was one that cut out some of the ***** patent rules in the KSR case. - maz2331, on 06/02/2009, -2/+11Smith v. The Educ. People, Inc., 2008 WL 749564 (2d. Cir. 2008) (summary order)
Jorgensen v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 310 Fed.Appx. 419 (2d. Cir. 2008) (summary order)
Major League Baseball v. Salvino, 542 F.3d 290 (2d. Cir. 2008) (Sotomayor concurring)
Smith v. The Educ. People, Inc., 2008 WL 749564 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order)
Hudson v. Universal Studios Inc., 235 Fed.Appx. 788 (2d. Cir. 2007) (summary order)
Boone v. Jackson, 206 Fed.Appx. 30 (2d. Cir. 2007) (summary order)
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, Inc., 451 F.3d 295 (2d. Cir. 2006) (Leval writing)
U.S. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 426 F.3d 91 (2d. Cir. 2005) (Parker writing)
Playtex Products, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 390 F.3d 158 (2d. Cir. 2004) (Lanham Act) (Sotomayor writing)
Terrell v. Eisner, 104 Fed.Appx. 210 (2d. Cir. 2004) (summary order)
Briarpatch Ltd., L.P v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d. Cir. 2004) (Cardomone writing)
Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d. Cir. 2003) (Calabresi writing).
Queenie, Ltd. v. Nygard Intern., 321 F.3d 282 (2d. Cir. 2003) (Sotomayor concurring)
Nadel v. Isaksson, 321 F.3d 266 (2d. Cir. 2002) (breach of oral royalty agreement) (Sotomayor writing)
Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d. Cir. 2002) (Sotomayor writing) (the validity of arbitration clauses in click-through contract)
Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 2002 WL 1583912 (2d. Cir. 2002) (summary order on attorneys’ fees)
Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Pub. Co., 240 F.3d 116 (2d. Cir. 2001) (Straub writing)
Oliveira v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 251 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2001) (Leval writing) (affirming dismissal of trademark claim brought by Astrud Gilberto for use of her recording in a commercial)
Tishberg v. Doe, 8 Fed.Appx. 93 (2d. Cir. 2001) (summary order)
Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d 343 (2d. Cir. 2001) (Leval writing)
Nadel v. Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc., 208 F.3d 368 (2d. Cir. 2000) (Sotomayor writing) (has a great opening line)
Nedakkuc Art Co. Ltd. v. Washington Mint, LLC, 208 F.3d 203 (2d. Cir. 2000) (summary order)
A. Brod, Inc. v. SK&I Co., L.L.C., 998 F.Supp. 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
Tasini v. New York Times Co., 981 F.Supp. 841 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
Tasini v. New York Times Co., 972 F.Supp. 804 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Pub. Group, Inc., 955 F.Supp. 260 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
Favia v. Lyons Partnership, 1996 WL 194306 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Top Rank, Inc. v. Allerton Lounge, Inc., 1998 WL 35152791 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (adopting Judge Magistrate recommendation for statutory damages)
Krueger International, Inc. v. Nightingale, Inc., 915 F.Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (tradedress action)
Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Class Publications, Inc., 1996 WL 219636 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Lanham Act)
Peer Intern. Corp. v. Luna Records, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Peer Intern. Corp. v. Luna Records, Inc., 1995 WL 125389 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
Peer Intern. Corp. v. Luna Records, Inc.,1995 WL 350916 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (motion for attorneys’ fees)
Jaguar Cars, Ltd. v. Nat. Football League, 886 F.Supp. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (Lanham Act)
Galet v. Carolace Embroidery Products Co., Inc., 1994 WL 542275 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
Screenlife Establishment v. Tower Video, Inc., 868 F.Supp. 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
All are posted at http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/05/judge-sotom ... - jbella, on 06/02/2009, -4/+12Because class warfare exists in the real world.
No one debates that it is the tendancy of the strong to take advantage of the weak. The only thing we debate is how much, as a society, do we expect the government to attempt to level the playing field. - PopcornDave, on 06/03/2009, -0/+8@Czechxican - simply disagreeing with someone's point of view or interpretation of the law does not automagically make you a racist.
And the press hasn't done it's job probably since the downfall of Nixon. Anymore they're more worried if Brad is going to ***** the Octomom to get back at Angelina for stealing Britney's panties while Paris' dog got drunk and ***** Lindsey Lohan. That's not reporting, that's *****. - whiledo, on 06/02/2009, -3/+11While I'm no fan of the WSJ opinion page (aka Rupert Murdoch's diary), the entire entry is just Obama's (rather long) comments on why he voted against Roberts. Except for the attribution, there was no text by anyone other than Obama. It wasn't even cut down and taken out of context.
- PopcornDave, on 06/02/2009, -3/+11They're not going to do ***** for fear of being labeled racist by the press.
- KirbyMeister, on 06/02/2009, -6/+14Well first of all, for many of the left the strong is always wrong. (Apparantly the government is excepted from this.)
Second, the job of any SCOTUS judge is not to decide anything. Their job is to decide if a law or ruling is valid in the context of the constitution. They don't decide strong, right, weak, or wrong. They don't make policy, and they don't 'creatively reinterpret' the constitution.
If the constitution is a "living document", then it is null and void and the government is for all intents and purposes absolute. - worseforwine, on 06/02/2009, -1/+9Because they took our jaaaabbbss
- Aadain, on 06/02/2009, -1/+9But they do resort to personal bias once the law gets fuzzy or undefined. If you don't think so, you really need to open a history book.
- whatduh, on 06/03/2009, -1/+9I'm not sure where you live...but my world is not black and white. Mine is filled with an amazing array of gray.
- scottc, on 06/02/2009, -2/+10Any case that reaches the supreme court does not have sides that can be easily labeled "right" or "wrong". Those cases are resolved by the lower courts.
- Tynictansol, on 06/03/2009, -1/+9Flip flop.... Meaning he is vocalizing his conflicting feelings on a topic before finally stating his decision? For shame!
- whiledo, on 06/02/2009, -2/+10Oh sure, that's what he said as a matter of public record. But we're all telepathetic... errr, telepathic and know his REAL reasons.
- scottc, on 06/02/2009, -2/+10Why? Do you really think they misquoted him? Nine consecutive paragraphs from the Senate proceedings....I don't think they took anything out of context.
- inactive, on 06/02/2009, -2/+9Or like your blog?
- orlandogeek, on 06/03/2009, -0/+7Ceryn1126 I think you'll find that many, including myself strongly disagree. Never should one branch of the government have the power to expect someone to "jump" when asked. The separation and limitation of powers for each branch is one of the main purposes of the Constitution and the Patriot Act and FISA decisions fly in the face of that.
As for the other comments, even as an Obama supporter in most issues, I still firmly disagree with his voting record on these two issues. It is my hope that the next time these come up for a vote they will be repealed and or at least very much stripped down.
Of course, being the realist that I am, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen... - MrFunStuff, on 06/03/2009, -0/+7wow Unreal030
I was going to write a post similar to yours but you knocked it out of the park. I'm a independent and I was critical of government spending in the Bush years And I hate reading " where were you *****-knobs for the last 8 years" comments. I just want to scream out "I Was Right ***** Here!" But that was one of the most educated response i have seen on digg. Thanks, It's not about the left or the right it's about policy. It's funny nobody will arguing that we are rapidly expanding our money supply but most of the country is pretended inflation does not existed. Man this is going to a rude awakening but I hope this is the last nail in the coffin for the Keynesian Theory. - scottc, on 06/02/2009, -1/+8He simply wanted the power that came with them. You haven't heard that yet? Even Obama supporters like myself will tell you that.
- ftc08, on 06/02/2009, -3/+10But the Anti-Obama crowd won't let this deter their use of the Patriot Act as an attack point. They just see "HE VOTED FOR IT!!!!!!" and froth at the mouth. Never mind that he specifically said it was crap and needed to be fixed to preserve our rights. Voting against the compromise would have been the wrong choice in this case. The second passing was to give us back some of our privacy.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2009, -0/+7Why not try just not sucking at all?
- manicjunkee, on 06/03/2009, -0/+7Yet they hate Clarence Thomas because he has a conservative view.
- KirbyMeister, on 06/02/2009, -4/+11"And where were you *****-knobs for the last 8 years when the real debt was being piled up?"
Complaining as always. You may have heard of us. We're called Libertarians. - rblancarte, on 06/02/2009, -7/+13From the small set of rullings I have seen, they seem to demonstrate that she is fair in both ways. I have not looked at her whole rulling history to see if there is a tendency one way or the other.
- publiclurker, on 06/02/2009, -1/+7Look at his posting history, he just naturally sucks!
- randyzaia, on 06/02/2009, -8/+14Let me save you all some time - Obama voted against Roberts because Roberts is a conservative judge and Obama is a liberal politician. Same reason, with the political philosophies switched, why Republicans will vote against Sotomayor.
- enigmaneo, on 06/02/2009, -3/+9ELWOOD_BLUES, obviously you didn't read the article. It said that Obama said that 95% of the time it's pretty black or white in following the constitution, but about 5% of time there are shades of gray and the constitution doesn't explicitly address the issue. That's 5% where it becomes more about the judge, what's right and wrong and less about the constitution. I would say that's pretty accurate. People who believe that a document written over 200 years ago can address every legal and moral problem of today are just retarded.
- Unreal030, on 06/03/2009, -0/+6You can say what you wish about his previous statement in his post but as far as health care is concerned the general premise is correct. Insurance has essentially become legal extortion, it used to be only for catastrophic and unforeseen situations, and people paid cash for regular visits to their physician. Now you need insurance for pretty much everything or you are likely to be in a tough situation real soon if you have any measure of bad luck.
During the early 1970's, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rising health care costs. However, it was Congress itself that had caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from so many consumers in the 1960s, and thus eliminating any incentive to pay attention to costs when selecting health care.
The incentive to cut costs is lost, as physicians (now working essentially as low-level employees with good paychecks) seek to make as much as they can in the new corporate environment and charge the maximum the HMOs allow. Before 1965, the older folks here might remember that this was the time when America's health care was the envy of the rest of the world, not the other way around, physicians and hospitals (like all other private entities competing for your dollar) strove to charge the minimum; because payment now comes so largely from third parties, they instead charge the maximum.
At the same time, patients suffer when legitimate and necessary treatment is denied. HMOs have become corporate, bureaucratic middlemen in our health care system, driving up costs while degrading the quality of medical care.
The most obvious way to break this cycle is to get the government out of the business of meddling in health care, which was far more affordable and accessible before government got involved. Short of that, and more politically feasible in the immediate run, is to allow consumers and their doctors to pull themselves out of the system through medical savings accounts. Under this system, consumers could save pretax dollars in special accounts. Those dollars would be used to pay for health care expenses, with patients negotiating directly with physicians of their choice for the care they choose, without regard for HMO rules or a bureaucrat's decision. The incentive for the physician is that he gets paid as the service is rendered, rather than having to wait months for an HMO or insurance provider's billing cycle.
With the cash for the MSAs (Medical Savings Accounts) coming from pretax dollars, most Americans could afford deposits that would cover routine expenses that families experience in a year. Insurance would tend to return to its normal function of providing for large-scale, unanticipated occurrences, and would become far more affordable. That means you don't have to spend $15,000 which is a huge chunk of many peoples incomes in the lower tax brackets, to remove 2 kidney stones with a 1 day surgery process anymore.
Even now, though, it is possible for physicians to operate outside this crazy system if they make a special effort to do so. Several years ago a Dr. Robert Berry, had come to Washington to offer testimony before the congressional Joint Economic Committee. Dr. Berry had opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. The clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, a policy that allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party governmental bureaucrats or HMO administrators. He and his patients can therefore decide for themselves on appropriate treatments. I have provided a 20 minute long speech and information on Dr. Berry below for your enjoyment if you are interested. This is also proof that I am not making this up.
( see more on Dr. Berry here: http://health.scribemedia.org/2007/01/03/robert-be ... )
In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. You must be thinking....there has to be a downside, maybe it is good for the consumers, but it must somehow be horrible for those poor doctors that have to spend all of those years in expensive medical school! Wrong.
Operating in this way affords him additional advantages as well. Freed from the bureaucracies of HMOs or government, he can focus on medicine rather than billing. By operating on a cash basis he lowers his overhead considerably, thereby making it possible to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 dollars for routine maladies--only slightly more than the insurance co-pay that other offices charge. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis.
His patients are largely low-income working people who cannot afford health insurance but don't necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics.
Also, speaking of poor treatment, those who favor national health care schemes should take a good, hard look at our veterans' hospitals. There is your national health care. These institutions are a national disgrace. If this is the care the government dispenses to those it honors as its most heroic and admirable citizens, who tend to get many additional benefits compared to the average person, why should anyone else expect to be treated any better?
Americans have been given the impression that "regulation" is always a good thing, and that anyone who speaks of lessening the regulatory burden is an antisocial ogre who would sacrifice safety and human well-being for the sake of economic efficiency. If so much as one of the tens of thousands of pages in the Federal Register, which lists all federal regulations, were to be eliminated, we would all die instantly.
The real history of regulation is not so straightforward. Businesses have often called for regulation themselves, hopeful that their smaller competitors will have a more difficult time meeting regulatory demands. Special interests have helped to impose utterly senseless regulations that impose crushing burdens on private enterprise--far out of proportion to any benefit they are alleged to bring--but since those interests bear none of these burdens themselves, it costs them nothing to advocate them.
Maybe the citizens of America should actually know the problem and more importantly the cause of our current health care predicament before advocating for revisions. Since quite frankly, revisions in the wrong direction will only make things worse. - lutafin, on 06/02/2009, -9/+15"Unless those children were forced to work in factories I don't see the problem."
*****, you're a ***** moron. -
Show 51 - 100 of 220 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is