birdog1960

what in the world is an estimated iq? they're fairly inexact measurements in the best circumstances but estimated?3rd obviously does not find winning a senate seat and the presidency impressive accomplishments despite the fact that politics are the ultimate goal of more than a few who enter the field of law. interestingly when i searched "academic accomplishments" of both men, obama's came up with lots of relevant hits. bush came up with an article in the weekly standard arguing that obama's class entering average on the SAT was lower than normal, thus bush may have scored as well or better. when this is the best you got, you're fighting a losing battle. but, hell, bush made many americans believe that the wars and 9/11 were connected so who knows...

let's just look at one example: obama graduated magna cum laude from harvard law school. by most accounts, bush was an average and not very serious student, at best. regarding the other issue, i'd rather see the far right support someone like christie as a compromise to achieve some of their objectives without forcing him to reinvent himself in order to win in the primaries. neither your scenario nor mine seem very likely.

i didn't bring kenya's national voter id effort into the debate. what i wrote was the rational response. a very good reason to currently avoid residing in nc like the plague.

sure, he's made a regular pattern of making these same mistakes repeatedly. you're not seriously comparing bush' intellect to obama's are you? do you think someone, just once, pointed out to bush the correct way to pronounce nuclear? could he just not process it, is he dyslexic or just stupid? what other explanations are there? that would be a hopeful sign for republicans getting back in the national game but i don't think christie will bend his principles to fit the far right ideals of that part of the party a la romney. if it happens though i'll be pleasantly surprised.

and what would your response be to a national voter id effort funded by the fed gov't? it'd be simple - add it to a new card for national health insurance. i've got a pretty good guess...

yep. and those folks almost universally vote dem. this is desperation. virginia's gone blue. nc was teetering. delays things for a while and will set nc back towards old south vs new south and more like that other carolina but it's like the little dutch boy. too many leaks for the number of fingers.

couple oreders of magnitude below being in the "nucular" age for 8 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/12/north-carolina-governor-signs-extensive-voter-id-law/. good lord. they're gettin all medieval down there.

say it ain't so, joe. oh, wait, yeah i agree.

doesn't matter...it's political suicide. may the best man win...

mmm, hmmm. that's what i thought. is their an algorithm for those calculations? let's revisit posts 10,11 and 14 of this thread... and we're still waiting for b boy to officially weigh in.

let's see it. " turned out" meaning what exactly? link to the definitive source. i'm betting what you and i define as definitive differs widely. so are our systems overall outcomes better, worse or equal to the top performing systems? simple question.

so about those outcomes..? desperation and exasperation are 2 very different things. but carry on imagining your own creativity and original thoughts. it's still the same mousetrap and you still haven't caught on.

the problem is not midlevels, if they're utilized appropriately. the problem is the number quoted in the piece:66/33 ratio specialists to primary care. for cost effectiveness and better outcomes the ratio should be reversed. since it isn't likely to soon be, midlevels will likely get more autonomy. that's not a good thing imo for the reasons you mentioned. the main reason their outcomes look ok is most likely due to them referring everything more than a sore throat out. that's not cost effective. once global reimbursement hits and the cost of all those referrals come to light, so will the false economy. so what's the solution? change the ratio. pay primary care relatively more than currently and specialists less. i can anticipate your reaction.

ignoring the first two points since both are pure conjecture and can neither be proved or disproved, lets move on to the third point. medicare part d omitted and strictly prohibited gov't negotiations of drug prices, widely agreed to be the most effective way to lower drug costs and deliver effective drugs to seniors at reduced cost. this omission can be seen as nothing other than a gift to big pharma. additionally, as gator pointed out, this was a huge on going fiscal expense with no significant offsetting revenue. seems a bit schizophrenic to applaud this while bashing the aca on the same grounds. so, can we now document that you feel the us health care system's outcomes are generally lacking?

well, perhaps you are unable to access links. the nejm article link specified mutliple outcomes, including the rather obvious one of life expectancy.

well no. the question being discussed was whether those here that have argued so vigorously against the aca have accepted that the us healthcare system has generally inferior outcomes. dc and little 3 bonnies dude say they have accepted it and couldn't recall it being disputed. i just provided a single example that disproves their recollection making them either liars or demented. what you've presented has nothing to do with this question. but of course, if you can read, you already knew this...

i know. it doesn't take long to formulate yall's standard responses.

silence? i anticipated reading how black is actually white and white, black based on nothing but anecdote by now.

you two are either ignorant, intellectually dishonest, feigning ignorance or all 3. i'd bet on the first 2...reread page 24 of "progressives tout cali heath care success for only the latest examples of shirking off bad data on outcomes by 2 members of the chorus girls. that was just a few days ago. go back a few months and there's plenty more. hell, ignoring data is what you all do best... to the point where i'm chided for citing statistics as if that is not an established and respected tool in an argument (and i suppose i'm learning that it's actually not, in con and liberterian circle jerks). but carry on. to your own self be dishonest.

then you need to see a neurologist for a dementia evaluation. i've cited the comparative world figures ranking nations on outcomes many times. the argument against is always the same as i just outlined. most recently B large linked to a new england journal article citing and expounding on that same data. and the response from the chorus was typical and repetitive. look for yourself. should be easy to find. now foinding actual data to support the opposing argument will be impossible to find here or anywhere...it doesn't exist.

really? tell doc that...how many time has he or you or any of the other chorus girls here argued that the terrible ourcomes are spurious and entirely accounted for by factors other than the health care system? so now, with this report, we can put that fallacy to rest, right?

"per capita spending on health care is the highest in the world yet outcomes rank much lower"...can we finally agree to this? stated in the most muted way possible, aei officially does. a needed starting point for any serious discussion of reform. progress.

not giving a shite has been so successful as a philosophy, historically, don't ya know...marginalization appears predestined.

hmmm...doesn't that make the entire concept and basis of libertarianism relative and ill defined?