President of the CFR on Bill Maher

[Eric21ND]

YouTube - Bill Maher Season 7 Episode 15 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2GS5u3RHc)

YouTube - Bill Maher Season 7 Episode 15 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_wVLrKYb08)

YouTube - Bill Maher Season 7 Episode 15 Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KbgVkVjmqk)

YouTube - Bill Maher Season 7 Episode 15 Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaMZhubvxjk)

YouTube - Bill Maher Season 7 Episode 15 Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSqvDHvXda8)

YouTube - Bill Maher Season 7 Episode 15 Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou4htK8ApT0)

YouTube - Real Time With Bill Maher: June 5, 2009 Overtime Part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKGSgaUQrv0)

[MRoCkEd]

Is this worth watching or is it another clueless liberal "republicans bad, obama good" circle jerk?

[FSP-Rebel]

That CFR guy just looks evil

[BenIsForRon]

Is this worth watching or is it another clueless liberal "republicans bad, obama good" circle jerk?

It's worth watching for Jeremy Scahill. He had such a substantive debate with Paula Froelich that Maher didn't know what to do. Maher is so used to the false right v. left paradigm type of conversation, that when actual policy issues were discussed, he just shut the fuck up. I really hate that dude.

Scahill was also on Moyers this week talking about Afghanistan, another video worth watching. I'm really glad we have a guy like this digging deep into this issue. No other journalist is hitting the nail on the head like this guy.

[evilfunnystuff]

bill mahr pisses me off alot

[Pete]

It's worth watching for Jeremy Scahill. He had such a substantive debate with Paula Froelich that Maher didn't know what to do. Maher is so used to the false right v. left paradigm type of conversation, that when actual policy issues were discussed, he just shut the fuck up. I really hate that dude.

Scahill was also on Moyers this week talking about Afghanistan, another video worth watching. I'm really glad we have a guy like this digging deep into this issue. No other journalist is hitting the nail on the head like this guy.

I saw Scahill on Moyers, and he is very impressive on the antiwar front. It was a little disappointing to see on his website, www.rebelreports.com, that he is a hardcore socialist.

Haass was on Colbert's show last year and got ripped pretty good. A must see for anyone who hasn't already: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/213637/december-10-2008/richard-haass

[MRoCkEd]

It's worth watching for Jeremy Scahill. He had such a substantive debate with Paula Froelich that Maher didn't know what to do. Maher is so used to the false right v. left paradigm type of conversation, that when actual policy issues were discussed, he just shut the fuck up. I really hate that dude.

Scahill was also on Moyers this week talking about Afghanistan, another video worth watching. I'm really glad we have a guy like this digging deep into this issue. No other journalist is hitting the nail on the head like this guy.
Yeah. Scahill was great, until they started talking about healthcare, GM, etc..

Bill Maher is such an idiot. "Nobody should make a profit on providing healthcare."

[FrankRep]

http://www.shopjbs.org/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/S/h/Shadows_of_Power_web.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0882791346)

The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0882791346)
- James Perloff



Does America have a hidden oligarchy? Is U.S. foreign policy run by a closed shop? What is the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)? It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company. By World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. Hundreds of U.S. government administrators and diplomats have been drawn from its ranks - regardless of which party has occupied the White House. But what does the Council on Foreign Relations stand for? Why do the major media avoid discussing it? What has been its impact on America's past - and what is it planning for the future? (2008, 272pp, pb)

[Athan]

I saw Scahill on Moyers, and he is very impressive on the antiwar front. It was a little disappointing to see on his website, www.rebelreports.com, that he is a hardcore socialist.

Haass was on Colbert's show last year and got ripped pretty good. A must see for anyone who hasn't already: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/213637/december-10-2008/richard-haass

Man he didn't even bother trying to deny Colberts' mocking of them being the modern version of the illuminati. It seemed Colbert was waiting for him for a couple of moments for Haas to brush his claim off and he just talked without denying it.

Fucking haas has balls.

[BenIsForRon]

This is off topic, but if I had to pick a socialist solution for GM, I would go with Scahill's suggestion. Say goodbye to GM, give different jobs to the former employees. Of course it would be a disaster, but a better disaster than what we're doing right now.

[Sandman33]

Pushing globalism out his ASS and trying to make the CFR seem legit and "friendly for you"

Fuck him and Fuck Bill Mahr.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Bill Maher is such an idiot. "Nobody should make a profit on providing healthcare."

I'm not so sure that I don't agree with him. Remember, that non-profit organizations can pay employees, so doctors and staff could certainly be paid for their services under that model.

But who really makes a profit in health care? In a for profit model, sometimes investors - and that means the primary incentive is profit, not the service of providing medical care. Remember Dr. Paul talking about those (non-profit) hospitals he worked for and the charity work for those that really couldn't afford the massively inflated prices?

Who else? Insurance companies. Just having these people in the loop increases health costs by 40%. Completely parasitical. Then you have the mess with intellectual property and everything having to be sterile, even when it doesn't need to be. Drug companies, medical devices, etc. The intentional shortage of doctors, their over training and preventing personnel with lower levels of training doing some of the things they can. The legal system that demands getting it right the first time, so massive over testing.

Consider relief workers - in triage, if the person presents with symptoms of what's normally going around hand them a packet of pills and tell them if they aren't feeling better in 3 days to come back with some other instructions, depending. This being done by a person with little training in about 5 minutes. Compare that to a clinic or ER visit, hours of wait surrounded by other sick people and a minimum of a $150 bill because you can't get anything Rx in this country without seeing a MD.

Remember that doc in NY that tried to offer his patients a low monthly payment and was shut down because it shut out the insurance companies and he wasn't charging enough?

This is a lot like the barefoot doctors program in China, where a local medic is paid when people are well and not when they are sick. He has a vested interest in keeping his patients well. If it's above his head, he refers it to a national level system where there are doctors.

Drug development is focussed on "lifestyle drugs", and maintenance drugs - things that treat symptoms and keep the progression of a disease in check. There is no money to be made in selling someone a drug that will cure them, the real money is in maintenance drugs where you can charge people out the nose for the rest of their life.

Insurance should only be needed for catastrophic incidents, and medical costs low enough that it's not needed for routine things. Insurance is a leading reason medical care is unafordable, and mandating just makes the situation worse. Just look at MA and what a mess that state is.

Government intervention, regulation and control as well as insurance companies are not the answer - they are the problem! Other countries manage to provide health care for pennies on the dollar of what we spend and it's not bad health care. In some areas it's better than what you can get here. The concept of suing someone that was trying to help you so you could "get rich quick" is completely alien to these countries, as is the concept of insurance. Over 90% of every dollar spent on health care is parasitically taken as profit.

If health care was affordable, we wouldn't need insurance and this would be a non-issue. Again, government is the problem, not the solution and universal health care will only make the problem much worse.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

addendum: HMO's - again, set up as "for profit", are the beginning of socialized medicine. Generally not being able to choose your doctor, buerocrats deciding what care and procedures you can get, and so on. A lot of the same things we see with Canada and the EU systems that the administration wants to mimic.

Universal health care isn't free - just wait till you find out how much more it will cost when it's "free" :rolleyes: and how much worse the service will be. This "free" health care is double speak for lining corporate pockets with more money while reducing services. Kind of like the the "carbon tax" scam. It is, however, an excellent plan by the traitors who've infiltrated our government to bankrupt our country and switch the balance of power in the world.

-t

[Dreamofunity]

Their conversation on states rights almost made my ears bleed.

[jjockers]

I'm not so sure that I don't agree with him. Remember, that non-profit organizations can pay employees, so doctors and staff could certainly be paid for their services under that model.

I like that idea. However, hospitals/clinics/doctors would still need to hold a large % in reserve in case of litigation. They could alternatively buy litigation insurance. But insurance companies are evil! Right?


But who really makes a profit in health care? In a for profit model, sometimes investors - and that means the primary incentive is profit, not the service of providing medical care. Remember Dr. Paul talking about those (non-profit) hospitals he worked for and the charity work for those that really couldn't afford the massively inflated prices?

Yup. I like that idea. Not for profit does not mean free, and does not mean voluntary work. There are insurance companies that are also not for profit, by the way.


Who else? Insurance companies. Just having these people in the loop increases health costs by 40%. Completely parasitical.

Completely False. 87% of premium goes towards providers. Insurance companies get the last 13%, only 3% of which goes towards profit for 'for-profit' insurance companies. Where does your 40% number come from? You currently have the option of not purchasing insurance. I think you'll find hospital care to be quite expensive, though, if you go that route. Insurance companies actually hassle with providers to provide you, the member and their customer, a lower rate. If you would prefer the non-insurance route, better enjoy it quickly before the government takes away that right.

Health Insurance serves an important, though necessarily optional, component in health care. That purpose is for catastrophes. What we have today is government subsidized "health care", which results in insurance for routine "health" maintenance. That's not the point of health insurance. It's equivalent to expecting your car insurance to pay for oil changes, car repair, etc. How much would that cost?

When the government is not involved, health insurance serves its natural purpose in catastrophic events. Government wants everyone to have access to whatever health treatment they want, not just catastrophes. That's not the point of insurance. As usual, it's government involvement that spoils an otherwise good free market business.


Remember that doc in NY that tried to offer his patients a low monthly payment and was shut down because it shut out the insurance companies and he wasn't charging enough? This is a lot like the barefoot doctors program in China, where a local medic is paid when people are well and not when they are sick. He has a vested interest in keeping his patients well. If it's above his head, he refers it to a national level system where there are doctors.

That case is due to a NY state law that defines insurance incorrectly (treat any procedure, unplanned, for a fixed rate = insurance), and then requires a license to offer insurance. Under that law, the doctor was acting as an insurance agency without the proper license. It's a sad state of affairs, imo. If a doctor can offer services for a low flat fee, all the power to him/her. This sounds like good competition, but of course no one likes competition.

I am not sure why NY requires a license to offer insurance. What if someone buys 50 gallons of gas as an "insurance" against rising gas costs. Is that illegal without an insurance license? What if you save money in the event of untimely death or disability of yourself/family? Is that considered providing insurance and thus illegal? That law is ridiculous, and I wish that doctor the best of luck.


Drug development is focussed on "lifestyle drugs", and maintenance drugs - things that treat symptoms and keep the progression of a disease in check. There is no money to be made in selling someone a drug that will cure them, the real money is in maintenance drugs where you can charge people out the nose for the rest of their life.

Bingo. That's at the heart of the problem. While you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher who would purposely destroy a cure in order to preserve the lifetime treatment, that underlying incentive still exists. People have become so accustomed to lifestyle drugs, to miracle drugs that don't require anything except a glass of water, that they'll gleefully fork over an inordinate amount of money for the opportunity. Meanwhile, many of these miracle drugs work barely better than placebo, and generally have far worse side effects that require even more 'miracle drugs' to counter.

Good Message:

Sorry America. You actually have to change your behavior. Your lifestyle needs adjustment. There's no pill for it this time. You don't have to change, but you will suffer the consequences of your decisions at some point. There is no one to tell you exactly how to change. You have to figure that out yourself. There is no pill for that either.

But where is the money in that message?


Insurance should only be needed for catastrophic incidents, and medical costs low enough that it's not needed for routine things. Insurance is a leading reason medical care is unafordable, and mandating just makes the situation worse. Just look at MA and what a mess that state is.

Medical costs are effectively unrelated to insurance, and will have to come under control in some other way. One recent example of cost control: off-brand pharmaceuticals have drastically reduced the average cost of pharmacy drugs. Where else can cost be reduced?

Health insurance has relatively nothing to do with the cost of medical care. Insurance companies make $0.03 / $1.00 premium profit. The problem is what is expected of health insurance.

How much does the average citizen pay for car insurance, monthly? $50? What exactly does that get people? It buys protection for catastrophes, and stupid mistakes. What about maintenance? Breakdowns? Those would easily double the cost of car insurance. And that's just for a car. Now imagine a human life.

Mandating insurance will make the system worse, on that we agree. However, it will also make the system far worse for insurance companies. The government's goal is to ultimately starve health insurance companies by imposing strict regulations, equalizing and demonizing them, and then providing their own tax-payer funded insurance program.

At that point, when your insurance is provided by the government through your mandatory taxes, you will wish private insurance companies were still around.

This nationalization effort is a threat to your health and your freedom, doctors and hospitals, and insurance companies. The people, however, seem to love the idea. :(


Government intervention, regulation and control as well as insurance companies are not the answer - they are the problem! Other countries manage to provide health care for pennies on the dollar of what we spend and it's not bad health care. In some areas it's better than what you can get here. The concept of suing someone that was trying to help you so you could "get rich quick" is completely alien to these countries, as is the concept of insurance. Over 90% of every dollar spent on health care is parasitically taken as profit.

I agree with the bolded part. Insurance companies, and the insurance business, are not the problem. It's a business, and a natural one in a free market society. Catastrophic coverage is a good option, and should not be demonized. Government involvement is, as usual, the problem. It's best to isolate the problem.

Companies = not inherently bad. Government subsidization of companies/business = inherently bad.


If health care was affordable, we wouldn't need insurance and this would be a non-issue. Again, government is the problem, not the solution and universal health care will only make the problem much worse. -t

If homes were free, we wouldn't need to pay for them! Yea! Great idea!
Um.. Ok, I will definitely concede that insurance should be optional, and no one "needs" it. Health insurance is a luxury, not a right.

I agree with your conclusion. We don't have much time, I'm afraid. One of this summer's top priorities is health care reform. i.e. nationalization. At the moment, there is not enough opposition.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I like that idea. However, hospitals/clinics/doctors would still need to hold a large % in reserve in case of litigation. They could alternatively buy litigation insurance. But insurance companies are evil! Right?

well, actually - if they expanded the good semarian law and made it very hard to sue...




Yup. I like that idea. Not for profit does not mean free, and does not mean voluntary work. There are insurance companies that are also not for profit, by the way.

really? - link?



Completely False. 87% of premium goes towards providers. Insurance companies get the last 13%, only 3% of which goes towards profit for 'for-profit' insurance companies. Where does your 40% number come from? You currently have the option of not purchasing insurance. I think you'll find hospital care to be quite expensive, though, if you go that route. Insurance companies actually hassle with providers to provide you, the member and their customer, a lower rate. If you would prefer the non-insurance route, better enjoy it quickly before the government takes away that right.

This is not what I've heard, but it's been several years. Do you have a link to prove your point?



One recent example of cost control: off-brand pharmaceuticals have drastically reduced the average cost of pharmacy drugs. Where else can cost be reduced?

I guess that's why Indian drugs are so readily available... NOT!


Health insurance has relatively nothing to do with the cost of medical care. Insurance companies make $0.03 / $1.00 premium profit. The problem is what is expected of health insurance.

again - link please


Mandating insurance will make the system worse, on that we agree. However, it will also make the system far worse for insurance companies. The government's goal is to ultimately starve health insurance companies by imposing strict regulations, equalizing and demonizing them, and then providing their own tax-payer funded insurance program..

I see it as insurance company lobbying and bribing gvmt to give them a sweet deal. Can you prove your claim?


At that point, when your insurance is provided by the government through your mandatory taxes, you will wish private insurance companies were still around.

I'd rather neither were around, except for catastrophic coverage.

Interesting reply - thanks!

-t

[jjockers]

well, actually - if they expanded the good semarian law and made it very hard to sue...

Wouldn't that constitute government involvement? Aren't lawsuits one of the few recourses that citizens have against malpractice? I don't see lawsuits as a problem. I am aware of class-action, etc greedy lawyers, but lawsuits do serve a purpose. There must be a better way. How about HR3076, authored by Ron Paul:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

"Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost."

Tax deductible insurance. Interesting. Similar to HSAs. In fact it sounds an awful lot like the litigation insurance I mentioned in my previous post.



really? - link? (in regards to not for profit insurance)

Sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance

Primarily, this line: "The US market-based health care system relies heavily on private and not-for-profit health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans."

You can google search "not for profit health insurance" and you'll find a plethora of companies.


This is not what I've heard, but it's been several years. Do you have a link to prove your point? (regarding premium distribution)

Here are a few resources:

http://www.calhealthplans.org/documents/HCC05_TheHCPremiumDollar.pdf

http://coburn.senate.gov/oversight/?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4fd7e7b5-4ed8-4806-87c2-951a37c2af76

I can't provide my particular resource, but those should suffice.


again - link please
See above, particularly the first link as it's just 1 year old.




I see it as insurance company lobbying and bribing gvmt to give them a sweet deal. Can you prove your claim?

I give you the current plan, as of May 21, 2009:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_090529_fullnarrative_brown.html

Note this line, page 4:

"Providing a public choice option: To ensure that fiscal discipline and full
accountability are built into this new structure, one health insurance option
available to participants will be a publicly sponsored and guaranteed plan."

That's just 1 small step for government, but one giant step for nationalized health care. From first hand, I can confirm that people are already switching to government programs in droves. If your tax money is going towards health insurance, why would you opt to pay more just for your own private, not-different-due-to-regulations health insurance?

In my opinion, the government's plan is clear: move towards one "unified" overarching health insurance plan payed for by you and I. Do this just as one would boil a frog: slowly.

I do urge you to read the entire 12 page pdf, as it's quite .. alarming. I especially "like" their definition of personal responsibility.

*Edit*

Be sure not to miss the last line:

"Government at all levels must be part of the solution: Federal, state, county and
local governments all have an important part in a reformed system. Government
must focus on those parts of the system in need of improvement, and partner
with all system participants to protect and improve what works, and to change
what doesn’t."



I'd rather neither were around, except for catastrophic coverage.

Interesting reply - thanks!

-t

Nothing inherently wrong with 'managed care' coverage, so long as we're not forced to purchase it. People well off ought to have the option of purchasing very 'rich' plans. I agree that catastrophic plans ought to be the mainstay for health insurance companies.

[FSP-Rebel]

addendum: HMO's - again, set up as "for profit", are the beginning of socialized medicine. Generally not being able to choose your doctor, buerocrats deciding what care and procedures you can get, and so on. A lot of the same things we see with Canada and the EU systems that the administration wants to mimic.

Universal health care isn't free - just wait till you find out how much more it will cost when it's "free" :rolleyes: and how much worse the service will be. This "free" health care is double speak for lining corporate pockets with more money while reducing services. Kind of like the the "carbon tax" scam. It is, however, an excellent plan by the traitors who've infiltrated our government to bankrupt our country and switch the balance of power in the world.

-t
This made me think about where we stand in Amerika today in regards to socialized medicine. We have medicare for the elderly and prescription drugs to boot. Next, we have medicare for the underprivileged, followed by SCHIP for virtually every other youngster. In addition, we have a good % of people on unemployment that may need state care as well. So, we have a semi-productive class that ranges between 18-45, and that's if those aren't on unemployment, social security or single unwed mothers on state aide. When you tally it up, we have a small portion of the productive that are supporting the unproductive, thus it seems like we already have socialized medicine in a mild form. Now, Obama is going to seal the deal in July with his health care reform. Meanwhile republicans are caving in left and right because they have no conservative cajones to say no to extra spending for the poor or whatever. It seems socialism is gonna happen before the Revolution can stop it. Once it happens, ya know it won't reverse. The only hope on a national level is a dollar collapse that will lead to an NAU or global currency or for secession (which you might want to Join the Free State Project for and move early to escape the madness and bolster our ranks).

[tangent4ronpaul]

Agree negative outcome insurance would be good. I didn't mean to totally ban law suites, just raise the bar a lot. I can't tell you how sick I am of these "sue the doctor that gave you birth" ads on TV...

yeah - that one doc sounds like really bad news (the 12 page one).

kinda flooded with info here... ugh!

thanks,

-t