Monsanto ruling

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Monsanto ruling

Postby Babeinbucland » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:55 pm

This is a start but as long as we have Governor Voldermort in power, we will all continue to be poisoned

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-r ... story.html

judge has ruled that California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite insistence from the agrochemical company that it poses no risk to people.

In January, Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan tentatively dismissed a challenge by Monsanto and a citrus growers group. In her final ruling last week, the judge said that none of Monsanto's objections were viable, the Fresno Bee reported.

The company had sued the nation's leading agricultural producing state, saying California officials illegally used recommendations from an international health organization to make its decision to require the warning labels.

Monsanto's attorney, Trenton Norris, told the judge that the warnings would drive some customers away, hurting the company.

California regulators have said they relied on a finding by the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, considered a gold standard for cancer research.

Critics take issue with Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

It's sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.
Last edited by Babeinbucland on Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby RedLeader » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:41 pm

"This is a start but a long a we have Governor Voldermort in power, we will all continue to be poisoned"

Ehhhhh, what?
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Corsair » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:53 pm

RedLeader wrote:Ehhhhh, what?



She said:

"This is a start but a long a we have Governor Voldermort in power, we will all continue to be poisoned"
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5232
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Babeinbucland » Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:29 pm

lol I so suck at proofing
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:20 am

Voldermort?

Image
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Buc2 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:15 am

Babeinbucland wrote:lol I so suck at proofing

Not to mention coherent thought.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6936
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 698 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:31 am

Buc2 wrote:
Babeinbucland wrote:lol I so suck at proofing

Not to mention coherent thought.


I remember this one time a guy I knew was totally into this girl. This was early on in high school. Maybe 10th grade. Anyway, it seemed like every other lunch we'd all get to listen to him go on about how hot she was or how funny she was or...whatever. You get the point. It got to the point I'd sit with different groups. Anyway...they actually ended up hooking up and then, right after, she completely blew him off. And, if you thought he talked about her too much before? He became absolutely insufferable. Now every single negative thing in the world could somehow be related to her. Most of us stopped talking to that kid before the end of that year. I imagine, to this day, he's still sitting in his car, listening to Motley Crue, crying, and cursing her name.

You remind me of that guy.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Buc2 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:46 am

That's hurtful. :roll:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6936
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 698 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:50 am

Let me guess, the motley Crue song was "Without you" from Dr. Feelgood.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 443 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:57 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Let me guess, the motley Crue song was "Without you" from Dr. Feelgood.


We tried telling him Girls, Girls, Girls would cheer him up...but he wasn't having it.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby RedLeader » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:59 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Not to mention coherent thought.


I remember this one time a guy I knew was totally into this girl. This was early on in high school. Maybe 10th grade. Anyway, it seemed like every other lunch we'd all get to listen to him go on about how hot she was or how funny she was or...whatever. You get the point. It got to the point I'd sit with different groups. Anyway...they actually ended up hooking up and then, right after, she completely blew him off. And, if you thought he talked about her too much before? He became absolutely insufferable. Now every single negative thing in the world could somehow be related to her. Most of us stopped talking to that kid before the end of that year. I imagine, to this day, he's still sitting in his car, listening to Motley Crue, crying, and cursing her name.

You remind me of that guy.


That actually sounds more like a Hillary supporter this past election... lol.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:03 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Let me guess, the motley Crue song was "Without you" from Dr. Feelgood.


We tried telling him Girls, Girls, Girls would cheer him up...but he wasn't having it.

I KNEW IT!
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 443 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:20 am

RedLeader wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
I remember this one time a guy I knew was totally into this girl. This was early on in high school. Maybe 10th grade. Anyway, it seemed like every other lunch we'd all get to listen to him go on about how hot she was or how funny she was or...whatever. You get the point. It got to the point I'd sit with different groups. Anyway...they actually ended up hooking up and then, right after, she completely blew him off. And, if you thought he talked about her too much before? He became absolutely insufferable. Now every single negative thing in the world could somehow be related to her. Most of us stopped talking to that kid before the end of that year. I imagine, to this day, he's still sitting in his car, listening to Motley Crue, crying, and cursing her name.

You remind me of that guy.


That actually sounds more like a Hillary supporter this past election... lol.


You could have gone with "Falcons Fan" and actually been funny. Instead, you went the predictable GOP Dad Joke route. Next, you'll be telling us about how fat your wife is. Let me guess...she spends all your money?
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby deltbucs » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:56 am

Babeinbucland wrote:This is a start but as long as we have Governor Voldermort in power, we will all continue to be poisoned

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-r ... story.html

judge has ruled that California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite insistence from the agrochemical company that it poses no risk to people.

In January, Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan tentatively dismissed a challenge by Monsanto and a citrus growers group. In her final ruling last week, the judge said that none of Monsanto's objections were viable, the Fresno Bee reported.

The company had sued the nation's leading agricultural producing state, saying California officials illegally used recommendations from an international health organization to make its decision to require the warning labels.

Monsanto's attorney, Trenton Norris, told the judge that the warnings would drive some customers away, hurting the company.

California regulators have said they relied on a finding by the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, considered a gold standard for cancer research.

Critics take issue with Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

It's sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.

It'd probably have been easier to get some rulings against Monsanto before this if your boy Obama didn't appoint Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto VP and Monsanto lobbyist, to Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA.

You can't stop talking about how terrible Trump is but never acknowledged the fact that Obama didn't give a **** about poisoning us. This is why no one takes you serious. It's all partisan for you.
Last edited by deltbucs on Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:01 am

Monsanto has leveraged it's power on our government over the decades so badly they get whatever they want. It's sickening and Delt is 100% correct that this should NEVER be partisan issue at all.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 342 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby RedLeader » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:03 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
RedLeader wrote:
That actually sounds more like a Hillary supporter this past election... lol.


You could have gone with "Falcons Fan" and actually been funny. Instead, you went the predictable GOP Dad Joke route. Next, you'll be telling us about how fat your wife is. Let me guess...she spends all your money?



How does your lame story of a poor guy pining for some girl, only to be dissed, and then becoming "absolutely insufferable" NOT ring like a Hillary supporter?

Peraonally, I thought it was hilariously accurate.












Falcons fan??? Lol.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby deltbucs » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:14 am

RedLeader wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
I remember this one time a guy I knew was totally into this girl. This was early on in high school. Maybe 10th grade. Anyway, it seemed like every other lunch we'd all get to listen to him go on about how hot she was or how funny she was or...whatever. You get the point. It got to the point I'd sit with different groups. Anyway...they actually ended up hooking up and then, right after, she completely blew him off. And, if you thought he talked about her too much before? He became absolutely insufferable. Now every single negative thing in the world could somehow be related to her. Most of us stopped talking to that kid before the end of that year. I imagine, to this day, he's still sitting in his car, listening to Motley Crue, crying, and cursing her name.

You remind me of that guy.


That actually sounds more like a Hillary supporter this past election... lol.

It's official. You're the right's version of Babeinbucland.
Last edited by deltbucs on Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:29 am

RedLeader wrote:How does your lame story of a poor guy pining for some girl, only to be dissed, and then becoming "absolutely insufferable" NOT ring like a Hillary supporter?


Because a Hillary Supporter would probably be crying while listening to Sarah McLaughlin sing about homeless dogs. They wouldn't be crying to some artificial harmonics in their 87 Trans Am.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Corsair » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:17 pm

Redleader talks about Hillary more than anyone else on this board.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5232
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:12 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:Because a Hillary Supporter would probably be crying while listening to Sarah McLaughlin sing about homeless dogs.


Unrelated, but it reminds me of this video...

Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 342 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby RedLeader » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:41 pm

Wow. You guys ARE an insufferable bunch. Lol

I certainly didn't mean to stir up the idiot nest... but it is hilarious, if not oddly gratifying, to see how quickly some of you want to move on from Hillary. ;)
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby PrimeMinister » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:44 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Babeinbucland wrote:This is a start but as long as we have Governor Voldermort in power, we will all continue to be poisoned

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-r ... story.html

judge has ruled that California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite insistence from the agrochemical company that it poses no risk to people.

In January, Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan tentatively dismissed a challenge by Monsanto and a citrus growers group. In her final ruling last week, the judge said that none of Monsanto's objections were viable, the Fresno Bee reported.

The company had sued the nation's leading agricultural producing state, saying California officials illegally used recommendations from an international health organization to make its decision to require the warning labels.

Monsanto's attorney, Trenton Norris, told the judge that the warnings would drive some customers away, hurting the company.

California regulators have said they relied on a finding by the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, considered a gold standard for cancer research.

Critics take issue with Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

It's sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.

It'd probably have been easier to get some rulings against Monsanto before this if your boy Obama didn't appoint Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto VP and Monsanto lobbyist, to Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA.

You can't stop talking about how terrible Trump is but never acknowledged the fact that Obama didn't give a **** about poisoning us. This is why no one take you serious. It's all partisan for you.


Boom.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 5382
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby RedLeader » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:45 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:
RedLeader wrote:How does your lame story of a poor guy pining for some girl, only to be dissed, and then becoming "absolutely insufferable" NOT ring like a Hillary supporter?


Because a Hillary Supporter would probably be crying while listening to Sarah McLaughlin sing about homeless dogs. They wouldn't be crying to some artificial harmonics in their 87 Trans Am.


Touché.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Babeinbucland » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:34 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Babeinbucland wrote:This is a start but as long as we have Governor Voldermort in power, we will all continue to be poisoned

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-r ... story.html

judge has ruled that California can require Monsanto to label its popular weed killer Roundup as a possible cancer threat despite insistence from the agrochemical company that it poses no risk to people.

In January, Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan tentatively dismissed a challenge by Monsanto and a citrus growers group. In her final ruling last week, the judge said that none of Monsanto's objections were viable, the Fresno Bee reported.

The company had sued the nation's leading agricultural producing state, saying California officials illegally used recommendations from an international health organization to make its decision to require the warning labels.

Monsanto's attorney, Trenton Norris, told the judge that the warnings would drive some customers away, hurting the company.

California regulators have said they relied on a finding by the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, considered a gold standard for cancer research.

Critics take issue with Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact.

It's sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 250 types of crops.

It'd probably have been easier to get some rulings against Monsanto before this if your boy Obama didn't appoint Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto VP and Monsanto lobbyist, to Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA.

You can't stop talking about how terrible Trump is but never acknowledged the fact that Obama didn't give a **** about poisoning us. This is why no one takes you serious. It's all partisan for you.


And again...just because you didn't read it, doesn't mean I didn't post it. You can't find my post? Boo ****ing whoo. SO again, let me be crystal clear so even you can understand...and now can find my second post on this in less than a month...Obama's signing of that was one of the biggest disappointments for me of his administration. I was infuriated at the time and am still infuriated. My other two were when he had both the senate and the house majority, he wasn't forceful enoough to get them to jam a single payer option through and the third was that he squandered so much time trying to win the republicans over. He should have never for a moment assumed he had partners in good faith, he did not. And it was so frigging obvious to the rest of his base, but he insisted, through his actions, to believe if he was a partner in good faith they would be too. It took him forever to realize they were never going to take him seriously and he squandered the majority and as a direct result of losing the house and senate he handed the republicans the ability to thwart seating a Supreme court nominee. I am still so disgusted by that I can hardly stand it.

We clear?
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby deltbucs » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:44 pm

Babeinbucland wrote:
deltbucs wrote:It'd probably have been easier to get some rulings against Monsanto before this if your boy Obama didn't appoint Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto VP and Monsanto lobbyist, to Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA.

You can't stop talking about how terrible Trump is but never acknowledged the fact that Obama didn't give a **** about poisoning us. This is why no one takes you serious. It's all partisan for you.


And again...just because you didn't read it, doesn't mean I didn't post it. /quote]
We've been over this. You never posted about it. Not. Once....except the one post from a couple weeks ago when you responded to me introducing these facts to you.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Wharf Rat » Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:45 am

Babeinbucland wrote: he wasn't forceful enoough to get them to jam a single payer option through


This question is for anyone, except the person I quoted (for obvious reasons): Why do you feel the single payer system a good idea? I work in health care, and it seems like it's the worst possible option.

and the third was that he squandered so much time trying to win the republicans over.


When (please cite examples) did Obama ever try to win over republicans? It would seem he didn't give a **** about the other side of the aisle when he was jamming the ACA down our throats.

It took him forever to realize they were never going to take him seriously and he squandered the majority and as a direct result of losing the house and senate he handed the republicans the ability to thwart seating a Supreme court nominee...


Wow. If you believe that (that he lost the house and senate because he was trying to win over conservatives), then you're more delusional than I thought.
Wharf Rat
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:27 am
Has thanked: 161 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby deltbucs » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:34 am

Wharf Rat wrote:
Babeinbucland wrote: he wasn't forceful enoough to get them to jam a single payer option through


This question is for anyone, except the person I quoted (for obvious reasons): Why do you feel the single payer system a good idea? I work in health care, and it seems like it's the worst possible option.

and the third was that he squandered so much time trying to win the republicans over.


When (please cite examples) did Obama ever try to win over republicans? It would seem he didn't give a **** about the other side of the aisle when he was jamming the ACA down our throats.

It took him forever to realize they were never going to take him seriously and he squandered the majority and as a direct result of losing the house and senate he handed the republicans the ability to thwart seating a Supreme court nominee...


Wow. If you believe that (that he lost the house and senate because he was trying to win over conservatives), then you're more delusional than I thought.

I agree with you on the 2nd to responses. As far as your question. I think that a single payer system is a good idea for many reasons....but I think the #1 argument for it is, everyone gets healthcare and it cost everyone much, much less. Also, if you get a serious and/or life threatening disease/illness/injury you don't go broke and in debt in addition to having to (hopefully) live through the condition as well.
Last edited by deltbucs on Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Wharf Rat » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:47 pm

deltbucs wrote:As far as your question. I think that a single payer system is a good idea for many reasons....but I think the #1 argument for it is, everyone gets healthcare and it cost everyone much, much less. Also, if you get a serious and/or life threatening disease/illness/injury you don't go broke and in debt in addition to having to (hopefully) life through the condition as well.


That sounds great in theory. But what happens when you need to see the doctor, or have a procedure, and you have to wait 6 months to a year for proper care? In the past I've run into patients from Canada who came down to Florida for "vacation", but really only came here to get care that they were waiting to get in Canada.
Wharf Rat
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:27 am
Has thanked: 161 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:46 am

Wharf Rat wrote:
deltbucs wrote:As far as your question. I think that a single payer system is a good idea for many reasons....but I think the #1 argument for it is, everyone gets healthcare and it cost everyone much, much less. Also, if you get a serious and/or life threatening disease/illness/injury you don't go broke and in debt in addition to having to (hopefully) life through the condition as well.


That sounds great in theory. But what happens when you need to see the doctor, or have a procedure, and you have to wait 6 months to a year for proper care? In the past I've run into patients from Canada who came down to Florida for "vacation", but really only came here to get care that they were waiting to get in Canada.

Think about that for a minute.

If everyone has access to healthcare, the system would be swamped because they would use it.

That is precisely what Sanders was talking about during his debate with Cruz about money being a barrier to healthcare access.

Now let's say we go ahead and remove that barrier. Folks pour into clinics and hospitals and Drs offices to get the care they need. Wait times go up. What is the solution? Obviously, it's more doctors, RNs, CNAs, and technicians right?

What is the single largest barrier to an individual becoming one of those professionals? Cost of education.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7701
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 443 times

Re: Monsanto ruling

Postby Ken Carson » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:08 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Wharf Rat wrote:
That sounds great in theory. But what happens when you need to see the doctor, or have a procedure, and you have to wait 6 months to a year for proper care? In the past I've run into patients from Canada who came down to Florida for "vacation", but really only came here to get care that they were waiting to get in Canada.

Think about that for a minute.

If everyone has access to healthcare, the system would be swamped because they would use it.

That is precisely what Sanders was talking about during his debate with Cruz about money being a barrier to healthcare access.

Now let's say we go ahead and remove that barrier. Folks pour into clinics and hospitals and Drs offices to get the care they need. Wait times go up. What is the solution? Obviously, it's more doctors, RNs, CNAs, and technicians right?

What is the single largest barrier to an individual becoming one of those professionals? Cost of education.

There is also length of education. My father was in his post-undergrad program for 11 years. Even if the cost of the education was reduced significantly (difficult for too much in medicine due to the cost of equipment and facilities for training for the latest and greatest methods), you can't have the end result be a government job with fixed income.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Next

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RedLeader and 5 guests