View Full Version : Debra Medina for Texas Governor 2010
ELVIS
10-29-2009, 03:20 PM
http://www.texasnationalpress.net/morguephotos/medinadebramug.jpg
Born in Beeville and raised on a South Texas farm, Debra Medina is a wife and mother, a registered nurse, a businesswoman, a rancher and a fighter.
Debra has always drawn strength from the courage of her convictions. She first got involved in politics in the early 1990s, when she saw that local leaders were not honoring the pro-life principles that guide her beliefs. Now chairing the Republican Party of Wharton County, she took the Republican Party of Texas to court in 2008 over violations in how the state convention was run.
Standing up to Goliaths is pretty much what Debra does.
She homeschooled both her children long before homeschooling had the kind of support and visibility it has today. She graduated from San Antonio’s Baptist Memorial Hospital System School of Nursing in 1984, and later earned a bachelor’s degree in Business Management from the evangelical Christian Le Tourneau University. In 2002, she founded her own business, Prudentia Inc., which specializes in improving medical billing procedures.
Through it all, Debra has waged and won battles that were not always popular – battles that often demanded uncompromising personal sacrifice. But this kind of strength is no surprise. After all, one of her ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. Another lost his life in the fall of 1842 in the Dawson Massacre near San Antonio, fighting to preserve Texas independence.
Today, Debra Medina continues this legacy. She stands solidly on the principles of limited government, a sound economy, individual liberty and the inviolable importance of family, community and faith.
:elvis:
A Dominionist TexLibertarian Nurse - the ultimate ELVIS candidate. :biggrin:
ELVIS
10-29-2009, 03:42 PM
Yeah, so what ??
So - even by Texas standards - she's a fringe candidate who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.
ELVIS
10-29-2009, 03:47 PM
Are you calling the political arena Hell ??
ELVIS
10-29-2009, 03:55 PM
Well, you should applaud her...
Kristy
10-29-2009, 03:59 PM
She first got involved in politics in the early 1990s, when she saw that local leaders were not honoring the pro-life principles that guide her beliefs.
Well, I'm sold. Nothing like another (assumed) Baptist with no political education and/or no communal skills outside of their job running for office with the sole "beliefs and convictions" (yeah, that rhetoric never grows old) of telling other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
Dr. Love
10-29-2009, 08:06 PM
I already have to deal with a total nutcase secessionist every day who is a big volunteer on the Perry campaign.
The other day she was ranting about how healthcare legislation is unconstitutional, and a quick google later I sent her some links rebutting her and explained why it was constitutional no matter how much she didn't like it.
She now refuses to talk to me. One of her friends told me that she disagreed with my "interpretation" of Congress powers. I told her that it wasn't my interpretation, it was a Supreme Court interpretation. Now she won't talk to me either.
Of course it doesn't stop either of them from ranting every day, though these days its about how people don't read the Bible enough.
Nickdfresh
10-29-2009, 08:22 PM
I already have to deal with a total nutcase secessionist every day who is a big volunteer on the Perry campaign.
The other day she was ranting about how healthcare legislation is unconstitutional, and a quick google later I sent her some links rebutting her and explained why it was constitutional no matter how much she didn't like it.
She now refuses to talk to me. One of her friends told me that she disagreed with my "interpretation" of Congress powers. I told her that it wasn't my interpretation, it was a Supreme Court interpretation. Now she won't talk to me either.
Of course it doesn't stop either of them from ranting every day, though these days its about how people don't read the Bible enough.
Dr. Love, I have two questions for you. How much do they weigh? How ugly are they?
Dr. Love
10-29-2009, 08:51 PM
205, 1 is fugly, the other I would totally hit it
Nitro Express
10-30-2009, 12:29 AM
I'm not for socialized medicine. I'm for cutting the cost without cutting the quality of the care. One area where we can do this is simplifying the billing procedures. 20-30% of a medical office's cost is billing and paperwork. So she seems to be qualified in an area that needs desperate attention and a fix.
Nitro Express
10-30-2009, 12:32 AM
Are you calling the political arena Hell ??
That's a good name for it. Many who participate in the political arena are going to Hell.
Blackflag
10-30-2009, 01:00 AM
YouTube - Tone Loc - Funky Cold Medina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUTqa5cjOS0)
Blackflag
10-30-2009, 01:02 AM
YouTube - Kevin Pollak doing Christopher Walken doing The Aristocrats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSEfUkAm8-0&feature=PlayList&p=A3C3A22FE8B4015C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9)
Satan
10-30-2009, 01:05 AM
That's a good name for it. Many who participate in the political arena are going to Hell.
You say that like it's a bad thing? http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/d025.gif
sadaist
10-30-2009, 02:24 PM
Well, I'm sold. Nothing like another (assumed) Baptist with no political education and/or no communal skills outside of their job running for office with the sole "beliefs and convictions" (yeah, that rhetoric never grows old) of telling other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
They are telling the women what they can and cannot do with the bodies growing inside of them, rather than the woman's body.
I'm not for socialized medicine. I'm for cutting the cost without cutting the quality of the care. One area where we can do this is simplifying the billing procedures. 20-30% of a medical office's cost is billing and paperwork. So she seems to be qualified in an area that needs desperate attention and a fix.
The irony of your statement is that "socialized medicine" (i.e. single payer) would do exactly that. Because you would have only one insurance entity, and the rules would be the same for everyone. Add computerization of medical records to this (with proper security, of course) and problem solved.
Blackflag
10-30-2009, 02:36 PM
The irony of your statement is that "socialized medicine" (i.e. single payer) would do exactly that. Because you would have only one insurance entity, and the rules would be the same for everyone. Add computerization of medical records to this (with proper security, of course) and problem solved.
Which is another logical statement, since we all know that prices and service are inversely proportional to competition.
Which is another logical statement, since we all know that prices and service are inversely proportional to competition.
Well, that's the theoretical rule of the private sector.... which unfortunately doesn't apply in most cases anymore, because most markets are controlled by a handful of price-fixing multinational corporations. The libertarian fantasy of a "free market" doesn't really exist.
But that's a whole other discussion (anti trust, regulation, etc.)
One valid factor in lowering insurance costs is the size of the risk "pool". Under a single payer system, that risk pool is EVERYONE. Can't get a bigger pool than that, if you went to an Olympic stadium.
Blackflag
10-30-2009, 03:40 PM
Well, that's the theoretical rule of the private sector.... which unfortunately doesn't apply in most cases anymore, because most markets are controlled by a handful of price-fixing multinational corporations.
So the concept of competition doesn't apply anymore...because the the lack of competition has proven that it does? :headlights:
One valid factor in lowering insurance costs is the size of the risk "pool". Under a single payer system, that risk pool is EVERYONE. Can't get a bigger pool than that, if you went to an Olympic stadium.
I can take that at face value when you're talking about the difference between 10 people and 1 million people.
But if you're going to say there's a difference between a pool of 20 million people and a pool of 100 million people, you're going to need to bring more support for that theory than just your notoriously bad faculties for reasoning. You're making a mathematical/actuarial argument based on nothing but bullshit.
There's no reason this can't be done state by state.
Kristy
10-30-2009, 03:48 PM
They are telling the women what they can and cannot do with the bodies growing inside of them, rather than the woman's body.
Don't split hairs, it's the same god damn thing.
Nickdfresh
10-30-2009, 04:03 PM
205, 1 is fugly, the other I would totally hit it
:biggrin:
Well, get the one that's not bad by pretending to become a full bore libertarian. Then get rid of her by hanging a picture of Obama over your desk.
Nickdfresh
10-30-2009, 04:04 PM
I'm not for socialized medicine....
Neither is anyone else in this debate...
Even the Canadians don't really have "socialized medicine." It's said they have a "socialized insurance pool."
Nickdfresh
10-30-2009, 04:06 PM
They are telling the women what they can and cannot do with the bodies growing inside of them, rather than the woman's body.
I prefer it when women tell me what I can do with their bodies. :)
kwame k
10-30-2009, 04:23 PM
Don't split hairs, it's the same god damn thing.
Agreed, that decision has to be made by the participants involved in making that difficult decision and not mandated by some governmental group. It's a moral decision, a medical decision and ultimately the person's decision.
You can't legislate morality, it doesn't work and has never worked in this country.
At the end of the day, no matter how much I find the practice morally repugnant, it's not my place to place my values on other people. If you believe in a God or religion that tells you it is wrong than that's something you'll have to deal with on Judgement Day or if you believe in nothing, than that is a decision you'll have to live with, not me. As far as making it illegal.....well, Prohibition worked out real well for The Mob, The War On Drugs has been a smashing success and so on.
Guitar Shark
10-30-2009, 04:37 PM
http://www.texasnationalpress.net/morguephotos/medinadebramug.jpg
Here, have another doughnut.
Dr. Love
10-30-2009, 06:57 PM
:biggrin:
Well, get the one that's not bad by pretending to become a full bore libertarian. Then get rid of her by hanging a picture of Obama over your desk.
She has a David Lee Roth grin that's kinda putting me off ... though I do want to see her bozely bozely bops ... if you get what I'm sayin'
Nitro Express
10-31-2009, 01:37 AM
I think health care should be regulated like the utility companies. They are monopolies and if the government didn't regulate then we would be paying for electricity, water, and gas like we are paying for healthcare. So in a way this is an anti-trust issue. What's difficult about healthcare is there are more variables than a utility. I would say put price caps on catastrophic care because this is where a good share of the abuse is. For standard doctor visits standardized billing would safe a fortune. Then we need regulation of the pharmacutical pricing. We are being gouged in the US big time.
bueno bob
10-31-2009, 02:33 AM
http://www.texasnationalpress.net/morguephotos/medinadebramug.jpg
Born in Beeville and raised on a South Texas farm, Debra Medina is a wife and mother, a registered nurse, a businesswoman, a rancher and a fighter.
:elvis:
I vote that she gets her bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie.
:D
So the concept of competition doesn't apply anymore...because the the lack of competition has proven that it does? :headlights:
I can take that at face value when you're talking about the difference between 10 people and 1 million people.
But if you're going to say there's a difference between a pool of 20 million people and a pool of 100 million people, you're going to need to bring more support for that theory than just your notoriously bad faculties for reasoning. You're making a mathematical/actuarial argument based on nothing but bullshit.
There's no reason this can't be done state by state.
State by state might be doable IF it were single payer.(Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are trying to introduce ammendments for just that) However, a state co-op (the Baucus/Conrad approach) competing with corporate insurance would NOT work, as the state pools couldn't compete with a national insurance company pool. Which is exactly WHY the insurance whores Baucus and Conrad suggested it.
Nickdfresh
10-31-2009, 07:35 AM
I vote that she gets her bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie.
:D
She already ate it!
letsrock
10-31-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm not for socialized medicine. I'm for cutting the cost without cutting the quality of the care. One area where we can do this is simplifying the billing procedures. 20-30% of a medical office's cost is billing and paperwork. So she seems to be qualified in an area that needs desperate attention and a fix.
A RN doesnt do billing. They take care of patients. She looks like George Bush.
bueno bob
10-31-2009, 11:15 PM
She already ate it!
That got her!
lmao
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.