Racing Past the Constitution

Do you recall bu$h and Blair both saying that Iraq had the capability of launching chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of a deployment order? It was one of their critical arguments to try and persuade people that the invasion of Iraq was necessary.

So why Iraq, and not N. Korea?

The argument against attacking N. Korea, as you well know, is that it is too late, because they are capable of launching serious missile strikes against anyone in the region, and have the range to strike any US city on the Pacific Coast.

This is somewhat a matter of the doctrine of pre-emption, whether or not one agrees with it...
 
That (pl.) next to the "you" means plural, Lucy. I'll leave the "y'all" to you. :)

The recession was short because neither Clinton nor Bush meddled in it. I have to give Clinton credit for that. He did the right thing.

You are trying to tell me what I can or cannot say?:rolleyes: That will be the day.:cof1:
 
Do you recall bu$h and Blair both saying that Iraq had the capability of launching chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of a deployment order? It was one of their critical arguments to try and persuade people that the invasion of Iraq was necessary.

So why Iraq, and not N. Korea?

Because NK had ICBMs and Iraq did not. This made attacking Iraq "safer," because it merely was a threat to the region, and to us by "supporting terrorism." The theory was they might volunteer weapons to al-Queda, and they would become the "delivery system."
 
You trust the government with control and accountability of nuclear bombs and you trust the government to defend the country against terrorists but when it comes to organizing an efficient medical system you don't trust them? If that's the case then that's interesting.

I trust the government to be totally incompetent with my tax money. Through the years, they have richly earned my trust! I do not believe the government is capable of organizing an efficient ANYTHING! I believe the capitalist commercial free market private sector, can run circles around anything the government even thinks about doing.

About the ONLY exception I can think of, where government is actually the preferable alternative, is the military. The government runs the military pretty good, but I think this is largely attributable to the amazing job being done by so many brave and courageous young men and women, who believe in what they are doing. It certainly isn't because of the $500 toilet seats!

Not every doctor is interested in becoming extremely wealthy. Many are family men and women pursuing a chosen career and the first thing that happens under a universal medical plan is every doctor gets paid.

Pretty much every doctor is interested in becoming filthy rich. That is the primary reason they chose their field, and why they spent tons of money getting a doctorate in medicine. And guess what, big bird? Every doctor in America is getting paid! I know of not one single instance of a doctor not being paid, haven't seen them on CNN protesting, haven't heard or read about any such crisis anywhere in America. This is more mushy-gushy liberal gobledy-gook, designed to pull at our heart strings.... Awww, we need to pass universal health care, so the poor struggling doctor can get paid! Just how fucking stupid do you think people are?

The first thing that happens under universal health care is, the doctor gets a letter from the government... Dear Doc, We regret to inform you the American Universal Health Plan will not cover the $2,000 bill for Mr. Smith, as the limits for this procedure is $1,000 and your office failed to submit the proper form HLC4598-R with your claim. Please contact the Department of Red Tape and Bureaucracy between 9-3 to discuss this matter with our automated voice mail system. Thank You!

With 50% of bankruptcies resulting from non-payment of medical bills there has to be doctors that are not getting paid, at all, for certain services.

I don't buy that 50% of bankruptcies are the result of non-payment of medical bills. Again, more overblown liberal bullshit. I've already said I don't believe the bullshit about doctors not getting paid, but here, you make taco bell proud with your 'layering' ability! Let's heap another glob of unbelievable nonsense on the ridiculous absurdities already made!

Again, can you think of any country that had a universal medical plan and scrapped it to return to the type of medical system now in place in the US?

I can't, but that's the funny thing about socialist policy, once implemented, it's almost impossible to escape it. In the past, it has taken the US Armed Forces, and a couple of nukes to liberate the world from socialism. I do know this, if you have an illness which requires sophisticated modern medical attention, there is not a better or more desirable place on the planet to go, than the US.

Again I go to my personal life experience here... I have a Russian friend, Svetlanna. She was apparently part of the 'upper class' in Russia, because she hates America and loves Russia. So I asked her one day... if you hate America so much, why don't you go back to Russia? I mean, makes sense, right? Well, she proceeds to tell me the reason she is here. Her daughter was born with a rare heart condition, which would require very complicated surgical procedures to correct. Of all the places in the entire world her doctors suggested for this, UAB in Birmingham, Alabama. So here is my little Capitalist-hating Communist friend, who couldn't find one good thing to say about America, and who continuously pumped up Russia and socialist culture... here she is, stuck in Birmingham, because her daughter's life was in the balance and that was where they told her to go.

Different nationalities, different religious beliefs, different cultures and languages....why do all those people agree universal medical is better? Doesn't that tell you something?

Tells me there are lots of stupid people in the world. First of all, I don't think ALL those people agree. You'll have to show me the data on that, because it's seldom that I see 100% agreement on anything. ('course, Saddam did get 100% of the vote in Iraq....)

This is another typical pinhead debate tactic, throw out some comment that makes it sound like... hey buddy, the whole world is against you, wake up... The truth of the matter is, about 30% of the country favors nationalized health care. Those 30% are mostly the koolaid-drenched Obamamaniacs, who would support literally ANYTHING for The One! The other 70% of us have questions, are raising viable issues, and they are not being addressed. Instead, we are being hooted down, called names, belittled, and told we have been relegated to obscurity, so shut up and sit down.

Look... as I have said, your party is in complete control of Congress and the White House, and even the last two republicans to run for president, leaned toward some kind of reform, so we can fully expect Socialized Medicine in America... it's coming! You win! You will get another bloated inefficient government conglomeration, controlling your health care decisions, and destroying the quality of health care in America. Congrats!

We will get to see first hand, how socialized medicine does not cure the sick, doesn't help people cope with catastrophic health care situations, makes routine medical care more difficult to obtain, and destroys the capitalist motivations to develop the best quality medical care in the world. And you are right about something, we won't ever go back! Once we turn this over to the government, you can forget ever going back, it won't happen. That's how Socialism rolls.
 
All true, however, in my cynicism I believe that we wouldn't have built the US's largest, most costly embassy in Baghdad if we hadn't planned from the beginning to set up camp there.


Because NK had ICBMs and Iraq did not. This made attacking Iraq "safer," because it merely was a threat to the region, and to us by "supporting terrorism." The theory was they might volunteer weapons to al-Queda, and they would become the "delivery system."
 
The recession was short because neither Clinton nor Bush meddled in it. I have to give Clinton credit for that. He did the right thing.

You are trying to tell me what I can or cannot say?:rolleyes: That will be the day.:cof1:

Bush meddled, he meddled the historically proven way to help an economy, he cut taxes!
 
Again, can you think of any country that had a universal medical plan and scrapped it to return to the type of medical system now in place in the US?
I can't, but that's the funny thing about socialist policy, once implemented, it's almost impossible to escape it. In the past, it has taken the US Armed Forces, and a couple of nukes to liberate the world from socialism.

Of course you can't and as for implying the US has already liberated citizens from governments covering their medical bills that has to be the most insane thing I've ever heard. :igive:

Different nationalities, different religious beliefs, different cultures and languages....why do all those people agree universal medical is better? Doesn't that tell you something?
Tells me there are lots of stupid people in the world. First of all, I don't think ALL those people agree. You'll have to show me the data on that, because it's seldom that I see 100% agreement on anything.

The next time there is a federal election in a foreign country take a few minutes to google the issues being put forward. Should you find one, just ONE, country/politician that is putting forward the idea universal medicare should be scrapped do us all a favor and let us know. OK?

The truth of the matter is, about 30% of the country favors nationalized health care. Those 30% are mostly the koolaid-drenched Obamamaniacs, who would support literally ANYTHING for The One! The other 70% of us have questions, are raising viable issues, and they are not being addressed. Instead, we are being hooted down, called names, belittled, and told we have been relegated to obscurity, so shut up and sit down.

Again, do a google. Do a little research. Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden.....the people in those and many other countries had questions and raised viability issues. They must have been addressed as none of those countries have gone back to the "pay or suffer" system. None. Not ONE.

There will always be a small minority against anything the government does but not one country with universal medicare switched back to the "pay or suffer" system. What more facts/figures/examples/evidence do you require?

Look... as I have said, your party is in complete control of Congress and the White House, and even the last two republicans to run for president, leaned toward some kind of reform, so we can fully expect Socialized Medicine in America... it's coming! You win! You will get another bloated inefficient government conglomeration, controlling your health care decisions, and destroying the quality of health care in America. Congrats!

They do not control health care decisions like some HMOs do. You always get to choose your own doctor and if a procedure is covered and your doctor recommends it then you have it done.

Perhaps you're associating private insurance with universal medicare. The cost factor is eliminated. If you and your doctor decide on a certain procedure it is paid for, period. Nobody else is involved in the decision.

But, like a lot of current concerns they will soon evaporate being upstaged by this:
"youtube.com/watch?v=l1N3KqK7HqQ&feature=PlayList&p=FA726539B0E76899&index=0"

Then we'll have something truly worthy of our concern.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



I trust the government to be totally incompetent with my tax money. Through the years, they have richly earned my trust! I do not believe the government is capable of organizing an efficient ANYTHING! I believe the capitalist commercial free market private sector, can run circles around anything the government even thinks about doing.

About the ONLY exception I can think of, where government is actually the preferable alternative, is the military. The government runs the military pretty good, but I think this is largely attributable to the amazing job being done by so many brave and courageous young men and women, who believe in what they are doing. It certainly isn't because of the $500 toilet seats!



Pretty much every doctor is interested in becoming filthy rich. That is the primary reason they chose their field, and why they spent tons of money getting a doctorate in medicine. And guess what, big bird? Every doctor in America is getting paid! I know of not one single instance of a doctor not being paid, haven't seen them on CNN protesting, haven't heard or read about any such crisis anywhere in America. This is more mushy-gushy liberal gobledy-gook, designed to pull at our heart strings.... Awww, we need to pass universal health care, so the poor struggling doctor can get paid! Just how fucking stupid do you think people are?

The first thing that happens under universal health care is, the doctor gets a letter from the government... Dear Doc, We regret to inform you the American Universal Health Plan will not cover the $2,000 bill for Mr. Smith, as the limits for this procedure is $1,000 and your office failed to submit the proper form HLC4598-R with your claim. Please contact the Department of Red Tape and Bureaucracy between 9-3 to discuss this matter with our automated voice mail system. Thank You!



I don't buy that 50% of bankruptcies are the result of non-payment of medical bills. Again, more overblown liberal bullshit. I've already said I don't believe the bullshit about doctors not getting paid, but here, you make taco bell proud with your 'layering' ability! Let's heap another glob of unbelievable nonsense on the ridiculous absurdities already made!



I can't, but that's the funny thing about socialist policy, once implemented, it's almost impossible to escape it. In the past, it has taken the US Armed Forces, and a couple of nukes to liberate the world from socialism. I do know this, if you have an illness which requires sophisticated modern medical attention, there is not a better or more desirable place on the planet to go, than the US.

Again I go to my personal life experience here... I have a Russian friend, Svetlanna. She was apparently part of the 'upper class' in Russia, because she hates America and loves Russia. So I asked her one day... if you hate America so much, why don't you go back to Russia? I mean, makes sense, right? Well, she proceeds to tell me the reason she is here. Her daughter was born with a rare heart condition, which would require very complicated surgical procedures to correct. Of all the places in the entire world her doctors suggested for this, UAB in Birmingham, Alabama. So here is my little Capitalist-hating Communist friend, who couldn't find one good thing to say about America, and who continuously pumped up Russia and socialist culture... here she is, stuck in Birmingham, because her daughter's life was in the balance and that was where they told her to go.



Tells me there are lots of stupid people in the world. First of all, I don't think ALL those people agree. You'll have to show me the data on that, because it's seldom that I see 100% agreement on anything. ('course, Saddam did get 100% of the vote in Iraq....)

This is another typical pinhead debate tactic, throw out some comment that makes it sound like... hey buddy, the whole world is against you, wake up... The truth of the matter is, about 30% of the country favors nationalized health care. Those 30% are mostly the koolaid-drenched Obamamaniacs, who would support literally ANYTHING for The One! The other 70% of us have questions, are raising viable issues, and they are not being addressed. Instead, we are being hooted down, called names, belittled, and told we have been relegated to obscurity, so shut up and sit down.

Look... as I have said, your party is in complete control of Congress and the White House, and even the last two republicans to run for president, leaned toward some kind of reform, so we can fully expect Socialized Medicine in America... it's coming! You win! You will get another bloated inefficient government conglomeration, controlling your health care decisions, and destroying the quality of health care in America. Congrats!

We will get to see first hand, how socialized medicine does not cure the sick, doesn't help people cope with catastrophic health care situations, makes routine medical care more difficult to obtain, and destroys the capitalist motivations to develop the best quality medical care in the world. And you are right about something, we won't ever go back! Once we turn this over to the government, you can forget ever going back, it won't happen. That's how Socialism rolls.
 
Of course you can't and as for implying the US has already liberated citizens from governments covering their medical bills that has to be the most insane thing I've ever heard. :igive:

Of course, that is not what I said, but it's common to have some pinhead distort my words to mean something insane. I'd like to point out once again, the government doesn't cover anyone's medical bills, the government doesn't earn an income!

The next time there is a federal election in a foreign country take a few minutes to google the issues being put forward. Should you find one, just ONE, country/politician that is putting forward the idea universal medicare should be scrapped do us all a favor and let us know. OK?

Most socialist countries don't even have elections. If they do, they are often mock elections, which are stacked in favor of the dictator and are held primarily as publicity for the tyrant. And like I said (again) most of the time, when people venture down the path of socialism, it takes the US military to liberate them.

Nope, no one scraps it once it's entrenched. Once government gets their claws in our medical business, there is no turning back. You are looking at this issue, and concluding (idiotically) that since no one has changed back from a universal system, it must be more desirable than the previous system. You fail to consider, all the infrastructure which is removed in a change, which will never be in place again. What do you imagine insurance companies would charge, once they know they can be put out of business with the stroke of a pen? You see, capitalists generally don't invest in risky things, and investing in a private system to replace the public system which replaced the private system, is capitalistically stupid.

Not to mention, it would be like divorcing your spouse, then calling her up for a date! Now among the stupid, I am sure this is common, but most people won't choose to date their ex, after getting a divorce. It doesn't mean divorce is better than being married, it doesn't mean the ex is bad, or life with the ex was worse than divorce. It's just how things are done, we make choices and live with the consequences. For better or worse!


Again, do a google. Do a little research. Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden.....the people in those and many other countries had questions and raised viability issues. They must have been addressed as none of those countries have gone back to the "pay or suffer" system. None. Not ONE.

LOL... Okay, I Googled, and this is what I found...

Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates as Britons saturated the so-called free system.

Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.

I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.


.............Maybe I need the Liberal Pinhead Toolbar?

Everywhere I turn, my research leads me to think Socialized Medicine is going to be the death nail to America's exceptional superiority in the field of medicine. This won't happen right away, it will take a decade or two, but eventually we will see a sharp decline in medical advancements in this country. We will start to see news stories about how the Japanese have passed us, in yet another area we've turned over to socialists.

Yes, I understand, medical research is not the same thing as medical care, but medical care is the support base, funding, and test ground for medical research. If the quality of health care is destroyed, so is the quality of medical research. But once all of this happens, you are absolutely right, we can't go back, it's gone forever.

There will always be a small minority against anything the government does but not one country with universal medicare switched back to the "pay or suffer" system. What more facts/figures/examples/evidence do you require?

None. I believe you! I agree! Once we abandon the capitalist free-market medical care system we now have, and adopt a socialist government-run system, we will never change back. That is why it is so important to be on the right side of this issue. We are at a monumental crossroads here, and if we go down the road to socialism, we need to fully understand, there ain't no going back. Thanks for continuing to point that out to all!

They do not control health care decisions like some HMOs do. You always get to choose your own doctor and if a procedure is covered and your doctor recommends it then you have it done.

Perhaps you're associating private insurance with universal medicare. The cost factor is eliminated. If you and your doctor decide on a certain procedure it is paid for, period. Nobody else is involved in the decision.

What you are supporting and advocating, will take many of these decisions out of your hands and put them in the hands of Nancy Pelosi and DHHS. If you want "choices" you have to fork over the money for that. The wealthy should have little or no problem getting quality health care, but the middle class and poor will suffer.

Currently, we have a multitude of health insurance options available, each of them have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the individual. Most employers will pay for a portion (or all) of group coverage, and most Americans have some form of this type system now. For those who don't work, or who can't afford insurance, we have a government system already in place to provide health care services to them. It is annually, one of the highest increases in spending, regardless of the deficit.

What you are advocating, is a system where everyone is insured! But insurance is a business, just like everything else. Companies charge a fee (and make a profit) by taking calculated risk. When you mandate they cover everyone regardless of risk, the calculation of that risk becomes immeasurable. What does this do for the price of insurance? It can only make it higher. This is common sense. But what you want to do is, put the health insurance companies out of business completely, and just have government pay for everyone's health care. Well, here's a newsflash for you, we don't have enough rich people in America to pay for everyone's health care.
 
Most socialist countries don't even have elections.

Now we're getting somewhere! That's exactly my point. Countries with social programs are not socialist countries.

Nope, no one scraps it once it's entrenched. Once government gets their claws in our medical business, there is no turning back. You are looking at this issue, and concluding (idiotically) that since no one has changed back from a universal system, it must be more desirable than the previous system. You fail to consider, all the infrastructure which is removed in a change, which will never be in place again. What do you imagine insurance companies would charge, once they know they can be put out of business with the stroke of a pen? You see, capitalists generally don't invest in risky things, and investing in a private system to replace the public system which replaced the private system, is capitalistically stupid.

Capitalists don't invest in things unless they make money and making money means they have to charge more than the cost of supplying something. In other words capitalists have to make money off of treating sick people. There is the cost of your treatment plus an additional sum for them to put in their pocket. Common sense tells us if the profit factor is removed treatment costs will drop.

The same thing applies to government auto insurance. When I was 20 years old (that was a looong time ago) my car insurance was $1200/yr. I moved to a jurisdiction where auto insurance was government run and my premiums were $136/yr. and I even received more coverage! Go figure. Over $1000/yr. less!

That's why people try to get in a group insurance plan. It's almost always cheaper and what better group for medical than 300 million people in the same plan?

Not to mention, it would be like divorcing your spouse, then calling her up for a date! Now among the stupid, I am sure this is common, but most people won't choose to date their ex, after getting a divorce.

I agree with not dating ones Ex but there are times when a guy hits a "dry spell", if you get my drift. ;-)

LOL... Okay, I Googled, and this is what I found...

Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates as Britons saturated the so-called free system.

Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.

I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.


.............Maybe I need the Liberal Pinhead Toolbar?

It's not the tool bar but how it's used. Again, common sense dictates that if a system can be changed, which socialized medicine can, but the majority do not want it changed it means the positive outweighs the negative. That's filed under "logic".

Everywhere I turn, my research leads me to think Socialized Medicine is going to be the death nail to America's exceptional superiority in the field of medicine. This won't happen right away, it will take a decade or two, but eventually we will see a sharp decline in medical advancements in this country. We will start to see news stories about how the Japanese have passed us, in yet another area we've turned over to socialists.

Yes, I understand, medical research is not the same thing as medical care, but medical care is the support base, funding, and test ground for medical research. If the quality of health care is destroyed, so is the quality of medical research. But once all of this happens, you are absolutely right, we can't go back, it's gone forever.

We can go back any time we want. The point is people don't want to go back.

Medical research is great and finding new cures is great. With one stroke of the pen Obama did more for medical research by funding stem cell programs than any other initiative. He said he intends to give science it's proper place in society.

None. I believe you! I agree! Once we abandon the capitalist free-market medical care system we now have, and adopt a socialist government-run system, we will never change back. That is why it is so important to be on the right side of this issue. We are at a monumental crossroads here, and if we go down the road to socialism, we need to fully understand, there ain't no going back. Thanks for continuing to point that out to all!

Because no one wants to go back. No country has gone back. Going back is never an issue at election time in any country that has socialized medicine. It can't be made any clearer.

What you are supporting and advocating, will take many of these decisions out of your hands and put them in the hands of Nancy Pelosi and DHHS. If you want "choices" you have to fork over the money for that. The wealthy should have little or no problem getting quality health care, but the middle class and poor will suffer.

Again, nonsense. Universal health insurance does not operate that way. People are free to choose their doctor and together they decide on the best treatment. It is not operated like HMOs. The government does not decide what treatment is necessary. If your doctor believes you require a certain treatment you get the treatment and the government pays. It's as simple as that.

What you are advocating, is a system where everyone is insured! But insurance is a business, just like everything else. Companies charge a fee (and make a profit) by taking calculated risk. When you mandate they cover everyone regardless of risk, the calculation of that risk becomes immeasurable. What does this do for the price of insurance? It can only make it higher. This is common sense. But what you want to do is, put the health insurance companies out of business completely, and just have government pay for everyone's health care. Well, here's a newsflash for you, we don't have enough rich people in America to pay for everyone's health care.

It doesn't require a lot of rich people because first of all the profit is removed. Every insurance office is closed. Everybody who made money off of gambling on other people's illnesses are out of a job. Time for them to make an honest living. :shock:

Second, a healthy individual is more productive so fewer people are off work or not performing their duties as well as they could.

Third and most important, people will see a doctor before an illness progresses to a stage where expensive treatment is required. Sort of a preventive maintenance program. Silent killers like hypertension and high cholesterol will be detected and controlled before people suffer heart attacks and strokes. Just consider the savings when comparing one person collecting government disability payments to one who is gainfully employed and paying taxes.

Everyone gains except for those who currently gamble on someone else's health. We could always send them an FTD Sympathy Bouquet.


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Of course, that is not what I said, but it's common to have some pinhead distort my words to mean something insane. I'd like to point out once again, the government doesn't cover anyone's medical bills, the government doesn't earn an income!



Most socialist countries don't even have elections. If they do, they are often mock elections, which are stacked in favor of the dictator and are held primarily as publicity for the tyrant. And like I said (again) most of the time, when people venture down the path of socialism, it takes the US military to liberate them.

Nope, no one scraps it once it's entrenched. Once government gets their claws in our medical business, there is no turning back. You are looking at this issue, and concluding (idiotically) that since no one has changed back from a universal system, it must be more desirable than the previous system. You fail to consider, all the infrastructure which is removed in a change, which will never be in place again. What do you imagine insurance companies would charge, once they know they can be put out of business with the stroke of a pen? You see, capitalists generally don't invest in risky things, and investing in a private system to replace the public system which replaced the private system, is capitalistically stupid.

Not to mention, it would be like divorcing your spouse, then calling her up for a date! Now among the stupid, I am sure this is common, but most people won't choose to date their ex, after getting a divorce. It doesn't mean divorce is better than being married, it doesn't mean the ex is bad, or life with the ex was worse than divorce. It's just how things are done, we make choices and live with the consequences. For better or worse!




LOL... Okay, I Googled, and this is what I found...

Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates as Britons saturated the so-called free system.

Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.

I also recommend reading David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.


.............Maybe I need the Liberal Pinhead Toolbar?

Everywhere I turn, my research leads me to think Socialized Medicine is going to be the death nail to America's exceptional superiority in the field of medicine. This won't happen right away, it will take a decade or two, but eventually we will see a sharp decline in medical advancements in this country. We will start to see news stories about how the Japanese have passed us, in yet another area we've turned over to socialists.

Yes, I understand, medical research is not the same thing as medical care, but medical care is the support base, funding, and test ground for medical research. If the quality of health care is destroyed, so is the quality of medical research. But once all of this happens, you are absolutely right, we can't go back, it's gone forever.



None. I believe you! I agree! Once we abandon the capitalist free-market medical care system we now have, and adopt a socialist government-run system, we will never change back. That is why it is so important to be on the right side of this issue. We are at a monumental crossroads here, and if we go down the road to socialism, we need to fully understand, there ain't no going back. Thanks for continuing to point that out to all!



What you are supporting and advocating, will take many of these decisions out of your hands and put them in the hands of Nancy Pelosi and DHHS. If you want "choices" you have to fork over the money for that. The wealthy should have little or no problem getting quality health care, but the middle class and poor will suffer.

Currently, we have a multitude of health insurance options available, each of them have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the individual. Most employers will pay for a portion (or all) of group coverage, and most Americans have some form of this type system now. For those who don't work, or who can't afford insurance, we have a government system already in place to provide health care services to them. It is annually, one of the highest increases in spending, regardless of the deficit.

What you are advocating, is a system where everyone is insured! But insurance is a business, just like everything else. Companies charge a fee (and make a profit) by taking calculated risk. When you mandate they cover everyone regardless of risk, the calculation of that risk becomes immeasurable. What does this do for the price of insurance? It can only make it higher. This is common sense. But what you want to do is, put the health insurance companies out of business completely, and just have government pay for everyone's health care. Well, here's a newsflash for you, we don't have enough rich people in America to pay for everyone's health care.
 
Apple, plain and simple, you live in an idealistic liberal illusion of how things operate. You continue to make the point that "profit will be removed" yet you don't seem to comprehend, doctors are not going to work for free. Hospitals are not going to operate at a loss. Clinics can't remain open if they don't make profit, and no one will ever want to build a non-profit medical facility. So the entire load goes on the backs of the taxpayer, and there ain't enough of them to do what you want to do.

You claim that "you and your doctor will decide" but that presumes you will be able to find a doctor, and that you will actually be able to get an appointment with him. Then it presumes this doctor (working for free) is going to suggest you have treatment that he will also provide for free. All of this will simply be billed to the government, but they aren't going to want to pay the doctor what he would normally charge, so the extra cost will be your responsibility, just as it is now.

You will create a shortage of medical care, because you are dramatically increasing demand. There is no incentive for people to enter the medical field, so attrition will reduce the number of doctors to meet the dramatically increased demand. Hospitals, which will no longer be able to profit, will be forced to close their doors. Not to mention, all of the people in the health insurance business, who will no longer have jobs.

Apparently, you have little or no understanding of how the concept of insurance works. Group insurance is less expensive because the risk cost is spread over a larger pre-qualified group. It would be impossible to factor the risk cost of every American, the insurance would be astronomical in price, because many people simply do not qualify to be insured, they are too high of a risk. What you want is not really "insurance" ...you want free stuff. But again, the reality is... nothing is free.
 
You hold a number of misconceptions where universal medicare is concerned. Let's take a look at some of them.

Apple, plain and simple, you live in an idealistic liberal illusion of how things operate. You continue to make the point that "profit will be removed" yet you don't seem to comprehend, doctors are not going to work for free.

No one is suggesting someone work for free. Take lawyers, for example. Some work "free lance". They win a case against a major company and become millionaires "overnight". Other lawyers work for a company. They are on salary plus, perhaps, a percentage. The bulk of the winnings go to the company and the lawyer draws his salary.

The same applies to doctors. The doctor draws a salary. (More on this later.)

Hospitals are not going to operate at a loss. Clinics can't remain open if they don't make profit, and no one will ever want to build a non-profit medical facility. So the entire load goes on the backs of the taxpayer, and there ain't enough of them to do what you want to do.

If the clinic and the hospitals are run by the government a profit is not necessary. How many people can be treated by using the money that would usually go for profits?

Does the hospital require a rooftop pool? A Japanese garden? An outdoor waterfall? Who do you think pays for those things? Whether you're delivering a baby or having heart surgery do you really care if the outdoor waterfall/pool is stocked with tropical fish?

You claim that "you and your doctor will decide" but that presumes you will be able to find a doctor, and that you will actually be able to get an appointment with him. Then it presumes this doctor (working for free) is going to suggest you have treatment that he will also provide for free. All of this will simply be billed to the government, but they aren't going to want to pay the doctor what he would normally charge, so the extra cost will be your responsibility, just as it is now.

Doctors are available 24 hours a day and probably within a couple of miles from any given point in a city. One problem that does occasionally occur is finding a "family doctor" but all medical files are computerized so when you walk into a clinic they ask for your medical card.

It's like a credit card. They punch in your number and your file appears. The doctor may have never seen you before but he has your file. (BTW, computerized records is what Obama is trying to set up.)

If one has an ongoing medical problem then they would probably find a "family doctor". That means one makes an appointment and regularly sees the same doctor. There is never a wait. In the 12 years I've had the same doctor I've never waited more than 15 minutes to see him assuming I had an appointment.

If, for example, I broke my leg I wouldn't call him. I'd call an ambulance and be taken to a hospital. The doctor fixing my leg would be doctor who specializes in fixing broken legs and not one used to treating patients with arthritis.

If, on a regular visit to my doctor, I complained of having mild chest pain or a sore back he would refer me to a doctor who specializes in chest pain or back pain. The specialist, who receives a higher salary, is not seeing regular patients so for every patient he does see he is getting paid for being a specialist.

You will create a shortage of medical care, because you are dramatically increasing demand. There is no incentive for people to enter the medical field, so attrition will reduce the number of doctors to meet the dramatically increased demand. Hospitals, which will no longer be able to profit, will be forced to close their doors. Not to mention, all of the people in the health insurance business, who will no longer have jobs.

I'll start with the health insurance business employees. I hope those jobs become extinct. There is nothing noble about making money off someone else's illness. I find it rather vile, to be honest.

As for the increased demand, yes, at first. There are a lot of ill people walking around, both physically and mentally. Once they are treated the demand will fall because not many people deliberately make themselves ill so they can benefit from free medical.

The incentive to enter the medical field is increased as a specialist is almost guaranteed to be able to work in their field. A brain surgeon will not be bogged down by hypochondriacs with a sinus infection thinking they have a brain tumor (Think Arnold) :D Before they reach the surgeon they will be screened by other doctors, X-rays taken, etc.

Apparently, you have little or no understanding of how the concept of insurance works. Group insurance is less expensive because the risk cost is spread over a larger pre-qualified group. It would be impossible to factor the risk cost of every American, the insurance would be astronomical in price, because many people simply do not qualify to be insured, they are too high of a risk. What you want is not really "insurance" ...you want free stuff. But again, the reality is... nothing is free.

I know how insurance works and this is at the root of the problem. Insurance shouldn't factor into medical care anymore than I needed "insurance" so my children could attend school.

The schools were there and all the children went to school. Rich, poor...didn't matter. That's the way medical services should be run. If you are ill you go to a hospital. Insurance has nothing to do with illness.

Once the concept of paying for medical treatment is removed insurance won't play a part.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Apple, plain and simple, you live in an idealistic liberal illusion of how things operate. You continue to make the point that "profit will be removed" yet you don't seem to comprehend, doctors are not going to work for free. Hospitals are not going to operate at a loss. Clinics can't remain open if they don't make profit, and no one will ever want to build a non-profit medical facility. So the entire load goes on the backs of the taxpayer, and there ain't enough of them to do what you want to do.

You claim that "you and your doctor will decide" but that presumes you will be able to find a doctor, and that you will actually be able to get an appointment with him. Then it presumes this doctor (working for free) is going to suggest you have treatment that he will also provide for free. All of this will simply be billed to the government, but they aren't going to want to pay the doctor what he would normally charge, so the extra cost will be your responsibility, just as it is now.

You will create a shortage of medical care, because you are dramatically increasing demand. There is no incentive for people to enter the medical field, so attrition will reduce the number of doctors to meet the dramatically increased demand. Hospitals, which will no longer be able to profit, will be forced to close their doors. Not to mention, all of the people in the health insurance business, who will no longer have jobs.

Apparently, you have little or no understanding of how the concept of insurance works. Group insurance is less expensive because the risk cost is spread over a larger pre-qualified group. It would be impossible to factor the risk cost of every American, the insurance would be astronomical in price, because many people simply do not qualify to be insured, they are too high of a risk. What you want is not really "insurance" ...you want free stuff. But again, the reality is... nothing is free.
 
Oh, c'mon Apple, what about the wait time for the Canadians like the guy who had to wait 16 months for Orthopedic surgery? That is completely unacceptable.

You hold a number of misconceptions where universal medicare is concerned. Let's take a look at some of them.



No one is suggesting someone work for free. Take lawyers, for example. Some work "free lance". They win a case against a major company and become millionaires "overnight". Other lawyers work for a company. They are on salary plus, perhaps, a percentage. The bulk of the winnings go to the company and the lawyer draws his salary.

The same applies to doctors. The doctor draws a salary. (More on this later.)



If the clinic and the hospitals are run by the government a profit is not necessary. How many people can be treated by using the money that would usually go for profits?

Does the hospital require a rooftop pool? A Japanese garden? An outdoor waterfall? Who do you think pays for those things? Whether you're delivering a baby or having heart surgery do you really care if the outdoor waterfall/pool is stocked with tropical fish?



Doctors are available 24 hours a day and probably within a couple of miles from any given point in a city. One problem that does occasionally occur is finding a "family doctor" but all medical files are computerized so when you walk into a clinic they ask for your medical card.

It's like a credit card. They punch in your number and your file appears. The doctor may have never seen you before but he has your file. (BTW, computerized records is what Obama is trying to set up.)

If one has an ongoing medical problem then they would probably find a "family doctor". That means one makes an appointment and regularly sees the same doctor. There is never a wait. In the 12 years I've had the same doctor I've never waited more than 15 minutes to see him assuming I had an appointment.

If, for example, I broke my leg I wouldn't call him. I'd call an ambulance and be taken to a hospital. The doctor fixing my leg would be doctor who specializes in fixing broken legs and not one used to treating patients with arthritis.

If, on a regular visit to my doctor, I complained of having mild chest pain or a sore back he would refer me to a doctor who specializes in chest pain or back pain. The specialist, who receives a higher salary, is not seeing regular patients so for every patient he does see he is getting paid for being a specialist.



I'll start with the health insurance business employees. I hope those jobs become extinct. There is nothing noble about making money off someone else's illness. I find it rather vile, to be honest.

As for the increased demand, yes, at first. There are a lot of ill people walking around, both physically and mentally. Once they are treated the demand will fall because not many people deliberately make themselves ill so they can benefit from free medical.

The incentive to enter the medical field is increased as a specialist is almost guaranteed to be able to work in their field. A brain surgeon will not be bogged down by hypochondriacs with a sinus infection thinking they have a brain tumor (Think Arnold) :D Before they reach the surgeon they will be screened by other doctors, X-rays taken, etc.



I know how insurance works and this is at the root of the problem. Insurance shouldn't factor into medical care anymore than I needed "insurance" so my children could attend school.

The schools were there and all the children went to school. Rich, poor...didn't matter. That's the way medical services should be run. If you are ill you go to a hospital. Insurance has nothing to do with illness.

Once the concept of paying for medical treatment is removed insurance won't play a part.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 
Oh, c'mon Apple, what about the wait time for the Canadians like the guy who had to wait 16 months for Orthopedic surgery? That is completely unacceptable.

So one guy in Canada is a model for all universal health schemes? Oh come on SS, not even you can be that stupid.
I and my family have almost identical experiences to those of Apple both in the UK and here in HK. It clearly goes against the BS you have been fed but there you go.
Not everything is perfect but the 'goods' easily outweigh the 'bads'.
 
I'm not familiar with that specific case but there are a couple of things to consider.

First, what would be the correlation between those who have to wait and those who can not afford the surgery? Put another way one person waits 16 months for surgery. How long would a person who can't afford it under a "pay or suffer" system wait? Well, in the latter case they'd wait until they could afford it and if they could never afford it they'd wait a lot longer than 16 months, wouldn't they?

So, when it comes to wait times the question should be, "Are there more people waiting for an available doctor under a universal medical plan or more people waiting until they can afford it under a "pay or suffer" plan?"

Another thing to consider is some people complain because the operation may not be available at their local hospital. Because they're entitled to free health care some insist on being treated locally rather than have to go to the next town which may have a bigger hospital.

Even under a "pay or suffer" system some local hospitals do not have a full array of specialized surgeons but, people being people, some feel they're entitled to be served in their community because it is free and, of course, they paid taxes for free medical. In short, some people feel they're more important than others.

The one person who has to wait or can't get a specialized operation has to be weighed against the multitude of those who have been treated for other illnesses which they may not have been able to afford.

How many strokes and heart attacks and cancer and diabetes and other diseases have been avoided or caught in time due to free blood tests and check-ups? How many lives have been saved?


Oh, c'mon Apple, what about the wait time for the Canadians like the guy who had to wait 16 months for Orthopedic surgery? That is completely unacceptable.
 
Apple, you still seem to be under the delusion that hospitals and clinics can operate on no profit, and still somehow afford the best doctors. You seem to not really give two shits about the millions of insurance professionals who will be without employment. Now, I know you don't personally like what they do, but it's the career they chose, and it just seems a bit unfair to do away with their entire career without any regard for their welfare. Do they get to even draw unemployment? Or do we live in an age where The Obama gets to decide who is worthy of government help, and who doesn't deserve anything because they work in a business you don't like? Today it's health insurance professionals, who's it going to be tomorrow?

The saddest part about Socialism is the way its sycophants fall all over themselves to explain how great it will be. Here you have written volumes on how you think things will be all peachy and grand, if we just turn it all over to the government to run! Oh, don't worry about this and that... profit doesn't matter anymore... just let government run it, and everyone will be well, everyone will get the best medical care!

You've been brainwashed by Socialists, you totally believe the propaganda, and by god, nothing is ever going to change your mind! You'll sit here and argue for Socialism until your fingers bleed! Why? Because you are an idiot! Just like the idiots who backed Neville Chamberlain, just like the idiots who backed Hitler, you've got no concept of how capitalism works, or why it's better than Socialism.

Apple, I will bet you that I could sit here and make an argument for how we could socialize almost anything we do in America, and make it better for all, and you would be all for it! On paper, I could make the case for why Socialist ideas will ultimately be a better alternative to the present capitalist system. Don't you understand, this is how millions of Europeans were duped into supporting people like Hitler? This is why we had to fight the Cold War for 60 years. Because, on paper, from purely a theoretical point of view, Socialism looks very promising! It appears to be an answer and solution for many societal problems, and many very smart and intelligent people are convinced it will work. They always fail to factor in the human spirit and the remarkable combination of freedom, liberty, capitalism, and human entrepreneurial spirit. These things don't show up on a spreadsheet, or in a philosophy debate. It's why pinheads have a problem with it.

Here is what I predict will happen under universal health care... Services will be more difficult to obtain across the board, including major surgeries and emergencies. Hospitals will close, many health care companies will close, and millions who were formerly in the health care insurance business, and other support businesses, as well as many trained hospital professionals, will be without a job. Investor confidence in anything related to the medical industry, will be in a downward spiral, and the overall quality of medicine in America declines as a result.

You see... what you want to do, is turn the "for profit" capitalist system we now have, into the US Department of Health. You want to turn the tropical fish ponds into crowded waiting rooms full of welfare recipients and their sick kids, like the local free clinic. You want to do this, because Socialists have played on your emotions to make you believe this will give more people, better access to health care in America. The truth is, it will destroy what we have now, and we can never go back. You admit this yourself.
 
Capitalists don't invest in things unless they make money and making money means they have to charge more than the cost of supplying something. In other words capitalists have to make money off of treating sick people. There is the cost of your treatment plus an additional sum for them to put in their pocket. Common sense tells us if the profit factor is removed treatment costs will drop.

Why would treatment costs drop? If its just going to be provided, then the cost can be whatever someone wants it to be.
 
Apple, you still seem to be under the delusion that hospitals and clinics can operate on no profit, and still somehow afford the best doctors.

Of course they can. How do schools afford teachers? Is your local school making a profit?

You seem to not really give two shits about the millions of insurance professionals who will be without employment. Now, I know you don't personally like what they do, but it's the career they chose, and it just seems a bit unfair to do away with their entire career without any regard for their welfare.

I suppose Henry Ford should have been prevented from starting an assembly line/mass production. Just imagine all the people who designed and built buggies. And horse whips And the wooden wheels. And then there were the horse people. And all the stuff that goes with horses. And the horse food.

All those people out of work because of Mr. Ford. Shocking!

]The saddest part about Socialism is the way its sycophants fall all over themselves to explain how great it will be. Here you have written volumes on how you think things will be all peachy and grand, if we just turn it all over to the government to run! Oh, don't worry about this and that... profit doesn't matter anymore... just let government run it, and everyone will be well, everyone will get the best medical care!

Exactly! That's why the English and the French and the Australians and the Canadians and the Norwegians and the Swiss and the Swedes and....as I asked before show me any country that reverted back to the "pay or suffer" system. Surely there must be one.

You've been brainwashed by Socialists, you totally believe the propaganda, and by god, nothing is ever going to change your mind! You'll sit here and argue for Socialism until your fingers bleed! Why? Because you are an idiot! Just like the idiots who backed Neville Chamberlain, just like the idiots who backed Hitler, you've got no concept of how capitalism works, or why it's better than Socialism.

What the hell do Hitler and Chamberlain have to do with medicare?

Pardon me for asking but are you on drugs, Dixie?

Apple, I will bet you that I could sit here and make an argument for how we could socialize almost anything we do in America, and make it better for all, and you would be all for it! On paper, I could make the case for why Socialist ideas will ultimately be a better alternative to the present capitalist system. Don't you understand, this is how millions of Europeans were duped into supporting people like Hitler? This is why we had to fight the Cold War for 60 years. Because, on paper, from purely a theoretical point of view, Socialism looks very promising! It appears to be an answer and solution for many societal problems, and many very smart and intelligent people are convinced it will work. They always fail to factor in the human spirit and the remarkable combination of freedom, liberty, capitalism, and human entrepreneurial spirit. These things don't show up on a spreadsheet, or in a philosophy debate. It's why pinheads have a problem with it.

No, the problem some people, like yourself, have with it is greed. Just pay the tax for medicare and never go to a hospital. No one will force you to go to a hospital. Just chip in the pot and get lost. Go about your life any way you want. You don't have to have anything to do with any government program. Problem solved.

Here is what I predict will happen under universal health care... Services will be more difficult to obtain across the board, including major surgeries and emergencies. Hospitals will close, many health care companies will close, and millions who were formerly in the health care insurance business, and other support businesses, as well as many trained hospital professionals, will be without a job. Investor confidence in anything related to the medical industry, will be in a downward spiral, and the overall quality of medicine in America declines as a result.

I hate to keep repeating myself but it's not sinking in. If what you say happens all the countries that now have universal medicare would be changing back to the "pay or suffer" system.

Why aren't they? Because what you say is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

You see... what you want to do, is turn the "for profit" capitalist system we now have, into the US Department of Health. You want to turn the tropical fish ponds into crowded waiting rooms full of welfare recipients and their sick kids, like the local free clinic. You want to do this, because Socialists have played on your emotions to make you believe this will give more people, better access to health care in America. The truth is, it will destroy what we have now, and we can never go back. You admit this yourself.

I admit the poor will have better access to medicare. So will the average, middle class family. Hmmm, who is left?...............Oh, I know! The rich. Those who don't want the riff-raff sitting on the leather sofas in the doctor's offices; people wearing cheap shoes walking all over the Italian marble floors; rough, chapped hands thumbing the latest edition of The American Spectator.

What will people do?
 
Of course they can. How do schools afford teachers? Is your local school making a profit?



I suppose Henry Ford should have been prevented from starting an assembly line/mass production. Just imagine all the people who designed and built buggies. And horse whips And the wooden wheels. And then there were the horse people. And all the stuff that goes with horses. And the horse food.

All those people out of work because of Mr. Ford. Shocking!



Exactly! That's why the English and the French and the Australians and the Canadians and the Norwegians and the Swiss and the Swedes and....as I asked before show me any country that reverted back to the "pay or suffer" system. Surely there must be one.



What the hell do Hitler and Chamberlain have to do with medicare?

Pardon me for asking but are you on drugs, Dixie?



No, the problem some people, like yourself, have with it is greed. Just pay the tax for medicare and never go to a hospital. No one will force you to go to a hospital. Just chip in the pot and get lost. Go about your life any way you want. You don't have to have anything to do with any government program. Problem solved.



I hate to keep repeating myself but it's not sinking in. If what you say happens all the countries that now have universal medicare would be changing back to the "pay or suffer" system.

Why aren't they? Because what you say is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.



I admit the poor will have better access to medicare. So will the average, middle class family. Hmmm, who is left?...............Oh, I know! The rich. Those who don't want the riff-raff sitting on the leather sofas in the doctor's offices; people wearing cheap shoes walking all over the Italian marble floors; rough, chapped hands thumbing the latest edition of The American Spectator.

What will people do?

This is your first time debating Dixie isn't it?

You see Dixie is a true Confederate. Not only is he wrong, he'll fight to the bitter end to defend being wrong.
 
Of course they can. How do schools afford teachers? Is your local school making a profit?

Personally, I wouldn't use American public education as a shining example of how socialist systems provide the best quality. I think our teachers are probably among the most incompetent compared to the rest of the world. In fact, schools are a prime example of a system being run by government, (in the very socialist way you want to run medical care), which would be markedly better off in a capitalist system where competition would be introduced and would ensure improvement in quality of education.

I suppose Henry Ford should have been prevented from starting an assembly line/mass production. Just imagine all the people who designed and built buggies. And horse whips And the wooden wheels. And then there were the horse people. And all the stuff that goes with horses. And the horse food.

All those people out of work because of Mr. Ford. Shocking!

Now you are attempting to use an example of capitalism vs. capitalism with advanced technology. We've not discovered some new way to medically care for patients here. What you are advocating, is the government take over of an entire capitalist enterprise, at the displacement of the people who work in that field. There's really no precedent for this in American history.

Exactly! That's why the English and the French and the Australians and the Canadians and the Norwegians and the Swiss and the Swedes and....as I asked before show me any country that reverted back to the "pay or suffer" system. Surely there must be one.

*sigh* You keep running back to this tired old argument to support your point. I have already agreed with you, and thanked you for reminding us all of the finality involved in this. Yes, it's true, once socialist policy is entrenched, it is almost impossible to ever change it! You keep assuming, since no one has "gone back" it means they must prefer the socialist system! That's bullshit, because the fact is, you can't go back! You have destroyed the infrastructure which supported the capitalist system, it's gone! After hospitals close and doctors decide on different careers, it's too late to "change back" to what you had, you must live with the consequences of what you established. That's why these places never go back, not because they wouldn't LOVE to... hell, they are selling everything they own to come here for medical care, instead of using the systems in their own country, what does that tell you? I already posted the report about the Brits, and how they suffered through decades of socialized medicine, before finally introducing some capitalist initiatives, out of desperation to improve their deplorable medical conditions.

What the hell do Hitler and Chamberlain have to do with medicare?

Pardon me for asking but are you on drugs, Dixie?

They spewed the same socialist propaganda to people, and played on their emotions, duping them into believing there was a better way. Hitler was a great speaker, and he simply mesmerized his country into supporting his socialist ideas, even while he was incinerating other human beings. Chamberlain was a pinhead like you, who wanted to suck up to socialism, in the false hope it would lead to a better life for all.

No, the problem some people, like yourself, have with it is greed. Just pay the tax for medicare and never go to a hospital. No one will force you to go to a hospital. Just chip in the pot and get lost. Go about your life any way you want. You don't have to have anything to do with any government program. Problem solved.

I already pay medicare tax, and a host of other taxes to fund socialist programs, for that matter. I don't think it is greed, so much as a fundamental disagreement in principle. I don't want to chip in the pot and get lost, that sounds a little like common robbery to me. I don't agree with the idea you have, that I am somehow obligated to take care of your medical needs, and if I don't want to, it's because I am greedy. I think it is your obligation to take care of your own needs, not mine. When I see you out in my yard mowing my lawn, because you just felt the need to help me out, I may start feeling that way toward you, but as it stands now, go fuck yourself.

I hate to keep repeating myself but it's not sinking in. If what you say happens all the countries that now have universal medicare would be changing back to the "pay or suffer" system.

Why aren't they? Because what you say is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

And you keep failing to miss my rebuttal to that, socialism is very difficult to dislodge, once it has been established. People don't change back, because there is nothing to change back to! You've destroyed that! It's GONE! What part of that are you not comprehending, because this makes the fourth time I've posted it, and you continue to act like a retard who can't read.

I admit the poor will have better access to medicare. So will the average, middle class family. Hmmm, who is left?...............Oh, I know! The rich. Those who don't want the riff-raff sitting on the leather sofas in the doctor's offices; people wearing cheap shoes walking all over the Italian marble floors; rough, chapped hands thumbing the latest edition of The American Spectator.

What will people do?

Virtually everything in the Socialist playbook, depends on envy of the rich. You illustrate this very nicely. You admit we are basically turning medical care into the local free clinic, and that's fine with you, as long as we stick it to the rich. As long as that rich sick person has to sit in the waiting room next to a homeless person, you're fine with it. Yeah... bring it on baby!

But here's the catch... and it's something that plagues socialism, really... no matter what you do, there are always the 'haves' and 'have nots' and those who control power in a socialist model, are the ones who have the most. Ultimately, rich people will still receive exceptional care, they can afford to hire the doctors who don't want to work for the government.

Of course, just as we all can't afford to have a butler, a maid, and a private doctor, some of us will be relegated to sitting in the crowded waiting rooms to see a doctor, if we can find one who will see us before we die. :(

Now really, Apple, we can go back and forth about it all day, the bottom line is, we will probably live to see the consequences of socialized medicine, it's the Democrats baby, and this time they are keeping it. Republicans have already pretty much given up on trying to stop it, we'll get some form of socialized medicine, like you are advocating, like you want. We will get to see how well it works, and who was right. Of course, when it all falls apart, and we have 3rd world health care, you will have changed your pinhead name, or moved on to stir shit elsewhere, you won't be around to admit you were wrong.
 
Back
Top