Hillarycare

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Sep 18 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]514339[/snapback]</div>

Ok, ya missed that I was not married and did not have kids when the health insurance wasn't there. By your argument that accidents can happen to anyone, I can argue that most accidents happen in the home. Because of this, I want Congress to legislate that you leave your home and live on the street, thereby reducing your chances of having an accident. Oh, and we'll also be taking that oh-so-dangerous car that you drive. It's all for your health you see.

On the getting sick. I just don't live in fear of that. I live my life and enjoy it. I have 39 years of nothing more serious than a cold ( and pink eye).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Allannde @ Sep 18 2007, 01:10 PM) [snapback]514348[/snapback]</div>

Ok, people do show up at emergency care for free attention. I told you in an earlier post that when I had pink eye, I went to the clinic, saw a doctor, and got the medicine I needed. I got nothing for free. I paid out of my pocket full price. Do you really assume that everyone without health care goes to the emergency room and skips out on the bill?

If the issue has nothing to do with the "fortunate young and healthy" (me) then why is it ok to force me to pay for something I don't want or feel that I need?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ 2007 09 22 01:51) [snapback]516108[/snapback]</div>

Do you have insurance of any kind? Does the concept of everyone paying a little bit so that big losses are avoided sound like some kind of communist plot?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ 2007 09 20 09:38) [snapback]515293[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, and stay out of hospitals. Most people die there.

 

It's amazing that so many Americans will argue against universal state-provided healthcare. Man, your corporate overlords have got you brainwashed good...

Do you have no concept how backwards your country is? You're a laughing-stock.

 

You would think that Prius drivers would understand that preventing a disease is cheaper than treating it.

Health care in the US costs twice per capita than that of the second most expensive health care in the world (Switzerland) partly because pharmaceutical companies overmedicate people, and part because the insurance companies make a lot of money.

Contrary to popular belief, per capita malpractice in the US costs the same as Canada.

Sorry if they don't fit your ideology, but these are the facts.

Single Payer is really the only solution and would eventually cost you and the society as a whole much less. It is an INVESTMENT that pays off in the long term.

 

What is really dumb about the healthcare haters, is that we loose jobs, we have people who go bankrupt with the current system and we have people who can't afford insurance with the current system. How are you going to fix that?

Current system is a never ending spiral to oblivion, and guess what, the government is ALREADY in the business of healthcare, over 50% of our country is on a National Healthcare System, don't believe me, look it up or think about it. And part two to that, any kind of National Healthcare System would actually save money in the long run, healthier people seeking care earlier saves money. And the current system changing over to a National System, with everyone paying makes more sense, because the same amount of money that a National System would take, is currently being spent, just in a different way.

 

.

 

A dual system means that rich people get good care, and poor people get crappy care. That's what we have now at emergency rooms. Public hospitals in some places make you wait hours before you even see someone who can decide how urgent your needs are.

Of course, crappy care for non-emergency issues might be better than no care at all, which is what poor people get now... But the humane and civilized position is quality care for everyone. Too bad we can't afford to bomb every country that looks at us cross-eyed back into the stone age, and have health care, too. :fish:

 

.

 

I had a good laugh with this analogy, but it makes perfect sense. You speak a lot of good sense here. Two systems is actually what they have in Scandinavian countries... a public and a private system. Everyone has public care. Those who can afford it or want it pay extra to have private care. Since their overall health, birth statistics, age longevity, disease rates, etc. is on par or better than ours, I would say the statistics speak for themselves, and the system works. Works a heckuva lot better than the U.S. system.

 

.

 

To me, Clinton is more of a surer thing than Obama, just based on her husband's record (minus the girls). You know what she will do. Obama? He really hasn't said very much--except to preach a lot of rhetoric about "change." So, you take a bigger chance with him.
McCain? Poor John. His main problem is he is stuck with the status quo--and I don't think that's enough to win the next election. He also looks like he is showing his years. His moment was 2000, and he was blown out by his own party.