|
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor.
Immoral Medicine By Dr. Lee Hieb 11/09/2009 The magician distracts the audience by doing meaningless but fascinating things with his right hand, while his left hand is doing the really meaningful activity unnoticed by the crowd. The bigger the trick, the bigger the distraction required. Democrats and President Obama should make David Copperfield proud. With one hand they are distracting the American people with a nonstop barrage of bills and discussion: What will happen to the budget? How many are really uninsured? Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed? And for the ultimate distraction, Mr. Obama paraded a group of “doctors” in borrowed white coats for a great visual effect wholly devoid of substance. For all we knew, these guys could have been a group of actuaries at a DC convention bussed in as props for the day. (More likely they were doctors of the government paid variety, like Rahm Emanuels’s physician brother Ezekiel, sheltered in research institutions and teaching hospitals where they don’t have to run their own small businesses.) While this diversion is going on, the real issues are hidden from the public -- the consequences of government funding of medical care on individual liberty and our moral compass. Government pay medicine -- under any name you give it -- is immoral for patients/citizens, and for physicians. No citizen would consider it moral to put a gun to his neighbor’s head and demand that he pay for his mother’s medical care -- no matter how much she may need it. It is no more moral when people use the government as intermediary. For the physician, it is impossible to practice moral medicine in a government system, because ultimately at some level a physician will have to choose between doing the best for his patient or acquiescing to the requirements of the state. The worst moral examples of course were the German doctors who were forced to cooperate in death camp selections. At the other end of the spectrum the moral tightrope has already started here with Medicare. Federal practice guidelines have slowly become mandates. If you do not do what the government has deemed the optimum pathway for care, the hospital will not get paid. In my case, for the most part, the guidelines can be followed, but the day is coming when I will have to choose. There is no question that the risk of DVT -- deep venous thrombosis, and PE (pulmonary embolism) goes up after some hip fractures. So, usually, Orthopaedic Surgeons prescribe a form of blood thinner to prevent this complication. But thinning someone’s blood comes with its own risks of death and morbidity, and there are certainly people for whom the risk of anticoagulation is greater than the risk of thrombosis after the fracture. Without federal “guidelines” physicians used clinical judgment to cull out those people who would do well without the risk of anticoagulation, e.g. those who have a non-displaced fracture, who undergo minimally invasive pinning, and who are mobilized within hours of the fracture. This is not uncommon in small hospitals where these patients can be treated promptly. But the government is telling us we must anticoagulate all patients -- as if all patients and all circumstances were the same. Although there are recognized exceptions to the blood thinning protocol, judgment of relative risk by the surgeon is not one the government accepts. So surgeons are in the position of doing what is best for their patient, or what is prescribed by the state wielding a financial mallet. In between these two extremes is the Canadian physician who must prioritize patients in a system with too little resources. Dr. Leo Kurisko is a radiologist who left Canada to practice in the US (as have 11% of practicing Canadian doctors). At a recent medical meeting, he related the moral problem of practicing radiology in Canada. Because the system is chronically short of functioning CT scanners, at his regional hospital there was a three month waiting list for a CT. Dr. Kurisko would review the requests for testing, and would then triage which patients went to the front and which to the back of the queue. After the scans were finally completed, he reviewed the studies and began to recognize patients with life threatening tumors whom he had prioritized to the back of the line. Faced with this Canadian version of “death camp selection” he quit. He has documented the evils of government medicine in a new book, Health Reform: The End of the American Revolution? Consider the Netherlands, where the number one reason for the death of children under the age of ten is murder by their doctor. Oh, of course they do not call it that, but it is what it is. Because the Netherlands pays for medical care, they choose whom to support. And severely disabled children and the infirm elderly are not high on their priorities. The Dutch doctors practicing thus are the children and grandchildren of physicians who went to the death camps themselves rather than participate in the Nazi killing machine. So how did this happen? It happened through the moral incrementalism of becoming state doctors--of putting the good of the state above the good of the individual patient. Medicare has been an assault on freedom since its inception. Americans who turn 65 may think they are still free but they are not. You are not free to opt out unless you are willing to forgo your social security payment. Even people who see Social Security as part of the problem are not willing to give up an entitlement they have paid into all their lives. And once enrolled in Medicare, you cannot pay for services outside the system unless these services are not offered at all by Medicare, or unless you find that rare physician who runs a cash practice totally off the grid. Physicians who see any Medicare patients at all are not free to bill outside the Medicare system for services which they cannot afford to offer at Medicare rates. For example, if an active 65 year old patient wants to have a special high tech knee implant that was designed for the more active younger patient, he cannot pay the difference between the regular implant and the latest development. If Medicare offers “the service” at any level you cannot buy the service on the free market. In this way, rationing by diminishing the supply of specialists has already started by diminishing the options open to Medicare recipients. Physicians are not that different from Starbucks -- they are not going to pay you for the privilege of serving you. Although, for a while, Oncologists did just that. In the last few years, as Medicare cut the reimbursement for some newer types of chemotherapy, Oncologists would suck up the cost because they wanted to do the best for their patients. But now, as Medicare has ratcheted back payment even more, they have reverted to older drugs. And because there is no free market, the patient cannot simply pay the difference to get the latest scientific breakthrough. So ignoring the smoke and magic mirror tricks, government payment for medicine must be rejected, not on practical financial grounds, but by people who value their freedom and their moral lives. As recognized by our founders, but ignored by the current crop of politicos, the most unhealthy immoral force in human history has been overly powerful central governments. Charley Reese put it best when he said, “It is an eternal shame to give up one’s freedom for a filled bowl of oatmeal and the promise of security from liars”. Lee Hieb is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, in solo private practice. Her first-hand experience in medicine began in the 1950s, when she accompanied her father on his housecalls in Iowa |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:24:42 -0400, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John H wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ Either way, it makes good sense. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
|
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:01:45 -0400, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:39:41 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:24:42 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John H wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ Either way, it makes good sense. NO... IT DOESN'T! When you have to write a persuasive article using the following, you are full of ****: *The magician distracts the audience..... *Democrats and President Obama should make David Copperfield proud..... *Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed? *And for the ultimate distraction, Mr. Obama paraded a group of “doctors”..... *Government pay medicine -- under any name you give it -- is immoral for patients/citizens, and for physicians. *No citizen would consider it moral to put a gun to his neighbor’s head...... *The worst moral examples of course were the German doctors who were forced to cooperate in death camp selections. Lee Hieb is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, in solo private practice. Her first-hand experience in medicine began in the 1950s, when she accompanied her father on his housecalls in Iowa.... And I wonder what her father would think of her obscenely high fees and a practice that is so focused on maximizing income, that housecalls are not EVEN on the radar....? You've found fault with the way she presented herself, not the facts of the article. And, you have to admit there was a hell of a lot of deception going on. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On 18/04/2011 12:30 PM, John H wrote:
A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. Immoral Medicine By Dr. Lee Hieb 11/09/2009 The magician distracts the audience by doing meaningless but fascinating things with his right hand, while his left hand is doing the really meaningful activity unnoticed by the crowd. The bigger the trick, the bigger the distraction required. Democrats and President Obama should make David Copperfield proud. With one hand they are distracting the American people with a nonstop barrage of bills and discussion: What will happen to the budget? How many are really uninsured? Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed? And for the ultimate distraction, Mr. Obama paraded a group of “doctors” in borrowed white coats for a great visual effect wholly devoid of substance. For all we knew, these guys could have been a group of actuaries at a DC convention bussed in as props for the day. (More likely they were doctors of the government paid variety, like Rahm Emanuels’s physician brother Ezekiel, sheltered in research institutions and teaching hospitals where they don’t have to run their own small businesses.) While this diversion is going on, the real issues are hidden from the public -- the consequences of government funding of medical care on individual liberty and our moral compass. Government pay medicine -- under any name you give it -- is immoral for patients/citizens, and for physicians. No citizen would consider it moral to put a gun to his neighbor’s head and demand that he pay for his mother’s medical care -- no matter how much she may need it. It is no more moral when people use the government as intermediary. For the physician, it is impossible to practice moral medicine in a government system, because ultimately at some level a physician will have to choose between doing the best for his patient or acquiescing to the requirements of the state. The worst moral examples of course were the German doctors who were forced to cooperate in death camp selections. At the other end of the spectrum the moral tightrope has already started here with Medicare. Federal practice guidelines have slowly become mandates. If you do not do what the government has deemed the optimum pathway for care, the hospital will not get paid. In my case, for the most part, the guidelines can be followed, but the day is coming when I will have to choose. There is no question that the risk of DVT -- deep venous thrombosis, and PE (pulmonary embolism) goes up after some hip fractures. So, usually, Orthopaedic Surgeons prescribe a form of blood thinner to prevent this complication. But thinning someone’s blood comes with its own risks of death and morbidity, and there are certainly people for whom the risk of anticoagulation is greater than the risk of thrombosis after the fracture. Without federal “guidelines” physicians used clinical judgment to cull out those people who would do well without the risk of anticoagulation, e.g. those who have a non-displaced fracture, who undergo minimally invasive pinning, and who are mobilized within hours of the fracture. This is not uncommon in small hospitals where these patients can be treated promptly. But the government is telling us we must anticoagulate all patients -- as if all patients and all circumstances were the same. Although there are recognized exceptions to the blood thinning protocol, judgment of relative risk by the surgeon is not one the government accepts. So surgeons are in the position of doing what is best for their patient, or what is prescribed by the state wielding a financial mallet. In between these two extremes is the Canadian physician who must prioritize patients in a system with too little resources. Dr. Leo Kurisko is a radiologist who left Canada to practice in the US (as have 11% of practicing Canadian doctors). At a recent medical meeting, he related the moral problem of practicing radiology in Canada. Because the system is chronically short of functioning CT scanners, at his regional hospital there was a three month waiting list for a CT. Dr. Kurisko would review the requests for testing, and would then triage which patients went to the front and which to the back of the queue. After the scans were finally completed, he reviewed the studies and began to recognize patients with life threatening tumors whom he had prioritized to the back of the line. Faced with this Canadian version of “death camp selection” he quit. He has documented the evils of government medicine in a new book, Health Reform: The End of the American Revolution? Consider the Netherlands, where the number one reason for the death of children under the age of ten is murder by their doctor. Oh, of course they do not call it that, but it is what it is. Because the Netherlands pays for medical care, they choose whom to support. And severely disabled children and the infirm elderly are not high on their priorities. The Dutch doctors practicing thus are the children and grandchildren of physicians who went to the death camps themselves rather than participate in the Nazi killing machine. So how did this happen? It happened through the moral incrementalism of becoming state doctors--of putting the good of the state above the good of the individual patient. Medicare has been an assault on freedom since its inception. Americans who turn 65 may think they are still free but they are not. You are not free to opt out unless you are willing to forgo your social security payment. Even people who see Social Security as part of the problem are not willing to give up an entitlement they have paid into all their lives. And once enrolled in Medicare, you cannot pay for services outside the system unless these services are not offered at all by Medicare, or unless you find that rare physician who runs a cash practice totally off the grid. Physicians who see any Medicare patients at all are not free to bill outside the Medicare system for services which they cannot afford to offer at Medicare rates. For example, if an active 65 year old patient wants to have a special high tech knee implant that was designed for the more active younger patient, he cannot pay the difference between the regular implant and the latest development. If Medicare offers “the service” at any level you cannot buy the service on the free market. In this way, rationing by diminishing the supply of specialists has already started by diminishing the options open to Medicare recipients. Physicians are not that different from Starbucks -- they are not going to pay you for the privilege of serving you. Although, for a while, Oncologists did just that. In the last few years, as Medicare cut the reimbursement for some newer types of chemotherapy, Oncologists would suck up the cost because they wanted to do the best for their patients. But now, as Medicare has ratcheted back payment even more, they have reverted to older drugs. And because there is no free market, the patient cannot simply pay the difference to get the latest scientific breakthrough. So ignoring the smoke and magic mirror tricks, government payment for medicine must be rejected, not on practical financial grounds, but by people who value their freedom and their moral lives. As recognized by our founders, but ignored by the current crop of politicos, the most unhealthy immoral force in human history has been overly powerful central governments. Charley Reese put it best when he said, “It is an eternal shame to give up one’s freedom for a filled bowl of oatmeal and the promise of security from liars”. Lee Hieb is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, in solo private practice. Her first-hand experience in medicine began in the 1950s, when she accompanied her father on his housecalls in Iowa Big problem the fleabaggers don't realize is what do you do when the no-competition government service sucks, and government has your money what to do? Pay twice? Pay for extra care on top of government taxes? -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On 18/04/2011 5:28 PM, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:52:09 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ This is crazy stuff. A doctor taking Tri-Care and probably Medicare patients passing out an anti-government health care screed. "Socialists against Socialism Unite!" I really think that is the point.... the only substantive objection I have heard from the "medical" side is amplified in this statement: "Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed?" I would say not, the plan is poorly thought out from ground up. Just a money grab. Like catching a fish, set the hook and reel them taxpayers in. By the time they see the boat and figure it out...too late. It is all about money and the healthcare industry is afraid they will receive a lesser portion of federal money than they now receive. They don't mind being socialists as long as they are WELL PAID socialists... Note how that has nothing to do with quality care. Personally, I'd love to put ALL of them back to doing house calls.... and frankly, once they put money ahead of humanity (which happened about the same day housecalls stopped), they lost my sympathy. Tax inflation. Pay them less but tax them less for a same net income. Taxes have an inflationary effect. Another thing happened, too! One of those unintended consequences... when doctors started making mega-bucks, they made themselves attractive targets for civil litigation.... though I don't care much for lawyers, I don't have any sympathy for a group of folks that have gleefully lined their pockets with gold because folks with loved ones that are sick and in pain don't feel like they have any humane options. Should be easier to yank licenses for those that are incompetent, and also to limit the inane amounts sometimes awarded. Might lower the insurance fees docs pay and pass on to people they serve. But hey, why fix the system you have when you can grab all the money? I call it statism greed. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:51:44 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:03:55 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:01:45 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:39:41 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:24:42 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John H wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ Either way, it makes good sense. NO... IT DOESN'T! When you have to write a persuasive article using the following, you are full of ****: *The magician distracts the audience..... *Democrats and President Obama should make David Copperfield proud..... *Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed? *And for the ultimate distraction, Mr. Obama paraded a group of “doctors”..... *Government pay medicine -- under any name you give it -- is immoral for patients/citizens, and for physicians. *No citizen would consider it moral to put a gun to his neighbor’s head...... *The worst moral examples of course were the German doctors who were forced to cooperate in death camp selections. Lee Hieb is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, in solo private practice. Her first-hand experience in medicine began in the 1950s, when she accompanied her father on his housecalls in Iowa.... And I wonder what her father would think of her obscenely high fees and a practice that is so focused on maximizing income, that housecalls are not EVEN on the radar....? You've found fault with the way she presented herself, not the facts of the article. And, you have to admit there was a hell of a lot of deception going on. We agree, there was deception... and it was all hers.... she didn't cite one factual, quantifiable, supported statement... she played on people's fears. If she had any proof... any real argument, she never stated it... it was all about fear, uncertainty, and doubt. In fact, she even made the point that it wasn't about facts, it was about fearing some nebulous thing she characterizes as "government pay medicine," whatever you call it. John, really, there is a meaningful dialog to be had about this subject, but this article is a textbook example of lies, deceptions, and misinformation... our parents would (rightfully) have called this Yellow Journalism.... would you have accepted this paper from one of you students? No citations? No facts? No thesis? No logical development? No conclusion? I think not..... this isn't even a proper 4th grade paper.... this is plain and outright deception .... nothing but fear mongering.... Certainly not worthy of posting.... Fear is the touchstone for the right wing. You're shocked by this? |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
|
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
"Gene" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:52:09 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John H wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ This is crazy stuff. A doctor taking Tri-Care and probably Medicare patients passing out an anti-government health care screed. "Socialists against Socialism Unite!" I really think that is the point.... the only substantive objection I have heard from the "medical" side is amplified in this statement: "Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed?" It is all about money and the healthcare industry is afraid they will receive a lesser portion of federal money than they now receive. They don't mind being socialists as long as they are WELL PAID socialists... Personally, I'd love to put ALL of them back to doing house calls.... and frankly, once they put money ahead of humanity (which happened about the same day housecalls stopped), they lost my sympathy. Another thing happened, too! One of those unintended consequences... when doctors started making mega-bucks, they made themselves attractive targets for civil litigation.... though I don't care much for lawyers, I don't have any sympathy for a group of folks that have gleefully lined their pockets with gold because folks with loved ones that are sick and in pain don't feel like they have any humane options. -- Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Reply: Part of the reason they need lots of bucks, is they have lots of money invested in the MD. When I looked at doing my Masters at University of Santa Clara, I was looking at $50-60K . and that was 15 years ago at least. How many $$$$ hundreds of thousands of dollars has that doctor had to lay out for his education? and then 8-9 years of no income while getting that education. Just paying back the student loans and paying to set up an office of high tech equipment is close to a megabuck I estimate. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
|
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
BAR wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. BertieBirther is showing off what he learned in his university-level logic class... Oh, wait... |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:51:44 -0400, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:03:55 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:01:45 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:39:41 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:24:42 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John H wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ Either way, it makes good sense. NO... IT DOESN'T! When you have to write a persuasive article using the following, you are full of ****: *The magician distracts the audience..... *Democrats and President Obama should make David Copperfield proud..... *Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed? *And for the ultimate distraction, Mr. Obama paraded a group of “doctors”..... *Government pay medicine -- under any name you give it -- is immoral for patients/citizens, and for physicians. *No citizen would consider it moral to put a gun to his neighbor’s head...... *The worst moral examples of course were the German doctors who were forced to cooperate in death camp selections. Lee Hieb is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, in solo private practice. Her first-hand experience in medicine began in the 1950s, when she accompanied her father on his housecalls in Iowa.... And I wonder what her father would think of her obscenely high fees and a practice that is so focused on maximizing income, that housecalls are not EVEN on the radar....? You've found fault with the way she presented herself, not the facts of the article. And, you have to admit there was a hell of a lot of deception going on. We agree, there was deception... and it was all hers.... she didn't cite one factual, quantifiable, supported statement... she played on people's fears. If she had any proof... any real argument, she never stated it... it was all about fear, uncertainty, and doubt. In fact, she even made the point that it wasn't about facts, it was about fearing some nebulous thing she characterizes as "government pay medicine," whatever you call it. John, really, there is a meaningful dialog to be had about this subject, but this article is a textbook example of lies, deceptions, and misinformation... our parents would (rightfully) have called this Yellow Journalism.... would you have accepted this paper from one of you students? No citations? No facts? No thesis? No logical development? No conclusion? I think not..... this isn't even a proper 4th grade paper.... this is plain and outright deception .... nothing but fear mongering.... Certainly not worthy of posting.... For this group it's totally appropriate. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
John H wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:51:44 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:03:55 -0400, John wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:01:45 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:39:41 -0400, John wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:24:42 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ Either way, it makes good sense. NO... IT DOESN'T! When you have to write a persuasive article using the following, you are full of ****: *The magician distracts the audience..... *Democrats and President Obama should make David Copperfield proud..... *Is the Congressional Budget Office to be believed? *And for the ultimate distraction, Mr. Obama paraded a group of “doctors”..... *Government pay medicine -- under any name you give it -- is immoral for patients/citizens, and for physicians. *No citizen would consider it moral to put a gun to his neighbor’s head...... *The worst moral examples of course were the German doctors who were forced to cooperate in death camp selections. Lee Hieb is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, in solo private practice. Her first-hand experience in medicine began in the 1950s, when she accompanied her father on his housecalls in Iowa.... And I wonder what her father would think of her obscenely high fees and a practice that is so focused on maximizing income, that housecalls are not EVEN on the radar....? You've found fault with the way she presented herself, not the facts of the article. And, you have to admit there was a hell of a lot of deception going on. We agree, there was deception... and it was all hers.... she didn't cite one factual, quantifiable, supported statement... she played on people's fears. If she had any proof... any real argument, she never stated it... it was all about fear, uncertainty, and doubt. In fact, she even made the point that it wasn't about facts, it was about fearing some nebulous thing she characterizes as "government pay medicine," whatever you call it. John, really, there is a meaningful dialog to be had about this subject, but this article is a textbook example of lies, deceptions, and misinformation... our parents would (rightfully) have called this Yellow Journalism.... would you have accepted this paper from one of you students? No citations? No facts? No thesis? No logical development? No conclusion? I think not..... this isn't even a proper 4th grade paper.... this is plain and outright deception .... nothing but fear mongering.... Certainly not worthy of posting.... For this group it's totally appropriate. You really ought to stop whining about others in here, Herirng. Your behavior is no better than those about whom you complain. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
I_am_Tosk wrote:
In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
I_am_Tosk wrote:
In articleKvCdnQH7ePVQAzDQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Talk, talk, talk... you have no specifics, just what MSNBC/GE told you to say... You are a fat dumb creeper. You should have really finished High School. You know, it isn't necessary for you to demonstrate more than once a day what an empty-headed fool you are, little man. So, you are opposed to spending on infrastructure, R&D, new factories, health care improvements. No surprise. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:50:15 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John H wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. That is a classic deductive fallacy. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:11:41 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? What ever happened to stupid... oh wait, you're here. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:50:15 -0400, wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. That is a classic deductive fallacy. You're using the big words. Earlier today, I told BertieBirther his abilities to use logic were...non-existent. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On 19/04/2011 8:40 AM, Harryk wrote:
I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Free enterprise will supply you with what you need. And if you don't want what they offer, then you don't have to pay for it. But with government, you become a slave because whether you want it or not you will pay for it. Never let anyone or any organization get any more control over you than need be. That includes governments, as governments start wars, tax grab from you for the lazy and the corrupt. In reality, big government is big slavery. After K12, basics roads, sewer and common law, the rest is pure waste and corruption. Pork for the rich and corrupt. With infrastructure, very little of todays taxes goes there. Very very little. Got money for war, got money to meddle in every countries business in the world, got money for corruption and corporate bailouts -- but no money for medicare.... I rest my case. Because government is already out of control and the very thing you worship is the very thing that keeps you down. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On 19/04/2011 8:48 AM, Harryk wrote:
I_am_Tosk wrote: In articleKvCdnQH7ePVQAzDQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Talk, talk, talk... you have no specifics, just what MSNBC/GE told you to say... You are a fat dumb creeper. You should have really finished High School. You know, it isn't necessary for you to demonstrate more than once a day what an empty-headed fool you are, little man. So, you are opposed to spending on infrastructure, R&D, new factories, health care improvements. No surprise. Yes, but your faith and worship of big fat government is going to save the day is a false god. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/04/2011 8:40 AM, Harryk wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Free enterprise will supply you with what you need. And if you don't want what they offer, then you don't have to pay for it. - - - Free enterprise has ****ed this country and tens of millions of its workers over royally. And now you want more of the same? |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/04/2011 8:48 AM, Harryk wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: In articleKvCdnQH7ePVQAzDQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Talk, talk, talk... you have no specifics, just what MSNBC/GE told you to say... You are a fat dumb creeper. You should have really finished High School. You know, it isn't necessary for you to demonstrate more than once a day what an empty-headed fool you are, little man. So, you are opposed to spending on infrastructure, R&D, new factories, health care improvements. No surprise. Yes, but your faith and worship of big fat government is going to save the day is a false god. I'm calling for more investments in what we need. Snotty has nothing to add and your comment is not in response to what I posited. You, Snotty, and the rest of your droogies should find a new country to despoil. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
In article ,
says... On 19/04/2011 8:48 AM, Harryk wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: In articleKvCdnQH7ePVQAzDQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Talk, talk, talk... you have no specifics, just what MSNBC/GE told you to say... You are a fat dumb creeper. You should have really finished High School. You know, it isn't necessary for you to demonstrate more than once a day what an empty-headed fool you are, little man. So, you are opposed to spending on infrastructure, R&D, new factories, health care improvements. No surprise. Yes, but your faith and worship of big fat government is going to save the day is a false god. His only argument is to make up something and suggest that the other person "thinks" that.. "So you think (insert any diversion here)... " is all they can say.. -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 19/04/2011 8:48 AM, Harryk wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: In articleKvCdnQH7ePVQAzDQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Talk, talk, talk... you have no specifics, just what MSNBC/GE told you to say... You are a fat dumb creeper. You should have really finished High School. You know, it isn't necessary for you to demonstrate more than once a day what an empty-headed fool you are, little man. So, you are opposed to spending on infrastructure, R&D, new factories, health care improvements. No surprise. Yes, but your faith and worship of big fat government is going to save the day is a false god. His only argument is to make up something and suggest that the other person "thinks" that.. "So you think (insert any diversion here)... " is all they can say.. Has someone accused you of "thinking"? |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On 19/04/2011 12:27 PM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 8:48 AM, Harryk wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: In articleKvCdnQH7ePVQAzDQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Talk, talk, talk... you have no specifics, just what MSNBC/GE told you to say... You are a fat dumb creeper. You should have really finished High School. You know, it isn't necessary for you to demonstrate more than once a day what an empty-headed fool you are, little man. So, you are opposed to spending on infrastructure, R&D, new factories, health care improvements. No surprise. Yes, but your faith and worship of big fat government is going to save the day is a false god. I'm calling for more investments in what we need. Snotty has nothing to add and your comment is not in response to what I posited. You, Snotty, and the rest of your droogies should find a new country to despoil. What you need is to restore faith in the investment community by stopping the ponzi fraud like currency counterfeiting going on. You can't just keep printing money like sand for a byzantine overspending government forever. Sooner or later, someone is going to say hey, government is printing new money dollars faster than Americans consume in toilet paper -- and USDs will become toilet paper. Then see who hurts. It will not be the "rich". Heck, many of them already have a good chunk of their wealth outside of the USA. It is why investment is rather dry, fewer jobs too. All DC has to promise right now is a huge massive debt problem, promise of higher taxation and a depreciating dollar value. Hardly attractive to new investments and jobs that come with them. Cities and states are seeing this now too. Tax greed for statism. Can cut up profits and cut up peoples pay check but can't cut that governmetn corruption and pork spend. Never invest in delinquent debtors for less than a 25% or 35% return to cover excessive risk. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On 19/04/2011 12:25 PM, Harryk wrote:
Free enterprise has ****ed this country and tens of millions of its workers over royally. And now you want more of the same? Gee, and I thought it was corruption in government and banking. If business was the problem, how come Obama does not put them in jail? Oh wait, they be Harvard buddies and the golden handshake crowd. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/04/2011 12:27 PM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 8:48 AM, Harryk wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: In articleKvCdnQH7ePVQAzDQnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... I_am_Tosk wrote: In article_vSdnSgaOKjxATDQnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... Canuck57 wrote: On 19/04/2011 5:50 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:30:42 -0400, John wrote: A good explanation. This was passed on to my wife by her doctor. At least it came from a disinterested third party! Or not........ If government control of health services is good for society then government control of all services is good for society. Hey, what ever happened to choice? For those that feel the need for government to manage their lives, say at 18 or 21 make an election. Herd animal or independent human being? In the absence of a national health plan in this country that covers everyone, health insurance should be mandatory. How that health insurance is provided is another question. Unfortunately, we have a private insurance system whose goal is not to provide good coverage at good rates, but to maximize profits, and, as necessary, the patient be damned. Perhaps, someday, we shall outgrow that sort of nonsense. The citizens of most modern countries don't face bankruptcy when a medical crisis arises. Too many Americans do. Since World War II, we've wasted trillions of dollars on maintenance and expansion of our military. If we had saved half that amount and spent it on infrastructure, on investments in our futures, on health care for all our people, we'd be a far stronger country than we are now. You are such a dumb ****... "Infrastructure, investment in our future"? Sure, we have heard all that before, no solutions, just talking points... dumb ****... More investments in infrastructure, on investments in our future (you know, science, technology, factories that produce goods people need, health care), et cetera, leads to a better country for all with more opportunities. I'm not surprised you don't understand that. Talk, talk, talk... you have no specifics, just what MSNBC/GE told you to say... You are a fat dumb creeper. You should have really finished High School. You know, it isn't necessary for you to demonstrate more than once a day what an empty-headed fool you are, little man. So, you are opposed to spending on infrastructure, R&D, new factories, health care improvements. No surprise. Yes, but your faith and worship of big fat government is going to save the day is a false god. I'm calling for more investments in what we need. Snotty has nothing to add and your comment is not in response to what I posited. You, Snotty, and the rest of your droogies should find a new country to despoil. What you need is to restore faith in the investment community by stopping the ponzi fraud like currency counterfeiting going on. You can't just keep printing money like sand for a byzantine overspending government forever. The best way to restore trust and faith in "the investment community" is to indict half of the higher-ups who work the market and investment banking, convict them, and send them to federal prisons. It is ironic that a small potatoes local union official who puts his mitts in the till is usually caught. Then the bonding company makes good the losses and pushes and usually gets criminal prosecution in almost all circumstances. Contrast that with the "Wall Street" criminals. |
The Inherent Problems with Government Controlled Healthcare
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:36:03 -0400, Gene wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:52:58 -0400, John H wrote: For this group it's totally appropriate. Actually, I think you've got me, there..... LOL!! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com