Jump to content

In My Country, We Systematically Kill Old People Because We Hate Them.


Recommended Posts

The Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto is one of the best children's hospitals in the World and is also a top research facility. Patients come from all over the World for treatment including the US.There is a famous charity here in Toronto that is called the Herbie Fund which was named after Herbie Quinones, a little seven-month-old baby from Brooklyn N.Y. He was born with a rare birth defect that made it difficult for him to breathe while eating. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto had developed an innovative procedure that could heal him, but Herbie's family could not afford the flight or surgery. The people of Toronto set up a fund to pay for his care and the fund since then has helped children from 87 countries come to Toronto for care that either isn't available where they are or they couldn't afford including many other American children.Americans really shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that they are the only country with World Class Doctors, facilites or Medical Research. Just because the government is involved in something doesn't mean that it will be bad.
But it's likelyhood goes up exponentially
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Noting the U.S. spends more per person than any country in the world but underperforms many other nations in results, Obama said
I'm always surprised that people would use "spending per person" as an indicator of a failed system.The US spends more on video games per capita than Somalia. Does Somalia have a better video game industry?The US spends more per capita on iPhones than any other country. Do we have a failed iPhone industry?The simple fact is that if people voluntarily spend more on something, that's a pretty good indication that the product is more desirable than a product that people spend less on.It is also affected by the overall wealth of the country, and the US has lots of discretionary income, so it's natural that much of it goes to health care.As for worse results, there are no meaningful studies that show such a thing. After adjusted for all relevant factors, such as genetic diversity, well-being at initial treatment, lifestyle, etc, the US finishes at the top, or at least no worse than other countries. The fact is there is no easy comparison across countries. Minnesota has better health results than almost any country in the world, including France, Canada, England, Germany, and Japan. Why? Because we have a small, homogenous, healthy population, and people who get sick move to Florida or Arizona to die. (Also, we have the Mayo clinic, which moves the curve just a bit). So does MN have better healthcare than Europe? Why isn't Obama pushing to imitate "the Minnesota model" instead of the socialist model?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Americans really shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that they are the only country with World Class Doctors, facilites or Medical Research. Just because the government is involved in something doesn't mean that it will be bad.
Come on bob, you know I don't think that. I was citing an example very specific and very real to me. If my family member had had to sit on any kind of waiting list for treatment, he would be dead. I know Canada has some great doctors and great programs, but that doesn't change the very real fact that there are huge wait lists for certain kinds of specialized care there that do not exist here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know that the US has the absolute best healthcare in the entire world, and is at the forefront of all things medical including the CDC which moniters the health of the entire word?
hahahahahaha you made my day!at least, i hope you write in jest.
Link to post
Share on other sites
hahahahahaha you made my day!at least, i hope you write in jest.
You signed up for an account to say that?Of course BG writes in jest, it's what he does. But his post was still true. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on bob, you know I don't think that. I was citing an example very specific and very real to me. If my family member had had to sit on any kind of waiting list for treatment, he would be dead. I know Canada has some great doctors and great programs, but that doesn't change the very real fact that there are huge wait lists for certain kinds of specialized care there that do not exist here.
I know that you're more thoughtful than most of the opponents of gov't involvement in healthcare but your post did project that so called Socialized medicine and World Class healthcare are mutually exclusive. At least that's how I read it.The reality and something that almost nobody seems to acknowledge is that every society has to ration healthcare. It's just done in different ways in different places. No society can afford to pay for everything for everybody.One of the biggest advantages a single payer system like we have in Canada over the US system is that the bureaucracy involved is far less in Canada which of course many won't acknowledge for ideological reasons. The administrative costs and bureaucracy in the US are far higher than they are here due to the nature of your insurance system plus the fact that your medical malpractice system is out of control.Also the fact that so many people's healthcare is directly tied to their employment has a huge market distorting effect for many people.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that you're more thoughtful than most of the opponents of gov't involvement in healthcare but your post did project that so called Socialized medicine and World Class healthcare are mutually exclusive. At least that's how I read it.The reality and something that almost nobody seems to acknowledge is that every society has to ration healthcare. It's just done in different ways in different places. No society can afford to pay for everything for everybody.
So would you be okay if it was George W. Bush being the person deciding what is rationed? Who gets healthcare? How about Clinton? Nixon? The reality is that any system we shove into place will be run by people someone is diametrically opposed too. If they don't like the idea of that happening, then we need to reconsider the idea of turning over our healthcare to any government, even one we may like and trust today. Tomorrows government might use their new power for other than alturistic reasons.
One of the biggest advantages a single payer system like we have in Canada over the US system is that the bureaucracy involved is far less in Canada which of course many won't acknowledge for ideological reasons. The administrative costs and bureaucracy in the US are far higher than they are here due to the nature of your insurance system plus the fact that your medical malpractice system is out of control.
Screwing over the lawyers is the only redeeming factor in any healthcare plan. However we have already set a precedence with the tobacco lawsuits. The reason the government was able to sue the tobacco industry was because they claimed they had to pay for the healthcare for the elderly people harmed by tobacco. Along comes a bunch of lawyers, claiming a 40% piece of the pie, any whammy, you've got dozens of multi billion dollar lawsuits. Even if the government has no intention of beginning a decade of lawsuits against every industry from jet skies to big macs, the fact is there are law firms trying to get their briefs in order so that they can be the first ones in line for the lawsuit-fest that will result once the US pays for the healthcare of all its citizens.
Also the fact that so many people's healthcare is directly tied to their employment has a huge market distorting effect for many people.
I've been wondering about what will be happening to all these huge chunks of cash laying in large corporations and unions health plans. Once the government pays for all the healthcare, does IBM get to cash in those billions they have set aside for employee healthcare plans? What about the multi billion dollar union plans? I don't see Obama taking that money from them, not after recieving $200 million from them for his presidential campaign.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that you're more thoughtful than most of the opponents of gov't involvement in healthcare but your post did project that so called Socialized medicine and World Class healthcare are mutually exclusive. At least that's how I read it.
I apologize, that's not how I meant it. I was merely trying to say that calling the US bad at actual healthcare is pretty silly. As you've noted below, there are lots of processes surrounding the actual care that need improvement.
One of the biggest advantages a single payer system like we have in Canada over the US system is that the bureaucracy involved is far less in Canada which of course many won't acknowledge for ideological reasons. The administrative costs and bureaucracy in the US are far higher than they are here due to the nature of your insurance system plus the fact that your medical malpractice system is out of control.Also the fact that so many people's healthcare is directly tied to their employment has a huge market distorting effect for many people.
The inequal taxation benefits of employer provided insurance vs. privately purchased insurance and the malpractice system are the two biggest places we need actual reform imo. These are the major failures of the system here in the US, I absolutely agree with you. If i'm adding a third to the list, I want to go with encouraging the decentralization of care out of hospitals to cut costs of treating things you really shouldn't ever go to a hospital for in the first place. That one takes a lot longer; the other two could theoretically be well on their way to fixed within a year if we could get the right people to acknowledge them as the problem.The unbelievable inefficiency and bureaucracy in our country is the reason I'm small government in so many areas. I don't want people in charge of things at an organization where it's almost impossible to get fired for sucking at your job.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know that the US has the absolute best healthcare in the entire world, and is at the forefront of all things medical including the CDC which moniters the health of the entire word?
hahahahahaha you made my day!at least, i hope you write in jest.
Of course I was kidding.There is no way the CDC does much of anything except take US tax dollars and then pretend they can tell China what they are going to do about Sars etc.And we are not the forefront of all things medical. If you want a sex change you should go to a socialist country to get the most advanced treatments. Addadictamies are a tricky procedure
Link to post
Share on other sites
The reality and something that almost nobody seems to acknowledge is that every society has to ration healthcare. It's just done in different ways in different places. No society can afford to pay for everything for everybody.
This is my nitpick thread of the day, so bear with me....I object to the use of the word "ration" here in the sense that you are using it. Rationing has a very specific connotation -- that of an authority using its power to limit access to something desired by those out of power. In that traditional sense of the word, the only rationing of health care in the US is at the VA hospitals and for those on Medicare.You wouldn't say we ration food here (or in Canada) just because not everyone can buy as much as they want of whatever they want. Medicine, on the other hand, IS rationed in Canada, in the traditional sense of the word. The word is only used in the sense you are using it here when applied to the health care debate, as a ploy to make a point. Changing the meaning of words isn't debate, though, it's deception./nitpick
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is my nitpick thread of the day, so bear with me....I object to the use of the word "ration" here in the sense that you are using it. Rationing has a very specific connotation -- that of an authority using its power to limit access to something desired by those out of power. In that traditional sense of the word, the only rationing of health care in the US is at the VA hospitals and for those on Medicare.You wouldn't say we ration food here (or in Canada) just because not everyone can buy as much as they want of whatever they want. Medicine, on the other hand, IS rationed in Canada, in the traditional sense of the word. The word is only used in the sense you are using it here when applied to the health care debate, as a ploy to make a point. Changing the meaning of words isn't debate, though, it's deception./nitpick
Exactly!The other day I went on a similar rant over the assumption that our health care is "rationed"
Your Health Care isn't "rationed" now. There are limits based on the plan to which you CHOOSE to belong. Very different concept. If you CHOOSE to change your coverage or, horrors of horrors, pay for your procedures or additional coverage, you can CHOOSE to do so at any time. You have made personal CHOICES that have led you to your current coverage (or lack thereof). This "plan" takes away personal CHOICE and Responsibility.
If you go to the Market and want to buy Steak, but can't afford it - it isn't being "rationed". Rationing would be the Government telling you how much steak you were allowed to purchase. What Obama is trying to do is analogous to saying that everyone can go to the Market and be fed - even people who were never in that Market in the past. Now that we have crammed everyone into the Market what do you think will be available to everyone? Certainly NOT Steak. The focus would be on feeding EVERYONE, so only the most healthy and affordable staples will be made available. This is the fate of health care in this country. Everyone is going to be crammed into an already very full Health Care Market. And choices will be made for us as to what will be available to us. No "Steak" procedures.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto is one of the best children's hospitals in the World and is also a top research facility. Patients come from all over the World for treatment including the US.There is a famous charity here in Toronto that is called the Herbie Fund which was named after Herbie Quinones, a little seven-month-old baby from Brooklyn N.Y. He was born with a rare birth defect that made it difficult for him to breathe while eating. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto had developed an innovative procedure that could heal him, but Herbie's family could not afford the flight or surgery. The people of Toronto set up a fund to pay for his care and the fund since then has helped children from 87 countries come to Toronto for care that either isn't available where they are or they couldn't afford including many other American children.Americans really shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that they are the only country with World Class Doctors, facilites or Medical Research. Just because the government is involved in something doesn't mean that it will be bad.
Children almost always get first rate treatment in any system. The questio tho is how good a treatment the elderly get.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone missed the joke in my OP, Stephen Hawking is actually a British citizen and has lived here his whole life. It's pretty amazing that he's still alive right now considering he never had a chance to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just in case anyone missed the joke in my OP, Stephen Hawking is actually a British citizen and has lived here his whole life. It's pretty amazing that he's still alive right now considering he never had a chance to begin with.
wow, he doesn't even have an accent!
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this proposal - 'We' want everyone to have health coverage, 'you' don't want to ration healthcare or get government involved.How about - 1. The government provides no public option2. All insurance plans are provided by private insurers3. HOWEVER, because we think it's correct that everyone should have health coverage, insurers are not allowed to reject people with pre-existing conditions etc. The cost of these people will just have to be borne with higher premiums for all4. For those who cannot afford it, the government shall provide subsidies for basic healthcare insurance5. Everyone has to have some form of health insurance. This will mitigate the effect of insurance companies having to provide for pre-existing condition people by making those least at risk share the cost. 6. Insurance will not be employer based. Healthcare costs are unfair on small and large businesses alike and people go through many many jobs in a career. 7. Cross-state competition among insurance providers will be allowed8. However, companies will be subject to a strict competition policy

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow, he doesn't even have an accent!
As an aside, he could actually have got his voice simulator accent changed years ago, he just decided not to as it has become so iconic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this proposal - 'We' want everyone to have health coverage, 'you' don't want to ration healthcare or get government involved.How about - 1. The government provides no public option2. All insurance plans are provided by private insurers3. HOWEVER, because we think it's correct that everyone should have health coverage, insurers are not allowed to reject people with pre-existing conditions etc. The cost of these people will just have to be borne with higher premiums for all4. For those who cannot afford it, the government shall provide subsidies for basic healthcare insurance5. Everyone has to have some form of health insurance. This will mitigate the effect of insurance companies having to provide for pre-existing condition people by making those least at risk share the cost. 6. Insurance will not be employer based. Healthcare costs are unfair on small and large businesses alike and people go through many many jobs in a career. 7. Cross-state competition among insurance providers will be allowed8. However, companies will be subject to a strict competition policy
I don't agree with the basic premise in item #3
Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this proposal - 'We' want everyone to have health coverage, 'you' don't want to ration healthcare or get government involved.How about - 1. The government provides no public option2. All insurance plans are provided by private insurers3. HOWEVER, because we think it's correct that everyone should have health coverage, insurers are not allowed to reject people with pre-existing conditions etc. The cost of these people will just have to be borne with higher premiums for all4. For those who cannot afford it, the government shall provide subsidies for basic healthcare insurance5. Everyone has to have some form of health insurance. This will mitigate the effect of insurance companies having to provide for pre-existing condition people by making those least at risk share the cost. 6. Insurance will not be employer based. Healthcare costs are unfair on small and large businesses alike and people go through many many jobs in a career. 7. Cross-state competition among insurance providers will be allowed8. However, companies will be subject to a strict competition policy
1. Excellent2. Excellent.... wait, isn't that the same as 1?3. This is really a tough issue that needs it's own thread, or better yet, a meeting with all interested parties. Overall, I'd say no, for obvious reasons. You want pregnancy insurance? But can wait until the 8th month? How much would THAT cost?4. OK, but especially if by "government" you mean "local or state governments"5. No. If it doesn't make sense for you to purchase insurance, you should have to. One of the reasons insurance is expensive because people are being made to purchase it, even if it doesn't make sense.6. This would be a HUGE change, and by far the biggest impact single change we could make.7. And this would also be near the top of "good changes".8. Not sure what this means.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this proposal - 'We' want everyone to have health coverage, 'you' don't want to ration healthcare or get government involved.How about - 1. The government provides no public option2. All insurance plans are provided by private insurers3. HOWEVER, because we think it's correct that everyone should have health coverage, Ainsurers are not allowed to reject people with pre-existing conditions etc. The cost of these people will just have to be borne with higher premiums for all B4. For those who cannot afford it, the government shall provide subsidies for basic healthcare insurance5. Everyone has to have some form of health insurance. CThis will mitigate the effect of insurance companies having to provide for pre-existing condition people by making those least at risk share the cost. 6. Insurance will not be employer based. Healthcare costs are unfair on small and large businesses alike and people go through many many jobs in a career. D7. Cross-state competition among insurance providers will be allowed8. However, companies will be subject to a strict competition policy E
A. It would be ideal that everyone had coverage. It would also be ideal if everyone had a home, food and a steady job, etc. These are not rights guaranteed anywhere, nor is it the government's mandate to provide them. Despite this invalidating the rest of the plan, I'll go on.B. This is already happening indirectly. Costs for emergency and other hospital services are inflated to cover the cost of providing those services to illegal immigrants and people who cannot pay. These costs are passed on to both the consumer and the insurance company. The problem is the actual costs, not that healthy people or people with insurance aren't paying enough to cover those who don't fall into those categories. I think you should pay higher insurance premiums for being obese or a smoker for one. It would certainly reward people who make healthier choices with their lives and encourage people to take responsibility for their health.C. Wow. No. D. In my opinion, there is no implicit problem with insurance as part of the benefits of a job if you have ultimate choice in what you are getting. The problem is that companies receive a tax incentive for paying for it that those who seek it independent of an employer to not. This is a very very complex issue though.E. I cannot even comprehend what this would mean or look like. In an open market system like the one you mention before, the market regulates competition.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5. No. If it doesn't make sense for you to purchase insurance, you should have to. One of the reasons insurance is expensive because people are being made to purchase it, even if it doesn't make sense.
Wouldn't it make insurance cheaper if healthy people were purchasing it but not using it? They have more money but not the same increase in services.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I bolded where you answered your own question.I hope that if, God forbid, I ever get cancer, socialized medicine hasn't screwed with MD Anderson cancer center here in texas. I've been there during a family member's treatments and very literally they have the best doctors and treatments in the world, and patients were there from all over the world getting treated. Yes, even from Germany.
MD Anderson is as flawed as all medical facilities in the world. In the mid 1980's, they literally cut a man's arm off with a proton beam and killed him. I know because I was at UCLA performing final acceptance tests of an almost identical system. (Google TCC, The Cyclotron Corporation)The facts have been buried, and it happened before the day of the internet.My boss at the time, the "principal investigator", called me into his office to tell me what had happened. His final statement to me was actually a question:"This won't happen here will it?"My answer was:"Absolutely Not."The cause of the problem that killed the unfortunate man was a combination of a software "bug" and inadequate training of the techs. I spent the next 3 months going over more than 225,000 lines of code. In Assembler and C. On a Digital PDP-11 computer with a dot matrix printer. For you youngsters out there, at the time a PDP-11 was an 8 bit machine with 64K of RAM, and that was before you loaded the operating system. I ran that cyclotron and the treatment vaults through every possible situation. We were good. The patient's lives were at no risk from my machine.I was a tour guide for the "Grand Rounds" debut of the UCLA Neutron Therapy Facility. The University sent out invitations to all of the radiation oncologists in the LA area. I watched the doctors drive up in their Mercedes and Porsches. They came in with their suits and their trophy wives. They drank our wine, ate our cheese and listened to what we could do for cancer patients.When it was all said and done...... they blew us off. We were funded by the government. They couldn't make any money off of us. The "DOCTORS" put profits before patients.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with the basic premise in item #3
Where in lies the art of compromise. 'My' side will allow 'your' side to have something you want in the bill, but we think that this is a pretty fair compromise to make.
1. Excellent2. Excellent.... wait, isn't that the same as 1?3. This is really a tough issue that needs it's own thread, or better yet, a meeting with all interested parties. Overall, I'd say no, for obvious reasons. You want pregnancy insurance? But can wait until the 8th month? How much would THAT cost?4. OK, but especially if by "government" you mean "local or state governments"5. No. If it doesn't make sense for you to purchase insurance, you should have to. One of the reasons insurance is expensive because people are being made to purchase it, even if it doesn't make sense.6. This would be a HUGE change, and by far the biggest impact single change we could make.7. And this would also be near the top of "good changes".8. Not sure what this means.
2. Haha, yes it is, i'm not entirely sure why I wrote that3. I would say that there are going to be a lot of complicated issues that would come about if this was agreed to, issues that should be dealt with at a later date and not detract from the main issue, though I agree that they're important. As I see it, 3 is a crucial part of the bill. One of the problems with the health insurance market is that of adverse selection; insurance companies do not wish to provide(or at too high a price) for those who need health coverage the most. Our side wishes that all people should at least have access to health coverage, and without government providing it (which is something you want) the only way to do this would be to disallow insurance providers from barring those who need it most. 4. Whatever works best. I have no idealogical bias towards either, and I don't really know which would provide the most efficient service, so which ever would work best, i'd agree with that.5. Like Guapo said, the idea behind this is that if we are to insist on non-barring health insurance to anyone, then we should also insist that those with no pre-existing conditions should obtain health insurance as well. I think this is a point we can all agree on as A) It benefits insurance companies as they are taking money from people with no serious health problems that wouldn't otherwise purchase health insurance, B ) It benefits my side as we believe we should aim for 100% coverage. I agree that the argument 'It's their choice' has some merit, and even that a lot of wealthy people have no need for health insurance (as Phil Galfond point out, it's -EV and he can handle the variance), but it's well documented that people mis-estimate their risk and don't plan well for the future. I know you won't like this as you don't want government telling people what to do, which is fair enough, but I really think it's warranted in this case. Also, as I understand it, People who are sick are by law required to be treated (to some degree) by hospitals, and that these people are a pretty big cost to the health business. Mandating health insurance would solve that problem.6. I'm taking it you agree with me? Yes this would be a huge huge change, but I can't help but think it's be one for the better.7. I'm assuming there's some reason why cross-state competition is illegal right now but i've never got what it is. Your side seems to want this a lot and it seems to make sense to me, providing 8 is included.8. Basically some sort of system to ensure that there is competition among insurance and health providing companies. Making sure monopolies or price fixing cartels don't develop. I'm guessing this is already in place for the health industry (as it is for most other industries) but just to make sure.
A. It would be ideal that everyone had coverage. It would also be ideal if everyone had a home, food and a steady job, etc. These are not rights guaranteed anywhere, nor is it the government's mandate to provide them. Despite this invalidating the rest of the plan, I'll go on.B. This is already happening indirectly. Costs for emergency and other hospital services are inflated to cover the cost of providing those services to illegal immigrants and people who cannot pay. These costs are passed on to both the consumer and the insurance company. The problem is the actual costs, not that healthy people or people with insurance aren't paying enough to cover those who don't fall into those categories. I think you should pay higher insurance premiums for being obese or a smoker for one. It would certainly reward people who make healthier choices with their lives and encourage people to take responsibility for their health.C. Wow. No. D. In my opinion, there is no implicit problem with insurance as part of the benefits of a job if you have ultimate choice in what you are getting. The problem is that companies receive a tax incentive for paying for it that those who seek it independent of an employer to not. This is a very very complex issue though.E. I cannot even comprehend what this would mean or look like. In an open market system like the one you mention before, the market regulates competition.
A. Like I say, i'm not saying that health care is a right or that it is written down in the constitution, i'm saying that our side believes it should be.B. I actually agree with some form of higher premiums for smoker or obese people. I'm not sure how such a system would work or what the specifics would be, but I think I agree in principle. C. If these people who cannot pay were mandated to purchase health insurance, and the government would provide subsidies for those that cannot, then there would be no non-insured people being treated in hospitals. Illegal immigrants is a different issue I guess, one that I don't really know what to do.D. I agree it's very complex. As stated, my two main concerns are that it is a cost for businesses and that the average American has over 12 different jobs in his working career. A system not based on employer based insurance would be simpler and better for businesses imo.E. No it doesn't at all. Market agents create competition, but they also have a high tendency to create monopolies which damages competition and is a failure of the free market. Competition policy is a contentious field but pretending that a free market in health care could regulate itself and does not have the possibility of creating a monopoly power is just silly.
Wouldn't it make insurance cheaper if healthy people were purchasing it but not using it? They have more money but not the same increase in services.
Obviously I don't know the numbers of what the overall effect would be, but that's my idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't it make insurance cheaper if healthy people were purchasing it but not using it? They have more money but not the same increase in services.
I was thinking more about the cases where people are wealthy enough that insurance doesn't make sense, and the must-carry laws that require insurance companies to cover routine things, such as physicals. In those cases, insurance is a bad idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3. I would say that there are going to be a lot of complicated issues that would come about if this was agreed to, issues that should be dealt with at a later date and not detract from the main issue, though I agree that they're important. As I see it, 3 is a crucial part of the bill. One of the problems with the health insurance market is that of adverse selection; insurance companies do not wish to provide(or at too high a price) for those who need health coverage the most. Our side wishes that all people should at least have access to health coverage, and without government providing it (which is something you want) the only way to do this would be to disallow insurance providers from barring those who need it most.
I think the pre-existing condition issue is the main, really complex issue. I could probably live with some sort of grandfathering thing, where if you have a pre-existing condition prior to the passage of this imaginary bill, then you are in a special class of insurance, possibly subsidized. But after the day the bill takes effect, you are responsible for getting insurance and keeping it. As part of this, we could make it clear the type of insurance you are buying. There could be different classes, some of which the customer may renew indefinitely regardless of changes in health, and others where you have to get a physical each year to see if you qualify to keep it. If you choose the latter and get sick, tough cookies, that's why we gave the choice. You should've been investing that money you saved on premiums through the years.Mostly this can be solved through providing information and choice and letting people live with their results. The people who are sick already and can't get affordable insurance.... we'll have to deal with that, but it's reasonable to expect people to care for themselves when given full information and full choices.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The unbelievable inefficiency and bureaucracy in our country is the reason I'm small government in so many areas. I don't want people in charge of things at an organization where it's almost impossible to get fired for sucking at your job.
This right here should be the focus of all information regarding nationalized health care in the US.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...