BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 08:04 PM

"And according to www.politifact.com, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, most of the claims made in the e-mail are false."

FYI

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 09:04 PM

Re:    bodad's fascinating post above. . . .

Rush Limbaugh. What a pathetic, ignorant dork!

Has the man never seen a caduceus before? It's the symbol of the medical profession. It's also the symbol of the United States Army Medical Corps.

I don't see any German swastikas there. What the hell is HE seeing!???

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 09:22 PM

Limbaugh just wants Obama to fail and he doesn't give a crap how may people would die as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 09:23 PM

he's a druggie, Don- christ only knows what he's seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 05:57 PM

Doug, the outbursts that you cite are organized by insurance companies and ancillary
political supporters. They are not really grass roots by any means. This is a Republican
tactic that was taken from the protests during Vietnam although the proponents of
the Vietnam war were not shouted down so that they couldn't be heard. They were promptly arrested as these current protesters should be.

This is no longer a free country. Free speech is being stifled by a handful of bullying
tactics by Republican operatives. There is no debate on health care but partisan
jockeying through yelling and it can lead to violence.

This is not the America that I believe in. This is the absence of free speech (more like
crying fire in a crowded theater).

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Half of No Worries
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 06:19 PM

The NHS is not perfect but I have spent my life knowing that we care for our sick no matter if they are rich or poor, UK citizens or visitors.
I would be more than willing for my taxes to be raised to see even more improvements in the NHS service to those in need.
If an ambulance arrives for me I NEVER have to consider the cost. I can visit my doctor without fear of the expense which must be good for preventative care. If made redundant I would never need to consider how I could continue a health care plan.
My son recently had several operations, the last costing the NHS £26,000 for the materials alone. It enabled him to walk again and resume working and paying his taxes. The nursing staff and doctors discussed the medical conditions and not our ability to pay. The sick and their families do not have the stress that must come from inadequate or no health cover.
If we had had private health cover, my son may have had a room to himself but instead he shared with 5 others who spurred each other on to recovery. One of the group had chosen to switch back to NHS to make good the damage done to his leg in private treatment. He was more than happy with his conditions and care.
When visiting Australia we took out private health cover but when an arm was broken we had excellent free treatment thanks to Medicare as we were advised that waiting for a private consultant would have caused a delay.

As I see it Health cover for all is a matter of humanity for our fellow human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 06:33 PM

Does anyone think that we're not already paying an egregious amount for healthcare? Makes no difference to me whether it's in taxes or fees, it's still a helluva lot of cash. And, if the insurance/medical/pharmicalogical monopolies aren't challenged, it's going to be a helluva lot worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 07:28 PM

These people who are disrupting these town hall meetings are the same folks who flocked to Sarah Plain rallies... There are rednecks... They are birthers... They are racists... And equally bad, they don't know anything about what has been proposed...

Tell ya' what... Put some cops in those town hall meetings and announce that "this is a public event and civility will be maintained and those who do not wish to ac5t civilly will be removed" and then do it... Right now, alot of folks don't wnat to attend these meeting because they see on TV that the meetings aren't real but a venue for rednecks to show their asses... And show their asses they are doing...

Yeah, arrest a couple hundred and the rest will get it!!!

Heck, if leftists acted like that they would be arresyed... Ask me how I know... Been there, done that... Hey, the right doesn't understand that if you are going to do civil disobedience then yer gonna get arrested... I knew this in the 60s and I got arrested... Why is it that the right is allowed to conduct civil disobedience and get away with it???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 07:36 PM

Countries pay more for sickness than they do for health. Conntries will do better when their people are healthy. THAT ain't rocket surgery.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 11:21 PM

Hopefully the Republican scare tactics won't succeed this time around.

Doug, you said in your initial post you were satisfied with Medicare. Why would you have reservations about Medicare, a government run program, being extended to the entire population? I do wish Congress had the courage to do that.

Screw the insurance companies who have been ripping off the public for decades.

And while we're at at it, screw the HMO's who dictate what we can get reimbursed for under our private insurance plans.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 07:52 AM

"But perhaps the most surprising thing about the whole debate is that the appetite for health reform remains extremely popular with most Americans, even as Obama's poll numbers sink and the fight with Republicans and the healthcare industry grows uglier and uglier. One recent poll showed that 62% of Americans favoured a public option and 61% supported higher taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for it."

From today's Observer. Obama fights back as bid to reform US healthcare stalls

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 10:21 AM

The depths to which those who oppose health care reform will sink seems to have no limits. They have turned a provision which provides funding for end of life counseling (explaining the options in terms of life sustaining measures, hospice care, etc.) into "pressuring senior citizens to end their lives" so they won't take up public resources. More info HERE . Sarah Palin fuels the fire by accusing Obama of wanting to set up a "Death Panel". Here's a link to the Huffington Post which includes some commentary.

The sad, sad part about it is that many of the people who believe this nonsense are the ones who would benefit from universal health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 06:38 PM

There IS not, and there has never been, a limit on how low the greedy and selfish Well-to-Do will sink in the process of protecting their money and status.

If all the "losers" get equal healthcare for free, how will the successful distance themselves from the human "dross" they consider to be so far beneath them?

The inevitable result of a culture which judges a human being by the number of zeros on his paycheck.

It's way past time that those "losers" got up on their hind legs and demanded some of that American Dream currently enjoyed by the Fat Cats who live off the losers' toil.


Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 08:45 PM

"We have been nought, but shall be all."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 10:05 PM

Apologies to those of you who have addressed or made comments regarding my position, I have been traveling the past two days and haven't been able to reply.

Will do so tomorrow.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 06:29 AM

The crucial thing isn't the extent to which things are "nationalized", but whether the arrangements are such that people are not denied treatment they need because they haven't the money, and nor are they unable to obtain insurance coverage because of "previous condition" or other reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 07:55 AM

Very interesting reading in yesterday's Washington Post ("The Gang of D.C." by Alec Macgillis)...

Seems that these "blue dog democrats" who are standing in the way of the Dems passing a "public option" come from very sparsely populated states: Montana, Wyoming, North Dekota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa... These states represent only 3% of the total population of the United States, however, these Senators trump half the country's population's Senatorial clout... In other words, 3% = 50%???

(Huh, Boberdz???)

Yeah, that's right... The Founding Fathers really messed this up!!! They thought that Senate would be the *fine tuner* of legislation but the Senate has evolved into the place where the people's will goes to be crushed...

(But why would the "Gang of 6" be interested in crushing health reform???)

First of all, self preseravtion... You know, money... But not just the money that the health insurance companies and drug companies lavish upon these folks but the fact that these states, being less populated, don't have the problems that the more populated states have, such as higher unemployement and more poverty and/or borderline poverty...

So the problem isn't really Repub mischief... Oh sure, the Repub mischief makes it all that harder to get the "Gang of 6" to play nice with their fellow Dems... And face it, in small states Senators tend to have no trouble getting re-elected unless they are caught in a motel room doing what the preacher said not to do so these Senators are the ones with lots of seniority and clout so they become comittee chairmen (which they are) which gives them that much more clout...

Summation: Don't look for the "public option"... The "Gang of 6" will find a way to kill it...

Summation #2: Look for this idea of a "co-op" in which everyone will be be forced to buy insurance from a pool of private health insurers, kinda like "assigned risk" auto policies which are sold to auto owners in some states...

Summation #3: The "Gang of 6", the Rebubs and the insurance lobbiest have won again and when we re-visit this problem of why we pay 17% of our GNP for health care and don't rank in the top 20 in life expectancy or infant mortality in about 15 years, this round will be looked at much the way Clinton's attempts are looked at today...

Summation #4: Yeah, Obama will calim that the problem has been fixed to the best it can be considering the political will of Congress but, in the long run, it won't be fixed until our economy is absolutely on the rocks and on life support...

And the beat goes on...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 09:32 AM

Actually, Bobert, the states of Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota have very conservative voters, and those Democrats who get elected to the senate are pressured by the voters back home who listen to the Fox News propaganda.

Montana voters in the western part of the state tend to be more liberal, but Democrat Max Baucus, for instance, has a lot of medical lobby money fueling his re-election campaigns.

Many people here have a great mistrust of government (remember the Freeman movement?), are often motivated by anti-abortion rhetoric, but are not particularly well off financially. They are the very ones who need health care/insurance reform. This part of the country is fertile ground for the Sarah Palin mentality. Montana's median income ranks down at the bottom of the list with the southern states at number 42. North Dakota is at 38. (US census)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 12:30 PM

And Sarah Palin has recognized that it's evil!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM

A link to the web site with video explanations the White House put online today:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/?e=10&ref=text

"HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM REALITY CHECK"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 06:03 PM

Don't confuse the idiots with FACTS, Alice.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 08:49 PM

Yeah, Alice, you have it "right" (pun intended)... Small states tend to have less eductated people who are more vulnerable to emotionalism at the expense of the truth... Ripe for a Sarah Plain to come in and say that the government will decide on when you should die but then say that we should be having a "civil disucussion"... Hmmmmmmmm??? How can one have a civil discussion with anyone who thinks that health care reform means that the governemnt is going to kill you???

The answer???

You can't... There is no arguning with a sick minded person and from what I've seen and read, there are one heck of alot of very sick minded people out there...

But let something happen to them and guess where they will run to??? Yeah, the government...

Man, I oughtta turn into a rightie... Doesn't involve any actualy, ahhhh, thinking.... Then I could free up my mind fir more imporatnt stuff like "Survivor" or "American Idol".....

Ignorance ***is*** bliss...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 08:52 PM

Thanks for that link, Alice.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 09:05 PM

NPR piece from today refuting the propaganda issuing from the right whingers re. Canada's health care system: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111721651

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 09:50 PM

Hey, Don, fine post above. Does this mean you will no longer be voting conservative?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:30 AM

"Small states tend to have less educated people who are more vulnerable to emotionalism at the expense of the truth."

I can think of many highly educated people who have a very dodgy relationship with "truth".

Not trusting the government is generally a very reasonable position. On the other hand trusting private financial institutions such as insurance companies and banks is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 08:32 AM

Educated?

FEWER!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 09:26 AM

I read it as meaning that people were less educated, rather than that there weren't so many who were educated at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:38 PM

Less educated per capita... And those that do go to colleges from these states tend to seek out conservative colleges...

Point is that 3% of the population is holding as much Senatorial control as 50%... That is why the Gang of Six will blow up this decades shot at health reform...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rowan
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM

Doug, the outbursts that you cite are organized by insurance companies and ancillary
political supporters. They are not really grass roots by any means. This is a Republican
tactic

Supporting Stringsinger's contention that the protesters are not representatives of "grass roots" opinion, I heard a US commentator, interviewed on Oz Radio National this morning, describe those protesters emphatically as "Astroturf".

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM

""Hey, Don, fine post above. Does this mean you will no longer be voting conservative?""

NO! Why would it?

Here, I'm talking about a matter of monetary class distinction.

Quite separate from my views about how a country should be run. I would happily discuss those views with you in another place and time.

Unfortunately, when discussing politics with you, I have discovered that once the word conservative is said, the only voice that can be heard for five miles in any direction is YOURS.


LOL
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:59 PM

Oh good!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 08:05 PM

Easily fixed.

Small states tend to have less-educated people who are more vulnerable to emotionalism at the expense of the truth.

No offence implied, intended or even thought about.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 10:31 PM

On CSPAN I'm watching the President answering questions at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire town hall today regarding health insurance reform.
Here is a link to the web site where you can see it:

http://www.c-span.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:11 AM

This was reported on the BBC this morning on the Today programme. a woman was very strongly explaining that she did not want her country turning into Russia, or a socialised country.

I suspect a lot of people over there don't know about their fellows who fall through the net.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:26 AM

The item is on this page, at 7.12 - I couldn't get into it myself.

Today Obama item

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Gervase
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 08:08 AM

The right-wing scaremongering has been picked up in the Guardian over here in the UK. It does look pretty alarmist - amazing how vitriolic people can get when ideologies are challenged. The piece is here.
The concluding paragraphs are worth quoting here, though:
the UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place. The British Medical Association said a majority of Britain's doctors have consistently supported public provision of healthcare. A spokeswoman said the association's 140,000 members were sceptical about the US approach to medicine: "Doctors and the public here are appalled that there are so many people on the US who don't have proper access to healthcare. It's something we would find very, very shocking."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 08:17 AM

Well, looks as if the Dems had a better day with the town hall meetings... The strategy is to just hang in there and not allow themselves to be intimidated... Plus, what we are seeing on TV does not represent to polling... Couple more days and we may see the righties on the run... I donno???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 12:44 PM

This past Sunday, the writers' group I'm in met at our apartment. After we read our stuff and mutually critiqued it, the conversation became general, and the subject of single payer national health service came up. I made a comment or two about how much "socialism" already exists in this country and it seems to work just fine. In fact, nobody seems to identify it as "socialism" if they, themselves, find it, not just convenient, but absolutely essential. Like road and freeway infrastructure, police and fire service, etc.

This morning, I received the following in an e-mail from Paul, one of the writers. I did some checking and found it all over the internet, so I guess it's fair game to post it here as well. Enjoy. And for those who hadn't really thought about all of this, DO learn.

I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE (impolite epithet)

This morning I was awakened by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 01:28 PM

Probably the reason folks thing government can't do anything right is because it did such a bad job in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 02:01 PM

Riginslinger: I wonder if the folks in Iraq would agree that the US (and it's allies) did such a lousy job in Iraq?

Think they preferred life under Saddam to what they have now?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 02:50 PM

BBC PM programme blog on the subject

I'm still reading the interesting blogs it links to. I do hope some of them are intended to be humorous.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:45 PM

Well, now, Doug, if I were an Iraqi and I couldn't walk through the streets of Baghdad to the local grocery store to buy a loaf of bread without the very real fear of getting caught in the crossfire between a couple of warring factions (e.g., Sunni's vs. Shi-ites) or being blown up by a car bomb, I might prefer to live under the relative tranquility of Saddam's regime despite its disadvantages than to have to endure the can of worms the U. S. "liberation" opened up.

Not to mention the on-going mess in Afghanistan. Bush's legacy. That could have been handled much more rationally.

Something needed to be done, but Larry, Curly, and Moe could have handled the whole thing a lot better than the Bush League has.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 03:53 PM

Last night's news carried Arlen Specter, newly Democratic Senator, keeping his cool as a number of people got into his face. So, it appears, Bobert, that you're right- the (agreed upon?) strategy is to stay cool and informative and conciliatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 04:55 PM

It is a lot easier for Democrats to scaremonger with "evil insurance companies" themes than to make people really understand what the problems are, how they will be addressed, and what will be lost in the bargain.

If the starting point is EXPANDING employment based coverage rather than reducing or replacing it entirely I don't see how any good can come out of this.

$1 trillion to be offset by reduced spending and new taxes? WTF?

Medicare to be ENHANCED (or held steady) and physician reimbursement to be ENHANCED (or held steady) while other provider reimbursements to be REDUCED all by "cutting out waste and fraud." Could someone explain how all this is supposed to work without using "right wing" or "left wing" or "single payor" or "Democrat" or "Republican" in the response?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:03 PM

I've been hearing about "cutting out waste and fraud" all my life. So if they can do it but they don't do it but they will do it, well . . . Why didn't they do it? This is at least as deliberately deceptive as "evil insurance companies." There is no conversation occurring here; not that I have found in the little time I've had available, about how our honorable Congresspeople and Senators intend to do a truly competent job re-organizing a MASSIVE portion of the US economy, with clear and logical methods. Just "change" is all I have seen so far. I'll be very glad to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 05:40 PM

England did it just after the Second World War.

The purpose of an insurance company is to make money, not to save (or improve the quality of) life.

The purpose of a health service is to save (or improve the quality of) life.


Simples!

Surely US physicians are rich enough already, aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 06:13 PM

As far as I can tell, physician reimbursement rates (Medicare) are supposed stay as is. (Don't know about inflation, etc., and don't know about total earnings to take home.) Facilities I think will get lower relative rates.

We're not getting any kind of health service that I can see. More employees just have to be provided health insurance. More of the currently uninsured will get care from . . I don't know - providers and facilities that take Medicare/Medicaid, I guess?

I am certainly missing many of the very basic principles. Can someone send me to a cogent primer on the subject? (Like Congress, I'm not going to read the long version of what's hapenning.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM

Talking about Iraq is a bit of a drastic thread wrench, but here goes for one post:

Iraq under Saddam was pretty unpleasant in a lot of ways.   But I suspect there are an awaful lot of Iraqis who would exchange it in a minute for what they have now, including the estimated 2 million who have had to leave the country as refugees, including most of the ancient Christian minority, and the estimated 1.7 million living in internal exile. Then there are the people who have died as a result of the invasion and its aftermath.

And of course the freedom of women to do stuff like dispense with wearing veils, or get educated or live independent lives, has been greatly reduced, and is in constant danger of being further reduced.
..................

In order for anyone opposed to the proposed health reforms to have any moral credibility they have to be able to point to an alternative which meets the basic requirment of ensuring that it will no longer be possible to live in the United States and be denied the kind of guaranteed free or at least affordable access to adequate medical treatment which people in all other developed countries in the world have had for many years.

Does anyone disagree with that goal?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 09 - 07:25 PM

Ann Coulter does. No sane person does.