Is healthcare a right??

[Jack]

How many in here think that Healthcare is a right?

I was just talking to a neighbor of mine whose husband is dying of an inoperable brain cancer.

She was telling me that her insurance is refusing to pay for his cancer treatments.

An eight week treatment will cost $120,000.00.

His viability is poor. This may help him to live an additional 3- 6 months.

She is livid. She is demanding that her insuance company pay this amount...

The Insurance company has refused.

What do you think? and where do you draw the line??

[Luther]

If they told me I had 3-6 months to live I would probably turn down treatment anyway. I'd just get them to make me as comfortable as I could and slowly kiss my ass goodbye. I wouldn't want to spend that kind of money for that short a period of time.

With my time left I probably would bump up my satellite package and maybe get HBO. I'd drive over to Gartners meat market and get a bunch of steaks, some prime rib and a few pounds of their snack sausage. I'd hit the liquor store and buy a bunch of single malt Irish whiskey and probably try to score some chronic so I could get all that stuff I bought to not only go down but stay down.

Then I'd come in here, post my mug and say goodbye.

Rip City

[Wolfman]

Basically from what I understand is that the modern era health insurance came about during WW2 when wages and salaries were frozen. Many employers in order to find a way to increase the compensation of the workers did so by providing them with health insurance policies. Somewhere along the line the government got involved. Many other factors have led to where we are today-- including newer medicines and procedures and pharmaceutical advertising.
I think that catastrophic insurance is a nice idea, but what we seem to be headed for is the equivalent of having your car insurance pay for oil changes.
Oh--I do not think of it as a "right"---see the US Constitution for those.

[Risa]

How many in here think that Healthcare is a right?

I was just talking to a neighbor of mine whose husband is dying of an inoperable brain cancer.

She was telling me that her insurance is refusing to pay for his cancer treatments.

An eight week treatment will cost $120,000.00.

His viability is poor. This may help him to live an additional 3- 6 months.

She is livid. She is demanding that her insuance company pay this amount...

The Insurance company has refused.

What do you think? and where do you draw the line??

I think there is -- and should be -- more to this story, than what she's relaying to you.

The insurance companies are full of shit; but sometimes folks ask for shit that their policies won't cover. If what she's asking for is not covered in the policy her and her husband have, then she's wasting time and breath -- and other people's money --demanding treatment.

If the policy she has specifically states that the treatment she's asking for on her husband's behalf is a covered treatment, she needs to get an attorney to fight against the insurance company wrongfully withholding payment for services already paid for per their contract with her and her husband.

Did she tell you the official reason why the insurance company said they weren't going to pay, and why that official reason is full of shit? or is she just indignant that they won't pay for whatever this is?

Is it an experimental treatment?

I also agree with Luther, if I've only got a couple months to live - and the doctors have told me so -- I'm not going to waste money trying to live forever just because I'm afraid of not waking up one day. It would be freeing to have a doc say you only have such and such months. That's time to relax, get as comfortable as possible, say goodbyes, and try to fit all the important stuff in; not waste money trying to beat the Grim Reaper.

That's time to get pain meds to make the journey a little easier.

A death policy payout isn't invalidated or reduced if one refuses treatment, is it? or is it?

[poptart]

Just to directly answer the question, no, health care is not a right.

[smackaholic]

Economics HAS to be a factor in such things unless you expect those in the healthcare industry to work for nothing.

That treatment costs something. Somebody has to make decisions as to what is cost effective. Sounds like dude is in a position where he is dead no matter what.

If I were her, I'd try to get the treatment now and worry about who will pay later. Odds are pretty good that the hospital will write it off later.

[Ang]

Oh yeah, I have something to say about this. First off, I do not think that health care is a right. I would much rather everyone paid for their own.

But the system is way screwed up right now and honestly I have no idea what the fix is.

What I have seen so far is…

If someone is ‘indigent’ like my loser nephew who is 30 years old and been in and out of jail for years, he can go to hospital for drug overdoses and tattoo infections and all costs are absorbed. He pays nothing, gets treated and walks away.

If you have group health care because of working for a large company or the government, everything is portable. You don’t have to deal with pre-existing conditions or anything else, you are just covered when moving from one job to another. This is the major reason that everyone loves company paid healthcare because you can’t be refused or screwed around for no apparent reason, due to government regulations on portability of health care, but it only applies to group insurance.

If you work for yourself and have an individual health care plan, you are the most screwed person in the system. A few years ago, when I was leaving a company with a group plan, I had a partially herniated disc in my neck and also just figured out I had psoriasis on my leg. I went to check both out, figured out that the psoriasis was just there and most things don’t help, so I just left it be. The disc was something that I had some doctor visits on, but we waited it out and it healed. The symptoms went away with rest and not doing tae kwan do for two months, and it’s never bothered me since. After the symptoms went away, I went back to usual workouts and fighting, and it was all good.

The ‘wonderful surprise’ I found about our health system is that since I left a group plan right after checking those two things out, was that I could easily be turned down by an individual plan. My husband was working for a small company where everyone had individual plans and we tried to add me to his. For those two doc visits that didn’t involve any treatment at all…I was denied being added on his plan.

So, I went to AAA the roadside assistance folks, and found a decent affordable individual plan that still kept any spine or skin things un-covered for three years, but at least they allowed the plan. I had a plan with them for 3 years and never filed a claim for anything, because I hardly ever go to the doc, and things worked out well with the disc anyway. I would have had to pay for it all if it hadn’t healed, but that was ok.

Point being, the reason that everyone is all up in arms about this is that the small business owner or the individual gets totally screwed in the system we have. And usually these are people who are trying to be responsible, not screw the system, and take care of their responsibilities.

The people who don’t give a flying fuck and are ‘indigent’ will get health care written off. The folks insured by large companies or by the gov (for whom I now work, and believe me I appreciate the bennies) will get the best care that can be given. The small business owner or someone who is trying to pay their own way will be faced with having coverage turned down or being cancelled for no apparent reason.

It sucks. And the reason it sucks is not the idea that ‘health care is a right’. The reason it sucks is that the most productive members of our society and our economy are fighting uphill on this one while others who are either slackers or work for a large entity get it as a given.

[adam-$300]

No.

Sin,

[Truman]

How many in here think that Healthcare is a right?

...What do you think? and where do you draw the line??

A Right? Nope. Not according to the Fathers.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Nary a mention of healthcare.

An Entitlement? Depends on the mood of SCOTUS and the United States Congress.

Oh, and despite the postulates from the likes of BSmirch, Tardy in Crapchester, Midget Sale, aka the Travelocity Roaming Nome, and the Board's resident Lord(ess) Voldemort (aka SHE-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named), it ain't in the Constitution either

Eight-page debate in 3, 2, 1....

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Eight-page debate in 3, 2, 1....

Yep, doubtlessly revolving around the ever-expanding definition of "general welfare."

No, I do not believe that health care is a "right."

And I sure as hell don't want the feds to get mixed up in it, seeing their "bang up" efforts in the area of education and "The War on Poverty." Yeah, those areas certainly have been streamlined, been made cost-effective, and have a minimum amount of red tape, paperwork, and screw-ups thanks to federal intervention...

[Risa]

How many in here think that Healthcare is a right?

...What do you think? and where do you draw the line??

A Right? Nope. Not according to the Fathers.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Nary a mention of healthcare.

Not even 'Life... and the pursuit of Happiness'?

and why wasn't Roe v. Wade's coffin nailed with this section? or was it determined that taking a life is permissible in the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness? also, can't this section be used as a justification for euthanasia (pursuit of liberty and happiness)?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

and why wasn't Roe v. Wade's coffin nailed with this section?

Because it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, you idiot.

[Risa]

and why wasn't Roe v. Wade's coffin nailed with this section?

Because it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, you idiot.

But earlier you only saw fit to respond to Truman's last sentence, in order to riff off the fact that you agreed with his post?

You like me, you really like me. Anyway, that Declaration is the basis for everything -- every debate, every conflict, every political schism -- which follows afterwards in the US: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If universal healthcare will better attend to the Safety and Happiness of American citizens, then universal healthcare should be pursued. If it's already being given to indigents, the unscrupulous, and (worst of all) illegal aliens -- why isn't it being given to tax-paying citizens? The system is broken; it can't be fixed by allowing the current state of affairs to continue. It can't be fixed by pretending universal healthcare is not already in place for those who least contribute back into the system, and shouldn't be receiving it in the first place.

[Truman]

Anyway, that Declaration is the basis for everything

No it isn't. The United States Constitution is "the basis for everything."

If universal healthcare will better attend to the Safety and Happiness of American citizens, then universal healthcare should be pursued. If it's already being given to indigents, the unscrupulous, and (worst of all) illegal aliens -- why isn't it being given to tax-paying citizens? The system is broken; it can't be fixed by allowing the current state of affairs to continue. It can't be fixed by pretending universal healthcare is not already in place for those who least contribute back into the system, and shouldn't be receiving it in the first place.

Wrong. Our Safety and Happiness is guaranteed by one kick-ass American War Machine - one, might I add, that is provided for by our Congress and funded by the American taxpayer, as defined by our Constitution.

You're making the specious assumption that there IS such a thing as "universal healthcare" in the United States.

There isn't. Nor should there ever be. Tax-payer sponsored healthcare IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Period.

Hung by your own petards, you tedious goose.

The system is broken BECAUSE the governement picks up the dime for "indigents, the unscrupulous, and (worst of all) illegal aliens"

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Wrong. Our Safety and Happiness is guaranteed by one kick-ass American War Machine

So you can index a nation's prosperity by the strength of it's military.

The Soviet Union just kicked your ass, douchebag.

[rozy]

also, can't this section be used as a justification for euthanasia (pursuit of liberty and happiness)?

Or pedophilia?
Or bigamy?
Or a dime bag?
Or Jheri curl?
Or Jenny Craig?
Or HipHop?
Or Queering?
Or music without a steel guitar?
Or the tuck rule?

I can think of about 866 users that would love to be your Kevorkian..

[RadioFan]

Nope, not a right, but definitely a commodity.

[Dr_Phibes]

I think that this is very much a function of culture and social values. It depends how your society looks at health: is it a right; is it a commodity to be bought and sold?
These are the questions that societies indirectly ask themselves when they are developing (or not developing) their health systems. I think there is an excess of this ideological thinking, and a shortage of thinking and acting based on evidence.

Why can't all citizens insurance dollars be pooled into one big fund? Everyone could pay in, and everyone could be equally insured for some "basket" of services decided upon through consultation between governments and health experts. This is definitely cheaper. Every country that uses a universal insurance method does it at less cost than the American system. Not only is it less cost, they get to insure EVERYONE. More people insured for less cost.

I don't even see why there is a debate. To me it is so blatantly obvious - and to a nation of fetishists who worship capital and the bottom line, the fact that you're not getting a bang for yer buck should be all important.

[Truman]

...Why can't all citizens insurance dollars be pooled into one big fund? Everyone could pay in, and everyone could be equally insured for some "basket" of services decided upon through consultation between governments and health experts. This is definitely cheaper. Every country that uses a universal insurance method does it at less cost than the American system. Not only is it less cost, they get to insure EVERYONE. More people insured for less cost...

Because you and the other brain-dead Canadian Communist that lurks this Board continue to miss the point:

"Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people, which logically means that it MUST be limited in scope, for the MORE a government undertakes, the more oppressive it becomes. Government MUST be ANCHORED in fundamental principles"

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

[Mister Bushice]

also, can't this section be used as a justification for euthanasia (pursuit of liberty and happiness)?

Or the tuck rule?

You might wanna 'splain this one to risa. The tuck rule takes on a whole new set of ghastly concepts with a fat roll queen.

[poptart]

"Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.

And it also, unfortunately, divided this board into those who get it and those who are clueless asswipes.

[Risa]

also, can't this section be used as a justification for euthanasia (pursuit of liberty and happiness)?

Or pedophilia?
Or bigamy?
Or a dime bag?
Or Jheri curl?
Or Jenny Craig?
Or HipHop?
Or Queering?
Or music without a steel guitar?
Or the tuck rule?

I can think of about 866 users that would love to be your Kevorkian..

I've converted some haters, then. Props to me. :roll: Bigamy (like polygamy) should be legal, among consenting adult human beings. Transsexuals and (especially) transvestites should have their own lavatories.

As for the rights of pedophiles:

http://www.imedinews.ge/en/news_read/54542

LOS ANGELES, July 28 (UPI) — Parents in Los Angeles are furious that apparently nothing can be legally done to pull the plug on a blogger who promotes pedophilia.

Jack McClellan, a 45-year-old, self-described pedophile, is active on Web sites intended to tip off other pedophiles to events and places where children tend to gather, The New York Times reported.

He has said he visits kid-friendly places about three times a week. Police can't do anything because it appears McClellan hasn't broken the law. McClellan maintains he has never sexually touched a child, nor has he been convicted of a sex crime.

One group of concerned mothers hopes to pressure lawmakers in Sacramento into shutting McClellan down. The controversial blogger told the Times he was run out of Washington state two months ago after the media and various Web sites drew attention to his activities. He decided to move back to his native Los Angeles, in part for the climate, but also because there are so many world-class children's attractions here, Disneyland, festivals and whatnot............

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site ... Monica.htm



Admitted Pedophile Spotted in Santa Monica
By Lookout Staff

July 27 -- An admitted pedophile from Washington State who reportedly photographs young girls in public settings has been spotted in Santa Monica, according to police.

Jack J. McClellan, 45, was observed at 2:30 p.m. Thursday in the children’s section of the Santa Monica Main Library by a mother.

A public information bulletin issued by local police on Thursday describes McClellan as a “notorious pedophile advocate” and asks parents to closely monitor their children in his presence. “McClellan is not a registered sexual offender and is not wanted at this time in connection with any crime,” according to the bulletin.

McClellan, who is 6’ 1” and weighs 195 pounds, drives a Blue 1993 Ford Escort two-door with Washington license plate 915WEX, police said.

“McClellan has recently been featured in national and local news reports in which he admits operating an Internet website catering to pedophiles,” police said. “It is reported that McClellan traveled all over Washington State and photographed young girls in public settings,” the bulletin states. “In the news reports McClellan admits being a pedophile who is sexually attracted to young girls.”

McClellan was recently spotted in the Santa Clarita Valley, where he was the subject of a story Monday in The Signal, a newspaper that serves the valley area. (read story) According to the report, McClellan posts pictures of the girls accompanied by accounts of his search for subjects.

“On June 9, according to his posting on the Internet, he scouted youngsters at Santa Clarita Lanes bowling alley on Soledad Canyon Road,” wrote Jim Holt, a staff writer for The Signal. “When he left the bowling alley on his own, McClellan, 45, crossed the street to Saugus Speedway and joined scores of families roaming the grounds at the San Fernando Valley Fair, according to his Internet posting,” Holt wrote.

“With children darting from ride to ride, eating cotton candy, petting zebras and playing games of chance, McClellan strolled the grounds anonymously,” wrote Holt. “Most likely, parents would not have recognized the man in his characteristic black wide-brim hat.

“But they probably would have recognized pictures of their own daughters, photographed by McClellan in public places and posted on his Web site,” according to the news story. McClellan’s Web site, Seattle Tacoma Everett Girl Love, was shut down by its Internet service provider, according to Washington State officials quoted in the report.

He has since started another site, according to the article.

The Web site, according to Fox News in Seattle, "iis a virtual 'how-to' manual, complete with the best places in western Washington state to see little girls, and tips on how to avoid getting caught by the police." McClellan says he left Washington and headed south to the Los Angeles area "to get away from media reports and the resulting angry moms," according to a report on Seattle's KOMO-TV web site

McClellan is the subject of more than 150 entries on the Internet, inclusing news reports and at least one Website that tracks his wanderings and posts alerts.

Those who see McClellan should closely monitor any children in his presence, police said.

Those who see him in an area frequented by children should notify the local police department.

For additional information please contact the Santa Monica Police Department
Juvenile Crimes Section Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. or call 310. 458.8451. The watch commander can be reached 24 hours a day at 310.458.8427.

So...... what are McClellan's rights? what are parents' rights? what are a child's rights?

[RadioFan]

For the love of God, can't you just ponder one question, before posting a bunch of shit that has absolutely nothing do with anything, and then asking more questions?

I get that you're trying to address the whole freedom of speech issue, but that's not what we're talking about here, Annie Jemima. We're talking about Health Care, you fucking dumbass.

Here's a new rule for you, before you post (and before PSU or I log you out every day, as we do trev): Read the title of the thread, before posting.

That should be pretty simple to follow, and it doesn't seem like too much slavery to me:

READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING.

Get it?

In case not, I'm here to help.

How many in here think that Healthcare is a right?

That's the premise of this thread, not freedom of speech, nor is rozy's baiting you, and you responding like an Al Jolson gnome, holding yet another lantern of meandering, off-topic dumbfuckery, for all to make fun of.

Live up to your username, for once.

-----------------


As you were, all ... carry on.

[Atomic Punk]

^^^ Dude just won the race at Indianapolis in the Home Depot #20.

[BSmack]

I think that this is very much a function of culture and social values. It depends how your society looks at health: is it a right; is it a commodity to be bought and sold?
These are the questions that societies indirectly ask themselves when they are developing (or not developing) their health systems. I think there is an excess of this ideological thinking, and a shortage of thinking and acting based on evidence.

Why can't all citizens insurance dollars be pooled into one big fund? Everyone could pay in, and everyone could be equally insured for some "basket" of services decided upon through consultation between governments and health experts. This is definitely cheaper. Every country that uses a universal insurance method does it at less cost than the American system. Not only is it less cost, they get to insure EVERYONE. More people insured for less cost.

I don't even see why there is a debate. To me it is so blatantly obvious - and to a nation of fetishists who worship capital and the bottom line, the fact that you're not getting a bang for yer buck should be all important.

Attempting to apply logic to Truman's world is useless. You need to find a way to make him think Jesus would be pitching into a national health care system. And we all know Jesus would have been monitoring the returns on his E*TRADE account, not worrying about stupid poor people.

[BBMarley]

If they told me I had 3-6 months to live I would probably turn down treatment anyway. I'd just get them to make me as comfortable as I could and slowly kiss my ass goodbye. I wouldn't want to spend that kind of money for that short a period of time.

With my time left I probably would bump up my satellite package and maybe get HBO. I'd drive over to Gartners meat market and get a bunch of steaks, some prime rib and a few pounds of their snack sausage. I'd hit the liquor store and buy a bunch of single malt Irish whiskey and probably try to score some chronic so I could get all that stuff I bought to not only go down but stay down.

Then I'd come in here, post my mug and say goodbye.

Rip City

I gotta agree with Luth here. For only 6 months maximum? I work on an Oncology floor and see what these treatments can to do to someone's body- pain, excessive diarhaea, excessive vomitting, pain for for the family, etc... Some people feel they need to do everything possible- but if the doctor clearly states it is only a temporary stopgap- then why even do it? Spend you last months enjoying life in the presence of your family, friends, take a vacation you would never have gone on, etc... When it gets to the point you cannot even do that- get Hospice to come in and make you as comfortable as possible- die on your own terms.

And I have to agree with Risa here- most healthcare companies when it comes to oncology treatments will pay for alot. When it is being denied it could be some experimental thing- or holistic treatment. Any idea what it was?

[Risa]

"Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.

And it also, unfortunately, divided this board into those who get it and those who are clueless asswipes.

Does it make a difference whether corporations are included in that 'personal, individual' grouping?

I get that you're trying to address the whole freedom of speech issue, but that's not what we're talking about here, Annie Jemima. We're talking about Health Care, you fucking dumbass.

Does a pedophile have a right to stalk little girls, take their photos, put their photos up on a pedo website, and then tell other pedos the best places to snap up children and avoid the police while doing so?

Apparently, he has more of a right to do so than Americans do of healthcare coverage, because his stalking little children and telling other people how to stalk little children doesn't cost anyone anything. Ain't life grand?

Here's a creepy white man who 'isn't breaking the law' by taking pictures without permission and then using those pictures to a) get other pedos off and b) explain how to best break the law without breaking the law ----- while meanwhile, Genarlow Wilson and others like him of both races is sitting in jail with a sexual predator tag and won't be able to live in his own home because he had a consensual threesome with two classmates (not including the buddy who videotaped the whole thing); but the prosecutor was only able to get the blowjob from the 15 year old classmate to stick, not the 'rape' charge of the other 17 year old who was videotaped with him.

And then I think about the recent thread (by Rumple?) where some white posters were patting each others' backs about n.iggers being in jail and white folks avoiding jail. I guess the biggest sin is getting caught, and if white folks sin but don't get caught its kosher; if black folks sin but do get caught, they deserve it.

I don't mind being baited by rozy on this one.

If you're heading to the left coast, be on the lookout for that 1993 ford escort, that license plate, and a white dude in a wide brimmed black hat. If the mods want to excise this into its own thread, or into TROTS, or just make it disappear completely, it's cool. I won't even fake a juke by asking a question about what health care a pedophile should expect, for the sake of the public.

How many in here think that Healthcare is a right?

That's the premise of this thread, not freedom of speech, nor is rozy's baiting you, and you responding like an Al Jolson gnome, holding yet another lantern of meandering, off-topic dumbfuckery, for all to make fun of.

Aiight.

[poptart]

"Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.

And it also, unfortunately, divided this board into those who get it and those who are clueless asswipes.

Does it make a difference whether corporations are included in that 'personal, individual' grouping?

The government is not intended to give hand outs to corporations or individuals.

[trev]

(and before PSU or I log you out every day, as we do trev)

Oh is it every day now?

[PSUFAN]

Dammit, how did we miss today?

[smackaholic]

I got dibs on this dude in next years death pool. Hope he makes it to jan 1.

[titlover]

I think that this is very much a function of culture and social values. It depends how your society looks at health: is it a right; is it a commodity to be bought and sold?
These are the questions that societies indirectly ask themselves when they are developing (or not developing) their health systems. I think there is an excess of this ideological thinking, and a shortage of thinking and acting based on evidence.

Why can't all citizens insurance dollars be pooled into one big fund? Everyone could pay in, and everyone could be equally insured for some "basket" of services decided upon through consultation between governments and health experts. This is definitely cheaper. Every country that uses a universal insurance method does it at less cost than the American system. Not only is it less cost, they get to insure EVERYONE. More people insured for less cost.

I don't even see why there is a debate. To me it is so blatantly obvious - and to a nation of fetishists who worship capital and the bottom line, the fact that you're not getting a bang for yer buck should be all important.

socialized healthcare with low cost? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

tears Jerry, tears.

[BSmack]

socialized healthcare with low cost? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

tears Jerry, tears.

OK, if it is so laughable, how come every industrialized country (other than the US) ON THE PLANET is doing so right now?

[Neely8]

socialized healthcare with low cost? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

tears Jerry, tears.

OK, if it is so laughable, how come every industrialized country (other than the US) ON THE PLANET is doing so right now?

And why do they come to the hospitals here when they need something real done? Public hospitals are great for the sniffles. Would you go to one for surgery?

[Risa]

socialized healthcare with low cost? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

tears Jerry, tears.

OK, if it is so laughable, how come every industrialized country (other than the US) ON THE PLANET is doing so right now?

They're taxed out the ass?

I wouldn't mind paying more taxes, if I was assured I'd get something for it. When we've got stupid fucks like the Bush-Cheney's turning a massive surplus into record debt over enriching their own bank accounts.... I want my money back.

And, again, too many people are already receiving 'universal health care' who shouldn't be in the country in the first place. The system is broken. I don't know how it can be fixed.

[Truman]

Attempting to apply logic to Truman's world is useless. You need to find a way to make him think Jesus would be pitching into a national health care system. And we all know Jesus would have been monitoring the returns on his E*TRADE account, not worrying about stupid poor people.

No, no, B… I meant the other, OTHER Communist Canadian…

But since you bothered…

Not too sure what my Faith or your Agnosticism has to do with the body of our Constitution, but I’m pretty sure that the 1st Amendment provides you the Right to book First Class tickets to the Lake of Fire should you so desire.

Sadly, however, the Storied Document sez nothing about medicating your sorry ass before making the trip.

As for the rest of your rant…

Tell you what, Sport:

You start posting logic…

…and I just might be so inclined as to apply it to my “world.”

‘Til then…

Shut you’re fucking cake hole..