Obama and health care ... a new thread because I can

[DeletedUser]

Have you gone to an emergency room lately? Not sure how if it could gt worse, I guess it could.
Education is a different animal because teachers are only 30% of a child education, 70% of it is parents. I would say that the healthcare issue is the same boat in that the problem is mostly people lifestyle.

If you want to eat big macs, chain smoke butts, not go for a walk every once in a while then why should I have to foot your medical bill. Matter of fact what you pay in medical should be tied directly to how much of an unhealthy slob you are. If you exercize and are in pretty good shape you pay Y amount, if you are the person I stated above you pay Y times 2.

 

[DeletedUser]

One of the main reasons healthcare presently costs so much is because the left in the US has been successful in partially socializing the system for decades now, while their media lackeys keep on continuing to call it free market. In this country it is illegal to buy insurance polices offered in other states. Then in many states, the governements have all kinds of expensive mandates that many dont need in their insurance. For example, men are forced to pay for women's health procedures in tests because men having a cheaper plan is "discriminatory." So in some states, it costs people several thousand dollars are when in other states it may be 1-2 thousand.

You should keep in mind that the number of truly uninsured is very low. That 46 million number is complete BS because it includes illegal immigrants, people who can afford to buy but choose not to, and people who already qualify for the present government programs.

As been mentioned, the current government programs are a complete mess already and highly inefficient. They are at the point of bankrupting this country. Medicare was cheap when it started, in the tens of millions of dollars; now it costs several hundreds of billions. And along with the history of the other entitlement programs, There is no doubt Obamacare will sky rocket in costs. Remember it costs 1 trillion for the first 10 years, with the CBO calculating that costs will increase drastically afterwards. Not surprising since the current bills are designed to get businesses to dump their employees into the government option with the massive tax hikes, mandates and fines that make it cheaper to do this. Liberals already admit to this.

In the world, there has yet to be a government healthcare system that works. Currently, to keep costs low, care has to rationed and to repay the remaineder, there are high taxes on businesses and the "rich". In the US our businesses already pay some of, if not the highest, rates in the world. This means less jobs for us. And there are the sickening horrors stories coming out of those countries where care is denied for years, people are left to die, waiting lists to get on waiting lists, etc. In the US, we already have seen some of this in the healthcare our veterans receive, and in Oregon, the government system refused to pay for life extending drugs and instead offered to pay for the patients to kill themselves because its cheaper.

Obamacare will never work (just look at all those congressmen and senators lining up for it) and will likely destroy this country from the enormous costs and the tyranny involved. There are cheaper, more effective common sense free market solutions and reforms on the table being ignored by the left who are only concerned about concentrating more power over us in their hands. Its up to us to stop them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Have you gone to an emergency room lately? Not sure how if it could gt worse, I guess it could.
Education is a different animal because teachers are only 30% of a child education, 70% of it is parents. I would say that the healthcare issue is the same boat in that the problem is mostly people lifestyle.

If you want to eat big macs, chain smoke butts, not go for a walk every once in a while then why should I have to foot your medical bill. Matter of fact what you pay in medical should be tied directly to how much of an unhealthy slob you are. If you exercize and are in pretty good shape you pay Y amount, if you are the person I stated above you pay Y times 2.

No the education system is an example of how well that government does things. They spends enormous amounts of money that have achieved miserable results. Another example is the post offices, losing billion of dollars a year. And then they cant keep track of the millions of people in the country, when private companies have no problems knowing exactly where tens of millions of packages are every day.

With your healthcare points, that type of system is not allowed because of all the mandates in place by the government and because the left considers it discriminatory. Because people dont pay the direct costs of their healthcare, they are not careful and smart on how they treat their bodies and live their lives. Why bother when others are essentially paying your extra costs of living a reckless lifestyle, thanks to the government?

 

[DeletedUser]

Except the bill was passed by the GoP led congress, only 1 Republican Congressman voted against it (41 Democrats and 1 Independent voted nay). All 55 Republican Senators voted for it (8 Democrats voted nay). So, if we're going to be thanking President Clinton, we should also be thanking the Republican Congress.

He signed in. The ball was in his court.

The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution. this law was more to help people, minorities, that were qualified to get a mortgage from being discriminated against.

You'll never guess what happens when I copy this paragraph and plug it into Google...

 

[netjakdim]

We could do an entire discussion on the stupid education system in America.
There at to many people out there that think everyone deserves a chance to learn with the exception of smart people. Smart people do not deserve the chance to learn they deserve the right to sit in a boring class and be ridiculed by people who
have no intention of trying to learn anything and are only in school to socialize.
Seriously if someone has a decent amount of intelligence and makes A's and B's. What do they get? They usually get a stupid little certificate at the end of the year telling them they made either the honor roll or principals list.
What happens to those that habitually fail and don't even bother to try?
They are constantly punished throughout the year with Motivational Pizza Parties and Dances during school hours. To tell the truth though I do not mind so much that the take the retards out of the classroom for a few hours it gives the few of us that remain the chance to get a decent conversation with the teacher.
I don't believe so much that it is the education system that has let the students down as it is the parents and all these non-profit jackasses wanting to make everyone mediocre.

 

[DeletedUser]

no doubt it was from the internet with a little touch up from me, same with the first one I used, I do not deny that other people can write things better then I can but does that make it wrong? I would have just said it was to help poor people. lol I would trust information that is taken from reliable sources rather than some of the junk that people pull out of their behind and spout as fact.

He signed it but so did everyone else on both sides of the aisle, which means everyone thought it was a good idea. All I am saying is that there is no sense blaming because everyone was guilty. If Bush was so worried about it he could have done something his first term when, I believe, he had control of the congress. What I have noticed is that all politicians at that high a level are shady by nature, or is it nurture.

Back to education, at some point you have to factor a parents responsibility to help their children. Private school score look great because generally the are taking in kids that are above the poverty line where their parents can help them or afford to get them help. This is a broad stroke and their are cases that break this rule but generally it is true.

Healthcare should be private, imo, until I see a plan that works. I will tell you a little story. My Grand-parents are from Canada but worked in the states for like 40 years. So when they retired they moved back up to their house in Canada, last month my grandfather had pains in his legs, went to the DR in the free heath care country and they said bad circulatory system, meaning he was not getting enough blood to his legs. Pretty important stuff. He needed a dye test so they could see the damage. Again pretty important stuff, like life or death, the Dr went on vacation and nobody would be able to do it for 3 weeks. So because they have a pension from working in the states they came down went to a DR and was omitted that day and had a dye test the very next day. Long story he almost lost his legs but because of this "broken" system he is doing well.

Now if he did not have the pension and the ins, maybe things would have been different, I do not know. I have had INS my whole adult life and while it has become more and more expensive I still feel I will get the care I need when i need it.

 

[DeletedUser]

"One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life. We have made remarkable progress toward that goal. Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care. Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities.".."It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job. Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis."
- Richard Nixon, Feb. 6, 1974

 

[DeletedUser]

In the world, there has yet to be a government healthcare system that works.

While not perfect and probably not a complete match for the US and the population but Singapore's system is not too bad. A couple points:


The Singapore government spent only 1.3 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2002, whereas the combined public and private expenditure on healthcare amounted to a low 4.3 percent of GDP. By contrast, the United States spent 14.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare that year, up from 7 percent in 1970... Yet, indicators such as infant mortality rates or years of average healthy life expectancy are slightly more favorable in Singapore than in the United States... It is true that such indicators are also related to the overall living environment and not only to healthcare spending. Nonetheless, international experts rank Singapore's healthcare system among the most successful in the world in terms of cost-effectiveness and community health results.

he price mechanism and keen attention to incentives facing individuals are relied upon to discourage excessive consumption and to keep waste and costs in check by requiring co-payment by users.
[...]

The state recovers 20-100 percent of its public healthcare outlay through user fees. A patient in a government hospital who chooses the open ward is subsidized by the government at 80 percent. Better-off patients choose more comfortable wards with lower or no government subsidy, in a self-administered means test.

There are mandatory health savings accounts: "Individuals pre-save for medical expenses through mandatory deductions from their paychecks and employer contributions... Only approved categories of medical treatment can be paid for by deducting one's Medisave account, for oneself, grandparents, parents, spouse or children: consultations with private practitioners for minor ailments must be paid from out-of-pocket cash..."
"
The private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions. Private medical insurance is also available."
Private healthcare providers are required to publish price lists to encourage comparison shopping.
The government pays for "basic healthcare services... subject to tight expenditure control." Bottom line: The government pays 80% of "basic public healthcare services."
Government plays a big role with contagious disease, and adds some paternalism on top: "Preventing diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tobacco-related illnesses by ensuring good health conditions takes a high priority."
The government provides optional low-cost catatrophic health insurance, plus a safety net "subject to stringent means-testing."

 

[DeletedUser]

All should be privatized, especially the U.S.'s abomination of an education system.

Essential public services, of which healthcare is one, should not be privatized due to the potential for abuse by the owners of such services. While our services aren't always perfect, they are there for a reason, or would you deny a child any chance at an education because his or her parents are too poor to afford it? What sort of ill fated logic makes you think that will help our situation any?

I have one very simple reply to this. Profit breeds innovation. With no incentives for profit, there's no incentive to take risks. Call it greed if you like, but that's the way it works.

While I tend to agree with the capitalistic approach on most everything, healthcare isn't one of them. If you need an exapmle of why not, then just looked at what passes for a healthcare system here in America. If this system is fine for you, then you need to go see about getting an MRI because something is screwing up your brain functions.

I know that. I'm not daft. They were rhetorical questions aimed at making a point.

As was my response. Or did you miss that part? :icon_rolleyes:

Now, why shouldn't we bail out individuals, bank, and car companies? We're rewarding failure and mismanagement. No company, I repeat, no company is too big to fail. Let the market take its course. Allow me to also rephrase your last question: "We made one bad decision, so why not make another?"

Personally, I agree with you that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks nor should we have bailed out the car manufacturers. That doesn't mean we don't need to change an overtaxed system that faces nothing but an increase in the services it already provides.

It's gone. How about that?

You're right it is.

They don't have to. It's profit driven. If you have a condition, you'll have to pay more for coverage you'll need. Their care will cost more; therefore, a policy will cost more. It makes perfect sense. I don't know why that's so hard for people to follow.

Great, I can't wait till we get privatized fire departments and see your face when you call 911 for them to come put out a fire in your house and they tell you, "Sorry, putting out your fire isn't cost effective and would cut into our profit margin. Have a nice day."

Talk about being daft.

No. Life isn't an entitlement. You'll have to take that one up with God.

Well, considering I don't believe in God, I'll let you handle that one. All I know is that this country was founded on the principle that no one should be denied the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Last I checked, proper medical care makes people generally happier. :icon_wink:

Costs are rising everywhere. The U.S. isn't special.

And, with a better sytem, maybe they wouldn't rise as much? Or is the logic of that to blatantly obvious?

Absolutely dead wrong. Lifestyle choices are.

I call complete bs on this statement. It is a proven fact that proper preventive medicene, as well as lifestyle choices, are the best defense a person has against all kinds of cancers, heart disease and diabetes, among other things. To think that preventive medicene wouldn't allieviate some of the strain on our system is ludicrous.

Since you brought it up, I have an absolutely hee-larious story for you. Our former President warned Congress exactly twenty-three times that the housing market might be at risk in the future and could threaten the overall economy.

I have another funny story for you. Call it a prequel to my last story if you will. Former President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 that forced banks to hand out risky loans to otherwise unqualified home buyers. Former President Bill Clinton further loosened restrictions in the 1990's. That helped give us a big push down this lonely road of a "collapsing economy" as you put it.

What do either of those stories have to do with the fact that Bush took Clinton's trend of actually paying off our national debt and completely reversed it into adding much more debt, and the fact that Obama took office in the midst of the worst finacial crisis since probably the Great Depression?

 

[DeletedUser]

Mmmm. I'm not American so can;t propose the merits and demerits of this system. What we've grown up is a country in which all healthcare and education are free. Now that i look back at it being a developing country, Sri Lanka has become a welfare state and thats definitely a good thing cos we have just over 1500 USD as per capita GDP. I dontl; really understand the constraints as I'm not trained to think as an economist but why can't a rich country make healthcare and education free of cost for all?

 

[Llama Crazy]

im not ameriacan either but i like to pay attention to overseas issues and america does seem to have a really bad healthcare system. in new zealand we mostly have free healthcare and it works well. granted there can be waiting lists but most of those lists are for things that arent urgent but if you feel it is you can pay a private dr to do it instead of waiting. i have never liked americans extreme approach to capitalism when quite frankly capitalism doesnt work. it only benifits the rich and lets face it most of us arent.

privatising everything is a fail way to deal with a problem aswell as it takes power away from the people and means people have to start paying more for things that should be cheap or even free...
i cant remember where it was i think it was blivia or somewhere around there the goverment privatised the water this lead to people having to pay for water! hell it was even illegal to collect rain water in a water tank. the company even had its own little army. this ruined the country and eventually lead to rebellion and the company and its army used deadly force and killed alot of protesters. in th end the goverment was forced to kick the company out of the country to save them!

in other words privatsing everything is not the answer lol

 

[DeletedUser]

For all those that live in a country that have government services like healthcare and education, there is no such thing as free. There is no free lunch. You may not pay directly but you are paying something through taxes, with the rich paying the bulk of it. And doing that has consequences beyond the monetary costs.

With singapore, I admit the numbers from what I read look good but its very difficult trying to compare what is essentially a city state to a continental spanning nation. They do have some ideas, like medical savings accounts, emphasis on people taking care of themselves to avoid huge medical problems and promoting competition that make the population healthier and keep costs down. I doubt the entire Singapore could ever be implemented in the US as the US is much more diverse and is much more free than Singapore is. However, I do know that the saving accounts and competition are not being advocated by Obama, who is advocating complete government control.

And about helping the poor, they already have government aid through Medicaid and SCHIP, though those programs as of now are full of waste and corruption. Many have chosen not to sign up for it, so if they are not covered, its their problem.

Privatization is the key for Healthcare, so I must disagree with you pyker. Private companies, with proper government oversight to avoid potential abuses, eliminates inefficiencies and reduces corruption, which is rampant through current government programs. They are more innovative and will do their best to keep costs low, something governments wont do. this innovation leads to new solutions and inventions and profits are the driving force. It is why companies are willing to spend billions on researching new drugs, procedures and technologies. With the government in charge, there is no such incentive. Just look at the USSR. In Canada for instance, it takes months for a patient to get a MRI while private companies can gets pets MRIs with in days.

And llama, what you are refering to is a monopoly, where a company has no competition essentially. And in a true free market system, competition for customers by multiple companies keeps quality high and costs low.

 

[DeletedUser]

Essential public services, of which healthcare is one, should not be privatized due to the potential for abuse by the owners of such services.

Right, because on the other end of the spectrum, the government is completely trustworthy. Further up, swan has already mentioned how rampantly corrupt government programs are.

While our services aren't always perfect, they are there for a reason, or would you deny a child any chance at an education because his or her parents are too poor to afford it? What sort of ill fated logic makes you think that will help our situation any?

Ever heard of scholarships? Evidently not. Besides, I don't think it's any secret that private schools provide a much higher quality education.

While I tend to agree with the capitalistic approach on most everything, healthcare isn't one of them. If you need an exapmle of why not, then just looked at what passes for a healthcare system here in America. If this system is fine for you, then you need to go see about getting an MRI because something is screwing up your brain functions.

You're not making much of point here... What should I be looking for in "what passes for a healthcare system here in America?" Explain your argument please.

Otherwise, I suppose with our screwed up system, I could go to the ER and get that MRI within a day or so. Under a socialized system, I'd likely be placed on a waiting list for six months.

As was my response. Or did you miss that part? :icon_rolleyes:

If it was, you phrased it very poorly to appear so.

Great, I can't wait till we get privatized fire departments and see your face when you call 911 for them to come put out a fire in your house and they tell you, "Sorry, putting out your fire isn't cost effective and would cut into our profit margin. Have a nice day."

And it would cut into their profit margin because...? They come with normal response, put out the fire, and I would be sent a bill later that most of would likely be cover by my homeowner's insurance.

Well, considering I don't believe in God, I'll let you handle that one. All I know is that this country was founded on the principle that no one should be denied the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Last I checked, proper medical care makes people generally happier. :icon_wink:

So where do you get healthcare out of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness? You're misinterpreting that line to suit your own argument regardless of what Jefferson actually meant.

And, with a better sytem, maybe they wouldn't rise as much? Or is the logic of that to blatantly obvious?

It's already been discussed how costs are cut in a socialized system. I'm not repeating myself.

I call complete bs on this statement. It is a proven fact that proper preventive medicene, as well as lifestyle choices, are the best defense a person has against all kinds of cancers, heart disease and diabetes, among other things. To think that preventive medicene wouldn't allieviate some of the strain on our system is ludicrous.

Our system already utilizes preventative medicine. What's different about the U.S. that many other countries? The people are notorious for bad lifestyle choices. Let me give you an example: Jane Doe regularly has an X-Ray done on her lungs to check for lung cancer as preventative medicine. Jane chain smokes. She dies later of lung cancer anyway.

I'm not saying preventative medicine isn't important. What I'm saying is much of it would be unneeded if people made proper lifestyle choices from the get-go.

What do either of those stories have to do with the fact that Bush took Clinton's trend of actually paying off our national debt and completely reversed it into adding much more debt, and the fact that Obama took office in the midst of the worst finacial crisis since probably the Great Depression?

Not to get too far into this, Clinton devastated military funding to the point where it would be inept if a major conflict suddenly arose. That's where he got his money to pay off the national debt. Bush spent a hefty sum bring the military back up to appropriate levels.

Otherwise, I think the recession during Carter's administration was much worse with double-digit unemployment, interest rates, and inflation. On that note, I'm still waiting for that inflation bug to come bite us thanks to Obama's outrageous spending.

 

[DeletedUser33413]

Im not American and i dont follow any of the politics in America however i did keep up to date during the election period.

It all seems very, very complicated to me the way things are done over the pond. It just doesnt seem to make much sense to me (bare in mind i dont know much about it to begin with and im 17 so my grasp on politics is not water tight anyway).

 

[DeletedUser]

Right, because on the other end of the spectrum, the government is completely trustworthy. Further up, swan has already mentioned how rampantly corrupt government programs are.
The government is much more trustworthy then the private insurance companies. Which one would you prefer? Costs that are innacceptable, and you can't pay them when you're dying? Or being on a waiting list? Just to remind you, the waiting list would not be 6 months for most diseases. As far as hearts and lviers go, yes they would. But it already is 6 months, so would there really be a difference?


Ever heard of scholarships? Evidently not. Besides, I don't think it's any secret that private schools provide a much higher quality education. So you're saying that people that screwed up on one thing in their life don't deserve another chance?



You're not making much of point here... What should I be looking for in "what passes for a healthcare system here in America?" Explain your argument please. The arguement is that gov't run healthcare is much better as far as costs go obviously.

Otherwise, I suppose with our screwed up system, I could go to the ER and get that MRI within a day or so. Under a socialized system, I'd likely be placed on a waiting list for six months.
Sorry, I've had MRI's, they take about 10 minutes to do. So why would we be waiting? I know I missed your point, but seriously?


If it was, you phrased it very poorly to appear so.




And it would cut into their profit margin because...? They come with normal response, put out the fire, and I would be sent a bill later that most of would likely be cover by my homeowner's insurance.



So where do you get healthcare out of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness? You're misinterpreting that line to suit your own argument regardless of what Jefferson actually meant.
You misinterpreted what he said and tryed to make him look like an idiot, what all republicans do. Please, provide a real response to what he said


It's already been discussed how costs are cut in a socialized system. I'm not repeating myself.



Our system already utilizes preventative medicine. What's different about the U.S. that many other countries? The people are notorious for bad lifestyle choices. Let me give you an example: Jane Doe regularly has an X-Ray done on her lungs to check for lung cancer as preventative medicine. Jane chain smokes. She dies later of lung cancer anyway.So they have a bad lfiestyle, what are you trying to point out? People will live a bad lifestyle with the healthcare it is now, and they still will with government run health care. So what's your point?


I'm not saying preventative medicine isn't important. What I'm saying is much of it would be unneeded if people made proper lifestyle choices from the get-go.




Not to get too far into this, Clinton devastated military funding to the point where it would be inept if a major conflict suddenly arose. That's where he got his money to pay off the national debt. Bush spent a hefty sum bring the military back up to appropriate levels. Wow. Really? I think the economy is much more important than a defense. Considering we can't have a good army with a considerable economy. So choose one, economy or military? We still had a big military compared to most nations even if it were small compared to normal. This is the biggest difference is republicans and democrats, we choose economy, and you choose war.

Otherwise, I think the recession during Carter's administration was much worse with double-digit unemployment, interest rates, and inflation. On that note, I'm still waiting for that inflation bug to come bite us thanks to Obama's outrageous spending.

Enjoy

 

[finurmomisfun12387]

I didn’t read all that…but I’ll give my opinion…

And sonny we agree, I think we might be able to get along now since I’m not playing this game anymore XD

Ok, why would anyone think that the government could run our entire health care system…when they cant even run a post office…a non profit organization and there to stupid to keep it afloat. Or how about Social Security, all the government had to do was collect social security money, put it in an account and let it drawl intrest….while sending out checks…and do you know what the greedy retards aren’t smart enough to manage a system as simple as that. They have no finical sense what so ever. I’m 17 and I have more common sense than them just managing my checking and saving accounts. Its not a hard concept to follow. If you don’t have the money don’t buy it. And don’t pull it out of another fund cause that’s just going to bite you later.

The how social security thing is the same think as a parent taking a Childs college fund and blowing it in Vegas…but what makes it worse is it would be a fund that the child made the money and but into it. And that’s because the government is stupid.

Not to mention one of the reasons were in this economical depression is because some people don’t have the common sense of “if you don’t have the money don’t buy it” That’s why the banks went bankrupt because people couldn’t pay off there loans. And I don’t think that because of peoples stupid decisions the people with common sense should suffer. My parents both have jobs and operate a family runned farm….they have worked there ass off my entire life to get me through school and in the next year help me get started in college. And they did it all with common finical sense. And I don’t think its right that there going to have to pay into this massive bill that is going to help people that got there self in trouble in the first place….and that’s just why I don’t like the government, now the bill.

All this “public option” is going to do is, in five years all the bigger corporations are going to switch to this government plan because it will be cheaper. The health care will suck compared to what all the folks that made something of there life or worked there ass off to get but they wont care cause it makes them money.

Then also there going to tax the companies who don’t provide insurance….well there every small business is shutting down.. There goes more jobs, there goes the economy.

And congratulations Obama, your greedy stupidity will screw up America if you get it through…..now dose anyone think that sounds BETTER than what we currently have???

 

[finurmomisfun12387]

Im not American and i dont follow any of the politics in America however i did keep up to date during the election period.

It all seems very, very complicated to me the way things are done over the pond. It just doesnt seem to make much sense to me (bare in mind i dont know much about it to begin with and im 17 so my grasp on politics is not water tight anyway).

All you need to know is Obama is trying to screw everything up over here....

and if he gets his way....not even you guys in england will have anywhere to go for good, quality, health care because ours will be messed up as bad as yours/

 

[finurmomisfun12387]

The endgame is to run private insurers out of the market, thus the "public option" is the only option. The government can afford to offer any such service at a lower rate because it can take any financial loss incurred if such policies aren't profitable

Not to mention if they make a profit they dont have an income tax to pay....that would be nice wouldn't it.

 

[DeletedUser]

All you need to know is Obama is a coward and is trying to screw everything up over here....

and if he gets his way....not even you guys in england will have anywhere to go for good, quality, health care because ours will be messed up as bad as yours/

english healthcare is not in a bad state.

 

[DeletedUser]

english healthcare is not in a bad state.

MAybe in your opinion because you've never known anything else. But yes, british health care is pretty bad. I've read many stories on the long lines for treatments, the denied treatments, medical shortages, premature deaths, lower cancer survival rates, people suffering, etc.

I sometimes read the comments at the end of the story and be best defenses is that the system is free (which it is not as its paid by others through taxes, freedom, and lives) and throwing out BS numbers about the American system (which can be picked apart with ease).

The british system is truly terrible but if you guys want to keep that system, its your choice. I shudder to think what would happen if Obama tries to ram a similar system down out throats with the loss of choice and freedom and the further destruction of our economy.