KaskadskyjKozak

geez man. i've heard the phrase "beer before liquor, never sicker", but "liquor before liquour before liquor before liquor".

Jawohl, wann er kapoopt ist.

I had a fifth of Jaeger in 90 minutes... i've never had the same "experience" with a similar quantity of vodka or rum.

I've never drank the stuff. But I've experienced a similar effect to what you describe from copious amounts of Jaegermeister.

What? It's unquestionable that most guys will "lift", or raise (with little provocation), another phalanx to mow a woman's lawn. POTD.

Liquid courage.

and which have marginal improvements in efficacy or reduced side-effects. which brings back my point about using older drugs when possible as cost-effective alternatives.

Yeah, the gov't is responsible for all advances in medicine. Government is the solution to everything! The only, most-efficient, bestest way to get things done, ever!!

...and you are an expert on exactly what? Battery/transformer sales? Pot. Kettle. Black. Trashtalkingcunt is a jack of no trades and jackass of all spray.

The other trend is for a constant influx of new, expensive medications. Why can't the latest and greatest from 2-3 years ago be used to treat patients with less insurance? In many cases we're talking about marginal differences in efficacy, but a huge increase in cost.

A serious injury or chronic condition can easily cost, post insurance payment, 10-20% of your pretax income for a moderate earner not counting loss of wages I did say that's where a lot of people seem to be today... Oh, I wasn't disagreeing, merely emphasizing. Also, just consider that group coverage through your employer for a family (if your spouse doesn't work, includes 2 or more kids) is easily 800-1000 bucks per month. Even if your employer pays 80% or more of the premium, it still affects you (lower wage).

A serious injury or chronic condition can easily cost, post insurance payment, 10-20% of your pretax income for a moderate earner not counting loss of wages I did say that's where a lot of people seem to be today...

That was a point I made yesterday, and got dog-piled by the typical crowd of assclowns on this site. I know and have known plenty of people who complain about how they don't have enough money while spending wastefully. I'd say that 20-30% of your income is stretching into "unaffordable", and that's where a lot of people seem to be these days. If we address this problem through big-government, I want to make sure the cost is less, and that everyone pays a fair share - everyone. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Hiding costs (by passing them on to other taxpayers or through nickle and dime taxation) is bunk. People should pay into this and know how much they are paying - nothing is free. I think some of the more bothersome issues about the fully private system we have actually relate to things like lifetime caps on coverage, denial of coverage, problems with reimbursement for treatment, etc. That's where you can get screwed no matter what your coverage.

I am the eggman. Coocoocachoo.

yes, if it works. deductions would be like medicare/SSN/etc. same model

How does that help with rising costs? I read recently that costs will rise 78% in 6 years. How much will the tax credits cost? Will it truly be only $110 billion? How will it be funded? If someone doesn't buy the "mandatory" insurance and is hurt/sick what happens when they show up at an emergency room? From what I've read about this whole issue, I don't think Hillary's plan does very much to address the problems. I like the idea of mandatory insurance, and would even say that it should just be part of your normal payroll deductions - either you have an employer that covers your insurance, or your employer is required by law to deduct some percentage for insurance along with federal income tax, SS, and medicare.

OK, more anecdotal evidence. It doesn't prove anything. Even if your portrayel is accurate, it doesn't mean that the program will work in the US. We are not Canada or France - we are a much larger country with much different demographics and structures (business and government), not to mention the cultural differences. I am interested in the history of Canadian health care, however. Do you know when your health care was nationalized, why this was done, and how? I'm assuming of course that at one time you had privatized health care like we do in the states. What precipitated the change up there? Did costs decrease and quality of care go up?

I don't think there is a "crisis". Obviously there are problems - and they are getting worse. But 'crisis'? Politicians love to "manufacture" crises when they don't exist. I don't trust government programs and their costs. I want to understand exactly why we are doing something, what the "solution"'s goals are, how much it will cost and be convinced that the quality of care will not go down. And I want the people who institute these programs to be accountable with adequate oversight. If the program fails it should be scrapped. With government that rarely happens. I've already proposed a palatable solution for me. Let people opt in to a gov't sponsored program and see how it flies. Every card-carrying Dem can sign up, along with the 43 million uninsured. According to Jim's arguments it would be more efficient than private health care, eliminating the "middle man", and address issues like denial of coverage. My suspicions as to why people don't support this idea is that they know damn well that the program will fail to be any better than private care and will cost more. What they want is to nationalize health care first, ask questions later, and just shrug off any failures by either denying that they ever said the plan would be cheaper and better or blaming failures on "the other side" or "lack of adequate funding".

My, my, my, how fragile our arguments must be to be threatened by anyone with a countrary POV. BTW, I was not too impressed with the link YOU posted as a "typical" view of the issue. The "debunking" of the myths essentially amounted to an argument as follows: Myth: universal health care will cost more Fact: not necessarily Wow, that convinces me!

Easy to beat? I don't know about that. Especially with the non-descript crowd running against her.

Whatever you say, tweaker.

The left's "solution" to EVERY problem is a new/bigger/more-expensive government program.

That about sums it up!

I'll be right over.

Which goes hand-in-hand with the theme of the statists on the left side of the aisle: "you must be educated on this issue". Somehow I just get an image of Communist Reeducation Camps in my head. I wonder why?