KaskadskyjKozak

The only "educated position" is of course, the one the leftist holds.

Every time someone is rescued from Hood or Rainier by helicopter there is an outcry: "why is the American taxpayer paying for this!!" If there is nationalized health care, and people are not getting the care they think they should be - the utopian vision of our left-leaning friends falls on its face, be damned sure that people will try to get you to cough up the full cost of treatment for climbing-related injuries.

That's the modus operandi of every card-carrying Democrat. If you oppose their position, then you are a "bad person" - fill in loaded derogatory slur here: 1) oppose illegal immigration, affirmative action programs, hate-crime legislation, etc: you are a racist 2) oppose gay marriage, gay couples adopting, etc: you are a homophobe 3) oppose social programs: you are callous and care about yourself only 4) oppose tax increases: you're a rich capitalist who cares only about yourself 5) if you oppose abortion, stem-cell research, etc: you are a religious fanatic It goes on and on. Basically, if you oppose anything on their agenda, then they make attacks on you as a person - the politics of personal destruction. Smacks right out of the Soviet Commie strategy - just one step short of calling all opponents bourgeosie capitalists and enemies of the state.

And what happens when Hillary tells you that accidents resulting from climbing are not covered by the nationalized health care system?

When I hear of uninsured I think of elderly folks, or poor families and kids, not "healthy, athletic, 20-year-olds". Seems to me the person looking out for #1 is YOU and the other posters on this site, who want ME to pay for YOU.

Yes Porter pays me for every post, so he can subsequently mock me.

more like $40 for beer, cigarettes, CDs, concert tickets, expensive climbing gear, or gas to get to the crags.

Gonna have a bake sale? Yeah. Look. Just how expensive is catastrophic health insurance for a young, healthy person. It's just not that high. I think there's a lot of excuses that go around here. If you are young and uninsured and do nothing about it, then don't whine if you get sick or hurt and have to pay for it. I was not responding to other situations - where people truly are in a bind. And I realize there are many of those.

Truth be told he was working "undercover" in this memorabilia thing as part of his hunt for the real killers.

First Hillarycare2, now OJ in handcuffs. It feels so 1994!

that's funny. I know people who have had expensive operations AND been covered by both private insurance plans and gov't plans.

Iran a threat? It's all part of the fear-mongering of BushCo and the right wing war machine. They are as peaceful as lambs with no ill-intent for anyone.

The French grew a pair? Must be a hoax.

And THAT is a compelling argument? The government will decide this? FUCK YOU.

20K. That's about the price of a car, isn't it? I'd find a way. I wouldn't like it, but I'd not accept a "lifelong, debilitating" injury. The gov't will be worrying about costs too. Anyways, I've already said I'm with you - if you could prove a better system in parallel with what we've got.

sounds like she is making that choice - not to get the money for this surgery. Yeah, she is "choosing" to suffer a life of disability rather than trot on down to the magic money tree and pick a few $10k bills off the low-hanging branches. If I was in that position I'd find a way to pay for the surgery. Actually, I'd never let myself get into that position in the first place. and your anecdotal evidence proves nothing, btw

sounds like she is making that choice - not to get the money for this surgery. Yeah, she is "choosing" to suffer a life of disability rather than trot on down to the magic money tree and pick a few $10k bills off the low-hanging branches. If I was in that position I'd find a way to pay for the surgery. Actually, I'd never let myself get into that position in the first place.

sounds like she is making that choice - not to get the money for this surgery.

I can't help but think that you are one of those "It's ok because it's not me" kind of people. It could quickly become you or someone you care about, since its pretty obvious you aren't a humanitarian. it's all about "feelings" after all. that's how we should base these decisions. and doing "something" is better than doing "nothing". something. anything.

You could kill two birds with one stone and reduce CO2 emissions by ensuring that we are not "wasteful" in how foods are transported. Perhaps not everyone needs fresh mangos from Brazil in their grocery store after all, if it is killing the planet. And we could cut down the CO2 footprint by limiting production of "harmful" crops and livestock - comparatively speaking.

You might be on to something there... Except that in it's current form, most people in the US ARE getting food. In fact, too much of it. I haven't heard about people with little or no education and poor employment prospects getting too much healthcare. Getting and eating too much (of the wrong kinds of) food are a big part of why our healthcare system is burdened.

Another tangent... I can say that the WSLCB is a total piece of crap in comparison to the prices, availability and convenience of states like California, where you can buy liquor in grocery stores, RiteAid, private liquor stores, or even CostCo. The hours of the store suck here, the prices are higher, the selection is worse, and you can't buy over the internet. Lame.

Here we go again is right……she was right in 93 and is right this time. She got defeated by the people who would loose money from her plan…..republicans and pharmaceutical companies. The health care system has to be fixed. Someone has to do it. Get off her back….. go back to posting your rhino-in-a-thong and 80's images of Janet Jackson and Eddie Van Halen. That's about the limit of what you can "discuss", 'Boner.

Well, I recently read health care costs will go up 78% in 6 years, if that actually happens, it may very well precipitate a quick change. Back to my point above, imagine that this limited "pilot" program exists, and it is an option on the benefits package for those of us insured through our employers. Right now I have two choices: a PPO plan with "more choice" and a POS plan with a restricted set of doctors/clinics I can use. Imagine the third (gov't) program is an option as well, and I can change coverage say once a year. Right now, I don't think the PPO is worth the extra cost and am fine with it. I might give a government program a shot under this type of scheme. I could actually SEE the cost, and make a personal decision on my coverage, which I could change, say, each year, if I am not happy about it through experience in that system. This is far superior than having all these things decided FOR ME by government as the result of a specific candidate's platform and (tyranny of the) majority rule.

So, create a program and let the people who want to use it to do so, and let the rest of us opt out and not have to pay into it. If the pilot works, then I'm in.