KaskadskyjKozak

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.

Can't afford, or choose not to buy it? I never ceased to be amazed by those who claim they can't afford something, but scratch the surface and they have quite a few expensive hobbies and blow money on entertainment, and wasteful spending. And what are we talking about anyways? Compulsory catastrophic insurance, or covering the cost of everyone's snot-nosed kid going to the clinic constantly? And what about personal responsibility - i.e. you eat, live and drink like a pig, and want the taxpayer to foot your bill?

In the words of my old grand-dad (pun intended): "numb the brain; feel no pain."

And a government program will have its own interests that do NOT coincide with your best interests either. Almost every member of congress is a multi-millionaire. And there will be many rich created from any gov't health care schema. Bureaucracies always manage to enrich themselves.

It needs to be more efficient AND offer at least as good service. I just don't trust government or the people trying to foist this on us. I'm tired of the rhetoric. Facta non verba. I want to see proof.

Except they don't do the latter. Sorry, butthat tune has gotten old. The only example any of you patriot-act handwringers can come up with is Padilla (who has been convicted). Not to get too far off track here, but the Patriot Act has numerous far-reaching implications. For example, the co I work for is having to do an amazing amount of expensive work providing the right environments for their software in other countries b/c no country will allow any of their stuff to be hosted here in US. Why not? B/c our gov't can look at or seize any files they want whenever they want. And so, no one will trust us with their files--stuff that really has nothing to do with us anyway. It sure doesn't fit my idea of a "gov't by the people for the people". OK, but that's a very different issue from the claim that "all the government has to do is declare you a terrorist and throw you in jail". And who cares about thread drift? It started with the first response to my post anyway.

don't forget drinking. drinking is very important.

As I said in a separate thread, PROVE IT first with a PILOT program in some large state or market. Run a gov't program in parallel with the private ones, and show us all how much better it is.

Except they don't do the latter. Sorry, butthat tune has gotten old. The only example any of you patriot-act handwringers can come up with is Padilla (who has been convicted). As for the former, well, they'll be regulating every aspect of your health care, not just "ingrown toenails". They'll decide when you can be treated, how much it can cost, what medicine you are "permitted" to take, and so on, all under a bureaucracy about as caring and efficient as the DMV.

The last few years sure resembled 1992-1994. It seems the shared power scheme can work better. Too bad the D's in office now are so spineless (although I would never count on THEM to cut spending).

Hillary is bringing it up herself... as are other D's running for office. Oh, yes, this will be entertaining.

Universal health care is just another big government power grab. The left hopes to further control our lives, making us dependent on them, and oh so grateful for the few bread crumbs they throw our way.

and who controlled the purse strings under Clinton during those glory years of fiscal constraint (and one must not forget that those budgets had an influx of cash from a huge tax hike)? hmmm?

Democrats are good at handing over critical technologies to foreign countries creating crises for R's to clean up, Chamberlain-esque appeasement policies, vacillation, big-budgets, feel-good "solutions" that have no positive effect, and cripple the economy, and obfuscation. Can't wait for the train-wreck (again)!

I bet Adam13 listens to Britney and has a few of her posters in his room to, um, enjoy.

The government is good at destroying things and killing people, bankrupting us all in the process. Those are not competencies we need in health care.