So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

[airplanemechanic]

Liberals want someone else to pay for EVERYTHING.

The concept of health care for all is wonderful. But to me, it's like anything else. You get what you pay for. Nobody pays for my health insurance. I work for it. Why is that such a bad concept to liberals? 70% of America was against Obamacare from the beginning. Later polls showed about 60% opposed. If Trump's approval rating at 40% is "dismal" according to liberals, why is ACA approval at 40% wonderful and amazing?

80% of workers in this country live paycheck to paycheck. People have no choice but to work shit jobs because wages are way behind on the cost of living.

You provide absolutely no substance to support your claim so I'll pretty much ignore it. 78% report living paycheck to paycheck, but the WHY is far from what you claim.

They live paycheck to paycheck because they spend more than they make, not because they don't make enough. Having high speed internet at your house, digital cable or satellite, netflix, 65" 4K tvs, new cars, the latest iGadget or Galaxy S X phone with unlimited everything, brand new houses, etc is not REQUIRED to live. People living beyond their means doesn't mean they don't make enough. It means they don't want to give up any creature comforts.

I make very very decent bill and I do not have any service except a prepaid cell phone. My TV is antenna. All cars paid for in cash. House about to be paid in full only 7 years after purchase. The newest car I own is a little Fiesta 2012. My TV is from 2012. My cell phone is 4 generations old, it's a Note 5 with a burned in screen so I got it cheap. I could go on and on.

Don't live beyond your means and you don't need to live paycheck to paycheck. My expenses even WITH my housenote could be paid in full by someone making minimum wage working full time.

9 Ways To Stop Living Paycheck To Paycheck

Lol I love how you just assume these people over spend with no basis of facts. They definitely don’t buy new cars. They buy used. Stuff like TVs is a one time expense. And yes, they have Netflix accounts. God forbid they entertain themselves! Oh the horror. How selfish of them.

It’s also worth noting many of these people are parents.

Want to entertain yourself? Go to the park, go for a walk. Godforbid our fat American asses get outside and DO something.

Why do you people make all these stupid assumptions about poor people? I get that it makes you feel manly and superior to belittle them, but you’re just making shit up.

Unlike you, I not only WAS poor, but knew a ton of poor people growing up. They barely squeaked by every month yet their kids had the BEST clothes, most expensive shoes, booksacks, etc. They were the FIRST to get Nintendos, Sega's etc. They had the best BMX bike available for their kid. By the time I got a super nintendo I was in college and it was 5 years out of date. I didn't have a nice bike growing up, I had a huffy from wal mart. Why? Because it was 85 dollars not 385 dollars.

As an adult I started out dirt poor and worked my way up. So I don't CLAIM to know the lifestyles of poor people, I DO KNOW their lifestyles because I knew them and know them still today and was one myself. I was the ONLY one making minimum wage after college who was NOT living paycheck to paycheck. Of course I didn't get my first cell phone until 2011 and that was bought by my employer to use for work. My first PERSONAL phone was not until 2014. Of course unlike my equally poor friends who are paycheck to paycheck people, I didn't buy a new car right out of college with a car note. I kept my old one from high school, which I still have to this day, and it's 21 years old and still runs like a top. It's also been paid for since before the Monica Lewenski scandal.

Even forbes.com lists "watch your fixed expenses" as one of the top ways to stop living paycheck to paycheck. It's a simple concept, money in, money out. If you can't increase the money in, you HAVE TO decrease the money out. And if you consider "netflix" a "cost of living necessity" then I've won this argument hands down.

 

[Polishprince]

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare?

Sen. Scott of Florida is a professional health care executive, Kentucky's Sen. Paul is a practicing eye surgeon. They aren't all incompetent boobs.

 

[LaDexter]

it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept

Exhibit A of WHY we want government totally OUT of healthcare.... totally, not too little bs... totally.

The issue was "senior drugs." Seniors, more precisely the AARP, were bitching to get the govt to pay for their pills. W wanted to suck up and get the AARP behind him...

Solution - SOCIALIZE senior drugs... put it on the taxpayer tab...

1. did the US taxpayer get a VOLUME DISCOUNT from drug companies for the pills?

A: NO, the US Congress sold out and made it a RETAIL PRICE, which has sent DRUG STOCKS soaring and drug company donations to pols soaring as well

2. Was the W WH honest about the ESTIMATED COST of socializing senior drugs?

A: NO, the W WH lied and threatened the actuary who did the "static" analysis of the cost (static meaning grandpa who got 3 prescriptions in 2003 would still get 3 and only 3 after socializing, instead of getting his "doctor" to up that number to 8 so that "grandson" could take the other 5 and sell them at the public high school)

Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits

"An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted."

3. Did involving govt "more" in socializing senior drugs have any "harmful side effects..."

A: yeah, it has flooded our high schools with taxpayer funded pills like OxyContin and "Lore Tab."



Should we "trust" govt to "do more?"

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME "GUIDANCE" to that answer....

 

[Lesh]

Unlike you, I not only WAS poor, but knew a ton of poor people growing up. They barely squeaked by every month yet their kids had the BEST clothes, most expensive shoes, booksacks, etc. They were the FIRST to get Nintendos, Sega's etc. They had the best BMX bike available for their kid. By the time I got a super nintendo I was in college and it was 5 years out of date. I didn't have a nice bike growing up, I had a huffy from wal mart. Why? Because it was 85 dollars not 385 dollars.

As an adult I started out dirt poor and worked my way up. So I don't CLAIM to know the lifestyles of poor people, I DO KNOW their lifestyles because I knew them and know them still today and was one myself. I was the ONLY one making minimum wage after college who was NOT living paycheck to paycheck. Of course I didn't get my first cell phone until 2011 and that was bought by my employer to use for work. My first PERSONAL phone was not until 2014. Of course unlike my equally poor friends who are paycheck to paycheck people, I didn't buy a new car right out of college with a car note. I kept my old one from high school, which I still have to this day, and it's 21 years old and still runs like a top. It's also been paid for since before the Monica Lewenski scandal.

Highly unlikely. More than likely "somebody" had more than he and the jealousy ate him up

 

[Lesh]

Sen. Scott of Florida is a professional health care executive,

Yiu may want to look into that a bit.

His record is more than a little "spotty"

"Scott was pressured to resign as chief executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997. During his tenure as chief executive, the company defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs. The Department of Justice ultimately fined the company in what was at the time the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history"

 

[airplanemechanic]

Unlike you, I not only WAS poor, but knew a ton of poor people growing up. They barely squeaked by every month yet their kids had the BEST clothes, most expensive shoes, booksacks, etc. They were the FIRST to get Nintendos, Sega's etc. They had the best BMX bike available for their kid. By the time I got a super nintendo I was in college and it was 5 years out of date. I didn't have a nice bike growing up, I had a huffy from wal mart. Why? Because it was 85 dollars not 385 dollars.

As an adult I started out dirt poor and worked my way up. So I don't CLAIM to know the lifestyles of poor people, I DO KNOW their lifestyles because I knew them and know them still today and was one myself. I was the ONLY one making minimum wage after college who was NOT living paycheck to paycheck. Of course I didn't get my first cell phone until 2011 and that was bought by my employer to use for work. My first PERSONAL phone was not until 2014. Of course unlike my equally poor friends who are paycheck to paycheck people, I didn't buy a new car right out of college with a car note. I kept my old one from high school, which I still have to this day, and it's 21 years old and still runs like a top. It's also been paid for since before the Monica Lewenski scandal.

Highly unlikely. More than likely "somebody" had more than he and the jealousy ate him up

Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't change anything.

I grew up with them. They wore girbaud jeans, or z cav pants, had jansport booksacks, mongoose bikes, nintendos, segas. I had a 20 year old Atari my parents got me used from a garage sale.

Yea I'm making it up, that's why I know exactly what they had. And at the time I was jealous, very much so. They had all the cool shit, I didn't. But the day one of their dads lost his job within a week the house was for sale and they were gone. They had absolutely no income to live on. No surprise there. My dad lost his job and found another one like 6 months later, we kept living as we had before with no change at all. We had savings saved up.

My parents did a great job of raising me. They taught me the value of a dollar and how to work hard for what you have. Which is why I started out at minimum wage out of college and am now where I am in life, financially stable with at least 3 years of full living expenses in savings and another year in investments.

So basically, go suck an egg, bitch.

 

[Lesh]

it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept

Exhibit A of WHY we want government totally OUT of healthcare.... totally, not too little bs... totally.

The issue was "senior drugs." Seniors, more precisely the AARP, were bitching to get the govt to pay for their pills. W wanted to suck up and get the AARP behind him...

Solution - SOCIALIZE senior drugs... put it on the taxpayer tab...

1. did the US taxpayer get a VOLUME DISCOUNT from drug companies for the pills?

A: NO, the US Congress sold out and made it a RETAIL PRICE, which has sent DRUG STOCKS soaring and drug company donations to pols soaring as well

2. Was the W WH honest about the ESTIMATED COST of socializing senior drugs?

A: NO, the W WH lied and threatened the actuary who did the "static" analysis of the cost (static meaning grandpa who got 3 prescriptions in 2003 would still get 3 and only 3 after socializing, instead of getting his "doctor" to up that number to 8 so that "grandson" could take the other 5 and sell them at the public high school)

Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits

"An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted."

3. Did involving govt "more" in socializing senior drugs have any "harmful side effects..."

A: yeah, it has flooded our high schools with taxpayer funded pills like OxyContin and "Lore Tab."



Should we "trust" govt to "do more?"

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME "GUIDANCE" to that answer....

You're describing REPUBLICAN government.

Dems tried in vain to get Medicare Plan B to negotiate drug prices but the Bush Admin refused...claiming the "free market" would produce the best result.

Obviously that was a fantasy.

 

[LaDexter]

You're describing REPUBLICAN government

LMFAO!!!

The Dems got more $$$ from the drug companies than the GOP did.

Granted, the post 1998 "only Israel matters GOP" is just as bad as the Dems.

To claim the Dems don't sell out is as pathetic as it is humorous...

 

[Oddball]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I beg liberals to show me the gov't document stating that people have a "right" to healthcare.

 

[LaDexter]

More precisely, liberals (ie Zionists) believe Americans do NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT ENRICH GOVERNMENT CODDLED HEALTH INSURANCE COs...

We aren't even free from paying for ridiculously overpriced "health insurance" because their PROFITS buy our "representatives..."

 

[EGR one]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Before the federal government entered the health care market, health care in these United States of America was effective and affordable. The needs not met by the private market were picked up by local and state hospitals and clinics.

The federal government is not qualified to run day care systems, let alone attempt to run our health care.

 

[Billy000]

80% of workers in this country live paycheck to paycheck. People have no choice but to work shit jobs because wages are way behind on the cost of living.

You provide absolutely no substance to support your claim so I'll pretty much ignore it. 78% report living paycheck to paycheck, but the WHY is far from what you claim.

They live paycheck to paycheck because they spend more than they make, not because they don't make enough. Having high speed internet at your house, digital cable or satellite, netflix, 65" 4K tvs, new cars, the latest iGadget or Galaxy S X phone with unlimited everything, brand new houses, etc is not REQUIRED to live. People living beyond their means doesn't mean they don't make enough. It means they don't want to give up any creature comforts.

I make very very decent bill and I do not have any service except a prepaid cell phone. My TV is antenna. All cars paid for in cash. House about to be paid in full only 7 years after purchase. The newest car I own is a little Fiesta 2012. My TV is from 2012. My cell phone is 4 generations old, it's a Note 5 with a burned in screen so I got it cheap. I could go on and on.

Don't live beyond your means and you don't need to live paycheck to paycheck. My expenses even WITH my housenote could be paid in full by someone making minimum wage working full time.

9 Ways To Stop Living Paycheck To Paycheck

Lol I love how you just assume these people over spend with no basis of facts. They definitely don’t buy new cars. They buy used. Stuff like TVs is a one time expense. And yes, they have Netflix accounts. God forbid they entertain themselves! Oh the horror. How selfish of them.

It’s also worth noting many of these people are parents.

Want to entertain yourself? Go to the park, go for a walk. Godforbid our fat American asses get outside and DO something.

Why do you people make all these stupid assumptions about poor people? I get that it makes you feel manly and superior to belittle them, but you’re just making shit up.

Unlike you, I not only WAS poor, but knew a ton of poor people growing up. They barely squeaked by every month yet their kids had the BEST clothes, most expensive shoes, booksacks, etc. They were the FIRST to get Nintendos, Sega's etc. They had the best BMX bike available for their kid. By the time I got a super nintendo I was in college and it was 5 years out of date. I didn't have a nice bike growing up, I had a huffy from wal mart. Why? Because it was 85 dollars not 385 dollars.

As an adult I started out dirt poor and worked my way up. So I don't CLAIM to know the lifestyles of poor people, I DO KNOW their lifestyles because I knew them and know them still today and was one myself. I was the ONLY one making minimum wage after college who was NOT living paycheck to paycheck. Of course I didn't get my first cell phone until 2011 and that was bought by my employer to use for work. My first PERSONAL phone was not until 2014. Of course unlike my equally poor friends who are paycheck to paycheck people, I didn't buy a new car right out of college with a car note. I kept my old one from high school, which I still have to this day, and it's 21 years old and still runs like a top. It's also been paid for since before the Monica Lewenski scandal.

Even forbes.com lists "watch your fixed expenses" as one of the top ways to stop living paycheck to paycheck. It's a simple concept, money in, money out. If you can't increase the money in, you HAVE TO decrease the money out. And if you consider "netflix" a "cost of living necessity" then I've won this argument hands down.

Good god dude. You’re complaining about these people making one time purchases on shit. And obviously Netflix isn’t a necessity. It’s interesting how you put that into quotations even though I didn’t say that. Netflix costs $8 a month for fuck sake. That doesn’t make them irresponsible. Of course I would say entertainment itself is a necessity. We both know it’s reasonabe for them to spend money on it.

 

[EGR one]

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare?

Sen. Scott of Florida is a professional health care executive, Kentucky's Sen. Paul is a practicing eye surgeon. They aren't all incompetent boobs.

Neither of them run government health care. Bureaucrats do, and many of them do not know beans about health care.

 

[Polishprince]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Before the federal government entered the health care market, health care in these United States of America was effective and affordable. The needs not met by the private market were picked up by local and state hospitals and clinics.

The federal government is not qualified to run day care systems, let alone attempt to run our health care.

When I was born, the bill for my delivery was $147 and my old man paid in cash. Kept the receipt, as he explained to me, in case he had to make a return. Of course that was before government was that deeply involved in health care.

 

[BluesLegend]

Moochers, deadbeats, and bums looking for free shit paid for by working people.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

Less Government the better. I would like to note that Conditions can be determined to DNA and could be listed as precondition condition.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

Read up about oz and Canada and the U.K.
90% approval.
They laugh at us.

I guess that is why they come across the border to get medical care.

 

[Flash]

The real answer to Health Care is not a Republican plan or a filthy ass Democrat socialist plan. It is a simple Libertarian plan.

You pay your health care bills and I'll pay mine and the stupid government stays out of it.

 

[deanrd]

When Republicans say smaller government, what they mean is no oversight. That way it’s much easier to loot the country.
Have you noticed that for Republicans it’s all about looting America. They don’t wanna build anything, they don’t care about healthcare, it’s just squeeze as much as they can out of the country.