Answers to all your questions on UHC

[veritas]

Why yes, I have heard of taking care of myself. And taking care of and for my neighbor, also. That is the whole purpose of a real Health Care System.

That is the whole purpose if you live in a socialist country. Why don't you move to one of those if you like that system so well.

Different day, same old philosophy in general.

Insurance itself is socialism. Not everyone who purchases insurance makes claims, so those that do are benefitting, while the others that haven't are adding to the pool anyway. Insurance started as socialism. It's a collective. It's only recently that the "repositories" of these rainy day funds began taking huge vig off the top.

Then they reinvested the vig and nearly ruined the stock market by skimming off vast amounts of vig off of that because they were not regulated properly and the investments were worth no more than a bet that couldn't be paid.

 

[HUGGY]

In the corporate world competition is actually agreement among the plutocracy or economic oligarchy. Choice is limited to all except the wealthy already. To them your death is cheaper than your care.

Funny, I thought you were referring to the federal government. How ironic. The federal government has a much bigger conflict of interest when it comes to your health care. When you die, they receive a percentage of your estate. When you die, they are not obligated to pay out the social security that you've paid into all of your life. When you die, they no longer have a burden on them to pay for your health care or any kind of disability. Once you reach a certain age, you are most definitely a liability to them. If you think they're going to give one damn about you or your life over what kind of money they can bring in by fascilitating your death, you're a moron. They'd much rather just 'give you a pill' and watch your numbered days dwindle, after all, you're just a drain on the collective and of no use to them anymore. If you think the insurance companies are cold, you haven't seen anything yet.

You are nothing if not a complete moron. Medicare is the ONLY single payer system of health care and they do the best job. Ask how many of your friends and neighbors over the age of 65 would rather give it up and pay some insurance company till they were bled dry. Maybe you are not a moron. Maybe you are just an evil son of a *****.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It won't cost less if we don't address all of the waste. While a single payer system would reduce administrative costs significantly, that only addresses one of the many problems which are driving healthcare costs through the roof. And just telling doctors and hospitals that they will have to make due with less will end up in rationing care even more.

The biggest problem is that the same arguments heard on this board are heard from our representatives in government. One side says leave it alone because the present system works fine (yea right), and the other side says just let government take over as that will reduce costs (yea right). This issue won't be solved with simple answers, yet that is all we get from both sides. It scares me that we have actually devolved to this point intellectually.

In response to the bolded above:

The British have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is an electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of once it has been established.

but medicare IS A SINGLE payer gvt health care system for the elderly and medicare does not employ or own, any of the hospitals or doctors....they are private businesses not gvt?

care

If Obamacare gets passed I believe the entire health care system will change and be put into the government's control. Not overnight . . . but it will happen.

 

[Harry Dresden]

so Chris is this Govt plan going to cover those amongst us with serious problems that may need daily professional help?....how about the elderly?....are they going to be able to afford their meds without rationing what they get?....will this plan cover or help someone in a home...how about those with so called "un-affordable "diseases that private ins. turns down?.....are these people still up shit creek Chris?.....or is relief on the way?

so i have asked Chris and Rocks this question at least 3 times apiece in different threads on this subject and it gets danced around like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers.....i wonder why they wont either say yes or no.....maybe some other pro-NHC person will take a mighty leap and give me an answer.....

Right now, the private insurance companies ration health care. When I started Medicare, not a single question was asked about pre-existing conditions. However, in the past, when changing jobs and coverage, that was immediatly made clear, that the new company would not cover pre-existing conditions.

The simple solution would be to make Medicare the universal plan for all Americans, and tax all income to support it. That would cost far less per capita than our present system.

you still did not answer the question Rocks.....the one i bolded above here.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

So my question is very simple. Where do all the $ billions go?

If it is true that the health care industry is spending $ millions to stop health care reform, isn't that information a valuable lead?
If it is not true, and simply Demoratic propaganda, what does the Democratic Party hope to gain by lying?

 

[midcan5]

Revised slightly and bumped. I also have a thread to follow concerning the Constitution and UHC. They tie together nicely, and the author argues a point I skipped over.

"Teddy Roosevelt first called for (health care) reform nearly a century ago."

====

Almost every president since Teddy Roosevelt recognized the need for healthcare in America.

Exceptions were Reagan and the Bushs.

After defeating President Clinton's attempt to improve healthcare for all Americans, the republicans did nothing. They will do nothing again. So why their talk now? Nothing.

In a real sense our government already manages healthcare through regulatory structure. Would you go to any quack or unlicensed doctor?

Do we as concerned citizens want corporations, the AMA, the insurance companies, and the hospitals having total control over healthcare choices? Citizens, average working people sure don't. So yes, we need more competition even if it is government pulling some strings to help all Americans.

What loss of personal liberty is there if everyone can easily obtain healthcare. Not having it is a real loss of freedom and liberty.

If freedom means anything, it means freedom from fear that an illness will destroy your savings and your life. If freedom means anything it means options that you make, not insurers whose motive is profit. To some your death is cheaper than your care.

In a market system, insurance companies, if well run, should be able to compete. We have insurance for medicare recipients, and FedEx and UPS do OK.

In the corporate world competition is often agreement among the plutocracy or economic oligarchy. Choice is limited to all except the wealthy already. To them your death is cheaper than your care.

The Constitution thankfully misses a lot of things and we then can fill in the blanks based on what works best. It is a excellent guide not a rule. The time has come for universal healthcare.

The majority of Americans want UHC, oddly worded survey questions created by interest groups are hardly the place for a decision on something so critical to our small businesses and to all of us.

Yes, government can do things well. Consider the following: The military is excellent, although I have to say they could save money too having been there, done that. And veterans health services are darn good and well run. Medicare helps so many.

Social security is excellent for lots of Americans. For a few cents the postal service gets my packages to me and from me. The internet works well. Weather forecasting is excellent as are the communications satellites. And I don't know about you but I love those backroads that make travel in America educational and fun. Police help too, our money is insured, food is safe, and planes are safe, the museums, national parks, and all that history. All good stuff.

Many Republicans naysayers are corporate tools. Consider only their billion dollar bailouts to the banks and then consider their opposition to minimum wage. Make sense to you?

And consider these statistics.

"Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

"The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.

"The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.

"The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006."

Do corporations always do the right thing or even care for the people? If they did would this debate still be going on after nearly eighty years? Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and others realized we needed it long ago.

Government is all the people expressing themselves. Corporations are elitist boards whose sole goal is profit and your care matters not at all. It used to be that healthcare insurers were non profit. Add profit to any picture and soon a cheap employee on a video conference call will manage your operation. OK, joke there.

Do the executives making millions really care that the working person has no healthcare? To some your death is cheaper than your care. Your are only a number, a liability to some.

There are no saints in this picture, but concern and empathy, and that great America spirit are all missing in the picture of 'this is hard', 'this is too costly,' 'we can't do this!' Bah humbug, we can do it if we care about America.

UHC is required now for a free and prosperous America.

Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it
The "euthanasia" distortion on help for families
Vets' health care is safe and sound
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it
Your medicare is safe, and stronger with reform
You can keep your own insurance
Share This Page: Give others a healthy dose of reality

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'


PolitiFact | Obama invokes Republican icons on health care

 

[JohnA]

answers only.



what loss of liberty is there if everyone can obtain healthcare. Not having it is a real loss of freedom and liberty.

Loss of liberty comes by reason of a mandate you have no choice

if freedom means anything, it means freedom from fear that an illness will destroy your savings and your life. to them your death is cheaper than your care.
i agree dont mean i have to pay for insurance i dont want

in a real sense government already controls healthcare through regulatory structure. Would you go to any quack? Unlicensed?
No whats your point nobody is saying hearthcare professional could not be licenced

plumbers, realtors , airline pilots and many other industries are licensed does that mean the govt should take them over ???

Do we as citizens want corporations, the ama, the insurance companies, and the hospitals to control healthcare - because people, average working people sure don't. So yes, we need more competition even if it is government pulling some strings.

Why do you think govt control will create competition
tell me what govt run agency provides a service that couldnt be provided by a private co at less cost ????

In the corporate world competition is actually agreement among the plutocracy or economic oligarchy. Choice is limited to all except the wealthy already. to them your death is cheaper than your care.

govt control wont change that the wealthy will always have more choices even under democratic controlled govt .look at the exceptions the obama administation gave to its *buddies * in the unions do you think that will change ???

The constitution thankfully misses a lot of things and we then can fill in the blanks based on what works best. It is a guide not a rule. The time has come for universal healthcare.
Yes but not this bill

the majority of americans want uhc, oddly worded survey questions created by interest groups are hardly the place for a decision on something so critical to our small businesses and to all of us.

A survey will always come up with the answer the sponsors of it want .
Uncluding the one that says the majority want this bill .. The mid term elections proved otherwise


yes, government can do things well. Consider the following:

The military is pretty good, although i have to say they could save money too having been there done that. And veterans health services are darn good and well run.

Social security is excellent for lots of americans. Medicare helps the old. Postal service for a few cents gets my packages to me and from me. Internet works well. Weather forecasting excellent.
Love those backroads and travel, good work there. Police have helped a few times. Money is insured. Food is safe. Planes are safe. And the museums and parks and history - all good.

Your talking here about some of the things the federal govt is charged with providing in the constitution
there power and control is limited . The president pledges to protect us from enimies foriegn and domestic in his inaugural speech .
S/s is broke and will be underfunded with the new health law
the postal service loses billions every year and the service gets worse

what the **** has the govt got to do with how good the internet works ????
Weather forcast equipment is owned and operated by private companies
planes are safe private enterprise
most police are local state county etc funded
fbi questionable ??
Govt owns a lot of land sells it to private ownership and below market price

museums what the **** has that got to do with anything private and govt owned


republicans naysayers are mostly corporate tools. Consider only their billion dollar gifts to the banks and then consider their opposition to minimum wage. Make sense!


Democrats are union and trial lawyer todiess
both parties have there puppet masters

"nearly 46 million americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

Some of them choose to not buy it

"the number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.

"the large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.

"the increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006."


health insurance is nice to have should be avialable to all (cost varies)
but its not a right

do corporations do the right thing or even care? If they did would this debate still be going on? Truman, eisenhower, nixon, and others realized we needed it long ago. Seems corporations do poor work for the people, they do wonderful work for the executives and certain congressman.

Corporations are in business to make money for share holders
do you have any money invested ?? If you do dont you want it to make a profit ??

Government is all the people expressing themselves. Corporations are elitists, whose sole goal is profit and your care matters not at all. It used to be that healthcare insurers were non profit. Add profit to any picture and soon an asian indian on a video conference will manage your operation. Ok, joke there.
And unions are all about me

do the executives making millions really care that the working person has no healthcare? To some your death is cheaper than your care.

Some provide health care thou there companies

there are no saints, but concern and empathy, and that great america spirit are all missing in this picture of oh, 'this is hard', 'this is costly,' 'we can't do this!' bah humbug, we can do it, we will do it.

Not with this expensive restictive constitution breaking law .



uhc now.

10 health care reform myths - cbs news
the world health organization's ranking of the world's health systems
snapshots: Health care spending in the united states and oecd countries - kaiser family foundation
health care statistics | health care problems
nchc | facts about healthcare - health insurance coverage
need for uhc
why markets can’t cure healthcare - paul krugman blog - nytimes.com
carl ginsburg: The actually existing health care system
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/phcbp.pdf
3rd update: Unitedhealth 2q profit doubles, membership declines - wsj.com

sorry cant type in differant color

 

[JohnA]

Aaaw ... such a sweet sentiment .... instead you could just give me the cash and cut out the middle man altogether.

Ridiculous! The government knows best. Just send them your money and they'll decide how to spend it. Putting your complete trust in government is not only necessary, it's the law.

Yep, those with all the power are the ones we must trust. *sage nod* If it wasn't for them we wouldn't know which meds are the deadliest to take ... erm ... which foods are the best to eat ... um ... wait ... what was I trying to say again?

I of course who am i a mere minion could not possibly know what is best for me

what tv i should watch and what books i should read .

what food i should eat what i should injest into my body what & activities i should partake in .

What health insurance i should have who i should buy it from and what i should pay for it .


what union i should join and what religion i should practice .

let me just lay back and let somebody else control my life for me
OH wait a minute did i get govt approval for this post

 

[JohnA]

Revised slightly and bumped. I also have a thread to follow concerning the Constitution and UHC. They tie together nicely, and the author argues a point I skipped over.

"Teddy Roosevelt first called for (health care) reform nearly a century ago."

====

Almost every president since Teddy Roosevelt recognized the need for healthcare in America.

Exceptions were Reagan and the Bushs.

After defeating President Clinton's attempt to improve healthcare for all Americans, the republicans did nothing. They will do nothing again. So why their talk now? Nothing.

In a real sense our government already manages healthcare through regulatory structure. Would you go to any quack or unlicensed doctor?

Do we as concerned citizens want corporations, the AMA, the insurance companies, and the hospitals having total control over healthcare choices? Citizens, average working people sure don't. So yes, we need more competition even if it is government pulling some strings to help all Americans.

What loss of personal liberty is there if everyone can easily obtain healthcare. Not having it is a real loss of freedom and liberty.

If freedom means anything, it means freedom from fear that an illness will destroy your savings and your life. If freedom means anything it means options that you make, not insurers whose motive is profit. To some your death is cheaper than your care.

In a market system, insurance companies, if well run, should be able to compete. We have insurance for medicare recipients, and FedEx and UPS do OK.

In the corporate world competition is often agreement among the plutocracy or economic oligarchy. Choice is limited to all except the wealthy already. To them your death is cheaper than your care.

The Constitution thankfully misses a lot of things and we then can fill in the blanks based on what works best. It is a excellent guide not a rule. The time has come for universal healthcare.

The majority of Americans want UHC, oddly worded survey questions created by interest groups are hardly the place for a decision on something so critical to our small businesses and to all of us.

Yes, government can do things well. Consider the following: The military is excellent, although I have to say they could save money too having been there, done that. And veterans health services are darn good and well run. Medicare helps so many.

Social security is excellent for lots of Americans. For a few cents the postal service gets my packages to me and from me. The internet works well. Weather forecasting is excellent as are the communications satellites. And I don't know about you but I love those backroads that make travel in America educational and fun. Police help too, our money is insured, food is safe, and planes are safe, the museums, national parks, and all that history. All good stuff.

Many Republicans naysayers are corporate tools. Consider only their billion dollar bailouts to the banks and then consider their opposition to minimum wage. Make sense to you?

And consider these statistics.

"Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.

"The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.

"The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.

"The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006."

Do corporations always do the right thing or even care for the people? If they did would this debate still be going on after nearly eighty years? Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and others realized we needed it long ago.

Government is all the people expressing themselves. Corporations are elitist boards whose sole goal is profit and your care matters not at all. It used to be that healthcare insurers were non profit. Add profit to any picture and soon a cheap employee on a video conference call will manage your operation. OK, joke there.

Do the executives making millions really care that the working person has no healthcare? To some your death is cheaper than your care. Your are only a number, a liability to some.

There are no saints in this picture, but concern and empathy, and that great America spirit are all missing in the picture of 'this is hard', 'this is too costly,' 'we can't do this!' Bah humbug, we can do it if we care about America.

UHC is required now for a free and prosperous America.

Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it
The "euthanasia" distortion on help for families
Vets' health care is safe and sound
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it
Your medicare is safe, and stronger with reform
You can keep your own insurance
Share This Page: Give others a healthy dose of reality

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'


PolitiFact | Obama invokes Republican icons on health care

WRONG

CMS to cut Medicare funding to skilled nursing facilities by $360 million in fiscal year 2010 - McKnight's Long Term Care News


http://militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1581943-TRICARE-and-the-New-National-Health-care-plan


have not even bothered to read the rest of your uninformed bullshit

 

[Old Rocks]

After all the yap-yap, the fact remains that our present system costs us twice as much per capita as that of Japan, and fails to cover all of our citizens. And the results are far inferior to the results of the Japanese system. Or the Canadian system. Or the German system. Or the Swiss system. Or the Costa Rican system. However, take heart, we are on the par with the Cuban system.

 

[Bern80]

What loss of liberty is there if everyone can obtain healthcare. Not having it is a real loss of freedom and liberty.

If freedom means anything, it means freedom from fear that an illness will destroy your savings and your life.

What have you been smoking today? Ever hear of being responsible for yourself? In spite of what you hear on television these days, the Constitution was not written to ensure that the government took care of you from cradle to grave. Health insurance is not a right granted by the Constitution. Get a grip and begin to manage your own life.

Why yes, I have heard of taking care of myself. And taking care of and for my neighbor, also. That is the whole purpose of a real Health Care System.

The purpose of a health care system is to make me take care of you? Interesting.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives really need to move to Cuba or Canada.

President Palin will either offer them to be deprogrammed or relocated to the Progressive Nirvana of their choosing.

 

[Bern80]

Couple of questions I didn't see answered.

What are the countries that have some form of UHC doing about the massive deficits they are accumulating?

What should the standard life saving trip to the emergency room cost?

 

[Old Rocks]

The deficits from a real Health Care System hardly appoach that caused by a war based on lies, or unregulated financial tranactions that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression.

 

[Bern80]

The deficits from a real Health Care System hardly appoach that caused by a war based on lies, or unregulated financial tranactions that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression.

yeah gonna pass on the overly biased and light on facts opinion of dumb as rocks.

Nice try at deflection though. Doesn't change the fact that all of the UHC countries are going into debt to do it forcing them to cut services.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In the corporate world competition is actually agreement among the plutocracy or economic oligarchy. Choice is limited to all except the wealthy already. To them your death is cheaper than your care.

Funny, I thought you were referring to the federal government. How ironic. The federal government has a much bigger conflict of interest when it comes to your health care. When you die, they receive a percentage of your estate. When you die, they are not obligated to pay out the social security that you've paid into all of your life. When you die, they no longer have a burden on them to pay for your health care or any kind of disability. Once you reach a certain age, you are most definitely a liability to them. If you think they're going to give one damn about you or your life over what kind of money they can bring in by fascilitating your death, you're a moron. They'd much rather just 'give you a pill' and watch your numbered days dwindle, after all, you're just a drain on the collective and of no use to them anymore. If you think the insurance companies are cold, you haven't seen anything yet.

You are nothing if not a complete moron. Medicare is the ONLY single payer system of health care and they do the best job. Ask how many of your friends and neighbors over the age of 65 would rather give it up and pay some insurance company till they were bled dry. Maybe you are not a moron. Maybe you are just an evil son of a *****.

Newby has made some great points to which you did your best to avoid addressing: the conflicts of interest that exist with the Federal Government and Healthcare. Perhaps because you are one of those that live under the "illusion" that government can be more fiscally responsible than in the private sector? We find those kind of examples, I'm sure, through how well our Government runs things like: the Post Office, Social Security, or even the military. Each example I'm sure you'd say are are VERY cost effective, and there is no need to question any of them of being financially sound and very cost efficient. After all, it's the Federal Government we are talking about.

Of course if you can site an example, of how efficient the government runs things, I'd be more than happy to have you inform me of such a "projected government standard of excellence".

As far as what Newby has addressed, there is an apparent conflict of interest between the government and healthcare. To think that Government can be any LESS objective and more efficient than private sector insurance companies, is to live under an "Alice in Wonderland illusion". The real question is, which pill do you want to swallow? Liberal Democrats will each boldly proclaim that they support a Federal Government Estate ( otherwise known as "Death" ) Tax. In some states this accumulative sum of your assets can be as low as $1 million, before the government dips their hand into a big undeserved chunk out of your children's hands. This legislation by liberal Democrats, benefits the Federal Government FINANCIALLY when you die, not the type of "government insurance policy" anyone I'm sure wants to be a part of. Now the Federal Government ALSO wants to play a part in determining the kind of Health Care coverage you "ought to receive", and how much the Government is willing to spend for it. As anyone involved in nursing knows, this is how MEDICARE is actually run for our seniors. Furthermore, you can look to a more recent form of legislation the Democrats tried to pass under the nose of the media: end of life counseling. Doctors are given a paid incentive IF in exchange they can bring [any form of] discouragement to patients from having to undergo, what government views as, [unnecessary] expensive treatments. Give me a reason as to why would OUR OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would be involved in providing a "bonus" to doctors, at the very same time the Federal Government is looking for ways to reduce Health care costs? Now there is an example of a conflict of interests, with regard to Obama's Health Care.



New York Times: Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=1&hp

 

[driveby]

In the corporate world competition is actually agreement among the plutocracy or economic oligarchy. Choice is limited to all except the wealthy already. To them your death is cheaper than your care.

Funny, I thought you were referring to the federal government. How ironic. The federal government has a much bigger conflict of interest when it comes to your health care. When you die, they receive a percentage of your estate. When you die, they are not obligated to pay out the social security that you've paid into all of your life. When you die, they no longer have a burden on them to pay for your health care or any kind of disability. Once you reach a certain age, you are most definitely a liability to them. If you think they're going to give one damn about you or your life over what kind of money they can bring in by fascilitating your death, you're a moron. They'd much rather just 'give you a pill' and watch your numbered days dwindle, after all, you're just a drain on the collective and of no use to them anymore. If you think the insurance companies are cold, you haven't seen anything yet.

You are nothing if not a complete moron. Medicare is the ONLY single payer system of health care and they do the best job. Ask how many of your friends and neighbors over the age of 65 would rather give it up and pay some insurance company till they were bled dry. Maybe you are not a moron. Maybe you are just an evil son of a *****.

Medicare does the best job of doing what?, besides having doctors avoid it and denying more claims than any insurance company........

 

[Dillon]

Answers only.

What loss of liberty is there if everyone can obtain healthcare. Not having it is a real loss of freedom and liberty.

If freedom means anything, it means freedom from fear that an illness will destroy your savings and your life. To them your death is cheaper than your care.

Freedom means free to fail and have a bad time financially .Government programs to enslave generation is a crime.

What is your position on the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act"? It is a gross intrusion by government on the private sector - requiring hospitals to treat patients that have life-threatening emergencies even when some patients can't pay. If a hospital knows that an incoming patient is in dire need of help and that the patient has a life-threatening condition - and my have only hours to live if it doesn’t receive care - said Hospital should be free to escort the dying patient to the curb, right?

Hi,,,
I think so that he rightly said that,"Hospital should be free to escort the dying patient to the curb".
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is also collectively known as by its short EMTALA.