|
|
| Posted: 11 Aug 2011 21:06 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
What exactly is the difference between shielding you from a criminal and shielding you from an injury? Or, maybe better stated after each case, righting an injustice and curing an illness?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 15 Aug 2011 16:40 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
The government works best as a stick. Somebody plans on hurting somebody or breaking the law, they get the stick. The government does not work well as a nanny taking my temperature and making sure I get to the doctor ok. Somethings are still best left in the hands of the individual.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Aug 2011 23:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I didn't say the government was going to be taking your temperature or making sure you meet your appointments. Matter of fact, I didn't state what anyone's role in anything was here. I asked a fairly direct question, and I'd still like to hear an answer to it; so I will clarify.
You have no problem paying taxes for the police, the military or the FDA because these things in your opinion keep your family safe. My question was essentially why you don't think actual health services would also keep your family safe in the same way the police does, which would be to prevent bad things where they can, and respond when bad things do happen. The police (and courts) are there to shield you from criminals; how is this any different than a doctor shielding you from illnesses? If something does happen, the police and courts are there to right an injustice done against you; how is this any different from a doctor healing you when you do become ill or injured?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 16 Aug 2011 16:44 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Because healthcare is not law enforcement. Healthcare is something of a person's responsibility to take care of themselves. I have no right to make some rich guy pay for my medical bills because he was smarter than me, or worked harder than me and has more money for it.
Now if some rich guy wants to donate money for my medical bills of his own free will then by all means have it, but I want be the one in favor of taking his money by force of the government.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 16 Aug 2011 17:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I have no right to make some rich guy pay for my medical bills
Kind of a lopsided view on how these things work and you're still avoiding what I'm asking. What is the difference between the two? A criminal causing you loss or injury or an illness causing you loss or injury? There is none, except you've been trained to have this kneejerk reaction to one over the other. Somehow the police and the military (and the FDA? really?) should be a shared expense, but medicine or a doctor visit, well screw that, you're on your own.
If you were visiting a town you'd never been to before, and someone stole your car, should the police not help you because your tax money specifically didn't pay for their services? You should have been watching your car more closely. You should have made it more secure. You should have worked harder to make sure someone couldn't steal it. That's the exact same argument you make when you say your taxes shouldn't go toward helping someone who didn't pay in. You should do your own police work when you didn't chip in for a particular police force and they should perform their own healthcare when illness or injury comes their way.
That's right neighborly of ya.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 16 Aug 2011 20:03 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
The reasoning is we have to draw the line somewhere. I think the founders would have felt the same way as I do. A person only has a limited amount of control over criminal acts. We can at least have some say so over ourselves.
The government can provide law enforcement more efficiently than civilians. I don't believe they can provide healthcare more efficiently.
Again where do you draw the line? Should I pay taxes to support a life long smoker's lung cancer, or maybe a 500 lb woman's stomach staple surgery?
If people have to pay for things themselves they are going to be a lot more motivated to live healthy lives.
Increasing financial access to healthcare without increasing the number of doctors and hospitals is also a massive nation wide tragedy waiting to happen. People who need services can't get them while waiting for the first available appointments.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 16 Aug 2011 21:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Should I pay taxes to support a life long smoker's lung cancer, or maybe a 500 lb woman's stomach staple surgery?
If you're paying taxes for a healthcare system, it's for the possibility of you needing it. Someone getting the benefit of it in the moments you aren't using it shouldn't be any more of a concern for you than who the police and fire department are helping when you don't need them and the idea that you should be able to keep services away from people who might need them because their lifestyle doesn't meet your strict requirements is frankly morally reprehensible.
Quote:
If people have to pay for things themselves they are going to be a lot more motivated to live healthy lives.
Tell that to cancer patients or the thousands of people driven bankrupt by medical expenses for things beyond their control. WTF happened to 'love thy neighbor'?
Quote:
Increasing financial access to healthcare without increasing the number of doctors and hospitals is also a massive nation wide tragedy waiting to happen.
Can you prove this?
Quote:
People who need services can't get them while waiting for the first available appointments.
I can point to veterans hospitals and call bullshit on this. Can you back up what you're saying?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 17 Aug 2011 11:26 Last Edited By: Matches |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
|
Quote:
If people have to pay for things themselves they are going to be a lot more motivated to live healthy lives.
This is true, and really if the government is covering the costs, there will be limitations. I doubt we'll see sex reassignment surgery covered and things like stomach staples likely would be highly restricted, and we can just skip right over abortion at the moment.
Let us say, only the deserving should get coverage, can you conceed that maybe the state has an interest in making sure a citizen doesn't go bankrupt because their child was born with a difficult and expensive desease? How about the guy who gets shot by the criminal and has to go through years of physical therapy to regain the use of their legs?
The thing is, even if you are careful, there are things you just can't prevent. That's the point of the social safety net. Just like how you can't prevent a criminal breaking into your house, you can't prevent cancer no matter what you think about healthy living. And all of these programs in the United States are there for you incase of an emergency. No one thinks they'll have that emergency, but people do everyday. Their plant closes, they get hit by a drunk driver, they slip in the shower and break their arm. These aren't things that can be planned for.
The fact is, the majority of people who go bankrupt due to medical procedures do so despite the fact that they had private insurance, some had what they thought was a solid catastrophic plan, that wound up not covering the kinds of out patient maintenance procedures necessary to maintain one's health when one suffers from a chronic desease. Others had a comprehensive policy but still got hit by costs they hadn't considered. And most don't get a choice, their employer picks the plan that is most cost effective for them, and the benefits can swing wildly between as far as coverage and deductible goes. As such if your employer picks poorly, that's still your only option.
The idea that maybe rather than relying on for profit organizations that have a compelling interest in denying service, this sort of coverage should be place in the authority of a group with a dedication to the public good, is not that outragious. Just as you would be skeptical of a for profit cop or a for profit FDA, you might one to reconsider your trust in for profit health insurance.
|
| Posted: 18 Aug 2011 19:11 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
keep services away from people who might need them because their lifestyle doesn't meet your strict requirements is frankly morally reprehensible.
See you are speaking as a liberal here as if we are all guaranteed and entitled to the right of free medicine to begin with. That's no where in the constitution. To guarantee free healthcare opens the door to the government or us as a nation to have the ability to tell others how to live because people like me are going to start saying they don't want to pay for someone's health care who sits in a chair eating candy and drinking cokes all day. People are going to get pissed and tell the fat boys to get off their couch and start working out. Sounds like communism right. That's why free healthcare is a bad idea.
Quote:
Tell that to cancer patients or the thousands of people driven bankrupt by medical expenses for things beyond their control. WTF happened to 'love thy neighbor'? Free government controlled healthcare isn't the answer. You make it sound like that's the only way we can help people. Would you give up your liberty for free healthcare?
And about proving Quote:
Increasing financial access to healthcare without increasing the number of doctors and hospitals is also a massive nation wide tragedy waiting to happen.
It's common sense. I don't know right now how many more people or if any more are covered right now since Obama passed his bill but already at this point I've noticed it takes forever for us to make a appointment with doctor for stuff that used to take no time. Personally, I wait till the last possible second before I go to the doctor whether it's covered or not, but a lot of people who suddenly have free healthcare are going to start going for every freakin little problem whether it's necessary or not.
I'm certainly not saying that it doesn't cost too much for healthcare, but the government just taking it over makes no sense. How is doing something to make a situation worse going to make it better? Believe me the government running healthcare will not create this great wonder world where everybody gets treated with great medical care.
The system is going to be overrun. Has Obama even once addressed the issue of the need for more doctors, nurses, and hospitals? Granting more people access without any restraints and not putting into play some program to create more medical staff and facilities is going to be a major problemo. It's simple math.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 18 Aug 2011 22:50 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
See you are speaking as a liberal here as if we are all guaranteed and entitled to the right of free medicine to begin with.
You either have a voice in your head or you are just hearing what you want, because I never claimed any such thing.
Quote:
To guarantee free healthcare
It wouldn't be free. There is no such thing as free with the government. Everyone who was able would be paying for it and would have a stake in it.
Quote:
people like me are going to start saying they don't want to pay for someone's health care who sits in a chair eating candy and drinking cokes all day.
Thank you for further reinforcing my point about you wanting to punish people for not living according to what you think their lifestyle should be.
Also note that you keep pushing this idea that you are paying for someone else with such a program, steadily ignoring that what you are paying for is the instances when you yourself may need it, just like with the police and the fire department and (in better fits of the imagination) the FDA and the military.
Quote:
Free government controlled healthcare isn't the answer. You make it sound like that's the only way we can help people. Would you give up your liberty for free healthcare?
Health insurance companies are not the answer, unless you happen to be rich and want a spot at the front of the line. Universal healthcare is a better answer than what we have now, where we spend more than any nation on the planet and seem to have the most abusive system, if not one of the flat out worst.
We are the only industrialized nation in the world without universal healthcare; take the hint.
Quote:
It's common sense.
That was the same justification in earlier times for people to say the earth was flat and the sun went round the earth. That's not proof of any sort.
Quote:
Personally, I wait till the last possible second before I go to the doctor
So people should continue to be bankrupted and left homeless because of health expenses so you can continue to be lax in making appointments? Is this really what you want to advance here?
Quote:
a lot of people who suddenly have free healthcare are going to start going for every freakin little problem whether it's necessary or not.
Any real world examples to justify this or is this just in your imagination? I know doctors are fun people to be around and hospitals are like amusement parks that everyone loves being in, but no, I don't see people trying to take advantage quite in this fashion.
Quote:
Believe me the government running healthcare will not create this great wonder world where everybody gets treated with great medical care.
Why would I just take your word for that?
Quote:
the government just taking it over makes no sense.
When you can't answer directly how having the government run the police department is in ANY way different from the government running universal healthcare and you can't even acknowledge that you can't answer it, then yes, it is perfectly understandable that it wouldn't make any sense to you.
Quote:
The system is going to be overrun.
Are you using a crystal ball or tarot cards for your prediction?
Quote:
Has Obama even once addressed the issue of the need for more doctors, nurses, and hospitals?
Why would Obama or any other politician who has a vested interest in pleasing insurance companies do such a thing?
Quote:
Granting more people access without any restraints and not putting into play some program to create more medical staff and facilities is going to be a major problemo. It's simple math.
That would be a problem. Now please explain to me why this would happen that way outside of your imagination.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 19 Aug 2011 20:44 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Also note that you keep pushing this idea that you are paying for someone else with such a program, steadily ignoring that what you are paying for is the instances when you yourself may need it, just like with the police and the fire department and (in better fits of the imagination) the FDA and the military.
I haven't complained at all about the fire department or the police either, but then again people don't usually set fire to themselves on a regular basis the way they sabotage their health. As long as it is slow and painfully drawn out people don't seem to care to kill themselves.
Quote:
We are the only industrialized nation in the world without universal healthcare; take the hint.
And up until Obama we were basically the richest country in the world. So right back at ya bud. 
Quote:
Are you using a crystal ball or tarot cards for your prediction?
Are you just closing your eyes and hoping for the best? I mean come on. Don't be goofy. Can you predict government run healthcare is going to bring this eutopia you desire?
Quote:
That would be a problem. Now please explain to me why this would happen that way outside of your imagination.
Well where I live it takes a few weeks to get a specialist dr. app as it is now. I guess where you live there must be an abundance of doctors, or you haven't tried to make any apps. in a long while.
Pak, are you always pissed or do you just sound that way? Seriously, how do you live without having a cardioac event. Stress ain't good for your health brother.
Out of curiosity do I sound like that too? I'm just asking because obviously we can't hear the tones of our voices here.
One last thing my way of thinking is just this. There are other ways to take care of people other than the government. Charities have been around forever and do a pretty good job helping people. Maybe we just need bigger and better charity groups, but whatever I don't understand why you all think the government is the only solution to every problem of mankind. If that's the case we are all in a big world of trouble.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 19 Aug 2011 21:37 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
As long as it is slow and painfully drawn out people don't seem to care to kill themselves.
So having medical care available to you personally when you or someone you care about needs it means less than keeping it away from those you feel are undeserving of it, on the one hand because they didn't pay in enough in your opinion and on the other because they didn't live up to your standard, even if they did pay in as much or more than you. Do I have that right?
Quote:
And up until Obama we were basically the richest country in the world.
Which has nothing to do with what I said and sounds like a baseless assertion to boot.
Quote:
Can you predict government run healthcare is going to bring this eutopia you desire?
I can look at what is available in the world and the statistics and see that while we spend the most on healthcare we get some of the worst results. Nobody is claiming it will be a Utopia to have universal healthcare; just far better than what we have now or what any of our politicians is proposing.
Quote:
I guess where you live there must be an abundance of doctors, or you haven't tried to make any apps. in a long while.
My statement was in response to you saying 'Granting more people access without any restraints and not putting into play some program to create more medical staff and facilities is going to be a major problemo'. Now you're pointing to the problem already existing instead of what will come in the future. Pick one and stick to it or adjust accordingly. Thanks.
Quote:
Pak, are you always pissed or do you just sound that way?
I speak directly. If that sounds like me being pissed, perhaps you should consider that maybe you aren't used to people being direct with you. It's not anger on my part. I promise.
Quote:
Out of curiosity do I sound like that too?
What I hear most often is best described as a sort of denial, whether purposely or unintentionally, where instead of tending to what was said if it makes your position the slightest bit unfavorable is shifting the discussion or argument to something you appear to think you have a favorable position on. There are days when it resembles talking to an actual politician, for better or worse.
Quote:
There are other ways to take care of people other than the government.
Charities can only accomplish so much. They will not be able to tackle America's healthcare problem. Now, what do you have besides for-profit hospitals and insurance companies?
Quote:
I don't understand why you all think the government is the only solution to every problem of mankind
Because you keep overblowing the focus of it to being a Utopia or the only solution to every problem, instead of being one set of solutions to one set of problems.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 22 Aug 2011 18:09 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
It all boils down to this, where it is stated in the constitution that healthcare is a responsibility of our government?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 22 Aug 2011 18:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Now you want to hide behind the Constitution instead of addressing what was said to you. It seems to be a running theme in your responses today.
Healthcare is not an enumerated power or responsibility of our government. Neither were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. Neither is rendition or waterboarding or the TSA or recording every communication over a phone or the internet.
Here's a reminder of what the opening of the Constitution says:
Quote:
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.
You would probably tell me that this introduction is enough of a justification for all those acts and events that have taken place in the nonsensical war on terror that have over stepped or otherwise demolished later text or amendments to this same document. The problem is that most of those events and acts(if not every last one of them) had specific prohibitions in this document against them.
Now lets look at healthcare. The thing we are basically alone in doing to our people in the world. The thing we spend such a dreadful amount on and get hideous results from. Obviously there are no prohibitions in the Constitution, or anywhere else for that matter, saying government can't or even shouldn't provide healthcare. Back to the intro. Do healthy citizens insure domestic tranquility? I'd say yes. Do healthy citizens provide for a common defense? A lot better than sick ones, absolutely. Promotes the general welfare? It should be obvious. Securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity? I think you know my answer already and if you have a shred of the common sense you speak of often, you'll agree.
Now how about addressing what was actually said?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 22 Aug 2011 20:40 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
My blog entry today: HappinessFaction Blog: Health as a Human Right
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 23 Aug 2011 17:43 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
If our founders meant for us to have healthcare they would started it themselves. We have a right to pursue happiness, but we aren't guaranteed it. The government can't guarantee our health either even if it wanted to. It can't even come close unless it makes a person stop smoking, eat only healthy foods, and exercise 5 times a week. Easy access to doctors means nothing more than a huge waste of money if the people getting the free healthcare don't care about themselves.
People who do get cancer and things like that. I feel for them. I really do. I wish nobody would ever get sick. I just don't think the government getting involved would better healthcare over all. In the long run more people might actually die than were helped. Government makes things complicated and messy. It always has and always will.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 23 Aug 2011 20:57 Last Edited By: pakratmak |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
If our founders meant for us to have healthcare they would started it themselves.
Constitution already addressed. Since you want to ignore that too though, show me where the founders started local fire departments and the FDA.
Quote:
The government can't guarantee our health either even if it wanted to.
Nobody ever made the argument they could. Regardless of who is running a hospital, they can't make such guarantees; what's the point here; to not even try because success isn't guaranteed?
Quote:
It can't even come close unless it makes a person stop smoking, eat only healthy foods, and exercise 5 times a week.
and stop breathing in polution, and stop risking their lives in cars and bathtubs, and live a good wholesome life that is up to Tim standards...otherwise punish them.
Quote:
Easy access to doctors means nothing more than a huge waste of money if the people getting the free healthcare don't care about themselves.
Except your imagination doesn't match real world numbers- look up for yourself what we are already spending and consider, just for a moment, that eliminating the present day red tape and going with universal heathcare might actually save us money.
Quote:
People who do get cancer and things like that. I feel for them. I really do.
Here's your gold star.
Quote:
I just don't think the government getting involved would better healthcare over all.
Again, I can look at a veteran's hospital, compare it to any regular hospital and say it would. What are you looking at that says it wouldn't?
Quote:
In the long run more people might actually die than were helped.
Nonsense. Back this up with why.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Aug 2011 11:49 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Here's a thought. Instead of what must look like my just being confrontational, Id like to address each one of your points in a separate post Tim, with your permission. This thread has gone far far astray from where it started(completely my fault) and we seem to be just bickering at this point, which may be amusing but is ultimately futile.
Here's my proposition. A thread called 'Concerning Single Payer Universal Healthcare' where we stick to the facts involved instead of each other or our personal politics, and I'd like to start that off by addressing the following concerns(and not just you for having them), which are all from you:
Quote:
There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what the government does or doesn't do. The more they do the bigger they are, the more power they have, and the less we have. The more taxes they collect.
I want the government to focus on keeping me and my family safe, and that's about it really. I think they should focus on defense, law, and keeping our food supply safe. I like to think my food is safe to eat.
Difference between keeping me safe with a gun, or being our nurses. I don't need another mother just a law man keeping the bad guys away.
The government works best as a stick. Somebody plans on hurting somebody or breaking the law, they get the stick. The government does not work well as a nanny taking my temperature and making sure I get to the doctor ok. Somethings are still best left in the hands of the individual.
Because healthcare is not law enforcement. Healthcare is something of a person's responsibility to take care of themselves. I have no right to make some rich guy pay for my medical bills because he was smarter than me, or worked harder than me and has more money for it. Now if some rich guy wants to donate money for my medical bills of his own free will then by all means have it, but I want be the one in favor of taking his money by force of the government.
The government can provide law enforcement more efficiently than civilians. I don't believe they can provide healthcare more efficiently.
Should I pay taxes to support a life long smoker's lung cancer, or maybe a 500 lb woman's stomach staple surgery?
If people have to pay for things themselves they are going to be a lot more motivated to live healthy lives.
Increasing financial access to healthcare without increasing the number of doctors and hospitals is also a massive nation wide tragedy waiting to happen.
People who need services can't get them while waiting for the first available appointments.
To guarantee free healthcare opens the door to the government or us as a nation to have the ability to tell others how to live because people like me are going to start saying they don't want to pay for someone's health care who sits in a chair eating candy and drinking cokes all day.People are going to get pissed and tell the fat boys to get off their couch and start working out. Sounds like communism right.
Would you give up your liberty for free healthcare?
a lot of people who suddenly have free healthcare are going to start going for every freakin little problem whether it's necessary or not.
The system is going to be overrun. Has Obama even once addressed the issue of the need for more doctors, nurses, and hospitals? Granting more people access without any restraints and not putting into play some program to create more medical staff and facilities is going to be a major problemo.
I want to give you a reasonable response to each of those things, one at a time, while defending our nation getting single payer universal health care. Is that Ok with you Tim? I can do the topic without starting there, but would like to cover what's already been gone over and try to be a little more thorough and fir to you. Let me know.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 25 Aug 2011 17:10 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Post any topic you want pak. You know I don't care. I guarantee nothing in terms of what I'll post in response cause I never know what time I've got or what kind of mood I'm in etc, but you know I try to respond as much as I can.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 25 Aug 2011 22:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I'm interested in actually holding a conversation on this one, as opposed to what we normally do on here. Give me a day or two and I'll get on that.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
|
