We've been trapped Inside a Bad Health Care System So Long,

[HAL 9000 96]

Bo-Go too.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

** you, commie.

If it isn't pay-go, it's commie.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Here is a link to the WHO Health Report - http://www.who.int/whr/en/ which ranks the US lower than socialist nations in Europe.

It is clearly socialist.

It lists the following as four 'principles' by which nations are measured:

1. Universal coverage: For fair and efficient systems, all people must have access to health care according to need and regardless of ability to pay.

2. People-centred services: Health systems can be reoriented to better respond to people's needs through delivery points embedded in communities.

3. Healthy Public Policies: "Health in all policies" approach needs to be integrated broadly throughout governments.

4. Leadership: Health leaders need to ensure that vulnerable groups have a platform to express their needs and that these pleas are heeded.

It assumes Universal coverage is desirable. What is that, if not outright socialistic? This is a hilarious case of socialistic assumptions being deployed to construct an argument that then justifies socialism. Lucky for you and me, the American people are not stupid enough to be hoodwinked by ####### like that. We know better. Pay-go is the way to go.

Pay to go preserves freedom of choice. The more power the government has to control my healthcare, the less I have.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its all about marketability homey!!!

How dare you insult the free market like that!!!

Get sick once... get sick again! Woot

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Pay to go preserves freedom of choice. The more power the government has to control my healthcare, the less I have.

Exactly.

And besides, health care is one of those issues that has always been with us. It's not some artifact of the 21st century. So if the founding fathers had intended for the federal government to get involved, they would have put it into the Constitution.

But they didn't. It just isn't American. Neither are insurance pools, because there is something distastefully socialistic about the sharing of risk. Why should you have to share risk with Steven who probably has carpal tunnel from all the posting or with me who is at high risk of diabetes from all the soda? You shouldn't have to, and yet the powers that be are trying to masquerade a socialist solution - insurance - as a free market one. Don't let them fool you.

Good thing the founding fathers saw it fit for all of us to bear arms. When those nurses come to you for your mandatory health screening, let's just say they won't be making any followup visits

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As long as we can sue providers, there will be no universal healthcare in the US. When that stops, then there's some new bennie in it for the lawyers.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

As long as we can sue providers, there will be no universal healthcare in the US. When that stops, then there's some new bennie in it for the lawyers.

Wise words, Sister Sofiyya.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'll put a lawyer up against a doctor any day. Tort law and the profits involved are great motivators.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What if the socialists made it so you could no longer sue doctors?

Would you exercise your Second Amendment rights?

I sure hope so, Sister Sofiyya

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As long as we can sue providers, there will be no universal healthcare in the US. When that stops, then there's some new bennie in it for the lawyers.

Wise words, Sister Sofiyya.

What do you two imagine to be the recourse if you go in for kidney stones and they amputate your legs?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

As long as we can sue providers, there will be no universal healthcare in the US. When that stops, then there's some new bennie in it for the lawyers.

Wise words, Sister Sofiyya.

What do you two imagine to be the recourse if you go in for kidney stones and they amputate your legs?

If your value as a person, as set by the free market, was such that you could have afforded a better medical team, you would significantly reduce the chances of that happening.

If it happens regardless, life is unfair.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As long as we can sue providers, there will be no universal healthcare in the US. When that stops, then there's some new bennie in it for the lawyers.

Wise words, Sister Sofiyya.

What do you two imagine to be the recourse if you go in for kidney stones and they amputate your legs?

If your value as a person, as set by the free market, was such that you could have afforded a better medical team, you would significantly reduce the chances of that happening.

If it happens regardless, life is unfair.

Suing is part of a free market. Companies file lawsuits all the time.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

As long as we can sue providers, there will be no universal healthcare in the US. When that stops, then there's some new bennie in it for the lawyers.

Wise words, Sister Sofiyya.

What do you two imagine to be the recourse if you go in for kidney stones and they amputate your legs?

If your value as a person, as set by the free market, was such that you could have afforded a better medical team, you would significantly reduce the chances of that happening.

If it happens regardless, life is unfair.

Suing is part of a free market. Companies file lawsuits all the time.

Suing assumes parties have a right to redress, it's just another socialist entitlement masquerading as a free market solution.

In a free market, you have no 'rights'. There are things you can afford and there things you can not afford. That's it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As long as we can sue providers, there will be no universal healthcare in the US. When that stops, then there's some new bennie in it for the lawyers.

Wise words, Sister Sofiyya.

What do you two imagine to be the recourse if you go in for kidney stones and they amputate your legs?

If your value as a person, as set by the free market, was such that you could have afforded a better medical team, you would significantly reduce the chances of that happening.

If it happens regardless, life is unfair.

Suing is part of a free market. Companies file lawsuits all the time.

Suing assumes parties have a right to redress, it's just another socialist entitlement masquerading as a free market solution.

In a free market, you have no 'rights'. There are things you can afford and there things you can not afford. That's it.

So you're advocating ending all lawsuits, including the ones filed by companies?

Edited July 6, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So you're advocating ending all lawsuits, including the ones filed by companies?

Companies are not individuals, the restriction would only be on individuals.