5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

And the Dems would argue this whole math thing is unfair to under privileged children and should be stopped.

Not really, they would decide it's 3.

The GOP would argue that the whole math thing is an element of big government and wasteful spending of federal funds.
 
And half of them would wait until God got back to them with the answer.
 
I suppose I should say they wouldn't be able to answer the question, but I find it far more likely that they'd appear not to be able to answer the question, fearing being branded as an east coast intelectual.

On the other side, the dems would be out there with long equations proving their answer, so as not to appear dumb.

:)
 
On the other side, the dems would be out there with long equations proving their answer, so as not to appear dumb.
Yep, like Pelosi trying to say that not renewing Bush's tax cuts is not a tax increase. :wall:
 
You people pay too little tax as it is. And you wonder why and blame everyone else for your public services being in the shitter...
 
You people pay too little tax as it is. And you wonder why and blame everyone else for your public services being in the shitter...

Some states have very high state taxes and still have no money and bad public services such as, oh, California. Taxes aren't necessarily the answer, more efficient spending is.
 
Our governmant like to spend money by borrowing it from Arabs and giving it to India - who I may add has an atomic weapon (disqualifies you from receiving aid in my book), all our IT jobs and a Space Programme! Someone has not got their head on correctly.
 
I can see where he's coming from. If you have enough money for an atomic weapon, why do you need aid relief money? You're hardly an impoverished, developing country at that point.
 
We need a European "Marshall-plan" for the United States.
 
We sell them heaps of shit and get them to pay it back over 60 years?
 
Sort of. And we start putting European ground forces in the United States to stop the Mexican invation, and we deploy French and British nukes in Canada to dem the tide of capitalist expansion in Alaska.
 
Yes, that's correct.
btw, do you ever plan to explain why the average life expectancy in the UK is only 1.2% greater than in the US despite the UK having universal health coverage? :)
Steve

Maybe because the US uses 16% of it's BNP on healthcare, compared to UK's 8%. The US gets worse healtcare but uses twice the money.
 
It gets better quality of health care, but not as good coverage.
 
It gets better quality of health care, but not as good coverage.
Yep, great healthcare means #$%& all when it's prohibitively expensive and there are 50 million people without insurance.
 
There's too many people with their noses pressed to the window, looking in on some of the finest hospitals in the world.
 
Yep, great healthcare means #$%& all when it's prohibitively expensive and there are 50 million people without insurance.

Obviously, the ideal would be great healthcare AND total coverage.

No system has managed to provide that yet. Clearly, there's a balance that tends to be unique to various countries and their social preferences.

A majority of Americans remain concerned that virtually all plans currently proposed tend towards reducing the overall quality of healthcare in exchange for universal coverage. That's not a solution -- it's just a different problem.

Steve
 
How do they tend towards reducing the quality?
 
How do they tend towards reducing the quality?

Timeliness. And in the heroic pursuit of "lost causes" -- for example, no one thinks twice when a 77 year old man in failing health, when diagnosed with brain cancer, is rushed into surgery, and all types of procedures and medications are used at great expense, even though the "best case" is that the gentleman might live for another 18 months at most.

Steve
 
Top