I see the liberal left on this board...save one "sm" could care less for your post....sm

• Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm - ms
  • More smoke and mirrors and much ado about nothing - sm
    • The left media won't report on it. More's the pity. - check back later
      • Again, there is no THERE there. - sm
        • Will you believe Associated Press then? - checking back later
          • I appreciate your posting this source, but - sm
          • Nah, she probably already made up her mind it's false, even if AP reported it...nm - nm
            • My OP would argue otherwise. - sm
      • My husband said the same thing (sm) - indy
  • I see the liberal left on this board...save one "sm" could care less for your post....sm - indy
    • They will hardly get that by - sm
      • Yes, but....(sm) - indy
        • BTDT. - sm
  • I guess she figured a way around that super majority thing, huh.... - good grief
  • Good for her. - sm
    • So the only way, is the democrat (socialist) way from now on? - god help us all

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Do you know where we can find one?

Vie:

As it has been stated SEVERAL times before, you are getting your people mixed up here, and to accuse someone of saying something they DID not say is rude, chicken$*** and just plain WRONG.. AS Kaydie stated, people on this board have differning opinions regarding various topics that are discussed; and if there is something that you find offensive - it us YOUR CHOICE to read it or NOT.  There are people that I do not totally agree with here at times but I have enough RESPECT for them and myself not to blatantly, hatefully insult someone if I do not agree-no need to become personal because someone voices an opinion that does not coincide with yours.  Speaking of insults:  The post that YOU typed regarding what "M/SM" allegedly posted re abortion - your comeback was pretty nasty, i.e., "you are probably a woman who cannot conceive and are just jealous", etc.  As it is said in the BIble - "He who is wihtout sin cast the first stone" and as far as I am concerned YOU do not have the right to bend your back to pick up a rock and throw it at me or anyone else here.  Period.

I don't find anything you write to be stimulating, intelligent, educational or worthy of debate.  And as far as patting people on the back, that's what you do on the Conservative board.  You bash liberals, ALL liberals, EVERY LIBERAL IN THE WORLD, and then the people with the crudest, rudest insults against liberals are patted on the back and high-fived by the rest of you.

Liberals don't discuss things like Repuglicants do.  We would rather be civil with people and find you incredibly distasteful human beings. They obviously call you neoCONS for a reason.  Your posts are nothing but litter...trash...garbage, and I for one, can't relate to and don't want to communicate with people who do nothing but prove how ignorant, childish, hateful, nasty, untruthful and uncouth they are.  Is this really the image you want to portray of your party?  Because that's what you're doing.

Why can't you just be happy on your own board and stay away from people who have asked you repeatedly to stay away because we're not interested in your rhetoric and your attacks?  Or, like your president, aren't you happy unless you're destroying things? 

\\

say go be a man, but I should be ashamed.  I read the second post directed to you, my mistake. 

Needless to say, point still proven as you responded totally based on emotions.

Consider this post educational. This is a post, from someone who lives with a single-payer health care system in a social democracy, explaining why I believe that this is a good way to make sure that everyone can receive health care.

Health care stateside costs more than 2.8 trillion USD per year. More than HALF of that money is spent on clerical help, at the doctor's office, at the lab, at the hospital, at the insurer, by the insurer to deny coverage for whatever they can deny. The reason that 62% of bankruptcies every year are due to catastrophic medical emergencies and 78% of those emergencies are insured, including 60% who had private insurance, not medicaid.., is the profit motive and the incentive it provides to deny coverage (stats from recent Harvard study). The same study found that most of these bankruptcies were solidly middle-class people hit by an unexpected medical emergency. These are not the powerless of the world; these are the people that keep the economy running.

The US spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, for a lower standard of care and a poorer result.

For instance, Canada's lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 11,000; not as good as Austria and Norway, but in the top 11. The US risk is 1 in 4,800 about twice Canada's rate and close to Mauritius. (Stats from Unicef) If you look closer at rates by race, you find that white women have about the same risk as women in Canada; blacks and Hispanics make up the difference, and that was shocking to me. Another shock to me was to find that more than one woman had been denied maternity care, as it was a pre-existing condition. Oh yes, and that Viagra is covered, but birth control often is not.

As it stands now, the US government covers the elderly, infirm, disabled and the poor. The private insurers get their pick of those that remain, and insurance is tied to your employment, which means that you are liable to find yourself without insurance at the very point that you need it most. Insurance often covers a portion of prescriptions, vision care and dental, but only a portion and not always. The portion of coverage declines the more common the need is. There are no drug price caps; the US is practically the only nation in the world not to have them.

IF the government were to cover everyone via a single-payer system, the cost of insuring everyone would cost less, much less than that 2.8 trillion every year.

Single-payer is not socialized medicine. It is exactly what it says it is. The government acts as the main insurer. Doctors are mostly in private practice, although there are a few clinics, usually attached to hospitals. Hospitals tend to be run either by the province or as charitable or private entities, or a combination of both. The choice of doctor is left to the patient; truthfully, patients in Canada have a larger choice of doctors than patients in the US. One's insurer doesn't dictate one's health care provider. It is true that we do not, currently, have dental or prescription care provided by medicare. That is, as it is stateside, covered by a private insurer, if at all. On the other hand, medications here are 1/3 of the price, generally, that they are stateside.

Doctors are paid by the government, yes, but they are billed in the same way an insurer would be. They are paid for provision of services. The main difference is that the insurer is the government; that means that between 10 and 30% of the cost of providing the service is cut. The government doesn't take a profit, doesn't deny services, gives no bonuses for denying services, and has, in fact, no interest in denying services. This means that everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, is covered.

Malpractice suits are not as onerous here as there. There is a cost, of course, associated with lost wages, pain and suffering, punitive damages, lost companionship or a lost parent, but there is no cost associated with lifetime medical care, which is the biggest portion of the US awards. Since health care is taken care of by the government, there is no extra cost for this; the government won't deny coverage, which a private insurer will. It has nothing to do with the government restricting awards; it has everything to do with future health care being taken care of.

How is it paid for? At the beginning, it was paid for through a payment collected by your employer. If I recall correctly, it was $33.00 per person at the beginning. It worked, and well, but it became obvious that the cheapest way to provide healthcare was to charge everyone through taxes, which were progressive, as a flat charge was not. Taxes were charged on tobacco and alcohol to offset the social and medical costs of their use, and that's a fair way to deal with it. Are taxes higher here? Actually, not much.

That is, in part, due to a different set of priorities.

However, If you can find a trillion dollars in three or four days to keep a bloated and corrupt Wall Street afloat, and a couple of trillion dollars for the occupation of Iraq, shouldn't it be as easy to find cash to institute single payer health care in order to keep the population healthy and relieve the burden of increasing health care costs on business?