Mark Levin (radio host and author of Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto) has done a wonderful service by pulling together articles about government-run healthcare and putting them on his show's website.

Here's the link:

The Problems with Socialized Health Care

The problems of government-run healthcare in other countries is also available on the same page.

For those of you who argue about how wonderful your experiences have been in the Candian system, how do you explain the systemic problems discussed in these articles? These articles show serious flaws in government-run health care, where thousands of people not only fall through the cracks by accident, but are deliberately pushed through the cracks.

I know, I know, you will all point out the "46 million Americans" without health insurance. 15% of the American population, you'll say.

Let's leave aside the fact that the 46 million figure has been exaggerated, and is really about 10-15 million (3-5% of the population). I've explained that before based on the Heritage Foundation's analysis, and I see no reason to rehash that again here.

But the fact is that we already have government-run healthcare that is designed to cover such people. Medicare and Medicaid are there specifically to help those with disabilities who are unable to afford health insurance, or are there to help those with insufficient income who cannot afford health insurance. Medicare and Medicaid cost roughly 20% of the budget of each state in the USA... 20% of everything we spend is Medicare and Medicaid, which are specifically designed to cover those most in need. We are supposedly spending 20% of all the government's money to cover just 3-15% of the population for medical care.

And yet that system fails. It fails to cover anywhere from 15-45 million people, depending whether you accept the Heritage Foundation's analysis or not. Those who criticize the US medical system are right about that... there is definitely a percentage of the population that is not covered.

But it is a failure of the GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEM that is at fault. Private health insurance is covering exactly who it is supposed to cover... those who pay for it. There has been no failure in coverage there. If you pay for insurance, you have insurance. The failure is in the government-run Medicare and Medicaid system, which is supposed to be covering those not otherwise covered, but is not doing so. Government-run health care is where the problem lies, not private health insurance.

So let me get this straight...

1) Knowing what we know about the failures of the Canadian health system and other government-run health systems,
2) Knowing that the US Medicare and Medicaid systems are already failing to do what they were created to do, which is to cover those who are not already covered due to lack of employment or disability
3) Knowing that government has failed in running such things as social security, the VA Hospital system, and even the US Postal service with anything approaching efficiency,

Knowing all these things, why would anyone push for a government-run health system in the USA modeled on the systems of Canada and the UK?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

1) Knowing what we know about the failures of the Canadian health system and other government-run health systems,

---

No failure here. Quit making bald-face lies. It's almost time to put you on Ignore if you continue pushing your propaganda of disinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No failure here. Quit making bald-face lies. It's almost time to put you on Ignore if you continue pushing your propaganda of disinformation.

---

Have you read any of the articles that I linked to?

I think you are the bald faced liar, NK. There are 72 articles from Canadian sources pointing out the failures of which I speak, and you are denying it. That makes YOU a liar, not me.

Read before you speak, NK. You MIGHT just learn something about your own system.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Read before you speak, NK. You MIGHT just learn something about your own system.

---

I live it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Have you read any of the articles that I linked to?

I think you are the bald faced liar, NK. There are 72 articles from Canadian sources pointing out the failures of which I speak, and you are denying it.

---

Hello El:

I didn't read them. I don't doubt, however, that there's at least 72 right wing writers in Canada willing to spin stuff, just like Mark Levin does. Do I need to read their swill? No, of course not! For sure, you're not going to read any liberal crap I recommend, so don't come down on me/us for doing exactly what you yourself do. Yes, I know, that's how Republicans act, but try to stifle yourself.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I live it!

---

So do the people who wrote those articles, and the people about whom those articles are written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

I didn't read them. I don't doubt, however, that there's at least 72 right wing writers in Canada willing to spin stuff, just like Mark Levin does. Do I need to read their swill? No, of course not! For sure, you're not gonna read any liberal crap I recommend, so don't come down on me/us for doing exactly what you yourself do. Yes, I know, that's how Republicans act, but try to stifle yourself.

excon

---

Typical leftist. Ignore science if it doesn't support your claim, but embrace it if it does. Ignore statistics if they don't support your position, but embrace them if they do.

BTW, most of the statistical information in those articles come from CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SOURCES, not right-wingers. You know... the guys who actually run the system...

You have indeed drunk the lib koolaid, excon. You're not even willing to take the time to read the information in question because you are convinced it's right-wing spin. THAT IS THE ACTIONS OF A KOOLAID DRINKER.

I think you need to change your signature.

Elliot

I notice with the Australian section he could only find 6 articles. He needs to Google a little better. We've had more negative articles than that. And this guy calls himself a journalist? Links to a few newspaper articles about some problems in hospitals doesn't mean squat.

Anyone can Google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-fai...us-healthcare/

It really amazes me how people will defend the failed health care system to our north. Tonight on the news it was mentioned that in CanadA there is a 16% higher death rate from cancer than in the US. HUMMMMM Is that because of the 8 week delay before a Canadian can get chemo or radiation treatment when they are diagnosed with cancer? Sure glad I don't live in CanadA, I would be a widower based on those numbers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Anyone can google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-fai...us-healthcare/

---

Well there you go, that proves it, the US healthcare system is a failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

Sure glad I don't live in CanadA

---

Thank you for that. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

I notice with the Australian section he could only find 6 articles. He needs to google a little better. We've had more negative articles than that. And this guy calls himself a journalist?? Links to a few newspaper articles about some problems in hospitals doesnt mean squat.

Anyone can google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-fai...us-healthcare/

---

Skell,

First of all, Levin doesn't call himself a journalist. He's a radio talkshow host and a former member of the Reagan Administration. He was, in fact, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Ed Meese. He is also a noted Constitutional Lawyer and author of three best-selling books. The first, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court id Destroying American" is a critique of the Supreme Court's drift away from originalism. His second best seller, "Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish" is the story of his and his family's relationship with his beloved pet who he rescued from a shelter in 2004 and had to put down in 2006 due to health issues. His third book, "Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto" has spent 12 (maybe more, I'm not sure) of the past 15 weeks as number 1 on the NY Times best seller list, and explains the differences between Conservatism and Statism (his word for all forms of liberalism) and why Conservatism is superior in all aspects. It also serves as a call to action for conservatism in the USA.

But at no point has he ever called himself a journalist.

Second, I have no doubt that there are many articles about the problems with the US health care system out there. After all, the leftist media is on board with Obama's plans to socialize the medical system, so any articles on the subject would be skewed in that direction. And there are indeed problems with the US medical system. As has been pointed out, anywhere from 3% to 15% of the US population is not covered by insurance, despite the fact that Medicare and Medicaid exist to cover those gaps. The government system designed to close the gaps has failed to do so, and creating a BIGGER government system is not going to fix the problem. And I agree that there is wasteful spending within the health care industry, primarily due to CYA Medicine or Defensive Medicine (performing extra, unneeded tests in order to cover your butt). I agree that we have problems with our health care system that need to be addressed. But that is NOT my point here.

My point in showing those articles about the Canadian system is to refute the claims of the Canadians among us who claim that their system is hunky-dory and has no systemic problems. People on this board like NK have claimed that there are no significant wait periods, no significant gaps in coverage, and no failures of the Canadian health system because they haven't experienced them. These articles are there to point to statistical data that points out where the failures are in the Canadian system AND that those failures result in worse outcomes for patients than the US healthcare system has. I also point to the articles about other countries to show that this is not simply a failure of Canada and Canada alone, but rather a failure of government-run healthcare in general. All government-run systems have the same types of failures and faults, regardless of which country we are talking about. INCLUDING THE US SYSTEMS OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, WHICH HAVE FAILED TO CLOSE THE GAPS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CLOSE. US-run government health care is no less prone to failure than government-run health care of other countries. It is also no less prone to wasting money... in fact, the US government spends $500 to buy a hammer. I have no doubt about wasteful spending within Medicare and Medicaid.

Which leads to the final group of questions that I posted.

If the system we have produces better results than the Canadian system and other similar systems, despite the US system's failures, why would we want to switch to the Canadian or other similar systems?

By the way, I noticed two things about the article you linked to. The "recent study" by Barbra Starfield that was published in JAMA cited in this article was from 2000... which isn't all that "recent". I don't question the accuracy of the data, just its timliness. Also, for all it's criticism of waste within the US system, there is no discussion whatsoever in the article about case outcomes and effect on patients. I suspect that is because if we were to look at patient outcomes, we would find much better results than can be found in the cases of our counterparts in government-run healthcare systems. So better to concentrate on the idea of "wasteful spending" without looking at the payoff than to have those statistics rubbed in the face of the author of the article.

The final question regarding that article is, if the biggest issue in the US medical system is wasteful spending, which this article's author seems to indicate, does anyone really think that getting the government involved is going to create more efficiencies in spending?

Remember, as I pointed out above, the government is the same body that buys a hammer for $500. The same government that wanted to spend $390 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. The same government that, according to watchdog groups, made $20 billion in overpayments to its vendors in 2001 alone. The same government that, through the Advanced Technology Program, an agency which is supposed to subsidize small businesses, gave 40% of its $150 million budget ($60 million) to Fortune 500 companies that don't qualify for such funding. The same government that pay farmers $2 billion per year NOT to farm their land. And here's the one that applies most to our issue... This is the same government whose Medicare program pays 8 times as much for medicines as other federal agency programs do.

By what stretch of the imagination can one possibly think that getting the government involved in health care is going to make the system more efficient in its spending practices?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Second, I have no doubt that there are many articles about the problems with the US health care system out there. After all, the leftist media is on board with Obama's plans to socialize the medical system, so any articles on the subject would be skewed in that direction.

---

If you think that the internet is a leftist media then you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. Is the whole world a "leftist" plot against you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If you think that the internet is a leftist media then you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. Is the whole world a "leftist" plot against you?

---

No, I don't think that the internet is leftist. I believe that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and most of the rest of the media are leftist. And they post much of what has been written on the subject of healthcare in the USA on the internet. My point is that with the MSM being so leftist, I am sure that there are quite a few more articles about the failures of the US health care system out there. They can be found quite easily.

And no, the whole world is not a leftist plot. Just the Obama Administration and the MSM. In fact, they are so skewed to the left that countries like Germany, France, the UK and Russia are telling Obama that he's going too far socialist in his financial policy.

Imagine that... the European socialist countries telling the USA that they are moving too far to the left.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Thank you for that. :D

---

I'll bet you would not be so glib if it was you or your mother dying from an under treated cancer!

Ah yes, Obama's socialism again, like the talking points we see all the time from the rightists. (LOL!)

Here's what it looks like:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...37;20chart.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

I'll bet you would not be so glib if it was you or your mother dying from an under treated cancer!

---

Wow, we went from you not being in Canada to my mother's untreated cancer. Nice segue. My mother is recovering nicely from hip replacement surgery. All went well, staff at hospital and rehab are excellent and we will never see a medical bill, nor deal with an insurance company nor need the services of a lawyer.

SO! My MIL also had a hip replacement about 12 weeks ago. It cost her a grand total of $800 plus a few prescriptions at $4.00 each. That includes about a month in a rehab facility. Health insurance is available and affordable to all who want to buy it. Many people feel no need for health coverage. With the government's history of management, what makes any thinking individual believe that the Government can do a better job than private sector?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

With the government's history of management, what makes any thinking individual believe that the Government can do a better job than private sector??

---

I agree, your government is too corrupted to run it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah yes, Obama's socialism again, like the talking points we see all the time from the rightists. (LOL!)

Here's what it looks like:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...sm%20chart.png

---

First of all, the graph is bogus. It just so happens that the government is the single largest real estate holder in the USA owning something like 80% of all undeveloped land in the USA and something like 20% of the buildings in the USA. The fact that they don't call them "business assets" doesn't mean that they don't count. This graph ignores government ownership of real estate completely.

Then there's the amount of assets owned by the Department of Defense... all those tanks, planes, ships, army bases, ammunition, etc. and all the assets necessary to support them. Again, they are not considered "business assets" so they are not taken into consideration in this graph.

Third, Medicare and Medicaid are roughly 20% of the national budget of each state (some a little more, some a little less). The government doesn't consider Medicare and Medicaid "business assets" and so doesn't count them in this graph.

If you take a look at total assets owned by the government, you will find that there is very little blue in that graph and a whole lot of red. And if you look at it from a GDP perspective instead of an asset perspective, the government is currently in control of 12% of the sources of GDP in the USA. If we add nationalized health care, that number jumps to control of over 20% of GDP sources. That is a large number for a country that still calls itself a capitalist nation. But Obama's just getting started.

Obama IS a socialist. He is taking control of everything in sight. The auto industry, the energy industry, banks, insurance companies, lightbulb companies, and he's working on controlling medical insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies and doctors' offices. The fact that you happen to LIKE the fact that he is taking control of these industries doesn't mean that it isn't socialism. It just means that you are a socialist too.

Don't like being called a socialist? Perhaps "statist" is a term you would prefer. You, like Obama, believe that the answer to all your problems is more government control... more state power. That is the definition of statism. That is also the definition of socialism.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Wow, we went from you not being in Canada to my mother's untreated cancer. Nice segue. My mother is recovering nicely from hip replacement surgery. All went well, staff at hospital and rehab are excellent and we will never see a medical bill, nor deal with an insurance company nor need the services of a lawyer.

---

Questions:
How long did your mother have to wait for the visit with her primary care physician to check out the pain in her hip?
How long did it take for your mother's doctor to figure out that the pain in her hip was due to a need for a hip replacement?
How long did it take for your mother to see the specialist once her PCP figured out what was wrong with her?
How long did your mother wait before she was approved for the surgery?

How much less time would each of these things have taken in the USA? What was the quality of care compared to the USA?

And finally, what percentage of your income is (or was) your mom paying in taxes... all taxes, not just federal income tax? I include local income taxes, sales tax, vat tax, capital gains tax, everything. And how does that compare to taxes in the USA?

You may not see a bill for your mother's care, but that doesn't mean the care is free. You or your mother are still paying for it with much higher taxes than we have here in the USA. And if you compare the care in Canada OVERALL (not just your single case) with care in the USA, you will find that you (as a nation, not you in specific) are paying more for less quality and slower response. Again, as a nation, not in your specific case.

This is a fact. It is a fact that has even been acknowledged by your own government, whether you wish to admitt it or not. That is why your government has tried to implement waiting period limits... they acknowledged that the wait periods were too long. Unfortunately, they haven't been able to fix the problem except by knocking some people off the waiting lists... aka rationing care. But despite the fact that your own government has acknowledged the problems in your system, you continue to insist that the problems don't exist.

Whatever!

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

First of all, the graph is bogus. It just so happens that the government is the single largest real estate holder in the USA owning something like 80% of all undeveloped land in the USA and something like 20% of the buildings in the USA. The fact that they don't call them "business assets" doesn't mean that they don't count. This graph ignores government ownership of real estate completely.

Then there's the amount of assets owned by the Department of Defense... all those tanks, planes, ships, army bases, ammunition, etc. and all the assets necessary to support them. Again, they are not considered "business assets" so they are not taken into consideration in this graph.
Elliot

---

You completely missed the point. The graph doesn't take into account "assets" that were owned by the government *before* the change in administration, what's the point in that? It shows the changes since the change in admin. Hey if you want to call me a socialist that's fine, it's no insult. I go with what works. I know what I'm not and that's a pure, no-holds barred, screw-the-other-guy, power-hungry capitalist. That's what messing up your country, the values are all screwed up and it's being reflected in your corrupt government and corporate leaders. Good luck with that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I agree, your government is too corrupted to run it right.

---

So's yours. You just can't see it.

Questions:
How long did your mother have to wait for the visit with her primary care physician to check out the pain in her hip? She went by ambulance, she broke her femur.
How long did it take for your mother's doctor to figure out that the pain in her hip was due to a need for a hip replacement? None.
How long did it take for your mother to see the specialist once her PCP figured out what was wrong with her? Specialist was at hospital, saw her right away.
How long did your mother wait before she was approved for the surgery? She didn't need to be approved, they scheduled her right in. YOU guys ned the approval, we don't.

How much less time would each of these things have taken in the USA? What was the quality of care compared to the USA? I just posted how good her care was, the family is happy. Who knows what would have happened in the US.

And finally, what percentage of your income is (or was) your mom paying in taxes... all taxes, not just federal income tax? Same as we all pay, don't know the percentage. But we don't whine about it because we're ok with the service rendered.

You may not see a bill for your mother's care, but that doesn't mean the care is free. No one ever said that. We all know how it's paid. You or your mother are still paying for it with much higher taxes than we have here in the USA. Yup, we're ok with that.
And if you compare the care in Canada OVERALL (not just your single case) with care in the USA, you will find that you (as a nation, not you in specific) are paying more for less quality and slower response. Nope. You keep trying to convince me because that is your agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Questions:
How long did your mother have to wait for the visit with her primary care physician to check out the pain in her hip? She went by ambulance, she broke her femur.
How long did it take for your mother's doctor to figure out that the pain in her hip was due to a need for a hip replacement? None.
How long did it take for your mother to see the specialist once her PCP figured out what was wrong with her? Specialist was at hospital, saw her right away.
How long did your mother wait before she was approved for the surgery? She didn't need to be approved, they scheduled her right in. YOU guys ned the approval, we don't.

How much less time would each of these things have taken in the USA? What was the quality of care compared to the USA? I just posted how good her care was, the family is happy. Who knows what would have happened in the US.

And finally, what percentage of your income is (or was) your mom paying in taxes... all taxes, not just federal income tax? Same as we all pay, don't know the percentage. But we don't whine about it because we're ok with the service rendered.

You may not see a bill for your mother's care, but that doesn't mean the care is free. No one ever said that. We all know how it's paid. You or your mother are still paying for it with much higher taxes than we have here in the USA. Yup, we're ok with that.
And if you compare the care in Canada OVERALL (not just your single case) with care in the USA, you will find that you (as a nation, not you in specific) are paying more for less quality and slower response. Nope. You keep trying to convince me because that is your agenda.

---

Ahhh... it was an emergency situation, not an elective surgery. That's pretty instantaneous in the USA too, and if you can't pay, you still get medical care anyway. Your universal health system is no improvement over our system there... and it costs you more in taxes than it does for the guy wh can't pay in the USA.

So what you are saying is that you know you pay more than we do, and just don't care. Fine by me. Just don't tout your system as a money-saving endeavour.

But the point of the system is to help those who CAN'T pay. I wonder if the people who are struggling financially are happy to be paying such high tax rates.

The average American worker pays about $3,400 per year for medical insurance (his employer covers the rest) and is covered for everything. In Canada, your taxes are so much higher than ours that you are paying more than $3,400 more than we are in taxes. We're paying less than you are in taxes.

Now, if you want to tell me that you're OK paying more, that's fine. But don't tell me that the Canadian system saves you money and therefore helps people in financial need, because your system is costing you more in taxes than our system costs us on average.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But don't tell me that the Canadian system saves you money

---

I never said that. I alluded to the fact the we don't go bankrupt due to medical bills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I never said that. I alluded to the fact the we don't go bankrupt due to medical bills.

---

No, you go bankrupt due to taxes... which are driven in large part by medical expenses.

Which means your people go bankrupt due to medical bills. The difference is that it's the GOVERNMENT'S medical bills rather than bills in your name.

Big deal!

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

No, you go bankrupt due to taxes... which are driven in large part by medical expenses.

---

Absolutely not. But nice try.

I personally think the number of people in the USA without any health insurance is probably closer to 100 million. I have no idea where they come up with the 15% figure. Ridiculously low number if you ask me. The 15% would be all the illegal aliens then and that figure is wrong anyway if you are counting just them and not Americans.

Health insurance is a real scam if you ask me. They already made car insurance mandatory (but the illegals don't even bother getting car insurance) and now they're trying to push health insurance down our throats. Does anyone really think the illegals are going to register for health insurance? No.

If more Americans just stopped eating out at Micky D's, BK, KFC, pizza joints and started eating sensible foods (yes, I'm dreaming here) then a lot of health problems would not exist. Ban the advertising of pizza, fast burgers, etc on TV like they banned tobacco ads years ago and the populace would be much, much healthier in the long run. But then who would have the guts to pass that sort of legislation on junk food advertising? Not any of our cash cow politicians, that's for sure. They have their hands deep into the pockets of Big Pharma and like the wads of cash they keep pulling out of the magic bottomless pit pocket.

In Russia they have universal health coverage for citizens ONLY. You must prove you are a Russian citizen to get treatment. They will treat tourists for free though but not treat the illegal aliens for free. The US should institute a similar policy and stick to it. The treatment for free of all the illegal aliens in California really trashed that state financially having to close many hospitals.

If a person in Canada has to go through the normal channels to get say a hip replacement due to the hip deteriorating it would not be instantaneous service. It would be many months or weeks before such major surgery would be given permission to be done. Accident problems get immediate attention. Rightly so. But for 98% of everyone who needs a hip replacement I'm positive it's many months or weeks of waiting. Can't be any other way to get around their system.

The universal health plan in the US is also a terrific way of population control by withholding services to the elderly. Also, it would curtail extremely expensive operations from routinely happening. Only the rich or some politician's relative would be eligible to receive these "expensive procedures or treatments". The rest of the population would just be put on indefinite hold and told to come back next month (year, whatever). I do forsee this happening here in the USA. Sooner than anyone can even imagine.

Elliot,

I'm not suggesting that the Government will do a better job running health care in your country. In fact I don't really care.. I was simply suggesting that links to articles on a few failures in other countries systems isn't what I call a strong argument.

I think your best argument is the question you pose about what makes people think that a government with such a wasteful history would do a good job with health. That's a good question. But I think Excon makes some good points in rebuttal. Particularly about the insurance companies.

The fact that this is such a big issue must mean there is a problem.

Health care in Australia is an issue. Always will be. But generally it is so easy. Most people are happy. We don't have such strong debate because of this. Sure there is the odd botch up, mis-run hospital, or wasteful spending but generally everyone gets the care they require at little or no cost.

The fact that it such a big issues in the US and a debate that seems to have been going on for some time suggests to me that there is a problem. Your answer to the problem seems to be to simply go on doing exactly what you are doing now... Others feel there is a need for change if problems are to be fixed. Your instant dismissal of other models based on some negative articles dragged up by a conservative with the same opinion as you isn't going to convince the people who feel change is required.

That was my point.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/image...2009_large.jpg

Oh I get it, he going to stick a finger up your a$$. Hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Oh I get it, he gonna stick a finger up your a$$. Hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha.

---

In the US we refer to that as he's telling the American public to "bend over."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

In the US we refer to that as he's telling the American public to "bend over."

---

More anal sex similes? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

More anal sex similes? Interesting.

---

Get a clue, NK. Connect that with the image of Obama as the doctor and you should easily be able to come up with what I mean. Get your mind out of the gutter.

Dude you chose that pic to post, not me.

Quote:

---

They already made car insurance mandatory (but the illegals don't even bother getting car insurance) and now they're trying to push health insurance down our throats.

---

I don't want to deal with the illegals aspect to this comment . But indeed the plan is to force everyone into some form of health insurance whether they want it or not. There are a significant part of the uninsured who have chosen to not contract for health insurance . For some it is an economic decision but also there are many more young adults who would choose things like enhanced cell phone options ;large flat screen HDTV ,cars that are less than the economy model ,and frequent dinners out over the purchase of health coverage.

But don't despair . The plan working it's way through Congress would force them to sign on to a health plan regardless that they would make other choices with their money.

The Senate version imposes fines of $1,000 for uninsured people who decline coverage. Families will pay even more if they don't sign on.It's modeled on the Taxachusett plan, which also imposes a $1,000 fine.

Quote:

---

The fact that this is such a big issue must mean there is a problem.

---

And yet 80% of Americans (243 million )have indicated we like our current coverage and doctors. Even if the system needs tweeking to deal with the few who are uninsured and would like to be covered ,it does not mean the whole system needs to be scrapped and replaced with a draconian alternative .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Dude you chose that pic to post, not me.

---

I guess you can't tell the difference between a gloved finger and some other 'gloved' anatomical appendage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I guess you can't tell the difference between a gloved finger and some other 'gloved' anatomical appendage.

---

Where does that gloved finger go?

Geez NK, figure it out.