Because health care in the US is incredibly expensive and no one wants to more taxes (except for the poor wouldnt have to pay the taxes). As far as Brits spending half as much- was that per person or the total amount of healthcare costs? Yes Sweden has universal health care- its income tax is also 50%. No thank you.
Correct and now tell me why and tell me why do we still get such a shitty healthcare for so much money??
People deserve the healthcare they can pay for, not the health care they want others to pay for. People who can't afford their own healthcare can't afford mine. So why would they think I'd be willing to pay for mine and their's, too? So many small-d Darwinists, it's embarassing.
I could have sworn I already replied to this post?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway, from your own link: The article states that Brits have better health than Americans at all income levels. Clearly wealthy Americans are not lacking for healthcare. So why the difference? Futhermore, our government can barely afford the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security systems we already have. You want to add to that burden? On a personal note, as a healthcare provider, I would prefer not to be forced to become a defacto government employee. I'm already a Medicare provider. I'm half thinking about dropping out of it because the paperwork is such a pain in the ass. I have been meaning to become a medicaid provider, but there is a thirty page application that I must fill out first. In triplicate. I've never quite made my way thru it. With private pay patients, you see the patient, take the payment, and put it in the bank. With insurance companies, especially government funded ones, you see the patient. Fill out a multi-page form, mail it in, wait, recieve a denial. Spend time on the phone. Send in paperwork again, repeat ad nauseam. It sucks. I'm a big fan of medical saving accounts. The patient puts pre-tax money in an account to cover the majority of his medical expenses and also carries a high deductable policy for catestrophic events. I have one myself, and I love when patients have one. Instead of a nightmare of paperwork, we just run their credit cards.
See, here is how illogical Republicans try to debate: But a leaked letter obtained today by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) office reveals that conservatives have formulated a strategy to avoid talking about the central question of the debate. In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: “The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.” Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate “the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.” ------------ They could have just used my arguments, would have worked better...
Here is how you block unions forming. Good job, Dick! http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/14/cheney-bush-labor/ P.S.: Nothing personal, we just don't like unions...
Well, beside being the only superpower, America is also an empire. That means 2 things: 1. Most people don't like empires because an empire act (surprize!!!) on its OWN interest, and that is usually against most people's (not belonging to the empire) interest. 2. Usually an empire is so big (specially in today's shrinking world) that even if you try to be outside of its interest sphere, you simply can't. And anytime when the empire sneezes, you catch a cold....Now, nobody likes to catch a cold... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So it is really not anti-Americanism, but anti-globalism, anti-empire and anti-war. Oh yes, also anti-bullshit.... :bugeye: P.S.: Who liked the British empire beside the brits, or the Sovietunion beside the Russians??? Hell, most people inside the Sovietunion hated the Russian influence...
Hey, I will explain peak oil for the sake of my fellow Republicans, quoting my personal hero, Richard Cheney, when he actually told the truth. In short, the US government doesn't acknowledge OFFICIALLY the fact of peak oil, because that would immediatelly rise the question of what to do about it (beside invading other countries). And the common sense solution (switching to other energy sources) wouldn't be good for te real power players (big oil) of this country. Now let's see the truth, straight from Dick's mouth: "In a speech to the Institute of Petroleum in November 1999 he (Cheney) shed light on our front-page revelation - that in the wake of the occupation of Iraq, Western companies are to be let loose on its vast, and previously state-owned, oil reserves. Perhaps even more importantly he flagged up an impending crisis that the world urgently needs to grasp - that supplies of oil may be about to shrink alarmingly. The "basic, fundamental building block of the world economy" was, he warned, in danger of becoming extremely scarce. Estimates suggested that production from existing reserves would soon decline sharply, by 3 per cent a year, even as world demand for oil grew by 2 per cent. That meant that the world would soon need to be producing "an additional 50 million barrels a day", more than half as much again as the 82 million now being wrested from the ground. "So where is this oil going to come from?" he asked. His answer: the Middle East was "where the prize ultimately lies". The problem was that "governments and national oil companies" controlled almost all of the "assets", and "even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow". Lest there be any doubt about what was at stake, the man who was to become one of the most powerful proponents of the invasion of Iraq went on: "Oil is unique because it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear ... The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality." http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0107-24.htm The full text of his speech: http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html Also very good with maps and charts: http://prorev.com/bushwaroil.htm
Mr. Logical Republican, me being a U.S. soldier, what is your viewpoint on the united states involvement in iraq. Do you agree or disagree and why?
On a personal note specially for you: I as a big corporate fatcat would like to thank your sacrifice for my special interest aka profits. It is amazing to me that even today people are signing up for patriotic reasons to fight in Iraq. If it was 2003 when we bullshitted the public with WMDs, that could be more understandable, but today??? Anyway, thanks again, and I promise you, if you get hurt, we will forget about you very fast in a Walter Reed way. After all, there is no good money in rehabilitation... P.S.: If you wanted to earn good money, you should have signed up for our Blackwater securities company and you would have earned 5-10 times as much with possible less risk, as a private contr...., I mean mercenary...
I did (and agree). It is clear you were at best a cynical logical Republican. - I bet you are not a sexy redhead either!:bawl:
Quack, quack... It is a North American duck...It is sexy if you have a shotgun... I can still gladly explain any political issues from the view of the power players...
Torture? It is a tool for extracting information from unwilling patients. Some argue it is not effective because the client might say anything that stops the torture, some argue that you do get good info. I guess the truth is in between... I am not interested in the moral of torture, because I am interested in power and money and sexy redheads.... Next question?
I'm not sure I'm convinced by this, why do Republicans complain the most about immigration if they "secretly" like it?
Because people can't handle the truth? :bugeye: You answered your question by the way. It is only a secret if they don't tell you, or even if they complain about it. (aka blowing smokes) Didn't they also complain about WMDs in Iraq? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, I dont get why they would "pretend" to care about immigration, after all what good does complaining about it do other than to risk bringing in anti-immigration laws that cut it drastically? They complained about WMD because they wanted people to believe invading Iraq was necessary to "protect" the US, and thus support the war.
Ok, there are 2 kinds: 1. One legitimly complains because they see the problems what illegal immigration causes. Like Lou Dobbs. I guess they are not getting the #2's points and profits. 2. The one who is perfectly happy with the current situation for reasons explained in the original post. Now 2 things could happen: a/ Cut down seriously on ill. im. Then they obviously lose their slaves and all the advantages coming with it, like no rights, retirements, etc. b/ Legalize it. The result the same, they have to pay more for labor. Group #1 is either too powerless or clueless to do something about it, group #2 is happy with the status quo. Thus the complaining keeps going on and nothing happens in the maintime... The same here. They complain about it so people believe that it is bad for them(lawmakers). It is bad for the people, not for the corporations...
