Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Socialized Medicine

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Socialized Medicine

    We lived in Denmark for three years. We "adopted" one of the younger troops who married a local. They and their two children now live in the US and are our dearest friends.

    Anyway, her mother and father still live in Denmark, with centrally-planned medical care. No one is denied care. Everyone (except for the governmental elite) gets the same level of care: crappy.

    The step father, a few years ago started getting severe headaches. His doctor (well, the one that was on duty when he went to the clinic) suspected a tumor and ordered a cat-scan. Four and a half months later, long after any tumor would have become incurable, he got his scan. Thankfully, it wasn't a tumor.

    He is now experiencing chest pains. He tried to call the on duty doctor. Due to budget cutbacks, there was no doctor on duty. They said they'd send an ambulance and transport him to the hospital so that, when a doctor came on duty, he'd be seen. Oops, more budget cutbacks, no ambulance in Viborg. That's OK; they'll send one from Karup, 30 minutes away.

    He is in the hospital now, being monitored by the nurses. The doctor will see him in the morning.

    This is what you get when decision making is taken away from the the consumer and the provider, and given to bureaucrats: You get what they believe is "fair" and "good enough" care, based upon "available" resources.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    How much is it money is it costing him?

  3. #3
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    Same story in Canada. There is a wait for everything.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    How much is it money is it costing him?
    At least 42.9% of his income.

    (And it makes everything he buys 25% more expensive.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

    Granted, the US burdens its citizens with onerous taxes, which are used to fund a whole variety of useless things, from maintaining military bases in Germany, to fighting endless global war, to imprisoning millions of people for nonaggressive acts. Not to mention handouts of every variety. I say: end these expenditures, and return to us our money. Then we will afford our needs.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-15-2011 at 05:34 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709
    I suspected socialized medicine was a bit like my waiting 2 hours after my appt time( which I showed up to on time) to see my doctor, but the socialized medicine part ends right there. Though I am on some gov't plan thing for low income people and pay 200.00 a month- however if I need expert and immediate ER care, I will get it. If I need a masectomy tomarrow, it can be fit in. Even Medicaid is better than euro/Canada. My parents told me last year that I was a Medicaid baby. They had little money back then.

  6. #6
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    Two hours. That's pretty good. When I lived in Canada, I had a private agreement with my doctor. I was able to see him and very infrequently had to wait more than a few minutes. I was lucky and had a doctor with whom I was personally acquainted. While I was able to see him without a wait, the waiting room would be full of people who had been waiting for hours. Sometimes he would not even get to see everyone and their appointment would get moved to the next day, where the wait would start over again.

    There weren't enough doctors for everyone in the city I grew up in, so if you moved there and started to look for a doctor, you had to go on a waiting list to even get a family doctor. Good luck seeing a specialist without a family doctor. My father had a quadruple bypass (that he had to wait 6 months for) and while he was recovering, his family doctor passed away. My father spent several months, waiting for a family doctor to take him. It's hard to believe, but true.

    Everyone that wants a medical system like the one in Canada, should be required to move there while they are sick and get in line to see what it's like.
    Last edited by buster81; 03-15-2011 at 10:02 PM. Reason: correction

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It was a blod clot. It has been dissolved. Had it cut loose and traveled to some critical location, he could be dead or a vegetable. That clot had an awful lot of time to find a critical location before he even saw a doctor. That is now twice that bureaucracy has tried to kill him and luck has saved him.

    Disgusting.

    Put doctors and patients back in charge of medical care using the most effective management tool ever invented: the free market.

    BTW, what does this "free" health care cost? Besides lives? When I was stationed in Denmark, the base income tax rate was about 50%. The sales tax rate was 25%--except on cars; that rate was 205%! No, that is not a typo. A $25,000 car costs over $75,000.

    One other statistical tidbit from the early 90's: The primary means of birth control was abortion. Hey, they were free. Most teenage girls had had at least one.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Privatization work well, and will save us as money because the cost will be driven down. Wait, that is, unless there is no regulation and businesses are allowed to gain a monopoly. At least there is no pesky law that stops pharma from gaining a monopoly; we all know how terrible laws are. I should add that I am aware of the FDA's role in this...dichotomy in action?

    "Until now, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot has cost as little as $10 per injection. But starting this week the price shot up to $1,500 a dose, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000...But recently, KV Pharmaceutical of St. Louis won exclusive government approval to sell the drug, known as Makena. The March of Dimes and many obstetricians supported that because it means quality will be more consistent and it will be easier to get. None of them anticipated the dramatic price hike, though — especially since most of the cost for development and research was shouldered by others in the past."

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51...irths.html.csp
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 03-19-2011 at 03:10 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Privatization work well, and will save us as money because the cost will be driven down. Wait, that is, unless there is no regulation and businesses are allowed to gain a monopoly. At least there is no pesky law that stops pharma from gaining a monopoly; we all know how terrible laws are. I should add that I am aware of the FDA's role in this...dichotomy in action?
    A majority of monopolies exist solely thanks to government "regulation".

    The pharmaceutical monopoly would be meaningless if not for the regulatory actions of the US government.

    What are the two ways drugs could be made affordable?

    A: Subsidy

    B: abolition of drug patents and legislated manufacturing monopolies

    Now, which of these is the free-market solution?

    Explain how you think pharmaceutical of medical monopolies would be possible without government regulation.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-19-2011 at 03:22 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    A majority of monopolies exist solely thanks to government "regulation".

    The pharmaceutical monopoly would be meaningless if not for the regulatory actions of the US government.

    What are the two ways drugs could be made affordable?

    A: Subsidy

    B: abolition of drug patents and legislated manufacturing monopolies

    Now, which of these is the free-market solution?

    Explain how you think pharmaceutical of medical monopolies would be possible without government regulation.
    Subsidy (have no issue with medical subsidies), and year limits on patents.

    Monopolies occur without government influence. A big business, say, Walmart, seek to monopolize. All they have to do is build stores near their competitor and charge lower prices. Eventually the competitor is unable to compete because Walmart becomes so huge that they are able to purchase items in higher amounts that the competitors could ever move through their store.

    I should point out that Eye:

    "This is what you get when decision making is taken away from the the consumer and the provider, and given to bureaucrats: You get what they believe is "fair" and "good enough" care, based upon "available" resources."

    Who exactly are the bureaucrats? Parma...insurance? Insurance companies have taken away the ability for the doctor to prescribe necessary medication and/or treatment without the insurance company first approving of it. How would you like to be having a heart attack, sitting in your living room, and the medic is on the phone with your insurance provider, trying to figure out which medic vehicle you can be transported in and covered by.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Mass rejection due to preexisting conditions is simply prejudicial and borderline civil rights infringing.

    Private companies should be allowed, of course, to set their own standards for business.

    However, I can't help but wonder how much money a health insurance company could make by expanding their client base via reasonably affordable ($100-150 a month?) comprehensive coverage.

    Of course the buy-in would not be cheap at all, but the end results could be extremely pleasant.
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 03-19-2011 at 06:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The solution is quite simple. Go back to "health insurance" as it was originally envisioned and abandon "health care." "Health insurance" should be designed to protect insurees against the financial sinkhole that can be created by catastrophic illnesses or injuries. Day-to-day costs should be paid directly by the consumer. This will bring down costs of both routine care and health insurance.

    My son's employer only offers catastrophic health insurance and health savings accounts. The insurance is very inexpensive, and my son's savings account is almost fully funded to pay for any and all routine doctor's visits, as well as every penny of deductible should, God forbid, he need to use his catastrophic health insurance.

    It is these all-encompassing health-care programs (masquerading as "insurance") that have driven health care costs up so ridiculously by separating the consumer from the purchase, relieving him of the responsibility of being a shrewd consumer.

    Obama care is just a nationalization and bureaucratization of the whole health-care scam.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    Billing for procedures is such a game. You start with say a $25.00 item, submit it into the computer and the algorithm changes it to $450.00. You submit the $450.00 to Medicare or the patients insurance and they pay $30.00. $5.00 profit. I can go into your artery and angiplasty/stent a stenosis. The bill can be $15,000 to $30,000 depending on where the stenosis is, and the hospital just gets a small fraction of that. Then Medicare sneaks in a CPT code change, so you submit the wrong code and they don't pay squat. You gotta have some A game coders to make a profit these days, and not over bill and get fined. Healthcare reimbursement is so messed up. But at least we can get you an appt and fix you within an hour to five days. Oh, and so many people don't make it to the appointment on time and have pre cert or insurance issues, so many places really over book the day. Hence your two hour waits on occasion.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Mas49.56 View Post
    Billing for procedures is such a game. You start with say a $25.00 item, submit it into the computer and the algorithm changes it to $450.00. You submit the $450.00 to Medicare or the patients insurance and they pay $30.00. $5.00 profit. I can go into your artery and angiplasty/stent a stenosis. The bill can be $15,000 to $30,000 depending on where the stenosis is, and the hospital just gets a small fraction of that. Then Medicare sneaks in a CPT code change, so you submit the wrong code and they don't pay squat. You gotta have some A game coders to make a profit these days, and not over bill and get fined. Healthcare reimbursement is so messed up. But at least we can get you an appt and fix you within an hour to five days. Oh, and so many people don't make it to the appointment on time and have pre cert or insurance issues, so many places really over book the day. Hence your two hour waits on occasion.
    That's really good info. I take it you are a doctor/nurse?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Mass rejection due to preexisting conditions is simply prejudicial and borderline civil rights infringing.
    And this whole time I thought you were all about the 'free market.' So, insurance companies should be told what to do--who they can accept and deny? Healthcare as a civil right?

    Healthcare is a civil right. Insurance companies should not be able to deny an individual with a preexisting condition; also, they should not be allowed to charge insane rates to deter individual with preexisting conditions from choosing that particular insurance company as an insurer.

    Private companies should be allowed, of course, to set their own standards for business.
    This is a contradiction. First you say that it is borderline civil rights, and now you are saying that businesses should set their own standard...which is it?

    Government sets the standard and business follows it. And if the business happens to find any particular legal loophole, and they are found to have broken the law then they should be fined, big time...and that fine should be in refunds back to the customers.

    However, I can't help but wonder how much money a health insurance company could make by expanding their client base via reasonably affordable ($100-150 a month?) comprehensive coverage.

    Of course the buy-in would not be cheap at all, but the end results could be extremely pleasant
    They are not concerned with their base, they are concerned with their bottom line.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 03-19-2011 at 11:02 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    And this whole time I thought you were all about the 'free market.' So, insurance companies should be told what to do--who they can accept and deny? Healthcare as a civil right?
    I shouldn't even bother because you aren't bright enough to follow. However, I will attempt to lay it out.

    The question is whether someone with a disability should be considered a protected class. Just as race is a protected class, and there are federal laws prohibiting discrimination along those lines, so should somebody who happens to be born with a physical deformity, for example, be allowed the same opportunities.

    I am of course making references to the ADA, as well as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but I am saying let's make it more comprehensive as a protected class.

    You jumped immediately to "So we should tell insurance companies what to do", but again, being trapped in your itty bitty box, you are completely missing the point of my comment, which was to point out that the insurance industry should pursue different methods independently, and with no outside coercion other than to increase their customer base.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Healthcare is a civil right.
    Incorrect as usual. Healthcare is not an enumerated civil right, and, to put a cherry on top, Judge Vinson has already declared it unconstitutional.

    Forcing an individual to pay for another individuals healthcare is nothing less than indentured servitude.

    Judge Vinson, as I predicted, happens to agree with my take on the compulsory plan.

    Your statement, on its face, is completely false.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Insurance companies should not be able to deny an individual with a preexisting condition; also, they should not be allowed to charge insane rates to deter individual with preexisting conditions from choosing that particular insurance company as an insurer.
    Insurance companies as part of analyzing their business model, should realize the burgeoning market for those who would probably sign up en masse for affordable healthcare with no, or extremely limited preexisting condition limitations or fees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    This is a contradiction. First you say that it is borderline civil rights, and now you are saying that businesses should set their own standard...which is it?
    Why do I feel like I am conversing with a squirrel?

    Beretta, think outside the miniscule confines of your box. This is the problem with engaging in any sort of conversation with you. Your ability to utilize critical thinking combined with a lack of abstract thought, makes these conversations poignantly neanderthal.

    I know you are struggling so hard to try and catch me in some sort of contradiction, but that will likely be hard Beretta. I tend to think before I speak.

    It's crazy, I know.

    The point of the statement was to reflect that:

    A.) Discrimination against those with disabilities should be limited by class protection, in my opinion, with respect to denial of medical insurance application. You can't deny services because somebody is black. You can't deny services because someone is female. Why should you be allowed to discriminate against someone who had a leg amputated?

    B.) However, private insurance companies should analyze their model thoroughly, and independently, to find a way to incorporate comprehensive insurability of those with preexisting conditions. There was a time when there were such impositions on the medical establishment, to include denial of coverage to blacks, for example. Learning from adjustment to prior business models may be helpful in this case.

    See Beretta. The comment was not contradictory. You just lacked the ability to comprehend the comment. Nothing more, nothing less.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    They are not concerned with their base, they are concerned with their bottom line.
    Better their bottom line than subjecting the medical industry to the wantonly wasteful practices and procedures of our government.

    We are already trying to figure out how to undo the damage this unread, yet imposed bill, has wreaked upon our economy.



    If I had to demonstrate a workable model of a successful private industry insurance company, I would point most agencies to AFLAC. Not perfect by any means, but far better than most.

    Private industry takes time to figure out its deficiencies, but it is always a better answer than government mandated and controlled agencies.
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 03-19-2011 at 11:36 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    $
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Healthcare is a civil right.
    Nobody can have a right to another person's labor. If you mean that the government cannot prevent a person from obtaining health care, okay. But I suspect you mean that health care should be provided to you. At who's expense? It is never acceptable to use force to make someone provide you with services.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The solution is quite simple. Go back to "health insurance" as it was originally envisioned and abandon "health care." "Health insurance" should be designed to protect insurees against the financial sinkhole that can be created by catastrophic illnesses or injuries. Day-to-day costs should be paid directly by the consumer. This will bring down costs of both routine care and health insurance.

    My son's employer only offers catastrophic health insurance and health savings accounts. The insurance is very inexpensive, and my son's savings account is almost fully funded to pay for any and all routine doctor's visits, as well as every penny of deductible should, God forbid, he need to use his catastrophic health insurance.

    It is these all-encompassing health-care programs (masquerading as "insurance") that have driven health care costs up so ridiculously by separating the consumer from the purchase, relieving him of the responsibility of being a shrewd consumer.

    Obama care is just a nationalization and bureaucratization of the whole health-care scam.
    Yup.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    SNIP It is these all-encompassing health-care programs (masquerading as "insurance") that have driven health care costs up so ridiculously by separating the consumer from the purchase, relieving him of the responsibility of being a shrewd consumer.
    Thanks for the info. I hadn't looked at that.

    Hmmmm. Things make a little more sense now.

    There must be some angle whereby it was beneficial to insurers or service providers to move toward the "health care" model.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    There must be some angle whereby it was beneficial to insurers or service providers to move toward the "health care" model.
    It's sure resulted in a profitable industry, hasn't it?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by WhatTimeIsIt? View Post
    Nobody can have a right to another person's labor. If you mean that the government cannot prevent a person from obtaining health care, okay. But I suspect you mean that health care should be provided to you. At who's expense? It is never acceptable to use force to make someone provide you with services.
    Almost these exact words ran through my mind when I saw someone else quoted this bit of idiocy* that you quoted!

    Does this lady think she has a right to food too? Shelter? These ain't rights. They are necessities for survival. They are things that we labor to achieve. With the advent of society, we trade labor to achieve them. With the advent of a social conscience, we try to help others achieve these when they cannot do so on their own.

    However, the theft of one man's labor to give to another, no matter the altruism of the motive, is a violation of rights, not the protection of them!

    *The idiocy was the claim that health care is a right.

    Socialist thinking is upside down thinking.
    Last edited by eye95; 03-20-2011 at 09:42 AM. Reason: Clarified the idea that I labeled as "idiocy."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104
    snip
    The question is whether someone with a disability should be considered a protected class. Just as race is a protected class
    snip

    And therein lies one of the problems with our current system of government. There should not be "protected classes", because then the protected classes get to be, in the words of George Orwell, "more equal". The only protected class we need is Human, not gender, race, physical (dis)ability, religion or any other qualifier, and definitely not animals.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by ldsgeek View Post
    snip
    The question is whether someone with a disability should be considered a protected class. Just as race is a protected class
    snip

    And therein lies one of the problems with our current system of government. There should not be "protected classes", because then the protected classes get to be, in the words of George Orwell, "more equal". The only protected class we need is Human, not gender, race, physical (dis)ability, religion or any other qualifier, and definitely not animals.
    The way things are now, if your kidneys fail, you are a protected class, right? You automatically get care. No insurance company in the United States will pay for you to get dialysis the rest of your life. Every little bump in the road city has at least 50 to 100 dialysis patients. So what is that 100,000+ over the whole country? Medicare/Medicaid (We the taxpayers) will pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep you alive for the rest of your life(unless you win the slim chance transplant lottery). No politician IMHO will ever condem 100,000+ Americans(plus illegal aliens, we do them too) to death. You will die in about a month without dialysis. There are no easy answers, dialysis is unaffordable to 99.9% of us. Do you guys think this makes them a defacto protected class?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104
    I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it shouldn't. My son (23) has a similar problem with the concept of "fair", he gets upset when something doesn't meet his definition of fair.

    The Declaration of Independence says we are all entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not that any of these are guaranteed, for anyone. If I need specialized care, first it is my responsibility to arrange payment, either on my own or with my insurance company, and second, the Government has no business either telling me I don't qualify or telling the doctor/hospital they have to do it. Socialized medicine brings both of those. Rationing is a fact of life with socialized medicine and is mentioned, although not by name, in the 2000+ pages of Obamacare. We don't need that here.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    As a teacher, I used to tell my students that "fair is a place where they judge pigs and give ribbons."

    Folks interested in "fairness" usually use the words "not fair" to refer to something they don't like when they cannot identify exactly why others should see the something as wrong. That is why you hear the words from children all the time, but almost never from most adults. We mature out of the thinking that something must be wrong simply because we don't like the effect it has on us.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •