Are the Democrates Proud of This?

[erynthered]

That's simply not true

that link should answer your question too...but if I really had the answer as to how to restructure the national AMERICAN health care system, I wouldn't be working in sales.

 

 

But yet you'd want a FREE health care system for all Americans regardless of any repercussions.

Stay in Sales.

[molson_golden2002]

But yet you'd want a FREE health care system for all Americans regardless of any repercussions.

Stay in Sales.

Ya, health care will destroy us! That's silly. We can do it and it won't be the end of the world at all.

[GG]

That's simply not true

 

It would be helpful if you understand the difference between "medical advancements" and the WHO report on how healthcare funds are spent relative to public health.

[pdh1]

you're hilarious.

 

 

What is really funny is the title of the photo gallery...PEACE RALLY.

 

Nothing more peaceful than burning effigies of people and their flags.

 

Works much better than hand holding and sing alongs

[erynthered]

Ya, health care will destroy us! That's silly. We can do it and it won't be the end of the world at all.

 

 

OK, how would you propose it be done then?

[GG]

IM NOT SAYING "THEY DO IT, TOO."

 

YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Holy sh--........

 

I am? I was the one defending Brokes' post by introducing evidence that the left loves to throw James Dobson's name to prove right wing's domination of GOP?

[Bungee Jumper]

http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid...amp;id=65201211

 

I hope this brings a reaction to all that view it. While you may not agree with the war, you don't burn our troops in effigy. This is disgusting and a moral outrage.

 

This is the extreme left taking over the Democratic party.

 

 

 

How, exactly, is exercising freedom of speech a disgusting abusing of a First Amendment right?

[The Big Cat]

It would be helpful if you understand the difference between "medical advancements" and the WHO report on how healthcare funds are spent relative to public health.

 

jokes on you, pal because we were TALKING ABOUT HEALTHCARE not medical advancements.

[The Big Cat]

But yet you'd want a FREE health care system for all Americans regardless of any repercussions.

Stay in Sales.

 

whoa whoa whoa, I used the word nationalized. NOT FREE!

[X. Benedict]

<Voice of Don Adams>

 

It seems obvious to me that Republican agent provocateurs are burning flags and efigies at peace rallies to try to discredit the peaceniks and their Democratic croneys.

 

ARE REPUBLICANS PROUD OF THIS? How could they sink so low?

 

 

 

 

(yes I am joking..... I liked Get Smart as a kid)

[GG]

jokes on you, pal because we were TALKING ABOUT HEALTHCARE not medical advancements.

 

Try again palie. I made a comment about medical advances in US, despite the lack of nationalized healthcare. You came back with a non sequitur.

 

You threw out a comment about about US being the only industrialized nation without nationalized healthcare. So, what is that supposed to mean? Are we supposed to guess that by nationalizing healthcare, Americans' health would be better in the aggregate? Will that wean people off high calorie foods?

[erynthered]

whoa whoa whoa, I used the word nationalized. NOT FREE!

 

 

You also said this "I'd rather my taxes guarntee me healthcare..."

 

You do realize that there are millions and millions of people that pay no taxes, right. That sure sounds like Free health care to me.

[Alaska Darin]

You also said this "I'd rather my taxes guarntee me healthcare..."

 

You do realize that there are millions and millions of people that pay no taxes, right. That sure sounds like Free health care to me.

The number is over 40%, actually. More "free lunches" on the backs of the middle class.

 

Health care is really important, as long as you don't have to pay for it, all the while stuffing your face and not exercising. You know, because it's criminal not to treat people who won't spend a single minute taking care of themselves.

[The Big Cat]

Try again palie. I made a comment about medical advances in US, despite the lack of nationalized healthcare. You came back with a non sequitur.

 

You threw out a comment about about US being the only industrialized nation without nationalized healthcare. So, what is that supposed to mean? Are we supposed to guess that by nationalizing healthcare, Americans' health would be better in the aggregate? Will that wean people off high calorie foods?

 

Peace, brotha, peace.

 

On page 1 of this thread, it was said that National Heath Service was a form of socialism. I said responded by implying that if that's the case, then most of the world is socialist. To which you said, yeah but our medical advancements are better. To which I indicated that the WHO ranks us 37 (behind at least 30 "socialists") I also posted that in response to skepticism over how it's paid for because the article mentioned we are getting very little for our dollar. I don't believe it was non-sequitur because I think it speaks to the over all quality of American health care. One has to believe that medical advancements contribute to that; but did the article directly address your claim? no.

 

Now if you want to talk about private funding for medical research I am all for that. this of course, would have to be monitored by the government to prevent some wack job from bank rolling science experiments in the name of medicine.

 

Would nationalized health care make American's healthier? that's an interesting question. may be. It depends on where the money goes. For example, you asked, "will it wean people off high calorie foods?" there's a possibility that yes, with better funding medical technicians with an expertise in nutrition might have greater influence over America's eating habits.

[The Big Cat]

You also said this "I'd rather my taxes guarntee me healthcare..."

 

You do realize that there are millions and millions of people that pay no taxes, right. That sure sounds like Free health care to me.

 

yeah I guess. you do realize that making money in this country and not paying taxes is...illegal? people like that get a lot more than health care for free.

[The Big Cat]

The number is over 40%, actually. More "free lunches" on the backs of the middle class.

 

Health care is really important, as long as you don't have to pay for it, all the while stuffing your face and not exercising. You know, because it's criminal not to treat people who won't spend a single minute taking care of themselves.

 

could you please clarify everything you just said?

[GG]

Would nationalized health care make American's healthier? that's an interesting question. may be. It depends on where the money goes. For example, you asked, "will it wean people off high calorie foods?" there's a possibility that yes, with better funding medical technicians with an expertise in nutrition might have greater influence over America's eating habits.

 

This is where your age is getting the best of you.

 

How many people stopped smoking 20 years ago, when their doctors said that smoking will kill them sooner than later? How many people will buy a diet book and put it on a shelf, instead of changing their lives to try to eat less and exercise more?

[Alaska Darin]

could you please clarify everything you just said?

What didn't you understand?

 

40% of adults in this country pay little or no federal income tax. There is no debate.

 

A ridiculous percentage of Americans only care about their health (and their fat ass kids) when it comes to paying for it. They eat crap, don't exercise at all, then are apparently surprised when that leads to preventable (and expensive) diseases like Type II diabetes.

 

But really, I understand the solution of "All the compassion of the IRS, all the competence of the DMV", as if somehow "single payer" health care won't end up in a Walter Reed situation. Because I believe in dreams, too.

[Bungee Jumper]

Peace, brotha, peace.

 

On page 1 of this thread, it was said that National Heath Service was a form of socialism. I said responded by implying that if that's the case, then most of the world is socialist. To which you said, yeah but our medical advancements are better. To which I indicated that the WHO ranks us 37 (behind at least 30 "socialists") I also posted that in response to skepticism over how it's paid for because the article mentioned we are getting very little for our dollar. I don't believe it was non-sequitur because I think it speaks to the over all quality of American health care. One has to believe that medical advancements contribute to that; but did the article directly address your claim? no.

 

Now if you want to talk about private funding for medical research I am all for that. this of course, would have to be monitored by the government to prevent some wack job from bank rolling science experiments in the name of medicine.

 

Would nationalized health care make American's healthier? that's an interesting question. may be. It depends on where the money goes. For example, you asked, "will it wean people off high calorie foods?" there's a possibility that yes, with better funding medical technicians with an expertise in nutrition might have greater influence over America's eating habits.

 

 

You don't actually understand the difference between "public health" and "universal health care", do you?

[The Big Cat]

What didn't you understand?

 

40% of adults in this country pay little or no federal income tax. There is no debate.

 

A ridiculous percentage of Americans only care about their health (and their fat ass kids) when it comes to paying for it. They eat crap, don't exercise at all, then are apparently surprised when that leads to preventable (and expensive) diseases like Type II diabetes.

 

But really, I understand the solution of "All the compassion of the IRS, all the competence of the DMV", as if somehow "single payer" health care won't end up in a Walter Reed situation. Because I believe in dreams, too.

 

hahaha okay now I understand everything but the IRS, DMV and Walter Reed parts...

 

in regards to people who do and don't pay taxes: of that 40%, how many pay NO taxes and how many pay SMALL taxes? There's a big difference. Also, is that 40% of Americans or 40% of American adults? And does that 40% also include the retired and the unemployed..?

 

I only ask because it seems like a large and problematic figure for reasons beyond health care.