Go here and play with this for a while.
If you winnow through the population, you can certainly find people with specific circumstances who have a lot of trouble with health care. A college graduate who needs a rare and expensive medicine. Someone without insurance who gets cancer. Everybody knows a few people who have fallen through the cracks.
And everybody knows many, many more people who haven't.
I do not accept the axiom that in order to help the people in trouble we have to drag the vast majority of Americans who are satisfied with their health care into a politically-controlled monopolistic system.
The angry refusal of activists to consider any solutions other than total government control of the health care system betrays the real motivations behind this.
Not that I should have to point this out, but we already HAVE huge government medical programs engineered to help the elderly and the poor. These programs, right now, consume over seven hundred billion dollars a year. Every single year.
As a comparison, the total cost to date of the Iraq AND Afghanistan war combined, since 2001, comes to about $850 billion.
Current Events » in reply to Yes. I know that I exaggerated, but I was using poetic license.
re: poetic license
The whole thread (57 posts)
- Even with 60 Senators health care not a slam dunk
- Interesting that the Nays all have public health care
- "slowly phase out private industry"
- So do the "pros."
- In 6 days, my daughter will have no health insurance at all.
- Just let private enterprise handle it.
- My son passed a kidney stone...
- What state does she live in? (n/t)
- And by the way...
- In 6 days, my daughter will have no health insurance at all.
- re: slam dunk
- One more proof of the need for a TOTAL ban on all campaign contributions. (n/t)
- Then who pays for elections?
- Nobody. Elections will have strict limits of $10,000 for Congress & $100,000 for President paid out of CANDIDATE's own pocket.
- Then who pays for elections?
- Interesting that the Nays all have public health care