So I take it that your answer is that none of the Republican Presidential candidates support the right to life for poor working people who cannot afford health care. That in essence, they only support the right to life across the board for unborn people - once you are born, your on your own. That's all I asked. It was a simple question, and di not require a round about convoluted excuse for the Republican stance on the real right to life. Now may I inquire why this Republican administration supports universal health care in Iraq, paid for by Americans, but not universal health care in America? (We won't even get into why the same administration is opposed to Iraqis having arms to ward off a tyrannical government or foreign invaders.)
You seem to live in one of those fevered fantasies conjured up by Ted Kennedy, you know the America where all kinds of horribles happen if every liberal program is not enacted and every republican judicial nominee is not rejected. Are people actually dying because of lack of "free" health care? No, they are not. There is already a medicaid program for those unable to pay and every hospital is required to treat any emergency patient who shows up. But of course the reality is not as dramatic as the fantasy of millions dying horribly in some Dickensonian nightmare because of gargantuan tax cuts for plutocrats. The system is not perfect, and I do not claim it is. But as in medicine, the starting point for reform must be "First, do no harm..." Socialized medicine is a nonstarter on that ground alone.
What happened with socialized medicine and the heat wave in France this summer? It doesn't seem 11,000 deaths is utopia.
My dear boy, Medicaid does not cover the working poor. Emergency rooms are required to "stabilize" walk-ins - not to treat chronic illnesses, or diseases. Everyday people in this country go without treatment or medication for a lack of funds. There is no way to calculate the number of people who suffer needlessly, or who die before their time. No one said that millions were dying in the streets - as you would like to believe was said. But to deny the existence of millions who go without needed medical care is absurd. It's also the neo-con Republican lie.
Please be kind enough to explain how socialized medicine failed to save the lives of the elderly during an extraordinary heat wave with daytime highs greater than 20-25 degrees above normal, and how not having socialized medicine would have prevented that from happening? You don't have children, I hope. I mean, you're not actually raising kids to think like you do, are you?
...why no, I haven't. Nor is anyone seriously calling for socialized medicine in this country. There is a difference between guaranteed health coverage, and socialized medicine - isn't there. Now I have a question for you. Why do you assume that the rest of us are as lacking in compassion as you seem to be, and willing to dismiss what needs toi be done with meaningless questions like the one above.
Pardon my french but.......fuck health coverage....its the biggest F*ing scam being pulled over the eyes of this country by doctors and lawyers for the past 20 years....Im so tired of hearing how it is now a 'RIGHT" to have health coverage.....when my parents had me, they paid for it out of pocket....when we got sick, we went to the Dr......they didn't;t have insurance.....the insurance companies got fat charging premiums and then the doctors and hospitals got fatter charging outrageous prices, like 10.00 per Tylenol, because " insurance will pay for it"...and the the lawyers got even fatter suing the doctors......the whole 'health' scam makes me sick...does ANYONE really believe that by the government taking over health coverage...it will get better????? ...and where does it stop? what's next: 'Every American deserves life insurance".....Tampa: I know your older...did you or your parents have health insurance when you were younger? or did you just pay as you go?
___________________________________________ You seem to believe it is better to post from a lack of knowledge and experience than from a position of having either or both. I don't consider it compassionate for the liberals to: 1. Promise things for the purpose of buying votes. 2. Provide compassion by forcing someone else to pay for their "compassion". 3. Making the unilateral decision of who receives compassion and who doesn't. 4. Try to take control of industries where they have no business. 5. Totally support the trial lawyers exorbitant fees to harrass industries and in the end effect health care costs more than any other one factor. If the liberals truly wanted to help healthcare they would stop protecting the trial lawyers and get some reasonableness in the system where everyone's healthcare costs could be helped.
wow... #1 smells an awful lot like a tax cut recently promised and passed... #2 sounds alot like a war we just had...to fight terrorism -- OOPS! no, to get rid of the torture chambers...apparently it's the duty of every tax paying american to rid the world of torture chambers... #3 has that ugly "unilateral" word in it...and could apply to any politician, anyway... #4 sounds like the bush regime at work as usual... #5 sounds alot like business as usual in Midland, Texas... am i warm on any of these??