Why do the Repuclicans have such a hate on for universal healthcare in America?

[Trekson]

Hi Stan, Your words: "We're not talking about history, we're talking about UH and how you try to justify it as being socialistic in nature based on your perception that Christians should/are not to support social well being."

Let's get your facts straight. I never said Christians should not care about the well being of others (social has nothing to do with it). I said gov'ts should not be.

Your words: "The apostle Paul wrote the inspired word of God and he commanded us to support the government."

No, Paul did not! Recognizing and supporting are two very different things. Use your words correctly because you're adding to scripture something that isn't there!

Your words: "Be thankful you are in a country that doesn't have a thin line that differentiates between the two."

Yet, but we're getting closer every day!

Your words: "Governments are not nor will they ever be the anti-Christ."

I never said they were "the" anti-christ. Just they can "be" anti-christ!

Your words: "Your OPINION about how the government spends your tax dollars is not the issue either, it's whether UH is good for ALL Americans. If you say it isn't then you go against what the Bible teaches overall about taking care of your fellow man, regardless if they are believers or not."

God's word doesn't contradict itself. Bad stewardship is still wrong even if done for the right reasons. We should only be concerned with those in our circle of influence and let God lead others to care for those outside our circle. Read Luke 6: 19-34, if we're not to worry about any of that stuff for ourselves, we should exercise that same faith on behalf of others.

Apparently God believes in capitalism. Read Matt. 25:14-30. God wasn't happy with the one that didn't make a profit. I think He'd be just as unhappy if the servant just "gave it away" instead of hiding it. NOWHERE in scripture is it even suggested that gov'ts provide for the poor. The gov't of Israel that God designed, made provision for the poor, but they still had to work for it!

If the people had a chance to vote on this issue and if it was handled differently, then my attitude might be different, but no, it was shoved down our throats on a like it or lump it basis and that was just plain wrong! Just in case you didn't know this but the only revenue a government has is the taxes it collects from it's people, so either way, the reality is that the gov't is NOT paying for UH, we the people are!!

Your words: "What is absurd, is someone who doesn't study the Revelation of Jesus Christ, yet fallaciously asserts what it says. I suggest your study it."

There are probably very few people on this board who have studied Rev. as much as I have and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else that would believe the Harlot of Rev. 17 is CAPITALISM!!! If you could find anyone that would agree with that then they would be as drunk on the liberal kool-aid as you are!

 

[StanJ]

Let's get your facts straight. I never said Christians should not care about the well being of others (social has nothing to do with it). I said gov'ts should not be.

I think given your time already here, you should know how to quote me using the tools provided.

I understand that, but you have no valid reason for saying or thinking so given the admonition we have IN scripture. You apparently don't believe what scripture says about God putting people IN government to enable His will to be done? If UH is good for all citizens, and it has been proven it is, then why opine against it?

No, Paul did not! Recognizing and supporting are two very different things. Use your words correctly because you're adding to scripture something that isn't there!

Sadly, given so many chances to actually study this scripture, you continue to not do so and equivocate on it. Submit is not recognize. Apparently you think submitting to God means you don't have to support Him or His word either according to your own words? I suggest you study the Greek word hypotasso to see what it fully connotes. You can't submit to God without supporting Him. You can't submit to the government and continually bad mouth it and not support it, especially in regards to this OP and this issue.

Your words: "Be thankful you are in a country that doesn't have a thin line that differentiates between the two."

Yet, but we're getting closer every day!

Not from my perspective, but the point is, it isn't, and no one knows the future so you have no justification to say if WE as Christians don't stand up for ourselves, America will decline. There is NO relevancy whatsoever in that POV. We stand as God gives us strength. Eph 6:13 says nothing about going out and fighting the governments of our land, it says STAND. God controls the governments, NOT us, despite your obfuscation about how men screw things up.

I never said they were "the" anti-christ. Just they can "be" anti-christ!

Again, assertion does not mean truth. An anti Christ is a person but feel free to show where in scripture it connotes a government.

God's word doesn't contradict itself. Bad stewardship is still wrong even if done for the right reasons. We should only be concerned with those in our circle of influence and let God lead others to care for those outside our circle. Read Luke 6: 19-34, if we're not to worry about any of that stuff for ourselves, we should exercise that same faith on behalf of others.

Apparently God believes in capitalism. Read Matt. 25:14-30. God wasn't happy with the one that didn't make a profit. I think He'd be just as unhappy if the servant just "gave it away" instead of hiding it. NOWHERE in scripture is it even suggested that gov'ts provide for the poor. The gov't of Israel that God designed, made provision for the poor, but they still had to work for it!

If the people had a chance to vote on this issue and if it was handled differently, then my attitude might be different, but no, it was shoved down our throats on a like it or lump it basis and that was just plain wrong! Just in case you didn't know this but the only revenue a government has is the taxes it collects from it's people, so either way, the reality is that the gov't is NOT paying for UH, we the people are!!

That is true, but you do. Luke 6:19-34 is rather long and multi themed. Maybe you can focus a little more on A point? The NC/NT is about our personal relationship with Jesus, not about how God does the same for everyone. We are told to "DO unto others", so if you think that means you don't have a responsibility to walk in another man's shoes before judging, then you are absolutely missing the point of LOVE, which is what the whole Bible hinges on.

Matt 25:14-30 is about what God gives us to use in our lifetime, not capitalism. Your continued eisegetical interpretation of scripture is rather sad for someone who I think should know better. I again suggest you study this by reading commentaries and studying it in a proper exegetical manner, and not reading it eisegetically. The government of Israel is NOT relevant here as we are now under the NC not the OC. Apparently you don't really understand the message of Christ?

People DID vote on it, and they re-elected the same president. That you don't understand the issue and would rather believe the GOP propaganda rather than what the EXPERTS say, is the real concern here. The whole point of UH is that it IS tax payer based so I don't know why you seem surprised at this?
The whole point of UH, is that it costs ALL taxpayers a lot less than insurance and deductibles do, or actual medical care for those who can't afford the insurance rates.

Here are just two of MANY examples;

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/

There are probably very few people on this board who have studied Rev. as much as I have and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else that would believe the Harlot of Rev. 17 is CAPITALISM!!! If you could find anyone that would agree with that then they would be as drunk on the liberal kool-aid as you are!

I doubt your assertions and I KNOW different. Of course as you have not bothered to even qualify your assertions, I can't be bothered to show you the facts as I believe even if I did you would equivocate and deny them.

I won't bother going further off track with this particular rabbit trail. Feel free to do your own OP on the subject and I will feel free to contribute to it.

 

[pom2014]

Trekson this modern Israel is NOT the Israel of the Bible.

To support it is to just support another fallen nation.

As for universal health, all branches of the government swore to protect the citizens of the republic from enemies foreign and domestic.

I consider illness as a domestic enemy. Especially when it kills more people than foreign agents do.

So scripture demands that we give universal health and the constitution demands it.

Now if you don't feel all citizens deserve the same treatment equally perhaps you might want to go back and read Matthew 22:36-40.

And this time think this is NOT a suggestion but a royal command.

I understand all this democracy nonsense has gotten into American heads, but as Christians we're in an ABSOLUTE monarchy.

 

[Brother James]

I believe that affordable health insurance ought to be available to everyone. The problem comes in when some people presume to know better what people ought to do than what they themselves perceive is best for them. That is arrogant and prideful on the part of those who want to impose their will on others. It is for the cause of freedom that Christ has made us free. There are many who would use government to place us into bondage, and that is what I resist. Freedom is the recognition that there are alternatives and the ability to choose between them. When you take away alternatives and choice you take away freedom, and that is never good even if it is done by someone who says they are doing it out of love and caring.

 

[Dan57]

I believe that affordable health insurance ought to be available to everyone. The problem comes in when some people presume to know better what people ought to do than what they themselves perceive is best for them. That is arrogant and prideful on the part of those who want to impose their will on others. It is for the cause of freedom that Christ has made us free. There are many who would use government to place us into bondage, and that is what I resist. Freedom is the recognition that there are alternatives and the ability to choose between them. When you take away alternatives and choice you take away freedom, and that is never good even if it is done by someone who says they are doing it out of love and caring.

You've crystallized my thoughts, its never been about opposing healthcare, its about removing individual freedom and choice. I don' think republicans (conservatives) oppose providing healthcare for those who cannot afford it themselves. What they oppose is a government mandate that forces them to purchase something they don't want, and penalizes them with additional taxes for not complying. It stems from a core belief that government should govern, and not be intricately involved in every aspect of a persons life.

Need a place to live, call the government (public housing). Need a home loan, call the government (FHA). Don't feel so good, call the government (ObamaCare). Getting hungry, call the government (food stamps). Don't have a job, call the government (unemployment). Want to retire, call the government (SSA). Want to go to college, call the government (student loans). Can't call the government because you don't have a phone, don't worry, they'll give you a free cell phone too. Want the freedom to provide for yourself, tough luck, your part of a collective which forces you to surrender your money and rely on government to keep everyone at the same level. That's the nanny state (socialism). It squashes self-reliance, entrepreneurship, individuality, ambition, and hope. When you make everyone the same, what's the point of hard work? You remove the drive that propels success and eliminate an individuals initiative towards betterment. Governments who conspire to spread the wealth around and make everyone equal inevitably make everyone poor. People aren't the same, we all reap what we sow, and lazy unproductive people shouldn't be economically equal to those work hard. And if God wanted us to worship the government in charge of us, why did He employ Moses to give the Pharaoh such a hard time?

 

[Brother James]

There is, unfortunately, an appeal to the thought that, "you don't seem able to make the right choices that are in your best interest, so I (we?) will take care of you since you don't seem able to do it yourself..."

It doesn't seem to occur to the person assuming that attitude that it is prideful and arrogant. It is disrespectful to others. And, by not allowing others to experience the consequences of their choices, it robs them of their choices, freedom, maturity, independence, self-reliance, and ultimately spiritual growth.

 

[River Jordan]

I don' think republicans (conservatives) oppose providing healthcare for those who cannot afford it themselves. What they oppose is a government mandate that forces them to purchase something they don't want, and penalizes them with additional taxes for not complying.

That doesn't seem to make sense. On one hand you argue that Republicans really do want to provide health coverage for people, but OTOH you argue that people don't really want health coverage. So why are Republicans wanting to give something to people who don't want it?

And exactly how would they provide health coverage for people without the gov't doing anything?

 

[HammerStone]

See, this is where I get into trouble, because I am not sure the personal liberty route is the most broadly persuasive argument these days. Unfortunately, if it doesn't involve sexual promiscuity or permission, most don't want to hear it.

There is, unfortunately, an appeal to the thought that, "you don't seem able to make the right choices that are in your best interest, so I (we?) will take care of you since you don't seem able to do it yourself..."

You've crystallized my thoughts, its never been about opposing healthcare, its about removing individual freedom and choice. I don' think republicans (conservatives) oppose providing healthcare for those who cannot afford it themselves. What they oppose is a government mandate that forces them to purchase something they don't want, and penalizes them with additional taxes for not complying. It stems from a core belief that government should govern, and not be intricately involved in every aspect of a persons life.

I think the thought is noble and trust me, I get it. I don't think the proposed solution did anything to address the ultimate disease afflicting us (pun intended).

Where I think the reasoning disconnects a bit is when you take something like car insurance. I realize it's not a one-to-one translation, but the government steps in and forces everyone (though we know how this works in praxis) to have coverage with at least a minimal level. It's less about the person than it is the other person. If we all took the significant risk that the other person didn't have insurance because the government didn't enforce it, then driving becomes something that is not economically the best idea. Now we can argue about suburbs, city infrastructure, etc but the argument would be the one subsumes rights to the whole for the benefit of the greater number and makes driving (along with its economic perks) sustainable. Sure the government creates the right to drive a car because you're not born with the inherent right to drive a car, but neither are we technically born with a right to afford the best healthcare.

The reason for the individual mandate is because it's the only way the catastrophic costs of so-called preexisting conditions and the poor can be covered within the extant system. Unfortunately, this idea was first advanced not by a Democrat, but by a Conservative think tank and implemented by a then Republican governor who later tried to run against his own bad idea without actually admitting a mistake.

With that said, I don't know what a better plan looks like because it's not my area. However, I'd love to see one. I think opening up insurance companies across state lines may help. I also think things can be done to reign in costs and look at how we perform medical care in this country. The problem afflicting us both before and after the bill is that costs are still high, whether paid individually through premiums or corporately through taxes.

That doesn't seem to make sense. On one hand you argue that Republicans really do want to provide health coverage for people, but OTOH you argue that people don't really want health coverage. So why are Republicans wanting to give something to people who don't want it?

I am a bit confused. :huh:

It makes sense to me that Republicans generally want people to have healthcare access. Contrary to hysterical assertions, I'm pretty sure most reasonable folks don't sit around and concoct policy for masses of people to die, Democrat, Republican or Libertarian. I wish we'd let go of the overused Marie Antoinette trope. The consistent argument I see advanced by Dan was that Republicans can desire the former without the latter. They could provide healthcare via some means for the (in this case) poor who need it, but also not force it on those who do not want it, rich or poor. It's perfectly reasonable that someone who doesn't want healthcare should not have to pay for it, for they knowingly assume the risk of not having it.

Or, put the other way with economics, I should not have to bear a portion of Joe the Hang Glider's risk. Neither should Joe have to bear economic risk of my (purely hypothetical) propensity to play with chemicals or large alligators. If Joe wants to hang glide without insurance, Joe should be able to do it. Him doing it does not affect me as Joe driving a car recklessly without insurance would.

And last, but not least, I think the OP's link to the WaPo article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/is rather interesting. It's further proof that the costs are born somewhere. Figure 6.8.1 is very interesting, because this is one of the prime arguments against single payer. It's inefficiencies come out in the form of time, which I would argue is ultimately not covered in the cost assessments.

First, most people don't generally see a specialist once, I should think. Second, there is only a single exception to the general rule of wait times being significantly higher in single payer systems. Obviously there are lies, darned lies, and statistics, but you get the point. It would be illuminating to dig into this area and see how wait times influenced mortality, care, etc. How much of the GDP savings is an opportunity cost or even external social cost?

 

[StanJ]

I think Hammer, if you check out the stats you'll find the U.S. spends a greater portion of their GDP on healthcare and get far less from it than countries who have UH. I've posted a few link to that effect.

 

[pom2014]

To all that think we need to make our own way for health care and it's arrogant to tell is what we should have or not have.

If you feel this way then we should ban the armies we have and defend our selves. We should stop using the national road system and pave our own roads.
Make up our own building codes, it's freewill right. No more going to NIST for what time it is. End the obviously evil weight and measures systems by the government.

No more safety regulations, just let everyone dump what they like. No more food or drug safety. We'll set our standards.

And the whole of government dismantle it. We cando it all ourselves. Just individual freewill. And if your freewill gets in the way of my freewill I should have the freedom to slit your throat and eat you body if I like. You can try to stop me but I'll wager my freewill is stronger than yours because I believe I should burn your whole town with you in it to get my way.

Freewill is a great thing. Because obviously every one will treat each other well right?

These people are supposed to make choices on our behalf. That's what a republic is all about.

The majority of the world would like universal health care.

 

[Dan57]

To all that think we need to make our own way for health care and it's arrogant to tell is what we should have or not have.

If you feel this way then we should ban the armies we have and defend our selves. We should stop using the national road system and pave our own roads.
Make up our own building codes, it's freewill right. No more going to NIST for what time it is. End the obviously evil weight and measures systems by the government.

No more safety regulations, just let everyone dump what they like. No more food or drug safety. We'll set our standards.

And the whole of government dismantle it. We cando it all ourselves. Just individual freewill. And if your freewill gets in the way of my freewill I should have the freedom to slit your throat and eat you body if I like. You can try to stop me but I'll wager my freewill is stronger than yours because I believe I should burn your whole town with you in it to get my way.

Freewill is a great thing. Because obviously every one will treat each other well right?

These people are supposed to make choices on our behalf. That's what a republic is all about.

The majority of the world would like universal health care.

Your examples are a bit extreme.. Freewill does not give people license to commit violent acts against others or break laws.. Freedom just provides people viable choices instead of being subjected to government mandates. There should be limits to how far government can interfere in your personal choices. When no limits are observed, you inevitably surrender your rights and independence to government. When government dictates your healthcare, we've learned that "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, and if you like your doctor, you can keep him" aren't true. The constitution is all about preserving individual liberty, it limits what government can dictate and assures individual rights. Without that protection, we are all just wards of the state. jmo

 

[HammerStone]

I think Hammer, if you check out the stats you'll find the U.S. spends a greater portion of their GDP on healthcare and get far less from it than countries who have UH. I've posted a few link to that effect.

And I agree, costs are a problem, but you ignored my portion about costs not counted in terms of money. There is a very clear cost in time when it comes to seeing a specialist that is not assessed in a GDP assessment of the actual price tag.

And, we also have this:
http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/canada-immigration-no-healthcare-illegal-immigrants-says-court-16614.html

Our hospitals do not refuse healthcare to anyone, illegal or not. We subsidize those costs as well in addition to providing care for numerous countries, many of whom are often wealthy and seek out the best care possible. I think the Mayo Clinic CEO I heard on NPR the other day reported that they served patients from some 165 countries the year prior.

Acknowledge it or not, wait times are a major issue for single-payer systems, and we're still back to the problem of scale. I'm not trying to totally disparage a SP-based healthcare system, but it's selling everyone short to oversimplify it and present it like it will work immediate without issues.

 

[River Jordan]

It makes sense to me that Republicans generally want people to have healthcare access. Contrary to hysterical assertions, I'm pretty sure most reasonable folks don't sit around and concoct policy for masses of people to die, Democrat, Republican or Libertarian. I wish we'd let go of the overused Marie Antoinette trope. The consistent argument I see advanced by Dan was that Republicans can desire the former without the latter. They could provide healthcare via some means for the (in this case) poor who need it, but also not force it on those who do not want it, rich or poor. It's perfectly reasonable that someone who doesn't want healthcare should not have to pay for it, for they knowingly assume the risk of not having it.

Or, put the other way with economics, I should not have to bear a portion of Joe the Hang Glider's risk. Neither should Joe have to bear economic risk of my (purely hypothetical) propensity to play with chemicals or large alligators. If Joe wants to hang glide without insurance, Joe should be able to do it. Him doing it does not affect me as Joe driving a car recklessly without insurance would.

Again, the problem is, we basically tried that approach and it was eating up more and more of our economy, bankrupting families, and causing all sorts of havoc. History shows that when we make health coverage a "choice", a lot of healthy and young people won't get it....makes sense, because why pay for something you don't need right now? Ah, but what happens when they get hit by a car, diagnosed with cancer, or bit by the wrong mosquito? When they show up at the hospital, do we throw them back out? As a society, we decided that no, we'll treat them regardless of their ability to pay. As a result, all of us absorb the costs through higher premiums and medical fees. Prior to the ACA, this was spiraling out of control.

So it seems we have a few options:

1) Start refusing care to people who don't have coverage;

2) The gov't just covers everyone (single payer);

3) The individual mandate.

And as I've pointed out, the data shows that #2 is the most cost effective and results in the best overall care. Here in the US, the main objections to it aren't at all practical, but are based in ideology.

And last, but not least, I think the OP's link to the WaPo article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/is rather interesting. It's further proof that the costs are born somewhere. Figure 6.8.1 is very interesting, because this is one of the prime arguments against single payer. It's inefficiencies come out in the form of time, which I would argue is ultimately not covered in the cost assessments.

First, most people don't generally see a specialist once, I should think. Second, there is only a single exception to the general rule of wait times being significantly higher in single payer systems. Obviously there are lies, darned lies, and statistics, but you get the point. It would be illuminating to dig into this area and see how wait times influenced mortality, care, etc. How much of the GDP savings is an opportunity cost or even external social cost?

Earlier in this thread I posted a link to a study of the overall effectiveness of single payer systems. The bottom line? They're waaaaaaay better than the US system, both in terms of cost and care. Is single payer perfect? Of course not, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[HammerStone]

As a society, we decided that no, we'll treat them regardless of their ability to pay. As a result, all of us absorb the costs through higher premiums and medical fees. Prior to the ACA, this was spiraling out of control.

So it seems we have a few options:

1) Start refusing care to people who don't have coverage;

2) The gov't just covers everyone (single payer);

3) The individual mandate.

Couple things.

#1 and #2 actually are part of the same package. See the article above on Canada. Even though some of the European populations have growing immigrant populations, these immigrants are legal and not under the same stigma and level of accountability that illegal immigrants are under in the US. Nor are they near the size. If we go SP, then these immigrants will either not get the care like is done in Canada or we will still subsidize the cost. I highly doubt this country will ever refuse care to mothers, babies, and children. Canada has the luxury of the US to the south and water or inhospitable terrain elsewhere. We do not.

Which takes me to my second point...we will bear the costs one way or another. It's either born as a mandatory cost such as the individual mandate or a tax (even though the mandate penalty has been ruled a tax, which I am no constitutional scholar on that but that's another discussion) or it's born in the costs in premiums. At the core is a problem of costs, which I am not convinced will come down as much as they have in these smaller countries.

There is no disagreement in that the current system is broken. I understand a strong case can be made for the SP avenue, but no one can point to the SP avenue of the scale and heterogeneous nature of the American healthcare system with the strain of illegal immigration. Thus, it will be a new experiment, differing more significantly than any proponent seems to be willing to admit at the moment. In addition, we already have a test system. It's the VA, and the results aren't the best indicator for a larger success.

 

[River Jordan]

#1 and #2 actually are part of the same package. See the article above on Canada. Even though some of the European populations have growing immigrant populations, these immigrants are legal and not under the same stigma and level of accountability that illegal immigrants are under in the US. Nor are they near the size. If we go SP, then these immigrants will either not get the care like is done in Canada or we will still subsidize the cost. I highly doubt this country will ever refuse care to mothers, babies, and children. Canada has the luxury of the US to the south and water or inhospitable terrain elsewhere. We do not.

Those certainly are interesting issues, but again, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't keep letting people die and go bankrupt in the process because "we're not sure what to do with immigrants".

Which takes me to my second point...we will bear the costs one way or another. It's either born as a mandatory cost such as the individual mandate or a tax (even though the mandate penalty has been ruled a tax, which I am no constitutional scholar on that but that's another discussion) or it's born in the costs in premiums. At the core is a problem of costs, which I am not convinced will come down as much as they have in these smaller countries.

Of course they will, if we fundamentally change our system from the current for-profit model to one that's run for the public good. One of the reasons our costs are so high is price-gouging for profit.

There is no disagreement in that the current system is broken. I understand a strong case can be made for the SP avenue, but no one can point to the SP avenue of the scale and heterogeneous nature of the American healthcare system with the strain of illegal immigration. Thus, it will be a new experiment, differing more significantly than any proponent seems to be willing to admit at the moment.

So?

In addition, we already have a test system. It's the VA, and the results aren't the best indicator for a larger success.

?????? The VA system specifically is about covering people who are seriously injured in wars, which means the costs per patient are enormously more than we would expect in the general population. Also, the VA system exists within our for-profit system in terms of drugs, equipment, etc. So the VA gets gouged as much as anyone else.

Sorry sweetie, that's a very poor comparison.

 

[StanJ]

And I agree, costs are a problem, but you ignored my portion about costs not counted in terms of money. There is a very clear cost in time when it comes to seeing a specialist that is not assessed in a GDP assessment of the actual price tag.

And, we also have this:
http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/canada-immigration-no-healthcare-illegal-immigrants-says-court-16614.html

Our hospitals do not refuse healthcare to anyone, illegal or not. We subsidize those costs as well in addition to providing care for numerous countries, many of whom are often wealthy and seek out the best care possible. I think the Mayo Clinic CEO I heard on NPR the other day reported that they served patients from some 165 countries the year prior.

Acknowledge it or not, wait times are a major issue for single-payer systems, and we're still back to the problem of scale. I'm not trying to totally disparage a SP-based healthcare system, but it's selling everyone short to oversimplify it and present it like it will work immediate without issues.

I can't agree. I'm waiting for a specialist and will see him next week, which will make it about two months since my GP referred me. No loss in GDP or any other financial issue, and as this is just a routine checkup and NOT a medical crisis, I find that really quick. I can book my ophthalmologist in a day or two and get in for laser surgery if my eyes start bleeding. That's pretty quick as well.

The issue you bring up is an exception to the rule and I have no problem with it. My daughter-in-law gets all the medical attention she needs and is still NOT a permanent resident here in Canada. Breaking the law is another matter.

I didn't say there were no wait times, I just said they are not as problematic as many make them out to be, for no other reason than they have no other reason to complain.

 

[JimParker]

The title of this thread maligns and slanders about half of the citizens of the United States.

It is based on a lie: i.e. that Republicans hate universal healthcare.

That is a lie.

What republicans and conservatives (no they are NOT the same) "hated" was an extremely flawed healthcare bill that did not accomplish what the propaganda of the left said it would do. Nancy Pelosi stated publicly that she, as Speaker of the House, had not even read the bill.

Everything we were told by the president about the ACA was a lie.

We don't get to keep our plan as he promised.
We don't get to keep our doctor as he said.
It will not reduce the average middle class families health care premiums by $2400 a year.
It will not guarantee that all Americans will have healthcare.

Also, the subsidies paid to health insurance companies in order to keep the cost of healthcare down will run out in 2016. Then the cost of healthcare will jump again and the Democrats will blame it on the Republicans and Obama's idol worshiping fans will believe them.

And THAT crap is what Republicans (and conservatives who are stuck with them) hate.

IMHO (ha-RUMPH!)

 

[StanJ]

The title of this thread maligns and slanders about half of the citizens of the United States.

It is based on a lie: i.e. that Republicans hate universal healthcare.

That is a lie.

What republicans and conservatives (no they are NOT the same) "hated" was an extremely flawed healthcare bill that did not accomplish what the propaganda of the left said it would do. Nancy Pelosi stated publicly that she, as Speaker of the House, had not even read the bill.

Everything we were told by the president about the ACA was a lie.

We don't get to keep our plan as he promised.
We don't get to keep our doctor as he said.
It will not reduce the average middle class families health care premiums by $2400 a year.
It will not guarantee that all Americans will have healthcare.

Also, the subsidies paid to health insurance companies in order to keep the cost of healthcare down will run out in 2016. Then the cost of healthcare will jump again and the Democrats will blame it on the Republicans and Obama's idol worshiping fans will believe them.

And THAT crap is what Republicans (and conservatives who are stuck with them) hate.

IMHO (ha-RUMPH!)

LOL....are you a card carrying GOP member Jim? This type of reply just confirms the premise of my OP. I have experienced it first hand on MANY forums.

I wasn't talking about Obamacare per say, but about what the Republicans did. Read the link.

UH is NOT the ACA. I was referring more to what Canada has than anything else, but it seems even that is not acceptable to many republicans, who are mostly REACTIVE to this issue and not proactive.

How about SPHCS? http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/HealthCareReformArguments.sflb.ashx

 

[JimParker]

LOL....are you a card carrying GOP member Jim? This type of reply just confirms the premise of my OP. I have experienced it first hand on MANY forums.

I wasn't talking about Obamacare per say, but about what the Republicans did. Read the link.

UH is NOT the ACA. I was referring more to what Canada has than anything else, but it seems even that is not acceptable to many republicans, who are mostly REACTIVE to this issue and not proactive.

How about SPHCS? http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/HealthCareReformArguments.sflb.ashx

<<LOL>>>

LOL???

You think that the fraud perpetuated on the American people by the thieves in Congress and the whack-job in the white house is funny?

Please don't try your "rules for Radical's" schtik on me. I can smell it a mile away and you're not very good at it.

You just tried to do number 5:[SIZE=12pt] “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)[/SIZE]

That's what libs consistently do when they are confronted by facts and want to avoid admitting that they are actually facts. It's what Joe Biden did in the vice-presidential debate; made a total ass of himself.

When you don't have anything substantive to say, please just don't respond. and by all means, do attempt to not demean yourself by resorting to childish insults.

 

[StanJ]

<<LOL>>>

LOL???

You think that the fraud perpetuated on the American people by the thieves in Congress and the whack-job in the white house is funny?

Please don't try your "rules for Radical's" schtik on me. I can smell it a mile away and you're not very good at it.

You just tried to do number 5:[SIZE=12pt] “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)[/SIZE]

That's what libs consistently do when they are confronted by facts and want to avoid admitting that they are actually facts. It's what Joe Biden did in the vice-presidential debate; made a total ass of himself.

When you don't have anything substantive to say, please just don't respond. and by all means, do attempt to not demean yourself by resorting to childish insults.

I'm not interested in dealing with your very apparent bias of the Democrats and their record on social reform. My OP was clear.

Funny how an apparently pleasant fellow can reveal his true stripes when confronted with his enemy.

I must have hit a really raw nerve to get this kind of vehement response.

All you've done here is spew vitriolic anti liberal hatred and not anything of substance or use.

YOU responded to my OP. If you can't stand the heat then stay OUT of the kitchen.