The emperor has declared his heartless edict to let the ACA implode. By this, he implies that he will do all in his egotistical realm of depravity to actively impede the only viable plan to be improved. A plan to provide hitherto unavailable health care for millions, now that ACA is in place.
And if the GOP allows this sabotage to go forward, this will be a bloody stain on their collective conscience henceforth, and there has to be a severe form of chastisement awaiting Trump and all lackey knaves who would go along with this immoral plot.
To those who in a trance of manic excitement when chanting “Make America Great Again”, this is your reward—A profoundly perverse individual.
There used to be a Republican Party made up of civilized people. Now, it has been usurped by these selfish all for me people. We have a party where an eight-year-old-boy screams as a trump rally, concerning Hillary Clinton, “Hang the bitch.” We have a party that elects a man who brags about assaulting women. We have a party that is so cowardly they arm themselves and quiver in their beds at the slightest noise. We have a party that will do everything in their power to suppress votes in areas where there are more democrats registered. We have a party that is beholden to the wealthy donors. We have a party that has been planting lies and hate for 20 years. We have a party that has openly and wantonly violated the Constitution.
I agree with your comments since I certainly have always respected Sen McCain. While I don’t always agree with his stance on certain issues at least he’s never been rude and belligerent. He can work across the aisle with Democrats and I’m happy Sen Schumer was able to win over McCains support and vote down any repeal of the ACA
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pa186:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash186HomeActiveGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pa186l..,.
Lets see, one side is screaming to take money from other people to pay for their doctor bills or insurance premiums. These people call those who want to keep their own money greedy.
Down is up, up is down. Some pigs are more equal that others.
Those are the far right Republican affluent who don’t want to share one extra dime of their tax money so that their fellow citizens can also have health care when they desperately need it, without being medically bankrupted by it. You know, like in all the other rich countries. Yeah, you got that right. They are truly pigs.
Aaah, the Republicans. The party of the religious right, and the guarantors of the sanctity of human life. Well, at least until you’re born anyway.
Do you not understand the difference between deliberately killing an innocent person and a person who cannot afford medical care?
You really saying these are moral equivalents?
No. One is worse. It’s questionable at best to consider the typically aborted fetus at 6-12 weeks as being a human being. Especially the zygotes who get flushed away in the menstrual cycle when taking the morning after pill. The latter is ludicrous unless looking at it from a particular religious perspective. Despite protection, accidents happen and sometimes women are in no position to raise a child, or to even go through with the pregnancy, for a wide variety of reasons. I can’t dictate to her what to do, and I’m certainly not prepared to sentence her to prison for the “killing.”
On the other hand, if you argue against universal coverage for health care, you’re sentencing a lot of fully developed human beings to death every year. Human beings with spouses, children, families, pets, jobs, homes, and a lifetime of memories. That is far worse.
“I’m a liberal”
questionable? Then what is it, a dog, a cat, a fish, a cow? If not human what the heck is it?
Sorry, but an abortion, by definition, kills an innocent human being. You can create all kinds of arguments about viability, standard of life for parents and child, etc. etc.. It does not change the core reality that it is killing a living human being. Your argument is about what “stage of human development” you want to allow this killing to occur.
Existing humans have many ways to secure healthcare. Without a Nationalized system. I don’t know how I can sleep at night living in a country that KILLED PEOPLE for centuries because we did not have National Healthcare.
Your argument is EMPTY.
Again, with the preposterous astonishing statements. How would “existing humans” secure healthcare in America if they can’t afford…say, cancer treatments for example — and they also can’t afford insurance and/or the deductibles, co-pays, etc…? Hint: ER’s won’t provide that.
By the way, how many years in prison do you want a woman to serve after she’s caught having an abortion, once it’s made illegal? Or do you prefer the death penalty?
Where did I say I wanted women prosecuted for getting an abortion? Idiot.
If you want to make abortion illegal, how do you plan to enforce that without criminal penalties?
Here’s what you said about abortion:
“Sorry, but an abortion, by definition, kills an innocent human being. It does not change the core reality that it is killing a living human being.”
So, after killing an innocent living human being, are you just going to let her go?
She didn’t harm me, did she.
It is not up to me what happens to her. Society could decide it is in fact a crime. In that case there will have to be restitution to the victim. But wait..
Or society could decide that shunning people like this is the way to go. SHAME on them who kill innocent people.
I find it odd that you think because you cannot find a proper penalty for this killing that somehow that makes it not killing.
I didn’t say it was a killing. You did. So now you’re saying that as long as you weren’t the one being (harmed) killed, it’s ok. Really?
If you think that abortion is killing an innocent human being, then the woman by definition is a murderer. You’re just going to let her go?
Pay attention and read more slowly. I never said it was OK.
Why is it up to me to decide whether she should go free? Why is jail the only thing you can think of as punishment?
“Why is jail the only thing you can think of as punishment?”
I also mentioned capital punishment. You said that abortion was killing an innocent living human being. What’s the penalty for that? Are you a right-wing hypocrite that just likes to throw out slogans and talking points, or do your words mean something?
“Why is it up to me to decide whether she should go free?”
In your own words, she just killed an innocent living human being. So what do you want done with her?
Why is the punishment so important to you? It has NOTHING to do with the reality that abortion is killing of an innocent human being.
What is it you think makes me a hypocrite? I did not say she should be punished and then argue that I should not. I also did not say the opposite of this.
I offered you some alternative “punishments” for the killing. You simply ignored them and went back to jail or killing the woman. Shame and shunning are powerful forces. More powerful than your left wing use of jail as a deterrent.
Now let us just suppose that Society has come to agree that deliberate killing innocent unborn children is in fact a crime. Now tell me why the woman should not pay the price of her crime? Let us also suppose that this Society has decided that jail time is the appropriate punishment. Why would the woman not be subject to this penalty?
Is there something magical about women that absolves them from paying for their crimes?
Or, is it that you can’t handle the idea of the woman going to jail so you rationalize the killing of innocent humans as being some kind of “right”? Could it be that the “emotion” of the end result is really driving the argument all this time?
This is similar to the notion of “owning one’s own body”, and thus it is ONLY the woman’s choice to make. This is a play on the emotion created by the understood right of individual sovereignty which is then used to ignore the same right of the innocent child being carried by the woman. It is a simpletons trick, one designed to avoid the reality that we humans reproduce by having a male and female and that the female then carries the unborn to term.
We try to treat the woman and child as a single entity because we cannot admit that one, there are two people involved and two, that the relationship between them creates a dependency, each upon the other.
Restitution to a dead fetus? Shaming and shunning? What is this,17th century Salem? Are you kidding me?
The right of the woman to an abortion is recognized throughout most of the world. Check it out. It’s actually considered a UN human right, believe it or not. It’s often covered by the healthcare system in various countries.
Where it isn’t always allowed is in the fundamentalist Islamic countries. I’m not talking Turkey and Tunisia, where abortions are unconditionally legal on request. I’m referring more to the Iraq’s and Egypt’s of the world. I don’t even want to think about what the penalty might be, but it’s illegal unless needed to save the life of the mother.
Is the Islamic fundamentalist world the model that you want to impose on America?
I thought they “burned” people alive in Salem. That isn’t shunning.
Just because some governmental body declares something a “right” does not make it a RIGHT.
Nor does it make it right.
The two largest religions in the last two thousand years both view abortion as killing an innocent human. Thus their decree that one should not do that or it is a SIN. Now anything beyond that gets into the world of Govt. Where the Islamic world mixes the two and the Christian world has tried to separate them.
But nice try at another strawman argument.
A) You re the one who said that shunning and shaming might be an appropriate penalty for killing an innocent living human being. Do you not see the untenability of your position.
B) It s more Islam that separates secular world laws from religious laws, concerning abortion. It s the western majority Christian nations that blend the two, with secular laws trumping.
I have not denied I said shunning could be a punishment nor have I said anyone else suggested it. I do maintain that it works and would work.
What is untenable is you thinking that I or any other individual should be mixed up in the administration of Justice in a private family matter.
Society decides what the appropriate punishment should be. I am simply trying to show you that using objective thinking, logic and by applying reason you can get different answers than have become simply accepted as “tradition”.
Did you know that long ago killing someone would get you sentenced to work for the Victims family to repay them for their loss. Or you could sometimes buy your way out. If you complied the family could not kill you in revenge or to claim Justice. You would be protected by the Law. However, if you refused and ran, then the family was free to hunt you down and kill you. Because you were now an “out law”, someone living outside the protection of the law.
Shunning and shame were effective tools that helped keep abortions low even in the USA before the NOW of the word fooled people into creating a “Right ” to kill innocent people.
Go to the middle east and tell their governments that they separate secular law from religious law. Not even sure how you can make that claim with a straight face.
If you cannot afford a doctor you have three choices.
Do not go.
Reduce some other expense so you can go.
Ask someone to help you pay the bills. This is called CHARITY.
None of these options provide for using force to make others pay your bills. Guess what. Bad things can happen to people. That does not make me morally obligated to take over their problems or pay for them.
For a bunch of self righteous folks you on the left really don’t grasp the concept of objective morality very well.
Sure. If you desperately need heart surgery to keep living, just ask your neighbour if he/she can lend you $325,000.00 till payday. Or, don’t get that iphone after all, like Jason Chaffetz recommended. Alternatively…just don’t get the surgery.
Sounds reasonable — not!
Then why do you feel self-righteously morally obligated to get involved in a woman’s personal decision as to what to do about an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?
I have no plans on getting mixed up in a woman’s decisions about reproduction. That does not change the FACT that abortion is killing an innocent human being. I guess if she can handle the guilt then she will be fine. If not then I guess she could have the baby and then keep it or give it away.
You do realize don’t you that the US has major charities that could be used to cover this emergency heart surgery you want to use as an example. But here is the bigger question. WHY should anyone be forced to provide you with that surgery? By what RIGHT do you force others to first, provide the service, and second pay for it.
If you were dying of thirst in the desert, am I obligated to find you and give you water?? Even if I don’t know you or know where you are or what your situation?
So you’re on board with a woman’s right to an abortion. Good.
With precious few exceptions, charities are not there for, and do not cover expensive life saving surgeries for people who can’t afford it. Otherwise this would never be an issue. More preposterous astonishing nonsense talk.
Why should a country ensure that it’s citizens can have life saving surgeries? Because healthcare is considered a human right that’s based on need and not based on ability to pay, in all of the other wealthier advanced countries. Even some of the others who aren’t so wealthy, if they can afford it.
If the Republican party wants to talk about values, religion, and the sanctity of life, then it also needs to get on board with universal healthcare.
“WHY should anyone be forced to provide you with that surgery?”…you ask. Oh I don’t know, how about basic human decency…a sense of humanity…some compassion for others…simple kindness…human empathy…sympathy, mercy, humaneness, heart? We’ll start with those.
People simply get into terrible health situations due to no fault of their own, and are too often not affluent enough to afford desperately needed care. The rest of the world has decided that’s wrong and needs to be rectified. It’s as simple as that. If you honestly don’t understand that, check your humanness.
Your kind rails about abortion but couldn’t give a rat’s behind about the child after it’s born. From my standpoint, I wish that as many women as possible could find a way to give the fetus a chance at life, but abortion is a different and complicated situation. You also have to have compassion and understanding for the woman’s situation. For most women, reproductive choice is extremely important.
No woman has a RIGHT to kill innocent people.
Why should a country allow people who need new pickup trucks to go without them? Or maybe those that want boats but cannot afford them.
You just can’t seem to comprehend that Medical Care doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It doesn’t grow on trees. It is a service like any other service. Just because you have turned your desire for it into an emotional issue does not change its nature.
“You just can’t seem to comprehend that Medical Care doesn’t exist in a vacuum.”
Wrong! It does exist in a vacuum. It is NOT a service like any other service. No one in the developed capitalist world ever said that everyone should have the best suit or the best pair of shoes or a pickup truck or a boat or a mansion. To the financial winners in life go the spoils. We all get that.
What we don’t get is the idea that you should die or go medically bankrupt just because you got sick and don’t have the personal resources to get well.
The rest of the developed world doesn’t get that either, and has taken steps to ensure that doesn’t happen.
The rest of the world has done no such thing. Some have and others have not. Because some don’t have enough people with money to steal it from yet to get their free stuff.
So if health care exists in a vacuum why are you in need of a DOCTOR to provide it? Are you going to force people to become Doctors and to treat you because boo, hoo, your sick.
Playing emotion is not an argument. Yours so far keeps coming back to “because I want it and you should provide it”. Yet such an ethical principle will only create division, distrust and perhaps outright hatred among the people You cannot keep taking from people for things you deem necessary.
And trust me, I know more people in desperate need of a new truck than health insurance. Besides, who are you to say they don’t need one.
And how is a Doctor’s services different from a Hooker’s or a Store owner? Hint……….They are not.
i) All of the industrialized advanced wealthier countries have universal healthcare in one form or another. Everyone is covered regardless of their financial situation. You even get developing nations like the Phillipines who at least have a public option for those not able to afford private hospitals. They fund it as best they can. No one, other than the American right-wing, tolerates the idea anymore that you should suffer and/or die just because you got sick or injured and can’t afford treatment.
“boo, hoo, you’re sick?” What kind of a morally bankrupt, debauched, excuse for a human being are you?
ii) Yes, healthcare is in a vacuum and is treated like no other good or service in the marketplace throughout much of the world and in all of the developed countries…for a reason. Healthcare is not just another good or service.
iii) A doctor’s services differ from a hooker’s(?) or a store owner’s because the latter two don’t heal you, cure diseases, treat injuries, or save your life. Did I have to explain that? Only an American right-wing nut would make an asinine statement like that. Conservatives in other countries have all bought into the concept of universal health care. For gawd sakes, even Margaret Thatcher once reassured the British people that their cherished National Health Service was safe in her hands.
Please don’t make me nauseous by bragging about America’s difference insofar as it’s callous attitude towards some of it’s sick. That’s not something to brag about.
As of 2012 Charitable donations in the usa exceeded 370 BILLION.
Take your talking point to the next Communist party meeting. Maybe it will sell better there.
Medical bankruptcies were also at a figure not seen elsewhere in the developed world. Tell that to your buddies, the Kochs. They love it.
“My money is a sign of my intelligence and virility, and tax is wallet-rape. Any tax ripped from my suddenly less intelligent, virtuous and virile fingers should only be spent on things I agree with. I’m white, well-off, and used to getting my way and that’s how democracy is meant to work. Furthermore, how dare you “GIVE” any of “MY” money to the undeserving welfare moochers who are obviously in the position they are in because God intended that they suffer for their sins. They should work harder or just go die somewhere out of sight.
P.S. I lack compassion, basic human decency, morals, and a brain.”
– Just A Citizen.
I am not the one demanding others pay for my stuff. I am not as Greedy as you apparently are.
Your stuff is already paid for by others.
The fact you can’t grasp this self-evident fact is a sure sign of willful ignorance in the service of self-righteous greed.
Let me give you a hint: Roads. Schools. Bridges. Power Generation. Research. Medical Breakthroughs. Military. Government. etc etc
Did you personally pay for all of the things above that have helped you to attain whatever level you have achieved?
Everyone paid for the things that allowed you to achieve success.
You just don’t see it, because it doesn’t suit your blinkered mentality.
You’re greedy AF because you blindly expect to have common good services and infrastructure, but blindly demand that you get to keep your personal money.
I guess that means everyone except you should pay for these things?
None of the things you listed are “my” stuff.
I do not expect common good services. I expect the services I want and am willing to pay for.
I am not demanding others pay for my doctor. You are. YOU are the greedy one, not me.
As I said… you depend on common good items and services… but only want to pay for the things you like/think are useful/believe you use.
What a moron.
One has to wonder just what is wrong with supposedly intelligent people, and I am referring to the Congress and Senate and not the President, who cannot create and work out a health care plan for the entire country.
A lot of the bigots and racists need to get over who created the ACA in the first place and realize that part of the strength of any country is the well being of its people. Both physically as well as mentally.
We have Social Security and Medicare taxes taken out of worker’s pay. Self employed have to pay the same taxes. So just what the heck is the issue here.
Is it more money, more taxes taken out? Paying for employer provided health insurance is and has been not trivial anymore. Years ago it was provided, but that changed in the 80s. People forget or never knew. They complain about the ACA costing them a lot, but they fail to see just what is provided vs what they did (not) have otherwise. And the paycheck takeout could have been as high as $200 per pay or more (or $400 per month) with the employer paying a portion not included in those numbers. Small businesses could not get health coverage for a reasonable price until the early 2000s when insurers began allowing pooling of small companies into one larger pool. But the coverages were all over the place. This was all before the ACA.
I would think that putting the extra money towards a National Health Care plan, a good one with proper coverages and no hidden fees, would be more desirable than what we have now.
The Republican politicians simply prefer having money to the poorest American citizens’ lives.
Its really that simple.
They lie and dress it up… call it the prosperity gospel, or Calvinism, or the poor getting hat they deserve for not working hard enough, or whatever… but at it’s core, they would prefer the $10 required to save a poor child’s life be in their pocket over supplying a vaccine, pill, or operation.
It’s callous, sociopathic, and not even close to “Conservative”.
The strength of a country can be found in the commonality of its values and beliefs. The thing we call culture.
The ACA and all attempts at Govt. healthcare fly in the face of our culture. Some want it, and others do not. As usual, the Progressive mind set is to simply change things no matter the social cost. They figure the culture will change.
But this method is divisive. Sometimes to the point it boils over into sharp division among the people.
As for your claim, how did the US become so great and powerful without Govt. healthcare?? If your claim is true the US population has always been to sickly for the US to ever be a strong nation. Somebody should clue the Germans and Japanese in on the scam. They really didn’t lose to a strong nation after all.
All U.S. soldiers had government provided health care in WWII. All soldiers from all participant countries did. What is your problem…that you think a culture is wrong which says that universal health care for all citizens should be based on need and not based on ability to pay? If it’s based on need, government obviously has to play a large role. However, you think that’s wrong. Health care should just be for whoever can afford it, right?
Incidentally, the Health Insurance Act of Germany was adopted in 1883. In 1885 the GKV provided medical protection for 26 percent of the lower-paid segments of the labor force, or 10 percent of the population. Health insurance coverage was gradually extended by including ever more occupational groups in the plan and by steadily raising the income ceiling.
In 1901 in Germany, transport and office workers came to be covered by public health insurance, followed in 1911 by agricultural and forestry workers and domestic servants, and in 1914 by civil servants. Coverage was extended to the unemployed in 1918, to seamen in 1927, and to all dependents in 1930. In 1941 legislation was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans.
In WWII, all allied soldiers simply had the German attitude from their respective governments towards their health care.
Soldiers are provided health care due to the authorities granted to Congress to regulate the military. It provides no such authority over private insurance or to provided a national insurance program.
And you did a good job of explaining why not. The USA was designed to be different, not just another socialist nation designed after the European model. You want European health care, then move to Europel
Now explain again how millions of Americans died because we did not have a Nationalized health care system prior to WWII. How did the US become a strong and great nation without it?
I usually like to put some thought into a reply and maybe even do a little research but in this case, these are just silly questions. For starters, regarding those who find that they can’t afford health insurance, what do you think happens to some of them?
In September 2009, the Harvard Gazette published a study by the American Journal of Public Health, which was conducted at the Harvard Medical School and the Cambridge Health Alliance.
It found that nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure was about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The study found that uninsured working age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. It’s estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
It’s nice to get some numbers, but only the numbers are in question. The premise is just common sense.
Secondly, precious few nations would have had any form of national health insurance prior to WWII. Britain’s NHS didn’t start until immediately after WWII and the first Canadian experimentation with socialized health care occurred in 1944. America was at no disadvantage that way.
Just as you can always find young healthy people for the military, you can always find them to work in industry too. There are a lot of reasons for the economic rise and decline of a nation, and availability of health insurance is only one of many, but one nevertheless.
Health performance and economic performance are interlinked, and the effects of health on economic development show a correlation. Countries with weak health and education conditions find it harder to achieve sustained growth. Economic evidence confirms that a 10% improvement in life expectancy at birth is associated with a rise in economic growth of some 0.3-0.4 percentage points a year. The latter, courtesy of the OECD Observer.
I didn’t have insurance for decades. I payed my bills. Why should I assume others cannot pay their bills? I didn’t have any more money then than the poor do today.
45,000 extra deaths a year? My first reaction now is the same as when this was published. PROVE IT. On the other hand, so what. I think we should outlaw driving. Certainly you must agree. To disagree will KILL PEOPLE.
If you dig deeper I think you will find the connections between economic well being and national health to be reverse of what you claim. It was our success that has led to more sickness.
We are talking about the USA here, not Zimbabwe. Are you aware of the studies showing poor children are now healthier than rich kids? Because the poor kids still play in the dirt. Turns out we need to be exposed to all kinds of microbiota to help our immune system.
You make preposterous, astonishing, statements. How does one argue with someone like you?
I could list them off one-by-one from your post with a big ??? after each one. Not going to though.
Forget it. I don’t know what’s going on in your head.
If we’re all dying of Rabies and someone invents a vaccine, we should totally go with tradition and just keep dying to a, now preventable, disease. Common sense doesn’t enter into it!
Or even better allow the agent for the inventor to charge $100,000 per shot… ensuring only the richest have surety of survival…! Super!
Indeed, how did America become so great if dying of preventable diseases was that much of a problem? I’m sure only 15-25% of US citizens died screaming in agony before their time… so who cares?
As long as the country is great, who gives a crap about how it’s citizens are treated, and if they suffer horribly and die in the streets, and if the infant mortality rate is high, and if some of the Breeders… uh… I mean “females” die in childbirth? It’s tradition!
If I haven’t communicated accurately how idiotic and inherently inhuman your points were, just let me know and I’ll try insults.
First sentence, false equivalency.
Second sentence, who are you to decide what the value of someone else’s labor is? The only remote reason we think we should be justified in demanding slaves create stuff for us is because we use govt. force to give them protections. Oh, and there are only two ways to allocate scarce resources. The peaceful way, using price, or the violent way, using Govt. force to decide who wins and loses.
Third sentence, that many die with all the new drugs and treatments. But that is not the point is it? Weak strawman.
First Sentence: Accurately contrasts the dangers of going with tradition based on “Culture” over progression. Not a false equivalency.
Second Sentence: I get to decide when the alternative is the death of the individual involved. In other words: If you are dying, and you need something I make to live, I have a bargaining position that is massively unfair, and time limited. You cannot have a free market when the customer, in many cases, has:
– No equivalent expert knowledge of the products (Surgery, Drugs, Treatment)
– No time to gain knowledge or shop around.
– No option but to pay you or die.
This is considered extortion by most countries, because they aren’t ignorant like yourself, or worship greed over their citizen’s lives like most of the USA.
If you don’t believe me consider this: You come down with a treatable disease and have 2 days to live.
I have the only patent for the drug that will cure you.
You ask to buy the drug from me.
I tell you it will cost you $10 million dollars.
What are your “free market” choices now, idiot?
Maybe you’ll go to the “other seller”… that doesn’t exist?
Maybe you’ll use all that time you don’t have to shop around?
If you think this “price” method of allocating resources is peaceful you’re an idiot. In nearly all civilised countries (and I’m excluding the US here) governments regulate much of medical care precisely because allowing the free market to do it results in inhuman, violent and deadly end results.
Of course in the US that’s called “freedom”.
Third sentence: Not a strawman. I’m not sure what you mean here?
“It’s fine to stick with tradition where lots of people used to die, because new treatments also kill some people?” – WTF? Feel free to clarify… I’d hate to put a strawman in your mouth…
If that is what you’re saying then your critique is a false equivalency. Sure, people always die. Old diseases, new treatments. The important factor is minimizing the suffering and death. (Again: Unless you live in the USA… then the important thing is making as much money as possible over the dead bodies of your fellow countrymen and women and children.)
The Free Market in healthcare kills more people. This is even logical… as treatments that are not profitable will be removed or made much more expensive… even if that will kill people.
Pretty sad effort there, buddy.
Answer me this: Would you prefer to live in 1950 or now?
Progression??? What a laugh. Your SOCIALISM has been around for over a hundred years. Your mucking up the US system has been ongoing for almost as long. There is not progressive about Progressive ideology.
Just a bunch of socialists and communists, along with their anarchist cousins, hiding behind a word designed to make any who oppose you look “backwards”.
You can’t perform surgery. The trade something you have with the person who does know how. Stop using the Govt. gun to enforce your distorted morality upon the free people. Some of us don’t want to be part of your slave nation.
Your inability to grasp that America is already socialist (see: Roads, Military etc), and your willful ignorance over the definitions of both socialism and communism are f**king breathtaking… and stupid on a truly epic scale.
Back to your rural shack, knuckle-dragger, before a real fact or some actual logic blows your tiny struggling mind.
Govt running the military is not Socialism you dolt. And you call me a moron.
And if this country has already slipped part way into the abyss doesn’t change the fact that you support the abyss. That you revel in it because your GREED allows you no other choice.
I am fully aware of what the definitions are for each type and they are both rooted in the same bankrupt moral standard. Sacrifice of some for the good of the many, combined with that little “the ends justify any means”.
They, along with their Cousin, FASCISM, are nightmares launched upon humanity by insane and immoral men. All in the name of the “greater good”.
Forgot one: The premise was that greatness “depends” on a national health care system.
Well we became great without one. The premise has been proven FALSE. Whether you suffer or not has nothing to do with that result.