or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 43

post #1681 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Stop bitching you are lucky you have a job.

Yeah...coz' that's the meaning of life right...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #1682 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm sorry to hear that you had a more serious condition that required surgery. I'm also glad that you had insurance to cover this problem. That said, I think it's probably fairly safe to safe that nasal polyps are the exception rather than the rule with regard to the billion or so colds that Americans gets each year for which a primary symptom is a stuffed up and/or runny nose; and also that most people who do get nasal polyps are likely to be treatable with much less expensive non-surgical treatments. So your insurance was there for exactly what insurance is designed for: uncommon and infrequent but potentially expensive medical or surgical treatments.

You have information that is curious.....
In the words of my doc: (obviously you will know much more about this than he does because you are MJ1970)
"Nasal polyps are fairly common in males over 50. You have a 15% chance they will disappear with the steroid treatment."
Unfortunately the steroids did not get rid of them. However I got a lot of work done in the 10 days of the treatment.
OK so you think 15% is "most people" now I know why you think that the people of the United States are against Obamacare.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1683 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

You have information that is curious.....
In the words of my doc: (obviously you will know much more about this than he does because you are MJ1970)




Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

"Nasal polyps are fairly common in males over 50. You have a 15% chance they will disappear with the steroid treatment."

So perhaps I am mis-informed. I hope you'll forgive me for only going with the generic information from the Mayo Clinic (and certainly didn't mean to imply that I knew the specific circumstances of your situation):

Quote:
Medications can often lessen the size of nasal polyps or eliminate them, but surgery is sometimes necessary to remove them. Even after successful treatments, nasal polyps often return.

Quote:
When to see a doctor
Signs and symptoms of nasal polyps are similar to many other conditions, including the common cold.* If your condition continues for more than 10 days, see your doctor.

*I think you probably know that when we casually referred to going to the doctor or emergency room because of a stuffed or running nose that this is what we were referring to.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1684 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Yeah...coz' that's the meaning of life right...

These people honestly believe that 5% unemployment rate with workers working for $1 a day is better than 10% unemployment rate with workers working for $7.25 an hour. What do you expect?
post #1685 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post






So perhaps I am mis-informed. I hope you'll forgive me for only going with the generic information from the Mayo Clinic (and certainly didn't mean to imply that I knew the specific circumstances of your situation):





*I think you probably know that when we casually referred to going to the doctor or emergency room because of a stuffed or running nose that this is what we were referring to.

Very well. You are young and unable to integrate variance factors into your world view. This is shown by many of your posts.
Indeed it would be a lot cheaper for the US economy if everyone who gets a sniffle immediately gets treatment and stays home. I own several businesses and flu season costs me a lot. I send people home when they come with a cold. I voluntarily pay them for 3 days absence.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1686 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

These people honestly believe that 5% unemployment rate with workers working for $1 a day is better than 10% unemployment rate with workers working for $7.25 an hour. What do you expect?

Let me see if I have this right. Two scenarios:

1. 95% of the people working with some of them making only $1 per hour (I'll grant your unsupported claim that there would be wages that low)
2. 5% more people not working at all and making a wage of zero all because a bunch of morons think that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to labor markets.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1687 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

You are young and unable to integrate variance factors into your world view. This is shown by many of your posts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1688 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let me see if I have this right. Two scenarios:

1. 95% of the people working with some of them making only $1 per hour (I'll grant your unsupported claim that there would be wages that low)
2. 5% more people not working at all and making a wage of zero all because a bunch of morons think that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to labor markets.

It's not that simple.

In the first scenario, the 5% of unemployed people (mostly mentally ill or mentally handicapped) plus the other 10-15% that are earning below an acceptable standard of living, are fucked. No one is going to help them.

In the second scenario, the 10% who are unemployed, are cared for by the community (through their taxes -- boo fucking hoo). So everybody is living as comfortable life as can be expected. The rich end up earning a little bit less. But they are still rich. There are plenty of stinking rich people in Denmark. And there are virtually no poor.

Isn't that a better world view?
post #1689 of 2360
And what percentage of that 10% abuse the system? Furthermore, I believe I can do a better job at providing for those truly in need with my own money than the government can.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1690 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And what percentage of that 10% abuse the system? Furthermore, I believe I can do a better job at providing for those truly in need with my own money than the government can.

Right. Which is why the rich give less of their income as a percentage than the middle class do.

And who cares how many abuse the system. Better to allow some people to abuse the system and provide for the poor than to lock down abuse and let people starve. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
post #1691 of 2360
The top 25% of all income earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes, up 2% from 2000 when Bush took office.

The top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes.

The top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes, up 2% from 2000 when Bush took office.

Please tell me how the rich are not paying their "fair share".

The "progressive" answer to our problems has been to raise taxes on the rich.

It's not working.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1692 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The "progressive" answer to our problems has been to raise taxes on the rich.

What???? You're joking? Why did we not know this? Taxing the rich?

Bastards...

Who are these scum?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #1693 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Right. Which is why the rich give less of their income as a percentage than the middle class do.

And who cares how many abuse the system. Better to allow some people to abuse the system and provide for the poor than to lock down abuse and let people starve. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

EXACTLY!!!

I'm so sick and tired of the "some will abuse the system" argument. I wish a politician in a national debate would reply with. "I'd rather have some jerks freeloading if it means NO ONE HAS TO DIE FROM TREATABLE ILLNESSES or if NO ONE STARVES."

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1694 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

EXACTLY!!!

I'm so sick and tired of the "some will abuse the system" argument. I wish a politician in a national debate would reply with. "I'd rather have some jerks freeloading if it means NO ONE HAS TO DIE FROM TREATABLE ILLNESSES or if NO ONE STARVES."

Alrighty, then. You'd rather than steal more money from Americans and dump it into a broken and corrupt welfare system rife with fraud and freeloaders. That'll fix it!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1695 of 2360
Of course, "some will abuse the system" could NEVER apply to the free market religion of capitalism....
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #1696 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Of course, "some will abuse the system" could NEVER apply to the free market religion of capitalism....

That's not fair, man. You aren't allowed to bring up good points that hurt their arguments.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1697 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

EXACTLY!!!

I'm so sick and tired of the "some will abuse the system" argument. I wish a politician in a national debate would reply with. "I'd rather have some jerks freeloading if it means NO ONE HAS TO DIE FROM TREATABLE ILLNESSES or if NO ONE STARVES."

But then your politician would be a liar. We have nationalized, single payer health care here in Canada and people die from treatable illnesses here due to waiting lists.

Starvation isn't a problem in Canada, but it would be if the Government controlled the food distribution system.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1698 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Starvation isn't a problem in Canada, but it would be if the Government controlled the food distribution system.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." -- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1699 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1700 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

An inconvenient reality:

POLL: Dislike of healthcare law crosses party lines, 1 in 4 Dems want repeal

Meaning, 3 of 4 Dems haven't read the bill yet.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1701 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Meaning, 3 of 4 Dems haven't read the bill yet.

Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass it so they could see what was in it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1702 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass it so they could see what was in it.

From the Pledge:
Quote:
What We're Up Against

The House of Representatives continues to move further away from its roots as a deliberative body, toward a centralized power structure where the majority does whatever it needs to win at all costs. Over the course of her tenure, Speaker Pelosi has consolidated authority, abusing the letter and spirit of the House rules to get the outcome desired, while ignoring the voices of the American people, the minority and even dissenters within her own party.

Democratic Leaders continue moving in the wrong direction by limiting openness and debate, and using various backhanded tactics to ignore the will of the people:
  • Despite having the largest Democratic majority since 1993, the current Congress marked the first time in the history that not a single spending bill was considered under an "open" amendment process.
  • During final consideration of President Obama's government takeover of health care, Speaker Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter publicly discussed a plan to allow the House to pass the bill without a vote by the House. Referred to as the "Slaughter Solution," House Democrats eventually abandoned the scheme under the weight of a sustained public outcry.
  • When the House was poised to consider legislation to impose a "cap-and-trade" national energy tax, a 300-page "manager's amendment" rewriting key provisions of the bill without a separate vote was dropped in the laps of lawmakers at 3:00 am. The House began debate on the bill just a few hours later.
  • For the first time in modern history, the House failed to pass or even debate a budget, allowing spending to continue to grow at a breathtaking rate without any blueprint for making fiscal decisions.
It's no wonder that a national survey released earlier this year showed that just two in 10 Americans believe our government operates with the consent of the governed.

Having locked even her own party members out of debate, I wonder if even House Democrats believe our government operates with the consent of the governed.

If this isn't tyranny, what is?
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1703 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Having locked even her own party members out of debate, I wonder if even House Democrats believe our government operates with the consent of the governed.

If this isn't tyranny, what is?

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow." -- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788

"Progressives" regularly cry: "WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!"

We are? Really?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1704 of 2360

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1705 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1706 of 2360
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #1707 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass it so they could see what was in it.

No. No, she didn't. This isn't true. I won't call you a liar, because I know you actually believe this, but it isn't true. Sorry. Simply not.

The thing was published before a vote was taken. I remember Team Fuck the Poor () complaining how big it was.

Her full words were "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

Look at the context. She was urging lawmakers to pass it, arguing that when it was, it would be easy to explain to misled people that it was worthwhile. Look at the full transcript.

My question is, just out of interest, when did you come to believe this? Where did you read this? I mean, this statement is obviously wrong, impossible, so when did it become possible to you?
post #1708 of 2360
I don't see how adding "away from the fog of controversy" makes her quote any less ridiculous.

You do not have to pass a bill to take an objective look at what is in it.

She was urging lawmakers to pass a bill they themselves admitted they had not read.

I can't believe you are actually defending this.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1709 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You do not have to pass a bill to take an objective look at what is in it.

You do if someone refuses to look at something and appraise it on it's merits. You do if someone refuses to act like a mature normal adult. You do if it's the only way that some people will give something their attention.

It's sad. It's pathetic. But if it's the only way those are no grounds not to do it.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #1710 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

You do if someone refuses to look at something and appraise it on it's merits. You do if someone refuses to act like a mature normal adult. You do if it's the only way that some people will give something their attention.

It's sad. It's pathetic. But if it's the only way those are no grounds not to do it.

Pelosi and Pelsoi-er

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1711 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I don't see how adding "away from the fog of controversy" makes her quote any less ridiculous.

You do not have to pass a bill to take an objective look at what is in it.

She was urging lawmakers to pass a bill they themselves admitted they had not read.

I can't believe you are actually defending this.

Ugh. I don't believe you're wilfully misunderstanding this, but it kinda seems like it.

She wasn't even saying they hadn't read it. She was commenting on public opinion, which had been misled by people like Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh and Palin telling outright lies about it. Death panels, and rationing, and the expense of it, and all that shit. She was saying "be brave, vote for it, and when it's passed and they stop lying about it it'll be easier for you to explain it to your constituents."

I'll definitely grant you it wasn't a very elegant bit of rhetoric, but this is one of those occasions where it really seems like you're kinda ascribing a maliciousness, or something, that really just doesn't exist.
post #1712 of 2360
I ascribe it more to incompetence, delusion, and corruption than malicious intent. Whatever the reasons, Pelosi wanted the monstrosity to pass, regardless of what was in it.

And don't even get me started on rhetoric and lies. Sure, you can expect that stuff from people in the entertainment industry who make a living off that stuff, but our own president and his supporters were engaged in the same thing.

For example, Obama told us that nobody would lose their existing coverage as a result of Obamacare. That was a lie as we are coming to see. There actually was no way he could possibly make good on that guarantee in the first place.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1713 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I ascribe it more to incompetence, delusion, and corruption than malicious intent. Whatever the reasons, Pelosi wanted the monstrosity to pass, regardless of what was in it.

But it was none of those things.

Look. There is a world where this health care bill is a good thing, something that America really needs. (You disagree, well. All right. Come to Britain or France and Spain and you'll see it's a pretty good thing. But that's a separate question.)

There's a world where this health care bill is a good thing, and there are people who passionately think it would be good for the citizens of the United States if it were to pass.

You can disagree with them if you like, but when they urge its passing you don't have to put it down to incompetence, or delusion, or corruption.

People were telling lies about this bill (there were no death panels, come on) and debate on the facts had become impossible. Pelosi was urging it to pass. That's all.

I really, truly think that the American body politic needs right wing Americans to come back and win their arguments by... arguing. Not shouting and inventing. You're in trouble, and the way things are now you're in paralysis, and nothing's going to get fixed, and the longer you keep calling Democrats communists, or fascists, or Marxists, and inventing conspiracies, the longer the paralysis is continue.
post #1714 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1715 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Look. There is a world where this health care bill is a good thing, something that America really needs. (You disagree, well. All right. Come to Britain or France and Spain and you'll see it's a pretty good thing.

Listen Mumbo... you'll note that the United States is not Britain or France or Spain - it is the United States. Not sure you knew that. If Obama and the Democrats want us to turn into Britain or France or Spain, they can immigrate to those nations and run for office there. This is the United States. We should not be trying to emulate the failed health care programs of Britain or France or Spain! Moreover, if you're thrilled with the health care in Britain or France or Spain then enjoy! Just stop trying to change our program here in the United States!
post #1716 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Listen Mumbo... you'll note that the United States is not Britain or France or Spain - it is the United States. Not sure you knew that. If Obama and the Democrats want us to turn into Britain or France or Spain, they can immigrate to those nations and run for office there. This is the United States. We should not be trying to emulate the failed health care programs of Britain or France or Spain! Moreover, if you're thrilled with the health care in Britain or France or Spain then enjoy! Just stop trying to change our program here in the United States!

The program in the United States is not sustainable, the end result is either that Medicare for old people goes away entirely or the US goes bankrupt. If we don't change the US healthcare system, we end up with no healthcare system.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #1717 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The program in the United States is not sustainable, the end result is either that Medicare for old people goes away entirely or the US goes bankrupt. If we don't change the US healthcare system, we end up with no healthcare system.

Small doctor shops drop Medicare all the time because its payments do not cover costs. Big hospitals have to cover Medicare because they get money from the states that comes with strings attached. What we may see is something like what happened with Mayo in southwest ... an increase in health care facilities that do not accept Medicare. Some doctors may just retire.

All ya all don't be surprised when there are few docs in the field and fewer hospitals that accept Medicare patients.
post #1718 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The program in the United States is not sustainable...

That dog don't hunt! The Democrats have spread the fiction that our US health care is not sustainable; that's fiction! Yes our health care system needs reform but not the change the Democrats are pushing! ObamaCare is universally opposed by Americans...

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

...the end result is either that Medicare for old people goes away entirely or the US goes bankrupt. If we don't change the US healthcare system, we end up with no healthcare system.

Wrong... we have some of the best doctors and best medical facilities in the world; our system needs reform but it is not going bankrupt - It will if we adopt ObamaCare or adopt the European model... Medicare and Medicaid can be reformed and maintained, but not with ObamaCare.... The fiction that our health care system is not sustainable is being spread by Democrats so we can change to the failed European model of care... and that's not a solution...
post #1719 of 2360
I think places like Walgreens and CVS have a good thing going with their "minute clinics". I've actually used them, myself. No appointment needed. Have the sniffles? Go to the minute clinic. Pay cash. Cheap, convenient, and accessible. Brought to you by the free market.

(Not that I would go to the doctor for a case of the sniffles...)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1720 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

But then your politician would be a liar. We have nationalized, single payer health care here in Canada and people die from treatable illnesses here due to waiting lists..

People die in any system, but Canadians as a rule (Manitobans at least) do not get wait-listed for urgent care. If your condition is serious, you go first. That WHY the waiting lists are there, so that the people who are not in a life-threatening emergency don't clog up the system
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality