I don't want single payer, but I can't argue with "Do it for everyone, or do it for no one". It's not a right, but WTF? We can't let this current deal or Obama care with all the exemptions being awarded go on. I don't like this subject very much. It seems to me that this could be fixed very easily if all of our reps weren't bought and payed for. :(

I'll agree that there are whores on both side s of the aisle. I do think that the current bill has allowed too many fingers in the pie, but I think that single payer would eliminate much of that. I also think that eliminating the anti-trust exemption for health care insurers and providers would help level out health care costs. On the other hand, the GOP plan to privatize medicare will have the opposite effect - giving the monopolists another group of victim - er - customers.

Regards,

D-Ray

Single payer is indeed the only manner in which to enact national healthcare efficiently

Your thoughts mean nothing being a lawyer and all. TORT must happen before anything else.

[QUOTE=whell;58659Shall I conclude that we'll not be bitching any more on this forum about how the Republicans always give tax breaks to the rich and big business? :p

In an era when the average Joe is going into dept to cover their health care expenses, how is this logical, or forgivable?[/QUOTE]

Then you had better hope your Golden Boy Ryan loses out, else you will have to figure out how to get insurance at 65 with one of his vouchers.:rolleyes:

+1.

Dave

What really puzzles me is why the Goopers always try to screw the little guy and suck up to the uber rich. Sheesh, in Canada the national debt is miniscule, every citizen gets an old age pension, and if that happens to be all your income they as good as double it. Everyone gets health care, no one has ever been forced into bankriptcy by medical expenses. Their banks are and were solvent throughout the last debacle. The banks are also quite decent and do not have all those fees and charges.

Are they so much smarter than us?

Who me? :p




http://georgemiller.house.gov/2011/0...f-mexico.shtml

Yes.:(

"This loophole will cost American taxpayers $1.5 billion this year, and up to $53 billion over the next couple decades – the legislation today would instead take this lost revenue and direct it to the U.S. Treasury to help reduce the deficit "

Can anyone direct me to any budget any recent year that was specifically designed to reduce the deficit? And please don't direct me to Clinton - Era budgets that "balanced the budget" by increasing debt ratios.