At least she had the option to pay for health care that could save her life.

What good would it have done her to have crap care paid for, and quality care unavailable. Also she is living on student loans while we finish grad school and still pays for her own health care.

If she can do it, so can they.

You most certainly are not very good at math.

Try, $2,333.

Agreed.

I agree we should have not paid the banks and rather the people. Now the banks have the power and the people could get the shaft.

__________________
Be thou faithful unto Death
And I will give thee a crown of Life

"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's just they know so much that isn't so"
- Ronald Reagan

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger, is prepared for a Master and deserves one"
- Alexander Hamilton

Oh cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

__________________

it's not the the socialization or the government regulation that is the problem. It is the massiveness of companies that is a problem.

If pharmaceutical companies where smaller, they would actually have to compete more. Unlike banks, there is a lot less risk for medicine. That's the reason they don't fall down, but they sure as hell over charge.

Actually, it's the trade barriers on pharmaceuticals. Why do we pay so much more for drugs developed in the US than Canada or Europe does? Because we are willing to pay more, actually because we aren't tied to socialized medicine and can afford to pay more. Open up trade on drugs, we shouldn't be bearing the brunt of RnD it's BS. We pay all the research and development and more for health care products than other nations for products developed right here!

It is government regulation in a large part considering hospitals. In many areas they have license to print cash, trust me. It isn't easy to get a license for overnight care, this is intentional to protect Hospitals from competition in the hopes they spend extra cash on those without insurance.

In some places it's needed, in others we just get screwed.

Also, we need tort reform.

What we need is health care to be more affordable, this is a much better solution than having the government throw tax dollars at the problem.

Trade Barriers = Regulation
Lack of competition = Regulation

Regulation is often good, but often bad.

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, You really should start with "let me tell you something," People tune out. Also you really should heed the maxim that "you catch more flies with honey;" it Really works. But seeing as how you got so emotional about MY political beliefs, I gonna ignore my own advice and be somewhat of a (*)(*)(*)(*).

I disagree that Socialized medicine would kill your fiance; or that most of the medical advances made in the last 50yr, many of which were made in other countries, would not have happened. I appreciate Citation. Also, I assume that at you wedding you will say something to the effect of, for richer or poorer. But if she can't afford insurance, she should simply be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed? For poorer indeed. However, you didn't address my whole question, you just (*)(*)(*)(*)ed me, so address the issue or (*)(*)(*)(*) off, you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*) (*)(*)(*)(*)hole of a (*)(*)(*)(*). Just kidding... I love you and your fiance even if you hate me. I'm sure your a wonderful person, most people who get passionate about the one's they love are.

Allow me to retort:
"[W]hile the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind "mining, crude oil production," and "commercial banks.") The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244 So it seams that you big health care bill when more to profits that to researching your fiances condition (by the way, using anecdotall evidence, like a story of a person you know, is a (*)(*)(*)(*) way to argue [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence]). And alot of the $$ goes to insurance companies. my source, i used to work for them until i quit for ethical reasons (their ethics, not mine). Be Well, and thanks for your opinion.

This is so untrue it's almost hard for me to figure out how to respond. At least when banks are taking risk it's only with money, Pharm companies risk lives with new medicines....

Secondly, i don't like our government being the decider about when a company has become "too large"

__________________

I agree, capitalism necessitates that companies are allowed to grow large in they are successful. otherwise, whats the motivation to grow and produce jobs. Many social Democrats like myself feel the same way; It's social democrat, not socialist.

Be well, and do good work!

I agree, New zealand has an interesting no-fault tort system, but it is faaaaar from perfect.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...?doc_id=355233