http://www.metacafe.com/watch/877076/ronnie_coleman/

Watch this and tell me there's anything whatsoever suspicious about them. You will do exactly that of course but anybody with a little sense can clearly see these calves are not full of oil.

 Really? What about all those poor people with AIDS and other ailments that require expensive medication year-round? Obviously, the money to pay for 99% of their medical expenses is not coming from their pockets, but from other people's pockets.

  The reason why it is unfair is because regardless the government is taking away your money and spending it on other people. Lots of poor people who get universal care are those who need it and wouldn't be able to afford it on their own, so the government steals a little bit of money from everyone and uses a disproportional amount of it on a small percentage of the poor population who has incredible medical bills.

  Even if everyone paid the same for universal health care - which is not the case in many countries where the rich pay far more -, it still would only be fair if everyone had the exact same yearly medical expense, which is not the case. Why should I give $10.000 of my money every year to the government for health care if I am going to use practically none of it and the $10.000 will be used on other people? I could save the money and use it for myself when I got sick and actually needed medical care. The whole thing is a sham. It is robbery, plain and simple. The dowtrodden of the Society should learn to take care of themselves instead of expecting mommy - the upper classes - and daddy - the state - to pay their way through life.

 I don't know why this argument went towards universal health care. My posts having nothing to do with universal health care in any way, shape or form. In fact, as a libertarian, I am against universal health care because everyone should pay their own medical bills and not expect others to. The whole argument over universal health care is slly because, ultimately, you will be paying for it either way. The only difference is that in a universal health care system you are allowing the government to decide how to spend your money to take care of your health. Does that make any sense?

There's a lot of plausible-sounding bullshit being regurgitated as reasoned and informed opinion in this thread...


Some simple FACTS:

America currently ranks 37th for healthcare in the world, it is far from the best healthcare system around.

Infant mortality in the US is comparable to that of non-industrial Third World country.

HMOs are run for PROFIT... that profit costs lives: denial of coverage; denial of service; denial of drugs.

Not for profit government departments are NOT inefficient, they are in fact far more efficient cost-wise than the private sector has ever been... the inefficiencies seen in these fields are caused by chronic underfunding, which in part is promoted by private-sector lobbyists eager to benefit from the privatization of these same sectors.

Statistics for cancer survival rates pushed by small-government Republicans and HMOs (Giuliani just made up the figures he quoted in the Republican debates for example) are patently FALSE!

US cancer survival studies do NOT include:
-the 1% of Americans that are homeless
-the 2-3% of Americans that are illegal immigrants
-the 50 million (16%) of Americans who are not insured
-the huge disparity in life expectancy between whites and minorities (black males don't get cancer as often as they only live to be 58 or so on average)
-the insured who are denied coverage as a profiteering strategy by HMOs


...and the most important FACT of all:
Americans currently pay considerably more per capita (nearly twice) for their 37th best healthcare system in the world than the French pay for their best healthcare system in the world.


Socialised/universal American government funded healthcare WOULD mean a tax increase... but that increase would be something on the order of 20% of what the insured are currently paying in premiums... and for that tax-increase/cost-decrease Americans would get:
-truly universal healthcare
-a first world healthcare system
-treatment for the homeless (mentally-ill homeless cause crime)
-treatment for poor drug addicts (less crime)
-treatment for immigrants (again, less crime)
-considerably less bankruptcy among the middle class
-considerably less divorce/domestic violence/child physical abuse etc as all these things are fueled by monetary pressures such as medical bills

Arguing AGAINST socialised healthcare is just plain ignorant and stooopid.


The Luke

What are those differences?

Borderline communism Chimps, he want you and to depend on the Government for everything, he want to dictate where and who my money goes to, he wants to tell me and you what health care system to use and so and so on. I understand the difference but its not much.

Newsflash: Just because state run healthcare works in Sweeden or Barbados or Luxemburg, doesn't mean it will work in America. America's dense population, humongous amount of illegal immagrints and already existing socialized healthcare program (Medicaid) will make running socialized healthcare impossible, impractical and unbelievably inefficent.

Could you imagine this dysfunctional, partisan, backward government which can't find its own ass with two hands trying to provide guaranteed healthcare for every man, woman and child?

For anyone who wants a picture of what life will be like, go to the DMV at any major American city, go through security at an airport or go down to your local post office. State/federal run institutions are poorly run beauracratic disasters.

The poorest of the poor have healthare thru medicaid. The well to do can afford private insurance. The middle class simply need a boost in the form of a tax break or some government loophole which will enable them to purchase health insurance cheaper.

Why? Because you know that your health care system is having serious problems and you don't want anyone messing up your argument?

Look, Universal Health Care is a bad idea, and I'll explain why.

Let's say you have a gas station, one day you decide your going to give away gas for free, what is going to happen? Your going to have people lining around the block to get your gas whether they need it or not. This is basic supply and demand. Since you have now created unlimited demand, you are unable to keep up the supply. So you have to either: have people wait in line for a long time, deny people gasoline, or do both.

Healthcare is subject to the laws of supply and demand as well. If you make it "free" then you create a huge surge in demand because people have no need to have any discretion. So countries that have this system have to do is have people wait (these countries have huge waiting lists and you know it), or deny people which happens as well. Who do you think gets denied? People that use and need healthcare the most: old people. Since government has complete control over the system, they can deny treatment to anyone they wish and there is nothing the people can do about it (unless they have a shitload of money and can get treated in the US).

Another problem with government run healthcare is that it is run by the government. Government is wasteful and inefficient, they are terrible at providing services compared to the private sector. This is mainly because if your a private organization and your inefficient and wasteful then you go bankrupt! If government is inefficient and wasteful it is rewarded with more tax dollars, so it encourages general shittiness.

If you look at cancer survival rates among American's and countries, you'll find that America is on the top. American men have a 5 year survival rate of 66 percent versus 47 percent for European men (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba596/) This is because American men have more treatment options and are treated faster than European men. This is because American men aren't denied treatment and American men are treated much faster than European men, and yes ALL American men are treated, nobody is denied treatment in the US, even illegal aliens.

My country Australia has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world and we have a great healthcare system.

My cousin had a severe wrist injurie resulting severd tendons and arteries the poor bastard had have all his tendon micro surgery to rejoin them, he was airlifted by helicopter and many return visits to his surgeon.Moneytry costs zero.Had he been in the states with no insurance i hate to think.

Which country would that be?

Universal health care would be a joke here. You have a dude who already wants to take 50% of your pay and now he's going to tack on more for shitty health care that the left thinks its free. Enough with the socialist (communist) agendas. To begin with if he does that think of how many Dr's would be defaulting on student loans and how many more people that want to become Dr's can't. Again, Left = no commonsense.

and thats why i am natural
anyone who juices is a fool

hahhaha wrong again, i graduated from a top school and im asian (genetically smarter) .... so sorry to burst your bubble..

She looks liek a slut. Fake thits and probably almost everything else.
So no thx.

Not everyone like the slut look squad.



This is what I like!






yeeeah

Shall we see who gets her?
I say Follow me home to my Appartment and you say, Im not fat.. Im big boned. Follow me home to my trailer park! 

That's the REAL Pat Neve to you!