ikol

Congrats, Eric!

I agree. This is pure speculation.

It depends on the mental illness. With schizophrenia, drugs are pretty much the only thing that works.

I've met Team Estrogen (Edie, M Christine, kidsmoke, Clouds of fluff) and both sooies.

I think it was mostly posted for humor. Lamrod can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he meant to imply that you shouldn't vote for Hillary because the result of morphing her picture with Bill's is grotesque. As far as Hitler comparison's go, don't get me started.

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

How is that any different from the 3 prequels?

I should've used bold.

Fixed it.

There are 12 cranial nerves. Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

That's where the second part of my post comes in (making insurance cheaper).

My condolences, Gary.

A large number of them make over $50,000 per year, and individuals should get the same tax breaks that employers get for providing insurance. There are other things that could be done to make the actual insurance more affordable. Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines and cutting back on arbitrary regulations that say what insurance companies have to cover would help.

It is a little pink (IMO, obviously). I honestly don't know the specifics of either plan, but I'm guessing they both involve large subsidies (if they don't just outright pay for everything). While you may have a choice of whether you want to adopt the government plan, you don't have a choice on paying the taxes that are going to fund it. A less pink option would be to offer tax credits for buying insurance. That keeps the government out of the actual plan while saving consumers some tax money that they can use on it.

Agreed.

Now it's no longer a safety net, but instead an entitlement. The majority lives past 65 and thus collects SS. That's going to be a huge problem when half the country is retired. We're going to have people receiving more from the government than they put in electing our leaders.

True, but research is not for me. Why is relying on the government preferable to relying on charity? This is probably less of a problem than it was in the past. Medicine is starting to lose its appeal as far as the money-power thing goes. Either way, we are going to need as many doctors as we can get with the aging population.

I was referring to you putting the options as 1) die 2) become an indentured servant 3) rely on charity, as if it's that simple. You can help people without the government forcing you to do so. I am sorry about your friend. To answer your question: I don't know. It may be a case of malpractice or negligence. Chances are the ER doc wasn't thinking about money when he/she sent her home, since such a large percentage of ER patients cannot/do not pay. Probably because it's not like actual insurance which is paid for by the insured or their employer. It's not totally socialized, but it'

The answer is a little bit of "yes" to all of those (ignoring the loaded phrasing, of course), but mostly the third one. I don't see what's wrong with relying on the kindness of others especially when the alternative is relying on the government. "Everybody's doing it."

BWARK? Some might doubt whether universal healthcare would mean universal health considering that the biggest killers are modifiable behaviors (smoking, obesity, alcohol, etc.). Treat the patient and bill him.

No.