Carole Said:

What would you say if this was your child?

We Answered:

oh wow! thats seriously fuxcked up

Lois Said:

What do you think about this article?

We Answered:

The author erects "profit" as the evil destroyer and "public-controlled" as the benevolent bringer of loving care. That's the fundamental flaw in this article. The fact is though, that whether or not profit is involved, and whether or not the system is nationalized are irrelevant to whether or not health care is effective.

The primary issue is choice. The easier it is to say, "I don't like my health care, so I'm going to find another source which provides it.", the better health care will be. Fundamentally, the public option for health care will actually lead to a narrowing of options and alternatives. This is because there is only one government that will be providing it.

Also, EVIL "profit" will be replaced by politics when the fabulous ONE system Obama wants is established. On the other hand, even though a for profit system is not ideal, which would you rather have:

1. A for-profit system which offers multiple choices that you, as a consumer and a patient, can deliberate on.

2. One system, which offers no choice, and is controlled by a singular powerful group of government officials who decide how medical care will get distributed, They can (and will) allow politics to get involved with those decisions.

Canadians (who can afford it) often come to the US to get treatment. This isn't because they love the idea that the US system is based on "profit", it's because the US system offers more choice. Choice based systems, commensurately, also tends to have shorter wait times for getting procedures done.

Rather than trying to become our ultimate nanny by nationalizing health care, the Obama administration should instead be looking to promote choice and affordability. Ironically, this is best accomplished if the government strives to take politics out of health care rather than trying to make politics an overriding force that health care must contend with.

Lewis Said:

Please read this article that I found and argue your side.?

We Answered:

I like my Insurance plan. I can go to the doctor I like. The insurance company doesn't dictate to the doctor what kind of treatment I can have. And I don't have huge co pays

There is a misconception that poor people are just left out in the cold, and they can't get medical treatment. That is not true. Anyone can go to any public hospital and get treatment. The hospital is not allowed to turn anyone away regardless if they have insurance or not. There are MILLIONS of illegal immigrants in the U.S. who use public hospitals when they get sick. The majority of them don't pay anything. The taxpayers pick up the tab.

I just don't think it's fair for the government to come along and force me to give up my insurance and go with the government health care program. Because they way the bill is written now, government health care could put a lot of private insurance companies out of business.

Albert Said:

Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?

We Answered:

This guy is an @sshole and so are you! You both just want someone to pay your bills for you. You want your neighbors to pay your bills! Why don't you ask your neighbors to buy you a house and a car too. Pay for your education as well. You make me sick! Go to Cuba and live you Communist bastard! Fcuk you!

Harry Said:

Did you, and if not, will you get your child vaccinated for the H1N1 Swine Flu - a few questions?

We Answered:

I did not get my children vaccinated for H1N1, I do not regret forgoing it and do not plan on getting it done.
The level of "testing" vaccines go through are a joke, in my opinion. They rush them through and do not test them nearly enough.
Vaccine recalls do not concern me for my children's safety, as my children are completely unvaccinated.
At this point, I trust the God-given defenses my children's bodies are equipped with more than I trust vaccinations.