Wash. Post uncritically reports "socialized medicine" rhetoric about Obama's health care plan
SUMMARY: In an article on President Obama's health care plan, The Washington Post reported that Conservatives for Patients' Rights is promising to launch a multimillion-dollar ad campaign "warning that the country is hurtling toward socialized medicine." The Post did not provide any basis for the charge, nor did it note that, in fact, Obama is not proposing "socialized medicine."
In a March 5 Washington Post article on President Obama's healthcare proposal, staff writers Dan Eggen and Ceci Connolly reported that Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) "promises a $20 million multimedia ad campaign warning that the country is hurtling toward socialized medicine." Eggen and Connolly did not provide any basis for CPR's charge and did not note that Obama has not, in fact, proposed a "socialized medicine" plan, a charge that conservatives have used repeatedly to baselessly attack progressive health care reform proposals.
According to the White House health care web page: "On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes -- government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. President Obama and Vice President Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong."
The White House website further states:
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors, and plans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.
Further, one of the "eight principles" for the health care reform plan put forward in Obama's budget outline is "Guarantee Choice," about which the outline states: "The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. They should have the option of keeping their employer-based health plan."
As Media Matters has documented, such false rhetoric was used against the health care reform plan Obama proposed during the 2008 presidential campaign. The New York Times reported in a May 3, 2008, article that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain repeatedly "inaccurately described the Democrats' health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine." The article quoted McCain claiming that Obama favors a "government massive intervention and takeover of health care in America," writing that McCain's "suggestion is incorrect." Additionally, PolitiFact.com has noted that "Obama's plan keeps the free-market health care system intact, particularly employer-based insurance. It is not a goverment-run [sic] program and is very different from the health care systems run by the government in some European countries."
As Media Matters for America has extensively documented -- with respect to at least 16 different health care reform initiatives going back to the 1930s -- conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, have attempted to smear these proposals as "socialized medicine" or a step toward that inevitable result. In fact, as with many progressive health care proposals in the past, Obama's proposal does not amount to "socialized medicine."
Additionally, the Post reported that the head of CPR, Richard Scott, was "pushed out of Columbia/HCA [Healthcare Corp.] in the 1990s" but did not report that, according to a July 26, 1997, Post article (retrieved from Nexis), Scott's resignation occurred when Columbia/HCA was "[u]nder pressure from one of the largest health care fraud probes ever." According to a December 18, 2002, Justice Department press release describing a tentative settlement with HCA to resolve civil litigation, "When added to the prior civil and criminal settlements reached in 2000, this settlement would bring the government's total recoveries from HCA to approximately $1.7 billion."
From the Post's July 26, 1997, article:
Under pressure from one of the largest health care fraud probes ever, Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. yesterday announced the resignation of its two top executives.
Columbia's new chief said the departing executives reached the decision with the company's board, "saying 'with you we do concur this is time' " to leave.
Columbia co-founder Richard L. Scott, 44, the departing chairman and chief executive, and David T. Vandewater, 46, who resigned as president and chief operating officer, had built Columbia into the nation's largest health care company through a decade-long buying spree in which it acquired giant hospital chains and small community hospitals across the nation.
The company "could have been put at risk" by the government "if the board had not taken this action," the new chairman and chief executive, Thomas F. Frist Jr., said in an interview. "Maybe it might have been an impediment" to the organization going forward if Scott and Vandewater "prolonged it," Frist said at a news conference at Columbia's Nashville headquarters.
Columbia issued a statement saying Scott and Vandewater "emphasized that throughout their tenure they have acted honorably and in the best interests of the company." Neither responded to telephone calls yesterday.
From Eggen and Connolly's article:
Not everyone is happy, of course, and lobbyists and health-care experts warn that major obstacles lie ahead. The seniors lobby AARP, for example, opposes Obama's recommendation to raise Medicare prescription premiums on wealthy retirees. Major insurers also dislike his proposed overhaul of the Medicare Advantage program, which markets managed-care plans to seniors, while home-care providers object to cuts to their Medicare reimbursements.
Former Columbia/HCA executive Richard L. Scott has launched a nonprofit group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which promises a $20 million multimedia ad campaign warning that the country is hurtling toward socialized medicine. Scott, who was pushed out of Columbia/HCA in the 1990s and now runs a chain of Florida urgent-care clinics, said in an interview that he has put up $5 million of his own money to kick-start the effort, with hopes of building a grass-roots campaign.
"Imagine waking up one day, and all your medical decisions are made by a central national board," Scott says in the group's first radio ad, which warns of "a system like England or Canada, where national boards make your health-care decisions and waiting lists reign supreme."
Face it folks.... eventually we're going to have to join the rest of the civilized world and adopt some kind of "socialized" healthcare system. Our current system is a drag on the economy.
I personally spoke with the minister of health for one of the provinces of Canada and he said that their universal health care system was never, has never, and will never be a 'socialist health care' program.
It is a system that allows near full autonomy for all health care providers, nurses, specialist, and dentists to give what ever care is needed for their patients.
All the government does is pays the bills, verifies all doctors and hospitals to make sure they are legit, an accredits the schools that the doctors get educated in.
How and why would the lead elected official of a province of Canada speak to me.... I'm a college student doing a report on universal health care and he granted me an interview.
He also said that absolutley no health providers of any kind (that deal directly with patients) ARE NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!
Nor are hospitals for-profit.
In fact, the only part of health care not covered by the public plan is medication... aka: Big Pharma! Which also happens to be the only way a Canadian may potentially ever find himself having to declare bankruptcy. That's right Americans... in Canada... you would never have to worry about medical bills... meaning... no need for bankruptcy.
OK let me see if I have understood Obama's plan. He wants to create a giant insurance "pool" that anyone in America can pay to be a part of and get insurance. THis insurance would work just like the private insurance you get through your employer (if available) with the pool being able to have enough clout to push down medical costs. This big central pool would be designed and adminsitered by the government.
LIved in Europe for 6 years and very familiar with the so called socialized medicne. Every month from my paycheck they deducted a modest amount (<$100) for national insurance. This gave me the right to go to any doctor to receive free treatment - the only catch being that unless it is a life threatening emergency you have to make an appointment and they don't work overtime! Doctors at both government funded sites and private sites could treat you and get reimbursed. If you had private employer insurance - just say so and you go right to the front of the queue as the fees reimbursed from the private policies paid better than the government run pool.
I ruptured a disk in my back. Only took three days for the initial consultation and teh doctor ordered a MRI - upon calling the hospital I was given a date and time 8 months out. I gave them my employers insurance details and my MRI took plca the next morning.
There is no getting around the fact that the only way fopr Obama to get costs under control is to use the clout and leverage of the government pool to negotiate lower rates. But I see nothing in the speeches or other details that suggests that somehow we still won't have a two tier system here where those "rich" people with private insurance will get treated better and faster than those from the government pool.
Now if he was really serious, Obama could cut medical costs in half overnight if legislation was put in place to cap litigation awards. I know all the arguments for and against - but real reform will take real leadership and the question is, Can Barak Obama limit the earnings of his fellow lawyers?
In summary, Barak's plan in principle will work no differently than those "socialized" plans in many European countries. I think MMFA does protest too much over the name and has ignored the substance of the BO plan.
I'm not sure which country you were in, but I never had problems in Germany or England. But nice strawman, using some example of some program in europe as an example of what would happen here. No proof that Obama's plan would match the particular country you are complaining about, no mention of the fact that whatever program he were to adapt might possibly seek to learn from other's failures and successes to create the best program, just the same ol' right wing rant that Obama is gonna carbon copy the worst possible program you can find in europe. Yeah, keep doing that, it really is the smart way to go...
I did not pick the worst program...and England has made many changes to its nationalized healthcare system over the 60 it has been in existence. So tell me then, how can Obama accomplish his vision without taking on the core principles of nationalized health everywhere else? How else do you create an affordable pool without the government putting it together and using its clout to negotiate lower fees for services? Once the government gets involved it will be just like everywhere else.
I advise governments for a living. Even though some clients are trying something for the first time, and we present to them how other governmnets have succeeded or failed doing that same thing, their decision ultimately is driven more by the politics of the day as opposed to educated common sense. I have not seen anything from the current administration - or the previous one for that matter - that was anything but driven by political favortism.
I believe you did pick one of the worst case examples. Sweden isn't having those problems you refer to. I'm only saying I fully expect Obama to put together a team to research the best and worst to ensure that whatever plan he puts in place has a solid chance of success. I'm quite tired of people assuming he's just going to do the bare minimum to get something through. Christ's sake, he's only been in office for 90 days, and inspite of the whines, he's certainly delivered more than his predescessor.
What has he got done? Zilcho. I can see now if he DOES get something done, it is gonna be expensive. When government estimates cost, it is ALWAYS far more in the end. Trust me on that.
I was having a conversation with my boss about affirmation action (I was for it; he was against it). He just so happens to have a neighbor whose kid was denied admission to Brown even though he got a 1590 on the SAT. The spot went to a "dumb minority". Isn't it curious that conservatives always seem to have a story like that handy when discussing affirmation action? Or have disastrous stories about healthcare in the rest of industrial world when discussing the state of the American healthcare system?
Funny, isn't it? I suppose I should whine about my being accepted to West Point (Army not for me) over Annapolis who turned me down twice though I had very high SAT's. I had no problem with the fact that glasses limit you and the government at the time had a higher need for fighter pilots, chopper pilots and (y'all get where that goes, right?). It's not just your score, it's what the country needs more of. I'm pretty sure most don't really get that just letting every tom, dick and harry becoming a doctor isn't as good an idea as it sounds. Not to sound capitalistic, but that concept pretty much drives a lot of decisions made by others regarding us individuals.
P.S. bet y'all never knew that one about me, did ya?
>> Isn't it curious that conservatives always seem to have a story like that handy when discussing affirmation action?
Yes. They have an anecodote to argue any of their points.
"He just so happens to have a neighbor whose kid was denied admission to Brown even though he got a 1590 on the SAT. The spot went to a "dumb minority"."
I would have called BS on the spot. Even if that's true, there's some other major factor at play, such as a disciplinary record or a low GPA which would suggest that he might be intelligent but has little ability to apply himself. For all he knows the "dumb minority" had a 1200 SAT but a 4.0 GPA, while the neighor's kid had a 2.2.
It does seem awfully convenient to have such a story at hand.
>>LIved in Europe for 6 years and very familiar with the so called socialized medicne. Every month from my paycheck they deducted a modest amount (<$100) for national insurance.
That's a bogus argument, based on one anecdote which of course we can't verify. According to the UN health reort, the US ranks around 30th in the world in health care. (I forget the exact number.) Span and Italy are number 1 and 2.
basically if you tried you could look up the details of European national health systems. I was in the UK. The National Health Service has a website where you can go and get the verification of my "anecdote". While you all whine about some of us having real world examples that is far superior to the suppositions, use of "facts" from ultra liberal organizations or lack of real world experinces for making your arguments.
First, the tired old figure of 46 million that do not have insurance is a misleading statement. There are 300 million of us here. 25% of that liberal lie is made up of illegal immigrants. (don't qualify) People that make enough money but go without it. People that qualify but simply do not sign up. On and on. A miniscule percentage of this number actually needs this.
What does these folks that do not have insurance have to do with ME? Why am I responsible for them? The Constitution says nothing about me having to be responsible for you pal...
The very reason that we are where we are right now is directly because of government on SO many levels. So much of our system is NOT private to start with. So much of what the insurance companies can or cannot do is mandated by government. States mandate who can do business there. That is why I personally only have a couple of choices. Why can I not take the money that the employer spends on me and purchase a catastrophic plan? The government will not allow that. There is no competition either. If you had to pay each time that you went to a doctor, you would not go so often. You do not have a RIGHT to go to a doctor for every little sniffle. No one calls their doctor and ask what they are going to charge and shop around!
Obama tries to make this sound capitalistic. You can trade within the system, you buy your insurance within the system, etc.
If the government is so great in this instance, why do we continuously hear horror stories of our veterans? If the government treated those appropriately that gave up their health to serve their country, I would not be SO discouraged. You get Aspirin vs. Plavix when you need a blood thinner for instance. Ask the veterans how well socialized medicine has worked for them. Walk into a VA hospital.
To make it all work for EVERYONE, the government will take the appropriate medicines/treatments away from those that have them just to provide a service to everyone. They are going to decide what the insurance company covers and cannot cover. You get an insurance card. It crinkles like an insurance card, looks and feels like one, but it is not the same that you may have now.
Don't be fooled. For if this is allowed to go forward Americans will pay a GREAT price.
You can thank your right wing republicans for the horror stories about veterans. They only love soldiers during them fancy parades. Combat veterans are another story entirely.
Did you serve for the love of right wing Republicans or by serving out your word while becoming a more grown man as I did? Heck, I even served my country proudly and became more patriotic in the process.
*THE MOST PATRIOTIC MOMENT IN MY LIFE* Walking into a civilian area. Unknowingly, taps started to be played. While in uniform, I had to stop and salute Old Glory. Little children pointed and cameras flashed, video cameras rolled..I am proud of my country and know it is the best place to be on earth as it sits NOW. I have seen the globe. You all want France. Multigenerational homes. Etc.
Funny, but the only stories I've been hearing for the past few years are from people who are barely able to pay their expensive hospitalization insurance premiums and then, when they develop a serious health problem, discover that their insuror won't cover most of their bills. I can't tell you how often I talk to people who are fighting with their health care insurors...
BTW, do you subscribe to the notion of the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, that health care is a luxury...like a beach house?
>>A miniscule percentage of this number actually needs this.
Oh really? And where did you get this number?
The US ranks *37th* in the word in health care, way behind all the countries that have socialized medicine. The US also spends twice as much per captita than then countries. So exacty why wouldn't we want socialized medicine? We pay less and get more.
link
You, my friend, are about to be my spotlight post at the beginning of next week. THIS POST OF YOURS IS A LIE!!! BLATANT LIE.
FUNNYMAN Looks like you should be scared, LIE is coming after you.
"25% of that liberal lie is made up of illegal immigrants."
WRONG. Census Bureau data does not distinguish between legal non-citizens and illegal immigrants.
The percentage of uninsured non-citizens is actually about 21% according to the CB data. The "liberal lie" is dependent on how they are phrasing it. If they're saying 46 million American citizens, then it's misleading. If they're saying 46 million people in the US, then it's true. There are 9.7 million uninsured non-citizens in this nation, but how many of them are illegal immigrants is officially unknown.
"What does these folks that do not have insurance have to do with ME? Why am I responsible for them? The Constitution says nothing about me having to be responsible for you pal..."
It's not the Constution that's making you responsible, it's the insurance companies and providers. Uninsured people do not get regular care. They don't seek out care until the last minute when the need is dire or their condition is terminal. When they cannot pay for emergency treatment, it results in what's known as "uncompensated care." The cost of which is passed on to me and you in the form higher medical care costs and higher insurance rates.
"Why can I not take the money that the employer spends on me and purchase a catastrophic plan? The government will not allow that. "
I'm not entirely sure on this one, but I think you're wrong again. I believe you can always opt out of employer coverage, but it's entirely at your employer's option to compensate you for doing so. You may have to depend on your evil government to require them compensate you.
"What does these folks that do not have insurance have to do with ME? Why am I responsible for them? The Constitution says nothing about me having to be responsible for you pal..."
This is a partial reply from you LieBuster...
1) You are not personally responsible for anyone that does not have insurance, this I grant you...
2) but... you live in a society with 300 million OTHER people! Some wealthy and powerful and some poor and homeless... with the majority in various stages of the middle...
3) Can you imagine 240 years ago any of our founding fathers making the same assine claim that I reposted for all to read that you typed as the Revolutionary War was getting under way?
With that kind of pathetic attitude we might all be speaking with a British accent, but no... they all pulled together... differences and all... and as imperfect as this nation is... is still holding together! Because of that common purpuse... SOCIETY!
4) If your buttt was in trouble from a major accident and you were bleeding, drowning, dying, or unemployeed... I would do all I could to save you... I dont know you, but what I do know of you, you certainly don't seem like someone that deserves the saving, but I would do it anyways! Higher taxes and all!! .......... Why you might ask would I bother....
Because you are one of my fellow citizens! Whether I like it or not. That's a major difference it seems between you and I... I believe we should all pull together to make sure no one is left behind...
Bear this in mind: The true wealth and strength of a nation is based not on it economy nor its military strength... but how it treats its weakest and poorest among its borders!
Weakest: Not just being a frightened little girl, but even a grown man being in a life or death moment is weak to that of ripped up metal from an accident or a severe cramp while swimming. Consider the 4 boaters in Florida and how that lone survivor feels... it was societies money that was pulled together that allowed that one man to be saved
Poorest: Even Donald Trump had to declare bankrupcy a few times before he finally made it big... but WE THE PEOPLE that form this democracy allowed that to be possible!
My point! Stop acting as if you can survive without the help of even those poor people... they are human beings with no less feelings than you... and one day pal... you might just find yourself in need of help from one of them! If you insist on acting like you can... then please stay off the socialized roads, drinking socialized clean water, pull your kids out of those socialized schools, or off the socialized internet cables, etc, etc
As for your trying to blame government for all societies problems... perhaps you might consider that 1) Most Republicans only get into government to screw it up, get out, and then claim that government does not work. 2) Democrats and some Republicans get in trying to do the right thing but make the mistake of taking corporate money...
And yet... you want to blame the victims and not the victimizers (corporations).
FYI: All societies in the history of man have all been socialized in some way or another, some good, some bad... what the heck to you think government is in America? IT IS US!!
3) Can you imagine 240 years ago any of our founding fathers making the same assine claim that I reposted for all to read that you typed as the Revolutionary War was getting under way?
Yep, study history. Study the people, their writings, diaries, their life stories, their religion...
4) If your buttt was in trouble from a major accident and you were bleeding, drowning, dying, or unemployeed... I would do all I could to save you... I dont know you, but what I do know of you, you certainly don't seem like someone that deserves the saving, but I would do it anyways! Higher taxes and all!! .......... Why you might ask would I bother....
You probably would help to get my wallet for Obama only. I am a Christian. I donate my time volunteering, I donate LOTS of money, (over ten percent of my income actually)(I do not make 100,000 or more either), I lead a group that goes into rest homes cheering up the elderly. My extended family together each Christmas always adopts a family on our own. We do not trust an organization to do that one "pay it forward." LIKE CLOCKWORK EVERY YEAR, we are blessed to find a family that really needs help. We pool our money together, buy presents for their children, brig a ton of some perishable and a lot of non perishable food. They never know who did it for them. They just get blessed and it is a blessing for us to have the ability to do that for them. In this scenario, government is that organization that I do not trust for all of my money to go to where it needs to go. Too many millions abuse the system and we let that happen. We turn the other cheek for whatever reason.
*I believe we should all pull together to make sure no one is left behind...
I will go into the projects with a megaphone and a pickup truck and we'll see hw many come jumping in the back to go to work.
"Bear this in mind: The true wealth and strength of a nation is based not on it economy nor its military strength... but how it treats its weakest and poorest among its borders!"
Really? Like China having no capital gains tax which has stimulated their economy? They are Communists you know?
"Weakest: Not just being a frightened little girl, but even a grown man being in a life or death moment is weak to that of ripped up metal from an accident or a severe cramp while swimming. Consider the 4 boaters in Florida and how that lone survivor feels... it was societies money that was pulled together that allowed that one man to be saved"
Again, no good. You must not be aware of the study stared by the wastulus where they will figure out the statistics for the liability to life benefit ratio. Is the cost of a certain procedure beneficial worth it to a 65 year old male? We could help the terminally ill live longer, but why? We will tae those drugs out of play to take the burden of the serious cost of caring fot the terminally ill. That will be my next class.
"Poorest: Even Donald Trump had to declare bankrupcy a few times before he finally made it big... but WE THE PEOPLE that form this democracy allowed that to be possible!"
Nope. You don't pay taxes or never work, you were a liability not an asset.
My point! Stop acting as if you can survive without the help of even those poor people... they are human beings with no less feelings than you... and one day pal... you might just find yourself in need of help from one of them! If you insist on acting like you can... then please stay off the socialized roads, drinking socialized clean water, pull your kids out of those socialized schools, or off the socialized internet cables, etc, etc
I don't look to MAN for help. It all comes back to me ten fold. Always has since I was a kid. I got my help, but I am not Robin Hood are you?
As for your trying to blame government for all societies problems... perhaps you might consider that 1) Most Republicans only get into government to screw it up, get out, and then claim that government does not work. 2) Democrats and some Republicans get in trying to do the right thing but make the mistake of taking corporate money...
You, yourself are blaming the government for not taking care of these people!!!! Which side are you on so I can tear down why you are on either side? Obama hates a lot of lobbyists, but he LOVES his.
Corporations?
More recently, other members of Congress—including Sen. John McCain and Congressman Eric Cantor—have released proposals to cut the corporate rate even deeper to 25 percent. While this lower rate would improve the U.S.'s international ranking and competitiveness, that improvement would be mitigated by the high corporate tax rates imposed by many states.
Seems like the victims are US already?!@
FYI: All societies in the history of man have all been socialized in some way or another, some good, some bad... what the heck to you think government is in America? IT IS US!!
Just like the downfall of Rome, openng the coffers to the peple. Laying around, have sex, make babies, eat while not being productive or working. Then the continuous attacks from foreign armies when they say the country turn soft. Like you fellas want to do to my country. NAH!
As Dikembe Mutumbo used to say, "Seven footer on me? I dunk on him!" "Two seven footers? I dunk on BOTH of them!" etc, etc. You have to bring your logic and empathy to the table in a far less generalized manner like Obama needs to.
Blaming only Republicans when you have control of the House and Senate is a lie for the poor treatment for our honorable veterans. Have YOU served? I have experienced it firsthand. You libs always leave out the most important aspect of the point you try to make. Who controls the cost of procedures? The government.
If the free market drove those numbers this would be different. I could call one doctor that charges $65 over the one next door that could charge $120.00 What do you think this would do? Just like the free market always does...makes competition provide a better product at a better price. If the government owned Microsoft we would all be using an operating system that would be seriously outdated and slow.
Anything the government touches, like the schools, has this same result. For example, the cost is $12000 per child here in my county and we have a 46% graduation rate. I live in a pretty major city. You can take the same $12000 per school year and afford to put your child in a NICE private school. One that stands out here locally has a 100% graduation rate with over 95% that attend college. Finally, folks are screaming for them to throw MORE money at the problem. This makes no sense!
To sum this all up, which gets better results? Does one of these cost more than the other? Negative. The crux of this is how wisely the money is spent. Government/politicians have nothing in it but political gain. Put the money back into the taxpayers hand! I can be trusted with my own money. I will not blow it.
Have YOU served?
yup.
And the rest of your post is just another rant from page 29 of rush's book.
Page 29 of his book? These are statistics from my own county. Seems that I am not into nonfiction, I read these fictional posts of yours and the other America haters and refute them.
OH! You are one of those folks that thought the GI Bill was free?! You thought you could just put on a uniform and march around the grinder all day and peel potatoes at the most?!
You probably got disppointed and now you are angry at them that they took advantage of your kindness/presence/oath to serve. Don't make me make you the main title of "Reading Rainbow" show now. Go Dog Go!!!
So many straw men, so little time...
Since you think you have a solid case, how about posting a few of those "statistics"?
And don't ever mock my service to this country. I'd still be a marine today if I hadn't been in a training accident 30 years ago.
Even more reason why I would wonder why you would sell substandard services to tap out our governments future in the process. I will tear down that liberalized rating system of our countries healthcare being so low soon. (REAL class will begin) I will not twist them at all and will provide all sources from the most neutral sources on earth. I promise you.
Hey with the socialized medicine, liberals will pass away more quickly to reduce cost on the system. Maybe that isn't so bad. The mystery of afterlife could be realized more quickly to millions after all.
If you are not one of those whiney troops that ran to Canada, went AWOL or blog about how horrible the Hitler Machine called America is, I apologize. I will offer any soldier or veteran that does that a FREE boot to the head, just ask anytime. Wussies. I apologize if I assumed you were one of those Snoop.
For others, if you make the following oath and do not follow through with it and act like all of these idiots I hear about, then folks should not feel sorry for you. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. Don't coddle and make excuses for these folks. The old school fellas would have chased these folks around a grinder in circles steadily kicking these folks in the rear end while saying, "you NEVER quit on me, yourself or your oath". You made a mistake? Then tough it out troop. Your word is your honor, if it is worthless then so are you.
Either way, back to the training accident. Was that not the worst treatment that you can get on average Snoop? I mean compared to paid, civilian healthcare?
"I could call one doctor that charges $65 over the one next door that could charge $120.00"
So, tell me, Buster Brown... if your wife is in labor, and the doctor tells you a C-section is necessary to save her life and the baby, are you going to call around to see if other hospitals will give you a better price? And, I guarantee you that a C-section costs a hell of a lot more than $120.
Your precious free market cannot control an industry in which fees are charged for life and death emergency decisions.
Oh, and please tell me why my tax dollars should pay for the fire department to put out a fire at your house?
Of course, that is an exception! That would be a horrible situation with the 15 "C" sections my wife has had. lol
This is JUST like gasoline. Why can't a gas station owner charge $10 a gallon if he wants? If you don't like the price just drive down the street! (Or we could socialize this huh?)
Yes, yes, guberment bad corporations good.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/surprise-peanut-plants-private-food-i
You can always depend on the private sector to take care of THEMSELVES!
I can't say that I have much of a response for that one pal, sorry. Lost you in the context of this one. This isn't the FDA blog! Hit the search button to complain to them.