Free Health Care in The USA

[Red Harvest]

I dont want to be taxed to pay for other people's medical problems. (Or mexicans, if that is applicable )

But you are, and at a higher rate than Canada. You are getting screwed twice and you don't even realize it. That's what is funny. We are paying large sums for Federal and state Medicare/Medicaid and VA health benefits. The total is nearly the same as Canada's total per capita. On top of that you have to pay out of your pocket and insurance premiums. And your insurance premiums are inflating even more rapidly because of paying for the benefits of illegals...and the uninsured. You've been had and you don't even realize it!!!

[Redleg]

Redleg,

I would like to see this analysis, because it doesn't add up when I look at it. In a 2000 WHO report the U.S. spent $4,178 per capita compared to $2,312 for Canada. Considering that Federal and State government is already paying a fairly large share of the total U.S. health care costs (about 45%) it seems the problem is not what Canadians spend on health care, but what Americans do. American costs are far higher and we are already spending nearly as much in public funds per capita as Canada--we just don't get nealy as much bang for the buck.

I posted it somewhere here in the tavern - and its about bed time for bonzo so I will try to find it later. But it deals not only with the per capita cost - but the realitive tax amounts that one happens to pay. Per Capita costs are good - but it only paints part of a picture

For instance off of memeory. Some of the costs per capita comes from the Medicare and Medicaid funds which are supported by taxpayer dollars - you can see Medicare taken out of your check every payperiod - roughly 2% of your income.

Then look at your property tax - there is in many cities (especially in Texas) a portion of your property tax is paid to the County Hospital. Check out Parkland Hosiptal in Dallas - some figures are available since its the Dallas County Hospital that handles free medical care to those unable to pay. But for me I averaged this value into my wages and it was just less then 1%

Then I looked at what I spend yearly on my Medical Insurance Premium - plus co-pays extra. These cost me about 5% of my wages. So if the Federal Government can develop a program that allows me to regain these precentages of my income back - so that they can formulate a national health care plan that does not increase my tax burdern in terms of income by not more then 8%, I am more then willing to support such a plan. I see it as a re-organization of how I spend my alreadly allocated money for health care. Be it a national health insurance scheme or national health care - the cost comes out to be the same for the average Middleclass income - or in simple terms 8% of my income comes out to roughly the $4,178 per capita that is alreadly spent.

If a governmental program can be developed that only costs the average tax payer an increase in taxes relative to his medical insurance - the moderates will most likely apply pressure to their congressmen and women to get something done. Especially if they can actually make a system that models what is already being spent, and leave the hyperbole out of the sell and just explain the facts

And administrative costs are an interesting comparison: the U.S. was spending $1,059 per capita on administration in 1999 versus $307 per capita in Canada. Considering economies of scale, Canada's system should cost far more per person to operate, rather than 3 times less. But a single payer system is naturally far more efficient in that regard. http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html



While in ones study it was reported the U.S. spends 14% of GDP on healthcare (6.2% public, 7.7% private), Canada spends 9% (6.8% public, 2.8% private.)

Here is a link with some better breakdowns for the U.S. by year (note that it won't match some other figures precisely--different bases I suppose): http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/t1.asp
What I found interesting is that the inflation rate of health care cost is not nearly as high as what I've seen previously and repeated--as presented by companies to employees, as presented by "liberals", etc. Instead it is running about 7% per capita inflation now, about twice that of overall inflation. Under Clinton it averaged 4.3% (and was in the 3.7% range while universal health care was a threat. ) Premiums are inflating at about 9%.

A particularly disturbing trend is that U.S. healthcare costs have risen from 8.8% of GDP in 1980 to 15.3% in 2003. If that continues...well...26.5% of GDP for healthcare sounds extremely harmful to the economy to me.

As I've said, I'm not in favor of completely "free" healthcare, but I do want full access. It is shameful that a "developed" nation treats its poor this way.

The problem is that no one has really taken a look at how to make a national health care plan work nor has it ever been sold to the public in terms that the moderates can understand and support.


Edit: to fix an incorrect quote code

[Aurelian]

We do need "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" in the US. I put that in big scary quotes to freak out the free-market conservative types.

The truth is that our system is incredibly inefficient. Just think of all the lost time, and the wasted resources, that come from having our medical professionals drowning in a sea of insurance company paperwork. Each form completely different... and trying to confuse people so that the company can avoid having to pay. Most hospitals have a whole floor now that's just devoted to insurance processing.

Then there are the advertising costs, and the administrative overhead, and the huge profit margins that come from private insurance. It's silly.

The same goes for the pharmaceutical companies. They're the most profitable business in America, and we pay higher drug costs than anybody else on the planet. Most of the drug research is done in universities with taxpayer money, and then we hand the patents over to pharmaceutical companies so they can extract monopoly pricing for the length of the patent. Their choices as to which drugs to research and produce are completely driven by stock and profit considerations, so the research goes to creating a half-dozen erection pills rather than something more genuinely important.

I think we need a thorough redesign of the system. There's no reason that we can't learn from everybody else and create a model program... other than the opposition from special interests. We're essentially paying for the power that the pharmaceutical, insurance, and doctor's lobbies have in Washington. Pharma and insurance in particular would be screwed by meaningful reform - so they fight it.

If I was going to create a single-payer system, I'd also go after the pharmaceutical industry. The prices we pay for drugs are one of the biggest factors in skyrocketing health costs and they're way out of line with where they should be. We're getting almost no knew drugs from an industry that takes taxpayer funded research and charges us monopoly prices for it. I'm sorry, but I don't think we should all have to empty our wallets and suffer just to keep up the stock price on Pfizer. It's a stupid way to run an economy.

There's a great article about the pharma industry and what's wrong with it here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

[fret]

minor tax-bump

Doubtful. The UK spends 8% of its entire wealth on the NHS, and the service is still desperately underfunded.

For the US to do that, the annual bill would be approx $1.02 Trillion p.a. based on 2004 GDP. To put that figure in perspective, the military budget for the same period was $370.7 billion.

So with a public healthcare system costing about 2.8 times more than what the US spends on military, the minor tax bump is more likely to be $8 a gallon.

[Beirut]

Well low and behold - care to guess how many Americans also have a Medicare card which entitles them to free medical care at the taxpayer expense. I will give you a clue - its about roughly the same number as the total population of Canada.

Yet you have tens of millions who have no coverage at all. You have insurance companies demanding top dollar for policies that they are downright eager to cancel as soon as any of the fine print is violated.

When a lawyer and an accountant are the top dogs deciding who gets what health care, it is an intrinsically bad system.

You ask for numbers, I admit I cannot give you dollars and cents, accounting is not what I do. But I do know that a country that can put a man on the moon, be the first to harness nuclear power, have the most powerful army in the history of the world, and be an economic wonder calling itself the leader of the free world, is able to create and manage a system that cares for the health of its citizens.

That may sound like nothing but hopeful rhetoric, but, to me, to deny it flies in the face of all intelligent reason. Hell, hasn't the US spent hundreds of billions just in Iraq? How can a conservative say the money is there to wage dubious wars but not for the care of our own people?

I refuse to accept that the US of A, with its brains and economic brawn, sees itself capable of any achievement save for caring for the health of its own people.

Yes, we can put a man on Mars someday - No we cannot afford to run health care.

Yes, we are the most powerful country in the world able to defeat any and all foes - No we cannot afford to run health care.

Yes, the US is the leader of the free world, the world's policeman, and the model of humanitarian democracy that all other countries should follow - No we cannot afford to run health care.

Where does it stop? Once you've colonized Pluto, have annexed Cuba, Canada, China, and Kenya, once you've got Mr. Fussion machines in every kitchen in America; will health care still be beyond the capabilities of the USA?

[Aurelian]

Doubtful. The UK spends 8% of its entire wealth on the NHS, and the service is still desperately underfunded.

For the US to do that, the annual bill would be approx $1.02 Trillion p.a. based on 2004 GDP. To put that figure in perspective, the military budget for the same period was $370.7 billion.

Yeah, but we spend 15% of GDP (and rising) on healthcare every year in the US. Plus, we don't even get universal coverage for that. About 16% of the population doesn't have any insurance. About 27% are already covered under one of the government programs.

If we nipped the huge amounts of fat in the insurance and pharmaceutical bureaucracies I'm sure we could get decent universal health care coverage for something approaching the 10% of GDP that Canada spends.

It might be best though if healthcare taxes were split apart from the general income tax (though still preferably graduated) so we didn't scare people to death when they see their tax bill. If you could easily compare your healthcare tax side-by-side with your health insurance bill, it might even be a pleasant shock.

[Beirut]

It's important to note that a majority of Canadians view socialized medicine not only as a birthright, but as the defining aspect of our national self.

We view government run health care as the most important reason to have a government at all. Even our far-right conservatives tread on eggshells when discussing for-profit health care. It's a political career killer. Akin to a US politician trying to legalize pot in schools and daycares.

[Watchman]

Sounds oddly familiar, that.

[BDC]

I don't think you actually need to spend all that much, it's just keeping such a huge institution running efficiently is practically impossible. 8% of Britain's GDP might go on the NHS, but that would probably be enough if things were actually run as efficiently as possible, but they aren't. Equally if you doubled funding things would probably not improve all that much because it would all just disappear into more red tape and more pointless beaurocratic positions.

[Goofball]

Taxes lead to poor people. Poor people lead to Communists. Communists lead to millions dead.

How do you intend to pay for this free healthcare in the US?

And also, may I note that, compared to the US, Canadian law is basically anarchy. Or at least, that's how I view it. Except that you deport people because they say something the government disagrees with vehemantly. Doesn't seem very nice, does it?

In essence, it doesn't lead to communism, but some of the things nessissary for it to be implemented can lead to communism.

If you had any less of an idea of what you were talking about, you wouldn't even be able to spell your own name.

[Goofball]

Well low and behold - care to guess how many Americans also have a Medicare card which entitles them to free medical care at the taxpayer expense. I will give you a clue - its about roughly the same number as the total population of Canada.

So: Less than 10% of your population can get free healthcare, whereas 100% of our population enjoys free coverage.

I like my odds of pulling through a little better here, thank you very much...

[master of the puppets]

generalized health care would be an acceptable and good thing to establish in my opinion, i have to go with canada on this one. and also i would like to see government sponsored medical research, i was watching 60 mi9nutes a few monthas ago and it was titled "Guiene pigs" it was a test where 20 people with parkinsons disease (some so bad they could not even move) and they all did this magnificent medicine which had to be injected via a small pump implanted in the persons body, after a week of the treatment the people who could not move or walk or control there bodies were much better, at a month they were normal functioning human beings. so finally when they had something that could cure them the company pulled the project, no more medicicne, no more pumps, no more real life. in 2 weeks all the test subjects had deteriorated to such a state as when it began. and why did the company pull the project? because it would cost to much for them to distribute and implant the pumps and medicine. if this was goverment sponsered they may not so redely steal away hope for so many people.

[Red Harvest]

If you had any less of an idea of what you were talking about, you wouldn't even be able to spell your own name.

That was so funny that I think I might have to change my pants.

[Red Harvest]

Doubtful. The UK spends 8% of its entire wealth on the NHS, and the service is still desperately underfunded.

For the US to do that, the annual bill would be approx $1.02 Trillion p.a. based on 2004 GDP. To put that figure in perspective, the military budget for the same period was $370.7 billion.

So with a public healthcare system costing about 2.8 times more than what the US spends on military, the minor tax bump is more likely to be $8 a gallon.

We spend ~$1.7 trillion a year on health care and 765 billion or so of that is by the Feds and State govts. We spend nearly twice as much in terms of GDP as the UK for healthcare. And yet we can't cover about 15% of our population (and growing each year.)

The key problem is U.S. healthcare inefficiency, and it gets worse every year. It's a pseudo-free market that continually raises prices at greater than the inflation rate. In order to make health care affordable, we need nationwide cost containment. Stop the runaway growth in costs and each year we will stop losing ground in dealing with this.

The so called free market approach to health care in the U.S. has been an abject failure. If a "free market" is driving up costs rather than driving them down, then it is obviously the wrong tool for the problem. There is no way to deny that U.S. health care is the most expensive in the world. There is also no way to deny that in quite a few measures (infant mortality, etc.) the U.S. lags behind many industrialized nations.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

my experience of the NHS has been far worse than my experience of U.S. healthcare.

U.K. private medicine is the best experience I've had overall though.

[Redleg]

So: Less than 10% of your population can get free healthcare, whereas 100% of our population enjoys free coverage.

I like my odds of pulling through a little better here, thank you very much...

And the amount of people covered by both programs is roughly the same.

[Beirut]

I'm sure the coincidental math makes the tens of millions without coverage feel much better.

[Redleg]

I'm sure the coincidental math makes the tens of millions without coverage feel much better.

And you continue with the emotional appeal - ideological based arguements without making a valid point. Look at what it costs to do a national health care plan. Formulate ideas about how to make it work - sell me on the concept and how it makes for a better idea.

And again I can walk into any hospital and get emergancy care without paying a dime if I so chose - I can walk into the county health clinic and not pay a dime if I can show that I do not have the means to pay - and get the health care I need.

Again your arguing for health care using an emotional appeal - and you claim the same crap like the last thread on this issue - but you can not show how much it costs - nor can you make an arguement for how to help the United States work on a plan - and you didn't bother to explain why so many Canadian Citizens come to the United States to seek health care - since the Canadian system is so great. How's it feel to know a decent size portion of you nation must come to the United States to get Health Care because your socialized system will not take care of the citizens that need the care. (Hows that for a little of your own hyperbole medicine.)

Hyperbole seems to be your only resort - you should just stick to moderating the frontroom where your ability to think doesn't have to be as great.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

If you had any less of an idea of what you were talking about, you wouldn't even be able to spell your own name.

So you are saying high government envolvement in the average human's life and high taxes aren't part of a communist system?

[Beirut]

And you continue with the emotional appeal - ideological based arguements without making a valid point. Look at what it costs to do a national health care plan. Formulate ideas about how to make it work - sell me on the concept and how it makes for a better idea.

Perhaps one of the fundemental differences between our viewpoints is that we (my side) does see health care as a very emotional issue. Good physical health is the starting point for good mental health, self reliance, productivity, economic succeess, be it for the individual or the whole society. Health is the starting point for the enjoyment of life. Every measure possible should be taken by the state to ensure all of its citizens have equal access. The health of a nation is exactly on par with the security of the nation. Why should one be sole role of government while the other is considered not the role of government at all?

You want to know where the cash will come from? From the taxpayer of course. Just like every single other government program. Cut tax loopholes, raise the bar on tax collection efficiency, cut subsidies to multi-billion dollar companies, tax the ultra rich at a higher level, stop spending hundreds and hundreds of billions in Iraq. there are all sorts of ways to raise cash without putting excess strain on Joe Average.

Is it cheap? Of course it's not cheap. But in the long run, better health amongst the public will relate to better productivity in the future. Less sick kids means more kids learning which means a smarter next-generation. That means more profit and success for the nation as a whole. I'm sorry if that's too emotional for you but there are many of us (oh, billions I'd say) who know that good health is an emotional issue and is the jumping board to success in life on many levels.

Why on earth would the state wash its hands of something that affects its own future on such a fundemental basis? Quite honestly, its nothing less than a national security issue. Do you think a country full of fat (often young) people with diabetes and heart problems is good for the future of a country? Health. It all starts with health.

Hyperbole seems to be your only resort - you should just stick to moderating the frontroom where your ability to think doesn't have to be as great.

Oh mercy... I've been pwned.

And I always thought Texas produced such fine gentlemen...

[Redleg]

Well Beriut and his hyperbole stupidity has forced me to once again show that the Canadian system is full of holes that allows people to die just as much as the American System.

Several little tidbits that a Canadian won't ever admit to - since he avoided it like the plauge last time he tried the tact he has now pursued.

As for cost -

Incentives matter, and one need only examine the incentives of the Canadian system to predict the results: inefficient use of resources and severe rationing of expensive procedures. Patients consider health care to be free. They pay for it for sure. Canadian doctor and author David Gratzer (currently part of the Canadian doctor brain drain to the U.S.), estimates that the system costs each Canadian 21 cents for every $1 they earn, which translates into $7,350 a year for a person earning $35,000. But they don’t pay for it when they use it. The result is an overuse—and inefficient use—of primary care facilities

futher down in the article

Tom Holland, director of diagnostic imaging for the Ottawa Hospital and, therefore, the man who grants access to the MRI Mrs. Besner needs, can only offer his sympathies. “Unfortunately, we hear these stories all the time,” says Mr. Holland. “There’s a tremendous amount of anxiety for the patients and a tremendous amount of anxiety for those who are working here as well. Everybody associated with this operation deals with this on a daily basis.”6

Norwood’s and Besner’s cases are routine. In January of 2001, more than 7,000 people were languishing in line for one of the hospitals two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, a necessary step before many conditions can be accurately diagnosed and then treated. Patients in such straits face stark choices. Many, like Canadian Senator Edward M. Lawson, former head of the Teamster’s Union, run for the border and pay for prompt care in the United States. Lawson experienced chest pains in August 2001 and his doctor told him he’d have to wait a month for an angiogram, the recommended treatment. No thanks, he said, as he headed to Seattle to receive prompt care.7 When lines get too bad, the provinces may actually fund the ticket and treatment. Ontario, for example, sent just under 1,800 cancer patients south for care in between April 1999 and May 2000.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/s...ech_sally.html

An even more interesting read that shows that a national health scheme is not all its cracked up to be.

http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf#search='Failures%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Medical%20system'

Before a certain Canadian gets on his high horse about free Medical Care - he needs to realize that its not free nor it the great system he is attempting to protray with his hyperbole criticism of what happens in the United States

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/canada52003_db_641.pdf#search='Failures%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Medical%20system'


http://www.boston.com/news/world/can...nce_ban_nixed/

By Beth Duff-Brown, Associated Press Writer | June 9, 2005

TORONTO --Canada's Supreme Court dealt a powerful blow to the state monopoly on health care Thursday, striking down a Quebec ban on private health insurance for services provided under the country's Medicare system of universal coverage.

Although the unanimous ruling applies only to Quebec, it is sure to bring similar cases in other Canadian provinces and give impetus to a growing movement pushing for public and private care.

Government leaders rushed to defend the current system, and Medicare supporters voiced fears the ruling will bring a two-tiered system favoring those with money and possibly hurting care for the poor. Proponents of change say it will improve care by offering more choices and cut waiting times for treatment.

The Supreme Court said Quebec's prohibition violated the province's charter of rights by threatening the lives of patients, and the justices noted other countries have successfully combined private and public care.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health-care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

"The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering ... ."

Medicare arose from a 1984 law that affirmed the federal government's commitment to provide mostly free health care for all, including the more than 200,000 immigrants arriving each year.

Most polls indicate that Canadians support the system despite the high taxes needed to finance health care, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance.

But in recent years Medicare has been plagued by long waiting lists and a lack of doctors, nurses and state-of-the-art equipment. Some patients wait months for surgery, MRI machines are scarce and many Canadians travel to the United States for treatment.

Under the Canadian system, it is illegal to seek faster treatment and jump to the head of the line by paying out of pocket for public care. Private health clinics have sprouted up for Canadians willing to spend their own money for treatment. But they are technically illegal, though some provincial governments tend to look the other way, especially for more minor treatments.

Although unanimous in voiding Quebec's law, the court split 4-4, with one abstention, on whether the ban on private insurance was unconstitutional or violated the federal Charter of Rights and Freedom that guarantee "life, liberty and security of the person."

Yep don't toot your horn so loud Beruit Your so called free health care ain't free and its not all that great.

[Strike For The South]

And I always thought Texas produced such fine gentlemen...

we do...he couldve been meaner

[Redleg]

Perhaps one of the fundemental differences between our viewpoints is that we (my side) does see health care as a very emotional issue. Good physical health is the starting point for good mental health, self reliance, productivity, economic succeess, be it for the individual or the whole society. Health is the starting point for the enjoyment of life. Every measure possible should be taken by the state to ensure all of its citizens have equal access. The health of a nation is exactly on par with the security of the nation. Why should one be sole role of government while the other is considered not the role of government at all?

You want to know where the cash will come from? From the taxpayer of course. Just like every single other government program. Cut tax loopholes, raise the bar on tax collection efficiency, cut subsidies to multi-billion dollar companies, tax the ultra rich at a higher level, stop spending hundreds and hundreds of billions in Iraq. there are all sorts of ways to raise cash without putting excess strain on Joe Average.

Is it cheap? Of course it's not cheap. But in the long run, better health amongst the public will relate to better productivity in the future. Less sick kids means more kids learning which means a smarter next-generation. That means more profit and success for the nation as a whole. I'm sorry if that's too emotional for you but there are many of us (oh, billions I'd say) who know that good health is an emotional issue and is the jumping board to success in life on many levels.

Why on earth would the state wash its hands of something that affects its own future on such a fundemental basis? Quite honestly, its nothing less than a national security issue. Do you think a country full of fat (often young) people with diabetes and heart problems is good for the future of a country? Health. It all starts with health.

Good health does not require the government to hold your hand - good health means the individual must take responsiblity in their lifestyle and what they eat, drink, how much sleep they get and how much exercise - all areas that the government does not need to be involved in.

Oh mercy... I've been pwned.

And I always thought Texas produced such fine gentlemen...

Certain comments deserve harsh retorts.

[Beirut]

First of all, I never said it was free.

Second, your repeated insults show that you take the issue far too personally, or should I say, emotionally. You speak of "us" displaying too much emotion, but, correct me if I'm wrong, has Goofy or I called you stupid yet? Or is it only us who are stupid because we don't share your point of view?

In either case, your insults are, from what I've seen, out of the ordinary for you and I find them bewildering. Honestly, I don't understand your anger.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

you should just stick to moderating the frontroom where your ability to think doesn't have to be as great.

This isn't the Redleg I've always respected all this time.
.

[Redleg]

First of all, I never said it was free.

Second, your repeated insults show that you take the issue far too personally, or should I say, emotionally. You speak of "us" displaying too much emotion, but, correct me if I'm wrong, has Goofy or I called you stupid yet? Or is it only us who are stupid because we don't share your point of view?

In either case, your insults are, from what I've seen, out of the ordinary for you and I find them bewildering. Honestly, I don't understand your anger.

Maybe you should go back and read your comments.

Oh and you might want to read what was written - I said the your hyperbole stupidity. That is slightly different from using the direct insult of calling you stupid.

Its calling your use of hyperbole as being stupid.

[Red Harvest]

You make it sound like we have people dying in the streets from an infected broken arm, or something. Which is simply wrong.

Well not exactly wrong, I didn't go to the doctor when I was in high school and injured my arm playing basketball. We lacked coverage. It was probably a minor fracture as it wasn't like any sprain I've ever had. I knew we didn't have the money for it, so I did without seeing a doctor. No infection though and the bone was still aligned, it just swelled up and turned green.

We didn't go to the doctor until we were half dead...LOL. And I've been to doctors who did a worse job than I could do at home. Never stopped them from sending a bill.

[Beirut]

Well I still feel that you have taken a personally insulting tone in the matter that is far out of the ordinary for your style.

I thought my last note was (somewhat) well reasoned and showed the importance of good health vis a vis the state as a whole, as well as offering at least one or two small suggestions on helping to finance it.

Your response was a personal attack. Honestly, I don't understand your anger. And it is anger.

[Red Harvest]

You seem to be leaving out that socialized medicine is invariably of a lower quality. That goes for Canada, as well. The Medical Business is best when it is driven by the invisible hand of capitalism. If the government were to get involved, it should not commandeer the medical industry, it should subsidize the patients.

I would not be adverse to that, as long as I didn't have to pay much more taxes.

Baloney. It isn't of invariably lower quality. And that "invisible hand" is doing an incredibly poor job with an overinflated medical costs. The invisible hand is robbing the cookie jar every year.

Let's recap: we pay more than anyone else, we have more uncovered patients, and we have poorer average outcomes the many industrialized nations. That invisible hand must have its invisible finger stuck up its invisible nose.

[Redleg]

Well I still feel that you have taken a personally insulting tone in the matter that is far out of the ordinary for your style.

I take people who use hyperbole to attempt to make a statement seem to be uncompassionante (SP) beneath contempt, especially when that individual normally steers clear of such tactics unless he is talking about Palenstine and Israel.

I'm sure the coincidental math makes the tens of millions without coverage feel much better.

As for this statement

I thought my last note was (somewhat) well reasoned and showed the importance of good health vis a vis the state as a whole, as well as offering at least one or two small suggestions on helping to finance it.

You argued about the overall health of the individuals in the Nation - the overall health of an individual is based upon lifestyle and the choices one make's not in an universal health care scheme being provided by the government

Your response was a personal attack. Honestly, I don't understand your anger. And it is anger.

Of course its anger - maybe you should think about what statements you have made to bring it about - you have a small clue above - now you can either figure it out - or not.

But I am only slightly pissed - not completely mad