|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2009 07:26:03 PM · #101 |
and you feel that giving control of the health care system to a government that has proven over and over that it can't do anything properly except get reelected is going to help anything. I understand it is in some ways messed up. But how can adding a whole new ponderous and wasteful bureaucracy going to help? You still have to pay doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. (and tort lawyers), build and maintain hospitals, and then you're going to have to pay government administrators to make what were private medical decisions on your behalf...or not at all. Does that not invite politics into the one-on-one relationship with your doctor? Sorry, don't trust them to keep my roads paved without ripping us off. Sure can't trust them to decide when, how, or if I get my health care decisions made.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:32:17 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
and you feel that giving control of the health care system to a government that has proven over and over that it can't do anything properly except get reelected is going to help anything. I understand it is in some ways messed up. But how can adding a whole new ponderous and wasteful bureaucracy going to help? You still have to pay doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. (and tort lawyers), build and maintain hospitals, and then you're going to have to pay government administrators to make what were private medical decisions on your behalf...or not at all. Does that not invite politics into the one-on-one relationship with your doctor? Sorry, don't trust them to keep my roads paved without ripping us off. Sure can't trust them to decide when, how, or if I get my health care decisions made. |
Not to turn this into a debate on the medical system, but I can tell you that in Canada, where we have Govt. run health care, no politician has ever sat in on my doctors appointments, or made any decisions on my behalf... that has always been between me and my doctor. I dont see that being any different in the states should your government decide on a government option. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 07:34:43 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
and you feel that giving control of the health care system to a government that has proven over and over that it can't do anything properly except get reelected is going to help anything. I understand it is in some ways messed up. But how can adding a whole new ponderous and wasteful bureaucracy going to help? You still have to pay doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. (and tort lawyers), build and maintain hospitals, and then you're going to have to pay government administrators to make what were private medical decisions on your behalf...or not at all. Does that not invite politics into the one-on-one relationship with your doctor? Sorry, don't trust them to keep my roads paved without ripping us off. Sure can't trust them to decide when, how, or if I get my health care decisions made. |
I trust the government a lot more than I do a private company whose interests lie in making money for their shareholders by denying care. Of course, that's assuming that they'll even cover me at all, since, if I might get sick, they might have to pay for my care. Of course, if I do get sick, they can cancel my policy and save money that way. I'll die sooner and the CEO and his cronies can still get their big bonuses. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:10:49 PM · #104 |
It's interesting how polarized a discussion about polarization can become ... witness this thread.
Seems to me neither the right nor the left has cornered the market in Kool-Aid. Matters not whether it's strawberry or cherry, it's all a pretty lethal brew. Talk radio especially depends on intentionally creating outrage, because it's entertaining. It can be outrageously left biased or outrageously right biased. But let's not confuse it with news. At best it's opinion radio.
Media has traditionally supported the biases of publishers - left or right. Let's not become outraged because there's bias. We should become outraged only if both points of view are not available to thinking individuals. I am outraged there appear to be so few thinking people, so few with an open mind, so few who can listen to many sources of data and be able to develop a personal point of view based on facts and logic.
In the end, much of the outrage seems to be based on personal circumstance and a belief about which side will maximize my personal return on bias. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:13:08 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's the selfish attitude among the right, they don't give a shit for those that are lower than them. |
What's more selfish, me wanting to keep what I earn, or me wanting to take what you earn? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:19:33 PM · #106 |
Here's the latest example of why the government has no business running our health care:
//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_he_me/us_med_mammogram_advice
What's on the government chopping block next - colonoscopies? Prostate exams?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the US is supposedly the most advanced country in the world, then why are we falling behind in quality of life measures like life expectancy? We're a first world nation with a third world health care system...unless you're one of the haves. |
How is encouraging women not to do self breast exams and not having a first mammogram until age 50 going to help life expectancy, Dan?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I trust the government a lot more than I do a private company whose interests lie in making money for their shareholders by denying care. Of course, that's assuming that they'll even cover me at all, since, if I might get sick, they might have to pay for my care. Of course, if I do get sick, they can cancel my policy and save money that way. I'll die sooner and the CEO and his cronies can still get their big bonuses. |
It seems to me, according to the new mammogram guidelines, your comment is seriously flawed. You are right in saying that the interests lie in making money - look no further than government run health care. Scary that you put so much trust in the government!
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Not to turn this into a debate on the medical system, but I can tell you that in Canada, where we have Govt. run health care, no politician has ever sat in on my doctors appointments, or made any decisions on my behalf... that has always been between me and my doctor. I dont see that being any different in the states should your government decide on a government option. |
You may not have politicians sitting with you in your appointment, Brad, but you sure as hell can bet they are making the decisions that govern that appointment with your doctor. See above article. How long does it take someone to get in to see a specialist, by the way, for saaaaaay - breast cancer?
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 20:30:36. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:30:29 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the US is supposedly the most advanced country in the world, then why are we falling behind in quality of life measures like life expectancy? We're a first world nation with a third world health care system...unless you're one of the haves. |
Probably because we are fattest country in the world, and only getting fatter!
//www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
I love the map that shows us getting fatter and fatter each year, click play and watch a few times, it's great fun.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 20:33:46. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 08:56:06 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
The work week is 38.5 hours; everyone gets Sunday off with some exceptions (and those get another day off) |
And don't forget the mandatory thirty days of paid vacation per year for everyone. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:00:26 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
...and then you're going to have to pay government administrators to make what were private medical decisions on your behalf... |
That's not accurate. I live in Canada, one of those socialist states (though not as socialist as European states, unfortunately), and we have universal health care. Government has nothing to say about medical care, or medical decisions. That's not their job. Their job is to provide health care in the form of dollars, not medical advice or opinion. There really, truly are no "death panels". |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:07:40 PM · #110 |
never mind...my brain is in a disheveled state.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 21:11:12. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:09:32 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
It comes down to something very basic.
Do you believe that society will be most improved:
(i) if people act in their own self interests; or
(ii) if people act for the perceived benefit of society as a whole (even if against their own self interests)?
|
Very well put, Matthew.
And how do we choose option ii? By forcing people to buy CFL light bulbs that contain mercury? By forcing people to support actions for others that are contrary to their religious beliefs? By forcing people to vote blue? By pretending the debate is over and presuming anyone who disagrees with us is wrong? By being so race conscious that we forget to look at the content of character? By attacking and belittling anyone who dares contradict what we have accepted as established truth?
The real problem, as I see it, is that most people, most of the time choose option i - they behave in their own self interests. The rich care-nothing-for-others-less-fortunate conservatives. The I-know-better-than-you-what-is-best-for-you liberals. I don't think you can really blame people for that - kinda the way we're built.
To me the really scary thing is when well meaning people, wanting to select option ii, presume that everyone really wants option ii. They neglect to consider individuals, or groups of individuals, who are going to choose option i, regardless of who it hurts, destroys, or kills. They fail to see the necessity of opposing and/or stopping these folks - by force if necessary.
I agree with other posters - the polarizing hatred is very damaging to our society. Just for fun, I suggest reading through this thread, and simply swap the "targets". Reread your posts and ask if they represent an open mind, an embracing position of those who are different (well, of course yours do, but some of the others? well...).
If our time on dpchallenge has taught us anything, it should have taught us that talent is talent, regardless of the ideology of the artist.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 09:23:44 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Not to turn this into a debate on the medical system, but I can tell you that in Canada, where we have Govt. run health care, no politician has ever sat in on my doctors appointments, or made any decisions on my behalf... that has always been between me and my doctor. I dont see that being any different in the states should your government decide on a government option. |
You may not have politicians sitting with you in your appointment, Brad, but you sure as hell can bet they are making the decisions that govern that appointment with your doctor. See above article. How long does it take someone to get in to see a specialist, by the way, for saaaaaay - breast cancer? |
I can only speak from the perspective of a Canadian, and only from my own experience. I had a friend who went in for a kidney stone treatment to his family doctor, they scanned it, found something unusual. It turned out to be a kidney tumour, and he was in surgery the next day. No cost, no paperwork.
My neighbor has had cancer three times in the past 5 years. They have tried chemo, experimental stem cell therapy, and are not trying other therapies... not cost to her, even though they are not long tested solutions.
I know these are anecdotal examples, and may not represent the norm, but they shape my opinion because they constitute my experience. I would never trade the health care system in Canada for anything. It gives me tremendous peace of mind knowing my health care is covered. In my opinion, it is taxes well spent.
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival.
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 21:31:36. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:09:16 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival. |
I respectfully disagree with your naïveté of motives/agenda, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true. Women do have a choice as to whether they have a mammogram or not. It's a choice I'd like to make for myself sooner rather than later.
Instead of going backward (exams later in life), why don't we invest in newer technology that would eliminate false-positives? Oh - I forgot. We can't have bad, greedy companies making money off of medical technology!
Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree with such findings, is it not? That was my main point...
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 22:25:38. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:25:14 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival. |
I respectfully disagree with your opinion of so-called findings, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true...
Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree, is it not? |
Underlined for emphasis. We agree with the findings. I would not agree that this is government intervention. This is just a task force finding. They have had such task forces before. The agency that conducts such task forces, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did not come into existence when the Democrats came into power, but have existed for 20 years. I would consider them to be a non-partisan agency. The recommendations they make are for medical and scientific purposes, not political ones... even if we do not agree with their recommendations.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:27:34 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival. |
I respectfully disagree with your naïveté of motives/agenda, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true. Women do have a choice as to whether they have a mammogram or not. It's a choice I'd like to make for myself sooner rather than later.
Instead of going backward (exams later in life), why don't we invest in newer technology that would eliminate false-positives? Oh - I forgot. We can't have bad, greedy companies making money off of medical technology!
Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree with such findings, is it not? That was my main point... |
I liked the wording better before you edited it :)
I agree... I think better safe than sorry as well.
And, I have no problem with companies making money... its a business, and they need to make money, and I would gladly invest in a company whose goals where to make people's lives better, and promote health. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:30:32 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival. |
I respectfully disagree with your opinion of so-called findings, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true...
Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree, is it not? |
Underlined for emphasis. We agree with the findings. I would not agree that this is government intervention. This is just a task force finding. They have had such task forces before. The agency that conducts such task forces, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did not come into existence when the Democrats came into power, but have existed for 20 years. I would consider them to be a non-partisan agency. The recommendations they make are for medical and scientific purposes, not political ones... even if we do not agree with their recommendations. |
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:32:23 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I agree... I think better safe than sorry as well.
And, I have no problem with companies making money... its a business, and they need to make money, and I would gladly invest in a company whose goals where to make people's lives better, and promote health. |
I'm so happy to hear you feel that way on both counts. :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:35:17 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans.
ETA: Perhaps its naive to make such assumptions about an article on Yahoo!?
Message edited by author 2009-11-17 22:42:22. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:37:10 PM · #119 |
How is having millions of people without access to the most basic health care helping increase life expectancy?
What about my friend who was diagnosed with a terminal illness and subsequently dropped by his insurance company? Are those the kinds of vultures you want to trust with your care? His estate, which should have easily provided for his family and his childrens' college education is gone.
What about people with chronic disease and no insurance? Can they get coverage? HELL no! No insurance company is going to offer coverage, or if they do, the rates will be sky high. I can't buy private coverage for my son, the last company that even offered wanted $1500 per month in premiums.
As for your article, I have to agree with  VitaminB's assessment. It's a study, a statistical exercise. Feel free to sound the alarm when action is taken based on that study (i.e. women are forbidden from having a mammogram until they're 50) Nothing's on the chopping block.
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Here's the latest example of why the government has no business running our health care:
//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_he_me/us_med_mammogram_advice
What's on the government chopping block next - colonoscopies? Prostate exams?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the US is supposedly the most advanced country in the world, then why are we falling behind in quality of life measures like life expectancy? We're a first world nation with a third world health care system...unless you're one of the haves. |
How is encouraging women not to do self breast exams and not having a first mammogram until age 50 going to help life expectancy, Dan?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I trust the government a lot more than I do a private company whose interests lie in making money for their shareholders by denying care. Of course, that's assuming that they'll even cover me at all, since, if I might get sick, they might have to pay for my care. Of course, if I do get sick, they can cancel my policy and save money that way. I'll die sooner and the CEO and his cronies can still get their big bonuses. |
It seems to me, according to the new mammogram guidelines, your comment is seriously flawed. You are right in saying that the interests lie in making money - look no further than government run health care. Scary that you put so much trust in the government!
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Not to turn this into a debate on the medical system, but I can tell you that in Canada, where we have Govt. run health care, no politician has ever sat in on my doctors appointments, or made any decisions on my behalf... that has always been between me and my doctor. I dont see that being any different in the states should your government decide on a government option. |
You may not have politicians sitting with you in your appointment, Brad, but you sure as hell can bet they are making the decisions that govern that appointment with your doctor. See above article. How long does it take someone to get in to see a specialist, by the way, for saaaaaay - breast cancer? |
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:40:02 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival. |
I respectfully disagree with your opinion of so-called findings, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true...
Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree, is it not? |
Underlined for emphasis. We agree with the findings. I would not agree that this is government intervention. This is just a task force finding. They have had such task forces before. The agency that conducts such task forces, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did not come into existence when the Democrats came into power, but have existed for 20 years. I would consider them to be a non-partisan agency. The recommendations they make are for medical and scientific purposes, not political ones... even if we do not agree with their recommendations. |
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia.
It's a study, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:40:39 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans. |
Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.
If the word naïveté offends you so much, I do humbly apologize... |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:44:00 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans. |
Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.
If the word naïveté offends you so much, I do humbly apologize... |
Ok.
But, we should bring this thread back to the OP's discussion. How does one reconcile different political ideologies in a relationship? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:44:37 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans. |
Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.
If the word naïveté offends you so much, I do humbly apologize... |
Completely OT, I guess, but -- I haven't had time today to read the report, but why on earth would they say such things/?????????? That's downright stoopid. My understanding is that breast cancer is largely treatable and survivable simply because of the early detection education and practices. |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:45:40 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
You can disagree with me all you want, but I am hardly naive. I'm just not that suspicious of Obama, and I do not believe there is some conspiracy to reduce the health of Americans. |
Well, why would YOU be suspicous of Obama when you live in Canada? :) And please don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was a conspiracy to harm Americans and their health, although measures such as the task force recommendations would directly do that. The task force went as far as to say self breast exams should not be promoted or taught. That's a real red flag to me.
If the word naïveté offends you so much, I do humbly apologize... |
Really? Providing access to health care for those who don't have it would harm millions? |
|
|
|
11/17/2009 10:45:49 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AJHopp:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
ETA: Just read the article you mentioned, and I find the task force's findings unfortunate, and I myself would side with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. However, I do not believe that the task force entered into their discussions regarding mammograms with an agenda of reducing the health of American's, saving money by reducing health benefits etc. They presented their findings because they found that the false positives, and unneeded biopsis outweighed what they felt were negligible changes in the odds of survival. |
I respectfully disagree with your opinion of so-called findings, as do many other people. I'd rather have a million false-positives than a diagnosis of breast cancer. Better safe than sorry has never rang more true...
Anyway, it is a direct example of government intervention, whether or not you agree or disagree, is it not? |
Underlined for emphasis. We agree with the findings. I would not agree that this is government intervention. This is just a task force finding. They have had such task forces before. The agency that conducts such task forces, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, did not come into existence when the Democrats came into power, but have existed for 20 years. I would consider them to be a non-partisan agency. The recommendations they make are for medical and scientific purposes, not political ones... even if we do not agree with their recommendations. |
Again, I disagree with your naïveté. When an article says government task force, it means government. A task force may have been harmless enough in the past, but under Obama, I'm sure it will take on a whole new persona. It is just the beginning sample of what's to come in health care if the current bill in our Congress makes it through. An appetizer if you will.... |
PUHLEEZE!! Stop with the right-wing paranoia.
It's a study, nothing more. |
PUHLEEZE! Stop with the left-wing bullying. It's more than just a study. Even your beloved news channels reported on it all day. And tell that to women who have fought or are fighting breast cancer.
Oh, and the last time I checked, it's still a free country. I can be as paranoid and you can be as oblivious as you want to be. :) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:41:29 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:41:29 PM EDT.
|
