What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
421 Comments
- jasnmb, on 10/12/2007, -34/+118Universal health care scares me. I'm scared the higher taxes would be more than what I'm currently paying through my job's subsidized health plans. I'm scared the quality of health care will degrade. I'm scared I wouldn't be able to see a doctor/have a procedure done as quickly as I can now.
I'm all for people getting quality health care that can't pay for insurance, but I shouldn't be penalized to make that happen. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -71/+154Excellent - then we can then be just like Canada and have average wait times of 32 weeks for neurosurgery (it's just your brain, after all) and 41 weeks for orthopedic surgery (being on crutches for 10 months isn't THAT bad).
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753 - AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+90Universal health care has its pros and cons. On the one hand, people without insurance often wait until they need to go to the ER, often with an ailment that could have been treated for far less at the onset. Waiting and getting worse, then requiring emergency services, costs a lot more. But the downside is that it will cost more.
The people LEAST likely to be insured in any way, in my experience, are the middle class people who make too much to qualify for Medi-Cal (Medicaid on most states), but not enough to afford private insurance. So those who stand to gain are the WORKING class.
My mother is a nurse who falls into this category. Last summer she nearly died because she couldn't afford to see a doctor and, when she finally went to the ER, was told she was expected to DIE. Worse, she couldn't afford the medications prescribed to her. This is a nurse working 48 hours per week to help others get better, and what was there for her? No, nurses aren't paid nearly as much as people usually think.
Every single one of her eight siblings and every single one of their 30+ children and grandchildren are on Medi-Cal. None work. All can see doctors when they want to, and all can get meds (which they usually sell on the street for drug money).
Every single person I know without insurance is working. They'd be better off not working and having no income if ill. A lot of them would be hesitant to go to a doctor, even if they had universal health care, as they can't easily afford time off from work.
Actually, if people had the ability to go see a doctor for preventive treatments and at the onset of illness, then the cost would be a lot lower so that, even if more people went, the cost would not be substantially higher. For the cost of a single ER visit, several people could see a doctor before a condition gets really bad.
However, I believe that ONLY those who work at least part time (most students don't work full time) and contribute via taxes (and the disabled and elderly who paid their whole lives) should qualify. Those who choose to leach off the system should get nothing. You get out of this only if you put into it.
It was so angering and frustrating that my mother and I pay dearly in taxes, yet her lazy siblings are the ones who get to see doctors. We pay for them to see doctors while she can't afford it. How ***** up is this?
Oh, and get this - Medi-Cal will pay for fertility treatments. Private insurance doesn't even do that. Yet those on Medi-Cal are very likely to also be on Welfare. Yay! Let's help Welfare moms have MORE children so they get MORE Welfare! But screw the nurse who works.
***** up. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -29/+69Great, none of those have to do with health care availability - they have to do with lifestyle and genetics.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+52"The competitive, capitalist nature of the current healthcare system favors the rich over the poor. If you can't afford to pay for an operation, you're either left to die or you're made even poorer."
That's really not true. The US has hundreds of charity and teaching hospitals that are required to help even those without health insurance. Sure, you're not going to be getting a $1,000 MRI the next day or having the most highly esteemed surgeon doing your knee operation, but you will get treated. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -56/+88I live in the UK where the National Health Service has provided free healthcare for over 50 years, irrespective if you can afford it or not. It's by no means perfect, but not having state-provided healthcare is an affront to your human rights, in my opinion.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40You, me, and everybody that works. It is funny though how people confuse health "insurance" with health "care." Just because you don't have insurance doesn't mean you can't goto a hospital - they are obligated to treat you. It should also be noted that a large percentage of the "uninsured" are uninsured by choice - in fact, many of them being 18-35 year olds with jobs.
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36Diagnosing Our Health Care Woes
by Ron Paul:
No one disputes the diagnosis: American health care is in lousy shape. As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I find the pervasiveness of managed care very troubling.
The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free” universal health care.
One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.
As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
September 26, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
(yes, he is running for president; wake up and stop fueling the Obama drama) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -51/+80"Americans aged 55 to 64 are up to twice as likely to suffer from diabetes, lung cancer and high blood pressure as English people of the same age." (from UK source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4965034.stm and from US source http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/05.02.html)
The English have universal, public health care, complete with vicious waiting lists. We don't. They're healthier. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33You know, Canada has a private health care system too. You don't feel like waiting so the government will pay your tab? Go to a private hospital and pay for it yourself. There are other options.
- IMnotCIA, on 10/12/2007, -24/+49If we stopped invading foreign countries it might free up some cash.
I don't know, just an idea... - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32The real question is..will I be able to cancel my health insurance or does this just mean Im supposed to pay for other peoples' health coverage *in addition* to my own? Paying for health insurance is already tough on most of us in the middle class, this will only increase the burden.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28You do know that you pay taxes for public education even if you don't have any children in the public school system.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28"I never seen the state help me."
You mean you've never driven on state highways? You mean the only power company in your area can charge you whatever they'd like for the electricity that is powering your computer?
The current federal government may be more brute than friend but you must admit that some of life's conveniences are due to the actions and support of the government. To claim that government has never done anything for you is just silly. - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29you know what a doctor wanted to charge me when i had an ulcer?
3,500 dollars US, just to tell me i had an ulcer & acid reflux and he told me to take Prilosec OTC, i took his advise for the Prilosec and he never got a penny out of me for the outrageous pricetag, if he charged me a modest hundred bucks or two i would have gladly paid him, but since he was being such a crook then to hell with him... - FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22"You guys are arguing with EACH OTHER. Did any of you even read the article?"
Articles are not to be read. Articles provide, often wildly inaccurate, titles for submissions. And titles become touchpoints for discussion and that's all you need
I could probably submit an article that says "Mac iPhone to have 50% market share in 1 year" or "Secret report says Bush knew there were no WMDs" and link them to 127.0.0.1 and get 300 diggs in 15 minutes - JimMessenger, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Who's going to pay for this?
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23No, what it means is that if you can afford it, you can have private health care and get seen much quicker. But if you don't have any health insurance, then you can still get treated, slow is better than none.
Seems like a much better system to me. - limbo1334, on 10/12/2007, -60/+74"I live in the UK where the National Health Service has provided free healthcare for over 50 years, irrespective if you can afford it or not. It's by no means perfect, but not having state-provided healthcare is an affront to your human rights, in my opinion."
Why is it an affront to human rights? Why should the government provide everything for you? - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@ siszam,
"Basically, we have a bunch of people who need to be dragged, kicking and screaming,..."
No, what you have is a bunch of people who have to be robbed, at gunpoint, to pay for something they don't want.
Medical service in the US has been increasingly regulated by government for more than a century. It is a Big Lie that the US has anything like a "free market" in health care.
Government says who can and cannot be a doctor. Who can and cannot prescribe medicines. Who can and cannot treat injuries or provide care, and increasingly what treatments are allowed and not allowed at all. And those regulations change randomly in addition to being arbitrarily enforced, something doctors have to be very aware of when trying to treat patients with chronic pain (for example).
Insurance is also a highly regulated, by the Fed.gov and 50 different states, meaning that if an idea _can_ work, it may very well not be _allowed_ to go into practice.
It is government interference in medical care that has created the problems that politicians claim they want to solve.... with more government interference. A predictable pattern. - Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If you really don't want the wait times. I suggest you buy your own private healthcare insurance so you don't have to wait in line. That's what I do in Canada. If you don't have the patience to wait...money talks...
- Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Educating a nation's youth is a bad thing? I swear all the crackpots hang out on online discussion forums. Caring for the sick? COMMUNISM!!!
- pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I like how you cite "The Fraser Institute". That's nothing but a corporate think tank bent on turning everything over to the private sector.
These health care spending numbers are from the WHO, in US dollars from 2003.
US per capita spending: $5,711
Canada per capita spending: $2,669
So, the US (government + private sector) spends more then twice that of Canada. Now look at the government involvement:
US government per capita spending: $2,548
US government percent of total spending: 45%
Canada government per capita spending: $1,866
Canada government percent of total spending: 70%
So when you look at that, the Canadian government takes on 56% more of the costs, yet STILL ends up paying about 27% less.
Sure, you're triaged, but you can't argue with those cost savings. My step mother recently died from cancer in Canada after a long battle. She had nothing but the best treatment as far as I or anyone else can tell. You may wait for a hip, but you get chemo immediately. - cramd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19The worst part of our (Canadian) health care is that it is created to be equally bad for everyone. In Vancouver a private hospital tried to open up and the liberal Vancouver population caused it to close down, or stop offering any for-pay services saying that it was not fair that people with money could "buy" better health care. What a load of crap! As one with money I can afford to also drink bottled water. Should this right be taken away from me as well, because I have money and can afford to drink bottled water while others can't?
The main thing that people here are not getting is that if I pay to go in for surgery, and go to a private hospital, I am one less person waiting in line in front of others for free surgery. My paying for surgery helps them in many ways; tax is paid on my surgery (not paid for with tax dollars), and I am again one less person clogging the halls of our public hospitals.
I mean it would be nice if everyone could afford top notch health care, but it would also be nice if it rained gum drops, and unicorns danced on my windowsill as I fell asleep.
Free health care is good just DON"T let them take a way your right to pay for better health care! - neave, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19"Socialism is why European countries have a MUCH lower standard of living than we in the U.S."
I beg to differ. The standard of living in Europe varies from rich to poor across countries as much as it does across the States. Western Europe has some of the highest living standards in the world.
I think the biggest reason why the US is scared of adopting a so-called 'socialist' healthcare system isn't because it's 'socialist' but because they have no trust in their government. - longboarder543, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20This is not rocket science people. If you take the same number of people (working people), who are all paying for their own healthcare in a private system, and flip a switch, and all of a sudden they're paying for everyone else as well, then the average quality of care will go down for everyone. It IS a socialist system, remember, everyone is equal, equally poor, but equal. Healthcare will be no different. Government-funded healthcare = universally poorer healthcare, there is no disputing the numbers. A private system, like our current one, is not perfect, but you make exceptions for the disabled (who cannot work), and you offer assistance to the poor, including free care at one of the many charity hospitals around the nation. Someone find me an example where the government runs an industry more efficiently than a competitive market. There isn't one.
- limbo1334, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19"The only ***** arguing against insuring all Americans are those who have insurance already and in their greed they don't want to have to share."
Why should people share? People with health-insurance worked hard/smart to get into a profession that takes care of them. Don't blame people with health insurance because they are succesful. Blame the people without health insurance for not working hard/smart to get into a job that gives health insurance. - there, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16
I see the usual suspects blaming government for the state of health care. I'd have to agree government is to blame... although in this case I think the facts lend themselves to the idea that there needs to be MORE government intervention not less..
Some Canadians like to moan about their health care waiting times but what more of them should be happy about is how free medicine also results in preventative medicine and significant cost savings to them. The Canadian government is far more involved in healthcare than our halfbaked system of private HMOs... and yet they pay less than HALF what we do, have better health metrics, and live a staggering 3 YEARS longer than we do. (and we have similar demographics) The same story is true of most of Europe and Japan.
In fact... our healthcare system has the LEAST intervention among industrialized first world countries and we also have the worse net health. (our health is comparable to Cuba actually)
Setting aside the ethics of the issue..... that's some pretty good reasons to create universal health care once and for all. Most of the foot draggers on this issue are idealogues that cherrypick facts so that every solution requires a round peg. They would say the moon was made of cheese if they their philosopher kings told to. Empirically minded people just look at the facts. Here they are the ones that matter.
------------------
Life expectancy at birth
------------------
#3 SOCIALIST Sweden: 73.3 years
#11 Canada: 72 years
#29 United States: 69.3 years (with Cuba not far behind at 68.3
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_lif_exp_at_bir_yea_tot_pop-expectancy-birth-years-total-population
------------------
Total public and private Health care funding per capita
------------------
#5 Canada: $2,535.00
#1 United States $4,631.00 per capita (by a wide margin over SOCIALIST Switzerland)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_ove_hea_per_percap-health-overall-performance-per-capita
I'm not sure I follow how less intervention by government is going to help the situation... when in reality first world nations with far more socialist approaches to medicine have consistently pwned us in healthcare metrics over the last few decades. - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -16/+26I never seen the state help me. I only seen the state steal my money calling it taxation, just like the mafia steal my money calling it protection. Why would they spend it better than I could spend it myself? Why wouldn't the choise of where I would spend my money be my own?
Government is organized force. Everything government does is done by force. So, yeah I don't like government and it is not helping me because I never seen anyone help anyone by pointing a gun in their face if they don't do as they order. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19What's the difference between dying whilst on a waiting list vs. dying because you can't afford to pay for an operation?
Waiting lists can be reduced. Poverty is a whole other problem entirely.
The US should adopt both private AND state-funded healthcare for those who can't afford it. - nicora, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"You do know that you pay taxes for public education even if you don't have any children in the public school system."
And public schooling in the US is such a shining tribute to that methodology isn't it? - deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19I don't get it. People bitch and moan that if we get universal health care. We'll have to wait a gazillion years to see a doctor. If we get universal heath care, we'll all have to see mediocre doctors. And the excuses go on and on. But it's all *****. If you don't want to wait on line like the rest of us then pay for a private doctor. If you think that the doctors suck, then again get the doctor that you wish to have. No one is demanding that you could only go to a universal health care doctor. Now if you can't afford to see a private doctor, the STFU and get on line.
It's just like the police. I don't get to pick and choose the police department or it's officers as my security. I get what the government gives me because of my taxes. If I don't feel that it's not enough security or adequate then I could choose to hire my own security in addition. If I can't afford my own security then I got to STFU and be happy with the police that I get.
Pretty much every other industrial nation has universal health care. We don't. And you want to know why? Because the day that happens all the health insurance companies will go out of business. Large pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip us off like they do. Because now they will have to negotiate with the government like they do in Canada. You think that they are going to allow for that gravy train to go away. Not in a million years. In addition, they push propaganda to simple minded people that life would be miserable with universal health care.
Then people bitch about how much it would cost us. We would be spending trillions of dollars, etc, etc. More *****. George W. Bush started this war with Iraq and reports show that we are going to spend over 1 trillion dollars for it. Why isn't anyone bitching about that? Why is it that we seem to have money for that but not for universal health care?
So if it's good for ...
•Austria
•Belgium
•Brazil
•Canada
•Denmark
•Finland
•France
•Germany
•Greece
•Ireland
•Israel
•Italy
•Japan
•The Netherlands
•New Zealand
•Norway
•Poland
•Portugal
•Russia
•Saudi Arabia
•Seychelles
•South Korea
•Spain
•Sri Lanka
•Sweden
•Taiwan
•United Kingdom
Then it's good enough to the United States of America. Barack Obama is trying to do the right thing. That's why Barack Obama should become president in 2008. Go Obama! http://www.bobama.com - neave, on 10/12/2007, -37/+46@chriskzoo
True, but that's also why we're healthier than the US. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20Actually, lockstock, no holds barred universal health care would have cost us 1/3 of what the iraq war cost us last year alone.
PLUS: Bush has vowed universal health care for the Iraqi people. But somehow feels that American's don't deserve such care.
BONUS: Americans spend more per capita (and more as a whole) than any other country on health care, yet aren't even in the top ten in terms of health, service, or quality of care.
You're already paying too much for health care, but that system isn't going to fix itself, now, is it... - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Greed is good - that's what makes businesses innovate to put out a superior product to take marketshare away from competitors.
The reality is, the problems of healthcare costs can be solved with one simple law - transparency in the costs of medical services. Look at the medical services where costs are published - cosmetic surgery and eye surgery. Both areas have seen huge declines in price because they are part of the market economy. Now if we just started making public the cost of all surgeries and publishing how many surgeries of each type hospital are doing (the single best indicator of quality in healthcare), then we would make drastic strides in reducing costs. - spamly, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16How many other successful industrialized countries do not have health care? Hmm...
Stop spewing garbage about long lines in other countries. The truth is that if you have an emergency, you will be seen quickly. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but is it a better system for the American public as a whole?
Also, what's to stop employers from giving improved health benefits OVER standard government care?
Come on now. Let's work towards a solution instead of just pointing out problems - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Socialism is never the answer. It only leads to mediocrity for all. We can all agree that we need to get more people covered. Uninsured people still get treated, and the taxpayers already foot the bill. But I don't like my taxes to pay for other people's care. We just need to get more people covered. Our system is not broken, it just needs a little tune up.
Jron, that is exactly what the President's proposal would try to fix. Offering substantial tax incentives for people to buy their own insurance. - Axim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13wow probably the most ignorant comments i have seen yet on digg didn't realize you people were still scared of the 'commie socialists'
as per canada private clinics are shut down because they encourage (already understaffed) hospital personele to leave for the better paying private jobs leaving even less people to staff the public system. there is definitely a compromise to be met in the public system where paid incentives were offered depending on a hybrid performance / quantity scale so you wouldn't have doctors just pumping out patients for money, but ones that were accountable for the quality of service they provide while having financial incentives to do extra procedures.
i've been taking health policy, management, sociology, history of health, ethics, etc for four years now in university and hearing most of the arguments makes me afraid for the bulk of the american public. you want everything NOWNOWNOW but don't realize how ridiculously bad your health outcomes are statistically. anyone who isn't doing alright is forced to fend on their own, expensive procedures, checkups, all falls to the wayside as they are unable to afford the ridiculous bills. medicaid is a joke helps kids, nursing home patients and the disabled and the ridiculously poor (~10k/year for 3 family members) leaving a huge gap in service for those who need it.
and the best part with all this 'oh i'm not paying for some bums health bills' ***** is that you're already paying more than we are dumbasses. the us government spends $2548/person/year on healthcare while canada spends $1886. your administrative costs are higher and privately canadians spend $630/year in private care while americans spend a whopping $2719. that's 13.6% of your GDP vs 9.5% of ours.
so next time you have these knee jerk right wing reactions to socialist programs (that have been proven time and time again to work) how about you go against your instincts and maybe read a book or two on the subject. there's plenty of material trust me. - Jiffylush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You can wait in the emergency room for 6 hours right now
- nicora, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23BOOOOO for universal healthcare, unless we can chose to opt-out and avoid the extra taxes. I love the current insurance I have.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14You guys are arguing with EACH OTHER. Did any of you even read the article?
- nicora, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"The US should adopt both private AND state-funded healthcare for those who can't afford it."
so long as those who can afford it, don't have to pay for it. - dygel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I'll sign up for that, because as of this very moment I wouldn't get the neurosurgery at all.
- CableCarrier, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21Oh no, the government might provide my health care!
Seriously, how does that reduce more liberty than, say, wiretapping one's own citizens without a warrant? - kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8yeah only it is common practice for people who want better health care to get an American policy and come across the boarder for their medical needs.
- JohnP, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15"Socialism is never the answer. It only leads to mediocrity for all. We can all agree that we need to get more people covered. Uninsured people still get treated, and the taxpayers already foot the bill. But I don't like my taxes to pay for other people's care."
So why do many 'socialist' European countries have a better standard of living than the USA? Not to mention healthy economies...?
I think it comes down to the fact most Americans are selfish when it comes to money, it is their goal to be rich. Most European countries are aiming to make the world a nicer place to live and work, and richness is a side effect of our health and happiness. It sounds cheesy, but just look at how 'happie' EU policies are compared to the US. And we are proud to be how we are.
Americans basically think socilaism is evil because it costs them a few dollars a month. Its so sad. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6After dealing with the chaos that is American health care billing(went in last August for a checkup, $600 later there is a mountain of paperwork and no one understands everything that went on), it couldn't be any worse In fact, the VA provides the country's most error-free prescription drug program and it is run by the government. It can work if done right - medicare isn't done right. It provides a blank check to doctors hence why medical costs have shot up. The good with with universal coverage is it prevents people from staying at jobs they dislike and being inefficient just because they want to keep health coverage.
One thing that must change is - illegal immigration.
You cannot have universal healthcare and immigration as we know it, you must choose universal healthcare or open border immigration, they are mutually exclusive. - Piglith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Maybe clean up some of the existing Health Care. Start auditing the books and check up on doctors who are requesting tests that are not needed in order to receive more money. Crack down on the drug companies charging bloated amounts for their drugs and require them to do more research.
Clean up some of the social system that is paying for illegal immigrants health care and welfare.
Then "Our" health care system will cost less more people can afford it. - TB65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"The only ***** arguing against insuring all Americans are those who have insurance already and in their greed they don't want to have to share. "
I don't have it and I don't want it now. I also don't want to be forced to have it. I don't think it's right to force someone to provide for me or others, regardless of the product or service. As it stands now, no one is making people have no insurance, but universal care would force us to accept the government's health care. As far as not increasing our costs, you've got to be kidding. The bureaucracy inherent in government operations always increases the costs.
If you want to reduce the costs of health care in the U.S. you need to
1) Eliminate the AMA's monopoly power and allow for more medical student seats at medical schools.
2) Separate health insurance from the employer and have the end users pay for it.
3) Get rid of Medicare/Medicaid.
4) Eliminate HMO laws for businesses.
5) Replace the FDA with a private firm whose members don't have a conflict of interest with the drug makers.
6) Allow insurance companies to insure based on risk, not geographical location.
7) Stop increasing the money supply and causing prices to rise.
8) Allow multi-tier services. You don't need a doctor 95% of the time, a nurse can do just as well.
Popular? No. Effective? Yes. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I suppose, lordmetroid, that you pave your own roads, and have your own military to defend you, and if you need rescuing, you have your own fire department to take care of you. You have your own airplane, with its own radar system, and you also don't partake in any modern technology which was partly funded through government grants to research universities. You were home schooled, by parents who lived on a commune and provided everything for themselves. You've never bought anything that traveled by rail or ship, and you've never used the internet.
Yeah, you've never gotten ***** from government. -
Show 51 - 100 of 424 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is