Hardly. Health care provided by government stifles innovation, lowers the quality of care, increases the cost overall, and is rife with corruption. It only works a little outside the US because we pay higher prices to make up for the innovators losing money elsewhere. You might like your government health care, but good luck if you need a kidney or other serious procedure. The wait times are much longer for the Brits and Canadians than for us. Even to see a specialist. The screw the poor thing is a logic fault, straw man. That's not at all my sentiments. I want health care to be cheap enough that very few people need a subsidy to pay for it.
Kansas. LOL. I sent my kid to a catholic school, even though we aren't religious. The tuition was 1/2 what public school spends per pupil, and almost all the kids went to college after.
Realclearpolitics posts articles, pro then con, about various topics of the day. I don't get my news from morons on twitter. And I don't focus on sharing right wing opinions. I already addressed your Kansas nonsense. Teachers fuck up the whole system because they fight all reasonable changes. Especially choice and the ability to fire the bad ones. Why are you anti choice? Can't easily fire these ones. They get paid right up to the time they go to jail. Pretty much. The sheer number of these stories should concern people who care. Do you?
Really, you think teachers having sex with students is the big issue with education? What percentage of teachers do you think do that? barfo
I think it's criminal, and certainly an ethical/moral challenge for the system. It's not just the sheer numbers of terrifying actions by these teachers, it's how difficult it is to get rid of them. And teachers who just aren't very good at the job. What's hurting education is silly regulations and lack of competition. We don't let black children choose to go to the good white schools.
I do not understand the idea that government needs to be involved in health care at all. The idea needs to be to reduce the layers between health care providers (doctors, nurses, labs, etc.) and the patient, not increase them. Also, what we call health "insurance" is a misnomer. Insurance isn't for predictable expenses, it's for unexpected expenses. Why are checkups and recurring prescriptions insured? Finally, the entire industry needs to harness the power of the market. Why shouldn't hospitals/doctors be able to compete on price? Good effing riddance to this ridiculous law.
Pick fights? Thats rich coming from the left who want to STAND TOUGH to RUSSIA. Get outta here... LOL If you love it so much, fund it then, and stop making American tax payers pay for it. Oh, but you wont. You guys are full of shit.
Perhaps. But over all, these awards don't really help those that are harmed nearly as much as it simple adds ever continuing costs to the healthcare system. No one should be taking a drug and assume there is no risk. The FDA is suppose to be there to prevent bad drugs coming on the market but we know that is an impossible task so beware. Take the Drug when you know bad shit will happen if you don't. If it gives you cancer, then some other bad shit happen. Bad luck? A large pay off won't help you, it's just another hit to the system your countrymen need to help them, hopefully more successfully.
Again, I think this is so unrealistic and simplistic. Juries don't just give million dollar awards for no reason. Say for instance a child chokes on an umbilical cord during birth and is deformed, due to a Dr's negligence. What will be the costs to the family for raising that child? How much would that child have made for their life? What is the value of all of the pain and suffering? All of a sudden you have a multi-million dollar verdict, and it sure isn't about adding costs to the healthcare system. The same analysis applies if someone gets killed or ill or deformed from a drug that had known side-effects (by the pharmaceutical co.) The award compensates the victim and the family for real damage. Yes, the FDA is supposed to protect the public, but it's not infallable. And companies hide bad findings. All the individual has against these giant corporations and all of their money is a lone plaintiff's lawyer, ready to take the bastards on.
Again, the basis of what I am saying and what the law compensates for is when someone takes a drug not knowing it is dangerous, but the company does or should know. That is rightly compensable.
So I guess we have no right to police or fire protection, because that would make the police and firemen slaves? Seems like a stupid point to make. Like the girl behind Rand seems to be thinking. barfo
Firefighters apply for the job and accept the terms of compensation. They're not conscripted into the job. Seems like another naive post by you.
Existing doctors would be forced to become slaves. In the future, the smartest and best of the best will become lawyers instead. Your ideas are not very good. That's why your kind me have been losing most elections everywhere.
Doesn't it embarrass you to make such silly claims? Obviously doctors are not slaves, they could either find a new line of work, retire, or ply their chosen trade outside of the system, serving people who want faster/better care than the government system provides. Uh, doesn't that mean your ideas are really awful? Your kind has never won elections anywhere. barfo
