Probably something minor. There are some hospitals that charge $1000 for a toothbrush, $100 for a single pill of over the counter strength Tylenol.

That reminds me, I got my hospital bill the other day. For my lovely two night stay, the bill was $75,000. Luckily I have double health coverage.

 

The ambulance ride was $1700.

Wow, what did they do to you for that much?

 

I was in surgery for about 2 hours to get a rod put in my leg.

But you get marginally better service than universal healthcare. And, I should certainly hope, margaritas in the ambo.

But you get marginally better service than universal healthcare.

 

 

How the hell do you pretend to know this? Show me another UHC that covers 300+ MILLION people and then we can compare apples to apples.

Conjecture, I am sure. We won't know for certain until we do place UHC for 300+ million people. I don't see why we couldn't give it a try for 5 years. If it doesn't work out then let it expire and try something else. You do hit a very good point, Gorgon. This country is too big. Too many different ideologies, too many people thinking there was is the only best way, just too many people.

 

IThat is why I think that it would be best to break up the US into smaller nations.

Edited March 2, 201015 yr by Killian Kalthorne

IThat is why I think that it would be best to break up the US into smaller nations.

First time I'm agreeing with the Psycho Been.

Break up the nation into 13 nation states, each with there own militaries, government, and whatnot. Have a singular currency, like the EU's Euro, and a joint defense force. That could work.

I for one don't want to be part of the Euro, and am very glad the USA is big enough to back us up occasionally. Even if it is always in the lavatory or something for the first couple of years of our fights.

 

Sorry, that's a bit scattershot, isn't it? Bloody brain.

The prblem is that there are way too many ideologies being played about inside the US. People are yelling and screaming and ready to fight. The US is on the verge of civil war and its not going to be as clear cut as North versus South. There will be many differing ideological fronts and each will be at each other's throat.

We just need the Feds to mind their own business more. Individual states are perfectly capable of implementing whatever utopian socialist welfare state they want.

The prblem is that there are way too many ideologies being played about inside the US. People are yelling and screaming and ready to fight. The US is on the verge of civil war

 

 

hahaha

The prblem is that there are way too many ideologies being played about inside the US. People are yelling and screaming and ready to fight. The US is on the verge of civil war and its not going to be as clear cut as North versus South. There will be many differing ideological fronts and each will be at each other's throat.

 

I would argue that mishmash of ideologies is your strength, and your national character. As, unfortunately, is the attempt by various sections to homogenise the whole. An impossible, and pernicious effort.

Within 5 to 10 years I expect a fist fighting in our Congress. Within 20 to 30, civil war.

Within 5 to 10 years I expect a fist fighting in our Congress. Within 20 to 30, civil war.

 

Well, its not impossible that we may be shooting at each other again at some point but I'd say it is very very very very very very unlikely.

 

It is, however, very much within the realm of possibility that the US might break into two or three pieces in the next 50-100 years. It is already being discussed in Texas and Oklahoma, and many people there and elsewhere are VERY alarmed at the way the federal goverment is seizing more and more power and usurping powers Contitutionally delegated to the States with no consequence. I really doubt it will happen but it is a distinct possibility.

Within 5 to 10 years I expect a fist fighting in our Congress. Within 20 to 30, civil war.

 

Well, its not impossible that we may be shooting at each other again at some point but I'd say it is very very very very very very unlikely.

 

It is, however, very much within the realm of possibility that the US might break into two or three pieces in the next 50-100 years. It is already being discussed in Texas and Oklahoma, and many people there and elsewhere are VERY alarmed at the way the federal goverment is seizing more and more power and usurping powers Contitutionally delegated to the States with no consequence. I really doubt it will happen but it is a distinct possibility.

 

lol, you're such a dramatic alarmist.

The US has faced much bigger divisive issues in its history than health care. Maybe we just need to let the politicians duel it out with pistols again.

Agreed.

 

Aaron Burr! WE NEED YOU!

 

*Killian sings once more*

 

Hey, Aaron Burr. Where are you?

We got some shooting to do now!

Aaron! Aaron Burr!

Hey, Aaron Burr! Where are you?!?!?

Edited March 4, 201015 yr by Killian Kalthorne

The US has faced much bigger divisive issues in its history than health care. Maybe we just need to let the politicians duel it out with pistols again.

Besides, Americans are united in not wanting Obamacare. Even Massachussets.

The US has faced much bigger divisive issues in its history than health care. Maybe we just need to let the politicians duel it out with pistols again.

Besides, Americans are united in not wanting Obamacare. Even Massachussets.

If you believe Fox.

There is no one political issue that can break up the USA. Ever, no way no how. There is however, a gargantuan philisophical issue at the heart of most of our political issues that can and ulitmately will. One school of thought wants a small federal government that does little with the majority of the political power decentralized to the State capitals. Such a society would be diverse and the individual citizen would be afforded the maximum amount of liberty and control over their own lives. The other favors a strong central government with weak or non existant state governments. In this society the federal government would control every aspect of the lives of it's citizens and individual rights would be subordinated to "collective rights".

 

These two visions are mutually exclusive and the proponents of each are natural enemies to each other. That is the root cause of whatever upheaval, political or actual is coming in our future.

 

Edit: I realize most people fall somewhere between these two ideas but we have reached a point in our history where every vote cast serves to empower one of these ideals or the other. The individual candidate does not matter near so much as what political ideology he caucasuses with. The sooner everyone realizes that the better.

Edited March 4, 201015 yr by Guard Dog

Politicians will bemoan the whole big government all day long to get votes, but they don't really want small government. That is their meal ticket. We've been having these same arguments since the Article of Confederation and I just don't see any dramatic changes on the horizon. It's all posturing.

You're right, Democrats used to be "tax and spend" and Republicans "borrow and spend". Now it's "tax and borrow and spend even more".

You're right, Democrats used to be "tax and spend" and Republicans "borrow and spend". Now it's "tax and borrow and spend even more".

 

You eat FOX breakfast cereal, don't you?

Maybe all the republicans should move to one side of the country, the democrats on the other. Ralph Nader can have Alaska.

Maybe all the republicans should move to one side of the country, the democrats on the other. Ralph Nader can have Alaska.

 

Ideologically speaking, Ralph Nader would probably take Hawai'i, actually.