DarrenWright

Here are the flaws in these assumptions. 1. Taking guns away is a fundamental violation of our Constitution. 2. A gun-control program respectful of the Constitution will not necessarily bring down the cost. As Canada has shown, it resulted in an extremely expensive program that took years to finally prove itself ineffective.

I am surprised. There are a lot of jobs in Atlanta. I was hired over the phone, and have been at my job for almost two years. It's a nice enough place to work. This hospital would likely be very accomodating to your school schedule, and it's right across the street from Emory. http://www.choa.org/default.aspx?id=2379

I live in Atlanta. There are lot's of apartments, and more being built. With the recent subprime issue, unfortunately, the migration of people from homes to apartments has driven up rent a bit; my last rent increase was 7%. I pay $1028/month (plus utilities), for an 860 sq ft apartment in a gated complex about 2.5 miles from Emory U. It's a nice apt. and a great area. Given the horrendous traffic conditions during the AM commute into Atlanta AND the current local gas prices (~$4/gal), I believe it is worthwhile to pay a few extra dollars to live as close as possible to your job and school. If you are going to school at Emory, there are plenty of apartments nearby, and alternative travel arrangements (metro bus, CliffBus). The weather is very nice most of the time, so I ride a motorcycle, and scooters are becoming popular. I am planning on leaving Atlanta this fall, but if I were to stay, I would probably be getting an apartment here (http://www.gables.com/sheridan), brand spanking new apartments about 3 miles from Emory. Another complex (don't remember the name) is going up at the intersection of Lavista and Cheshire Bridge...nice complex, across the street from a Publix grocery, cool little coffee shop on site, easy access to the interstate, and maybe 4-5 miles to Emory. A little seedy a few miles southwest with some adult entertainment as you go toward Monroe (closer to downtown Atlanta), but safe as any other neighborhood. I'd consider moving there as well. You may try craigslist as well. Where will you be working?

It's only instructive if you tell the whole story; in the US, the patient reserves the right to sue the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and hospital into oblivion, while Germany first persues criminal charges in medical malpractice and rarely awards punitive awards...certainly not millions of dollars as in the US. If we implement this kind of practice in the US, Sheriff Joe will have to set up many more acres of tents to house the prison population explosion; more than a few RN's and physicians will be going to jail, and the victims would lose out on big settlements. Healthcare costs will soar even more because healthcare professionals are probably more afraid of jail than a successful tort and will usher in a whole new era of defensive medical practice. The shortage of people entering the healthcare field will exponentially increase, and the vicious cycle will only get more vicious. Besides, the liberal legislature opposes caps on awards.

You rather constructed your post in a manner that makes it appear that I made the above quote...which I didn't. I'm not criticizing you, I just think it's important to point out.

These same fundraisers are occurring in socialized countries like Canada.

You are confusing a tax surplus (which is the unethical hoarding of taxpayer money), with the national debt (which also grew under Clinton).

Thank you for this link; it's good to know that people covered by private insurance have fewer health problems than those covered by gov't insurance. Also good to know that gov't insured patients have more trouble accessing the health care system. Single payer is simply another problem, not a solution.

1. What question? You asked if I'd care to elaborate, and I did. 2. BlueCross did not deny anyone any rights by any legal definition. I'm being very straight in my comments. I have never said I found anything disdainful; I'm simply making observations about the definition of a "right." Especially as how it does not apply in the manner people are attempting in this discussion. So while you are insulting me, you need to realize that the denial of reimbursements and the denial of services is not some trait unique to private insurers and providers. It is also a routine practice of gov't payor programs and gov't providers. And the denial of services for financial reasons is no more a denial of a right than if I were to demand that the gov't either pay for my guns or provide me with guns and they said no; if this happened, would you suggest that I had been denied a right?

I want to live in a society that is not influenced by the half-truths, mis-representations, and outright lies of a person who uses these very issues to improperly influence people to react emotionally, and thereby enrich him.

1. Those folks were not denied any rights by any legislative body. And currently, there is more money allocated per disease capita on HIV/AIDS than there are for other more common diseases that take far more lives. Those folks may have been denied financial coverage, but they were never denied any rights, and some have gotten the point I was making; if you are going to blur the definition of "rights" with comparisons like this, then you are opening a huge can of problems where people are going to be demanding money based on this distorted view of "rights." 2. Of course insurance companies have "denial departments." Get this...so does Medicare and Medicaid...the gov't provided system. So does the Canadian payers system. Going single-payer/socialist does not suddenly make denial of claims obsolete. You may actually find denial of claims to increase. 3. Your final comments on the use of emergency dept's for primary access; in a "single-payer"/socialized system like Canada, they are not experiencing some phenomena where people are using primary care physicians instead of ED's because it's a single-payer system. Instead, their ED's are even more overwhelmed than ours because nearly 17% of the population does not have a PCP, and even some that do have a PCP can't get an appointment. Concluding, your comments really have nothing to do with a legislative right to health care, because what you are doing is defining a right to something as the same as being able to get it for free...and that is not defined as a right in our Constitution.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/ Just another film. People who feel enthusiastic about this issue are just as obligated to watch this much shorter film, "Dead Meat."

1. I took a break from this topic while others, including you, continued to post away. Additionally, I have already dropped this subject; your comment is insulting. BTW, engaging in a seque on the discussion is what ticked people off, so your comment about 'changing the subject' makes no sense. 2. Are you suggesting that I am a fanatic because I won't change my mind? Will you change yours? What does that make you?

Not sure how one kind of health care can be a right, and another can't. It doesn't matter if it's elective, such as cosmetic surgery...it should still be our right to pursue. I think people need to realize that having the "right" to access something or do something does not mean we are guaranteed free access. Remember my previous post; gun ownership is a right, but it doesn't mean the gov't buys our guns for us. The moment that health care becomes "free" simply because it's defined as a right according to some constitutional interpretation, that's the moment I exercise my same right to gun and property ownership and vacations (my pursuit of happiness) and submit my receipts for my new Glock and a lakefront villa. As it stands now, I have the right to my guns and property and vacations, but I still have to pay for them myself. Not sure how officially defining health care as a "right" will make it any different. Not sure how making only certain kinds of health care a "right" makes any sense.