Medicare for all would save $450 billion and 68,000 lives every year.

[Oddball]

Given we have the most expensive healthcare in the world now, it's hard to believe the costs wouldn't be less.

Same question: When has a monopoly ever delivered a superior product at a low cost?

 

[Sunni Man]

Are you relinquishing your title?

Great comeback!! ... .

 

[Oddball]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

You didn't get the memo that gubmint monopolies are totally cheap and deliver the bestest products and service evah?

As long as Donald Trump and his spawn are not shoveling taxpayer money into their pockets.

Still not an answer the original question.

 

[Denizen]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

Well.... today's drop outs are today's abortionists. By tomorrow they can do spinal surgery.

Thanks for sharing your experience with abortions and spinal surgery.

 

[Denizen]

Lots of well-researched rebuttals to the OP posted here.

Back of public toilet doors?

 

[bluzman61]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

You didn't get the memo that gubmint monopolies are totally cheap and deliver the bestest products and service evah?

As long as Donald Trump and his spawn are not shoveling taxpayer money into their pockets.

????????????????????..........................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....................????????????????

 

[Oddball]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

Evidently you are not a physician, engineer, or chemist. You're an Mc Donald's University graduate?

You didn't know that one of the best things you can have on a culinary management resume is attending Mc Donald's University, didja?

 

[bluzman61]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

???????????.....................??????????????

You didn't get the memo that gubmint monopolies are totally cheap and deliver the bestest products and service evah?

As long as Donald Trump and his spawn are not shoveling taxpayer money into their pockets.

????????????????????..........................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....................????????????????

I'm replying in code tonight to any inane posts, instead of making fun of them.

 

[francoHFW]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've always been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

I am sorry, that is wrong...……...unless you want to dictate what healthcare people are allowed to make.

If that is the case, then tell everyone for the good of the country, whatever you are in...……….you can only make what BERNARD says you can, and market forces have no sway in it.

Tell the doctors, tell the nurses, tell the specialists. YOU tell them that they are NOT free, and that they now work for whatever BERNIE decides they do.

And isn't that scenario, using the point of the government gun telling you to do what we say?

they already do and they're telling us we don't have any rights to health care and if we do it's really expensive because lobbyists. My father was a doctor who was for socialized medicine since 1940. All the other doctors are staunch Republicans and greedy doctors... They will survive just fine and we'll all have any mountain of paperwork at all anymore.the whole thing is just horribly intelligent so it's hard for Republicans to understand LOL. Like Canada but with millions of MRI machines etc etc

 

[bluzman61]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've always been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

I am sorry, that is wrong...……...unless you want to dictate what healthcare people are allowed to make.

If that is the case, then tell everyone for the good of the country, whatever you are in...……….you can only make what BERNARD says you can, and market forces have no sway in it.

Tell the doctors, tell the nurses, tell the specialists. YOU tell them that they are NOT free, and that they now work for whatever BERNIE decides they do.

And isn't that scenario, using the point of the government gun telling you to do what we say?

they already do and they're telling us we don't have any rights to health care and if we do it's really expensive because lobbyists. My father was a doctor who was for socialized medicine since 1940. All the other doctors are staunch Republicans and greedy doctors... They will survive just fine and we'll all have any mountain of paperwork at all anymore.the whole thing is just horribly intelligent so it's hard for Republicans to understand LOL. Like Canada but with millions of MRI machines etc etc

????????????...................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>???????

 

[Indeependent]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've always been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

I am sorry, that is wrong...……...unless you want to dictate what healthcare people are allowed to make.

If that is the case, then tell everyone for the good of the country, whatever you are in...……….you can only make what BERNARD says you can, and market forces have no sway in it.

Tell the doctors, tell the nurses, tell the specialists. YOU tell them that they are NOT free, and that they now work for whatever BERNIE decides they do.

And isn't that scenario, using the point of the government gun telling you to do what we say?

they already do and they're telling us we don't have any rights to health care and if we do it's really expensive because lobbyists. My father was a doctor who was for socialized medicine since 1940. All the other doctors are staunch Republicans and greedy doctors... They will survive just fine and we'll all have any mountain of paperwork at all anymore.the whole thing is just horribly intelligent so it's hard for Republicans to understand LOL. Like Canada but with millions of MRI machines etc etc

I presume you passed physics and organic chemistry?
Why didn’t you follow in your father’s footsteps?

 

[Indeependent]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've always been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

I am sorry, that is wrong...……...unless you want to dictate what healthcare people are allowed to make.

If that is the case, then tell everyone for the good of the country, whatever you are in...……….you can only make what BERNARD says you can, and market forces have no sway in it.

Tell the doctors, tell the nurses, tell the specialists. YOU tell them that they are NOT free, and that they now work for whatever BERNIE decides they do.

And isn't that scenario, using the point of the government gun telling you to do what we say?

they already do and they're telling us we don't have any rights to health care and if we do it's really expensive because lobbyists. My father was a doctor who was for socialized medicine since 1940. All the other doctors are staunch Republicans and greedy doctors... They will survive just fine and we'll all have any mountain of paperwork at all anymore.the whole thing is just horribly intelligent so it's hard for Republicans to understand LOL. Like Canada but with millions of MRI machines etc etc

????????????...................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>???????

You’re making more sense than franks with fries.

 

[Oddball]

Given we have the most expensive healthcare in the world now, it's hard to believe the costs wouldn't be less.

Your belief isn't an answer.

 

[Denizen]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

Evidently you are not a physician, engineer, or chemist. You're an Mc Donald's University graduate?

How many physicians do you know personally?
Or medical students?
I’m betting zero.

Irrelevant.

 

[Indeependent]

This is a giant slap in the face for Donald Trump and the GOP who are fighting against universal health care.

It is evident without conducting studies that universal health care will save on administration costs and the savings are costed at up to $ 2 trillion in some studies.

Furthermore, this is without the power a monolithic medical system would have on drug costs and other costs.

Goodbye Donald Trump, you are on the wrong side of health care.

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money

22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money
BY DIANE ARCHER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/24/20 08:30 AM EST

The evidence abounds: A "Medicare for All" single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration. ...

Let us know how your physicians feel about this study.
It’s gonna be cool when today’s high school dropouts become tomorrow’s physicians; not to mention engineers and chemists.

Evidently you are not a physician, engineer, or chemist. You're an Mc Donald's University graduate?

How many physicians do you know personally?
Or medical students?
I’m betting zero.

Irrelevant.

Zero...I knew it.

 

[Denizen]

Given we have the most expensive healthcare in the world now, it's hard to believe the costs wouldn't be less.

Same question: When has a monopoly ever delivered a superior product at a low cost?

The monopolies and oligopolies driving small farmers out of business must be doing something right if agricultural prices are so low small farmers can't compete.

Are they actually benefiting small farmers by driving them out of business in a business where they are making less than the minimum wage for their labor?

 

[Jackson]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

I don't believe any of the costs that Bernie has given. All of the cost of the free this and that would jist bankrupt this country. He can' t even give the costs himself.

 

[bluzman61]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've always been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

I am sorry, that is wrong...……...unless you want to dictate what healthcare people are allowed to make.

If that is the case, then tell everyone for the good of the country, whatever you are in...……….you can only make what BERNARD says you can, and market forces have no sway in it.

Tell the doctors, tell the nurses, tell the specialists. YOU tell them that they are NOT free, and that they now work for whatever BERNIE decides they do.

And isn't that scenario, using the point of the government gun telling you to do what we say?

they already do and they're telling us we don't have any rights to health care and if we do it's really expensive because lobbyists. My father was a doctor who was for socialized medicine since 1940. All the other doctors are staunch Republicans and greedy doctors... They will survive just fine and we'll all have any mountain of paperwork at all anymore.the whole thing is just horribly intelligent so it's hard for Republicans to understand LOL. Like Canada but with millions of MRI machines etc etc

????????????...................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>???????

You’re making more sense that franks with fries.

And the code is only known to me. It makes absolutely NO sense, but that's the point.......

 

[Oddball]

Given we have the most expensive healthcare in the world now, it's hard to believe the costs wouldn't be less.

Same question: When has a monopoly ever delivered a superior product at a low cost?

The monopolies and oligopolies driving small farmers out of business must be doing something right if agricultural prices are so low small farmers can't compete.

Are they actually benefiting small farmers by driving them out of business in a business where they are making less than the minimum wage for their labor?

Not an answer.

BTW, those farm oligopolies are the primary beneficiaries of subsidies and other regulatory benefits generally not available to the family farmer.

You really suck at this.

 

[Indeependent]

It's hard to agree with Bernie and the Democrats on many things these days, but universal healthcare and eliminating the health insurance racket has always been one I've always been on board with.

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.

In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.

Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

A voice of reason from the true left....my friend Lee Camp.

I am sorry, that is wrong...……...unless you want to dictate what healthcare people are allowed to make.

If that is the case, then tell everyone for the good of the country, whatever you are in...……….you can only make what BERNARD says you can, and market forces have no sway in it.

Tell the doctors, tell the nurses, tell the specialists. YOU tell them that they are NOT free, and that they now work for whatever BERNIE decides they do.

And isn't that scenario, using the point of the government gun telling you to do what we say?

they already do and they're telling us we don't have any rights to health care and if we do it's really expensive because lobbyists. My father was a doctor who was for socialized medicine since 1940. All the other doctors are staunch Republicans and greedy doctors... They will survive just fine and we'll all have any mountain of paperwork at all anymore.the whole thing is just horribly intelligent so it's hard for Republicans to understand LOL. Like Canada but with millions of MRI machines etc etc

????????????...................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>???????

You’re making more sense that franks with fries.

And the code is only known to me. It makes absolutely NO sense, but that's the point.......

Damn you!
I will break the code!