The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

One does not qualify for medicare, or medicaid, until after being crushed by the economic burden of health care. And social security will not meet the health care need of the elderly by itself. Every one I know on government health-care loves it. No one I've ever met found it unsatisfactory or impractical and, besides without it they would have NOTHING. And, many people I know do not have any health care coverage, because they slip through the cracks.
You know who has cheap health care? Canada and the UK, both of whose health-care costs per person are below ours.   See 49 other replies

I think they are all regulated equally. Why do you think they are not?   See 49 other replies

Those factors are true for all medical services. The major difference is they are not typically covered by insurance and are subject to less regulatory scrutiny.   See 49 other replies

Cosmetic surgery and lasik became cheaper because of improved technology, improved techniques, and an increase in demand.   See 49 other replies

"Or we can work to prevent euthanasia by provide universal health insurance so no one will ever be crushed by the economic burden of taking care of their elderly parents."Ok... the seniors do have universal healcare coverage in the form of medicare, medicaid, and Social Security. The reason people go broke supporting their parents, is because they find government healthcare to be unsatifactory or impractical. I don't see how expanding this system to ruin healthcare for more people is better. The best option is to allow people to get insurance that meets their needs. Insurance companies must adjust their pricing due to pressures from the government. If the government did not create so many hassles for insurance companies and healthcare providers, healthcare would be cheaper. Look at cosmetic suregeury and lasek... it has gotten cheaper and better in part because of fewer restrictions imposed by insurance and government.   See 49 other replies

I don't get your point Jack J. You used the word "baby" as if people who have abortions are killing babies. This is a pretty rough accusation. It implies that fetuses are always babies, in other words, living, human beings. But I would argue that fetuses are not always babies. An embryo is not a baby. And then we get into a gray area. That is the area we are trying to talk about. I don't know the science here, particularly, but a 2 month old fetus is not 2 month old baby.If you want to argue that a fertilized egg is essentially a human baby, we could talk about that. Yes I have deep problems with last trimester abortion, as does Roe V. Wade. I do not think it is a common thing. If the mother's life is at stake it may be a necessary choice.   See 49 other replies

Really? By "part" of the mother, I mean a part of her body. Is that what you are meaning also?   See 49 other replies