Quantcast

The truth about Great Britain's Health care vs US care. Change or not?

Patriotic American 2009/08/15 18:50:29
Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
Screw America...LET GRANDMA DIE
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The brutal truth about America’s healthcare

An extraordinary report from Guy Adams in Los Angeles at the music arena that has been turned into a makeshift medical centre


Saturday, 15 August 2009
Share
Close
Diggdel.icio.usFacebookRedditGoogleStumble UponFarkNewsvineYahooBuzzBeboTwitterIndependent MindsPrintEmailText Size
NormalLargeExtra Large

GETTY IMAGES; AFP

The LA Forum in Inglewood, California, hosted dental and medical examinations, for thousands of people thanks to the charity Remote Area Medical.

More pictures
They came in their thousands, queuing through the night to secure one of the coveted wristbands offering entry into a strange parallel universe where medical care is a free and basic right and not an expensive luxury. Some of these Americans had walked miles simply to have their blood pressure checked, some had slept in their cars in the hope of getting an eye-test or a mammogram, others had brought their children for immunisations that could end up saving their life.


In the week that Britain's National Health Service was held aloft by Republicans as an "evil and Orwellian" example of everything that is wrong with free healthcare, these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood, California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

Related articles
•Leading article: The healthcare debate comes back across the Atlantic
•Christina Patterson: The big problem with the NHS isn't funding
•Rupert Cornwell: America needs to cool down
•Second MEP defies Cameron with NHS attack
•Stephen Foley: ObamaCare is bad news for Big Pharma
In the first two days, more than 1,500 men, women and children received free treatments worth $503,000 (£304,000). Thirty dentists pulled 471 teeth; 320 people were given standard issue spectacles; 80 had mammograms; dozens more had acupuncture, or saw kidney specialists. By the time the makeshift medical centre leaves town on Tuesday, staff expect to have dispensed $2m worth of treatments to 10,000 patients.

The gritty district of Inglewood lies just a few miles from the palm-lined streets of Beverly Hills and the bright lights of Hollywood, but is a world away. And the residents who had flocked for the free medical care, courtesy of mobile charity Remote Area Medical, bore testament to the human cost of the healthcare mess that President Obama is attempting to fix.

Christine Smith arrived at 3am in the hope of seeing a dentist for the first time since she turned 18. That was almost eight years ago. Her need is obvious and pressing: 17 of her teeth are rotten; some have large visible holes in them. She is living in constant pain and has been unable to eat solid food for several years.

"I had a gastric bypass in 2002, but it went wrong, and stomach acid began rotting my teeth. I've had several jobs since, but none with medical insurance, so I've not been able to see a dentist to get it fixed," she told The Independent. "I've not been able to chew food for as long as I can remember. I've been living on soup, and noodles, and blending meals in a food mixer. I'm in constant pain. Normally, it would cost $5,000 to fix it. So if I have to wait a week to get treated for free, I'll do it. This will change my life."

Along the hall, Liz Cruise was one of scores of people waiting for a free eye exam. She works for a major supermarket chain but can't afford the $200 a month that would be deducted from her salary for insurance. "It's a simple choice: pay my rent, or pay my healthcare. What am I supposed to do?" she asked. "I'm one of the working poor: people who do work but can't afford healthcare and are ineligible for any free healthcare or assistance. I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor."

Although the Americans spend more on medicine than any nation on earth, there are an estimated 50 million with no health insurance at all. Many of those who have jobs can't afford coverage, and even those with standard policies often find it doesn't cover commonplace procedures. California's unemployed – who rely on Medicaid – had their dental care axed last month.

Julie Shay was one of the many, waiting to slide into a dentist's chair where teeth were being drilled in full view of passers-by. For years, she has been crossing over the Mexican border to get her teeth done on the cheap in Tijuana. But recently, the US started requiring citizens returning home from Mexico to produce a passport (previously all you needed was a driver's license), and so that route is now closed. Today she has two abscesses and is in so much pain she can barely sleep. "I don't have a passport, and I can't afford one. So my husband and I slept in the car to make sure we got seen by a dentist. It sounds pathetic, but I really am that desperate."

"You'd think, with the money in this country, that we'd be able to look after people's health properly," she said. "But the truth is that the rich, and the insurance firms, just don't realise what we are going through, or simply don't care. Look around this room and tell me that America's healthcare don't need fixing."

President Obama's healthcare plans had been a central plank of his first-term programme, but his reform package has taken a battering at the hands of Republican opponents in recent weeks. As the Democrats have failed to coalesce around a single, straightforward proposal, their rivals have seized on public hesitancy over "socialised medicine" and now the chance of far-reaching reform is in doubt.

Most damaging of all has been the tide of vociferous right-wing opponents whipping up scepticism at town hall meetings that were supposed to soothe doubts. In Pennsylvania this week, Senator Arlen Specter was greeted by a crowd of 1,000 at a venue designed to accommodate only 250, and of the 30 selected speakers at the event, almost all were hostile.

The packed bleachers in the LA Forum tell a different story. The mobile clinic has been organised by the remarkable Remote Area Medical. The charity usually focuses on the rural poor, although they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Now they are moving into more urban venues, this week's event in Los Angeles is believed to be the largest free healthcare operation in the country.

Doctors, dentists and therapists volunteer their time, and resources to the organisation. To many US medical professionals, it offers a rare opportunity to plug into the public service ethos on which their trade was supposedly founded. "People come here who haven't seen a doctor for years. And we're able to say 'Hey, you have this, you have this, you have this'," said Dr Vincent Anthony, a kidney specialist volunteering five days of his team's time. "It's hard work, but incredibly rewarding. Healthcare needs reform, obviously. There are so many people falling through the cracks, who don't get care. That's why so many are here."

Ironically, given this week's transatlantic spat over the NHS, Remote Area Medical was founded by an Englishman: Stan Brock. The 72-year-old former public schoolboy, Taekwondo black belt, and one-time presenter of Wild Kingdom, one of America's most popular animal TV shows, left the celebrity gravy train in 1985 to, as he puts it, "make people better".

Today, Brock has no money, no income, and no bank account. He spends 365 days a year at the charity events, sleeping on a small rolled-up mat on the floor and living on a diet made up entirely of porridge and fresh fruit. In some quarters, he has been described, without too much exaggeration, as a living saint.

Though anxious not to interfere in the potent healthcare debate, Mr Brock said yesterday that he, and many other professionals, believes the NHS should provide a benchmark for the future of US healthcare.

"Back in 1944, the UK government knew there was a serious problem with lack of healthcare for 49.7 million British citizens, of which I was one, so they said 'Hey Mr Nye Bevan, you're the Minister for Health... go fix it'. And so came the NHS. Well, fast forward now 66 years, and we've got about the same number of people, about 49 million people, here in the US, who don't have access to healthcare."

"I've been very conservative in my outlook for the whole of my life. I've been described as being about 90,000 miles to the right of Attila the Hun. But I think one reaches the reality that something doesn't work... In this country something has to be done. And as a proud member of the US community but a loyal British subject to the core, I would say that if Britain could fix it in 1944, surely we could fix it here in America.

Healthcare compared

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

Source: WHO/OECD Health Data 2009
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • 519378 2009/08/16 03:03:56
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    519378
    +6
    Why does America pay the absolute top dollar for medical care, yet America ranks 37th in the world for quality of health care?
    i.e. US $7,290 vs UK $2,992 per person per year.

    http://www.photius.com/rankin...

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lurch 2010/03/09 17:30:31
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    Lurch
    health care reformwe voted change

    Stop with the factiness now, before I go...

    health care reformwe voted change factiness
  • dianne615 2009/08/25 13:59:13 (edited)
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    dianne615
    +2
    From the start of this dispute over healthcare anyone who has had to deal with HMO’s, should know the insurance companies and anyone who profit from our present healthcare system isn’t sell negativity on the behalf of the public’s welfare? Its fear people, the insurance companies are spending millions because they don’t want to loose billions/trillions in profit. I’ve read and heard many horror stories telling of the HMO compassion for Mr. and Ms. Public, holding judgment over human while they lay sick, injured or dying. The doctors on the broads of HMO’s play Gods without a thought to the people they’re sentencing to die. Well now the holders of life need the public and the insurance and there backers are pulling out all the scare tactics.


    <
  • JennyJen~Ballots~ Stronger ... 2009/08/25 10:53:09
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    JennyJen~Ballots~ Stronger Than Bullets
    +2
    No going back and no letting the right win. We are on the road and they can come along, like it or not. The liars and manipulators are only weaving their own webs. reformwe voted change letting win road liars manipulators weaving webs
  • Sir Bud. 2009/08/16 03:55:22 (edited)
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    Sir Bud.
    The NHS collapsed years ago when Thatcher got hold of it and its not free and isnt to be compared.Blair finished it almost off and Mr "Not Elected Prime Minister" Prime Minister Gordon Brown is more Conservative than Thatcher ever was.Blair too.Load of hypercritical toffee nosed elitists.Dont compare the British system of Health,the country with the fastest rising poverty in Europe and the highest Crime rate by three times than the worst in Europe to the USA,thats a farce!.The truth is that there is no Labour party anymore in England and the Conservatives arent an alternative either.There are few leaders in Britain who care about Britain more than they do then for themselves.There are a couple here and there and one is Tony Benn who is over 80 years old!.One of the few Political minds with his head screwed on.The Brits didnt even have medical Insurance Chip cards 4v years ago but were pressing for "cyber eye and thumb" passprts at 80 pounds each!.A one room bedsit costed 55 pounds a week in general then and wages are scaled according to your age!!.And a twenty year old was therefore earning generally about 60 pounds a week netto!!(cigs at 7 pounds a packet and a pint of beer 5 pounds!!).
    In Britain you pay bar at the Dentist whether private or on the NHS,just less with the NH...
    The NHS collapsed years ago when Thatcher got hold of it and its not free and isnt to be compared.Blair finished it almost off and Mr "Not Elected Prime Minister" Prime Minister Gordon Brown is more Conservative than Thatcher ever was.Blair too.Load of hypercritical toffee nosed elitists.Dont compare the British system of Health,the country with the fastest rising poverty in Europe and the highest Crime rate by three times than the worst in Europe to the USA,thats a farce!.The truth is that there is no Labour party anymore in England and the Conservatives arent an alternative either.There are few leaders in Britain who care about Britain more than they do then for themselves.There are a couple here and there and one is Tony Benn who is over 80 years old!.One of the few Political minds with his head screwed on.The Brits didnt even have medical Insurance Chip cards 4v years ago but were pressing for "cyber eye and thumb" passprts at 80 pounds each!.A one room bedsit costed 55 pounds a week in general then and wages are scaled according to your age!!.And a twenty year old was therefore earning generally about 60 pounds a week netto!!(cigs at 7 pounds a packet and a pint of beer 5 pounds!!).
    In Britain you pay bar at the Dentist whether private or on the NHS,just less with the NHS.And you still pay NHS contributions taken off your weekly wage!.I know as at the Dentist for example, I had to pay before I could even leave,after having a tooth yanked out after a strong local anesthesia, where the Dentist didnt even have any "suck Machine"to suck the blood out!.I had to spit the blood out every 30 seconds!!.Britain is not a just and competent country to compare with anything to do with the USA,period!.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    (more)
  • 519378 2009/08/16 03:03:56
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    519378
    +6
    Why does America pay the absolute top dollar for medical care, yet America ranks 37th in the world for quality of health care?
    i.e. US $7,290 vs UK $2,992 per person per year.

    http://www.photius.com/rankin...
  • Gwally 519378 2010/01/25 01:24:15
    Gwally
    +1
    Why do you think the US is ranked 37th?
  • Lurch Gwally 2010/03/09 19:54:09
    Lurch
    It's actually explained in great detail in the link provided.

    http://www.prevent.org/conten...

    The United States currently falls behind 27 other countries in terms of a healthy life expectancy with an average of 69 years, while Japan leads all countries with an average of 75 years. Some of these differences can be attributed to the inability of the United States to effectively treat disease. The United States has the worst mortality rate from treatable conditions when compared to 18 other industrialized countries. The U.S. has fallen four spots in the last five years.

    Results from a UNICEF study found the United States is second to last among 21 developed nations for child well-being as the result of high infant mortality rates, a high percentage of low-birth-weight infants, and an average rate of immunizations. In addition, the United States is last in health care system performance when compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Despite spending twice as much as these countries on a per-capita basis, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.

    "These statistics indicate that what we are doing as a nation is not working," said Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., executive director of American Public Health Association...
    It's actually explained in great detail in the link provided.

    http://www.prevent.org/conten...

    The United States currently falls behind 27 other countries in terms of a healthy life expectancy with an average of 69 years, while Japan leads all countries with an average of 75 years. Some of these differences can be attributed to the inability of the United States to effectively treat disease. The United States has the worst mortality rate from treatable conditions when compared to 18 other industrialized countries. The U.S. has fallen four spots in the last five years.

    Results from a UNICEF study found the United States is second to last among 21 developed nations for child well-being as the result of high infant mortality rates, a high percentage of low-birth-weight infants, and an average rate of immunizations. In addition, the United States is last in health care system performance when compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Despite spending twice as much as these countries on a per-capita basis, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.

    "These statistics indicate that what we are doing as a nation is not working," said Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., executive director of American Public Health Association. "We know improvement is possible because other nations have achieved far better health outcomes at less cost, indicating that we, too, can do the same. The solution is to build a foundation for health by creating a culture of wellness and prevention. It is no longer acceptable to simply focus on treatment and cures."
    (more)
  • Gwally Lurch 2010/03/09 23:47:44
    Gwally
    +1
    The great detail explanation was lacking...

    ...though the quote relying upon a UNICEF study does detroy any credibility
  • Lurch Gwally 2010/03/10 08:09:21
    Lurch
    > ...though the quote relying upon a UNICEF study does detroy any credibility

    ....according to what expert source?
  • Gwally Lurch 2010/03/10 21:03:42
    Gwally
    +1
    expert source? Depend on the UN for information do you?
  • Lurch Gwally 2010/03/10 21:06:29
    Lurch
    exactly as I thought.
  • Gwally Lurch 2010/03/11 00:44:13
    Gwally
    +1
    You thought you relied upon an undependable biased source, a reliance I'm under no obligation to accept.

    here's a clue: how does your UN define infant mortality?
  • Lurch Gwally 2010/03/12 00:12:19
    Lurch
    You have the right to call UNICEF or the UN names, but I am under no obligation to agree because I know they've got zero interest in trying to change America. They get paid to make these studies and make improvements where they can. Obviously, with so many Americans fighting against their own self interests, why should some outside entity even bother.

    Anyway, here's the summary of infant mortality rates from my link above.

    "Results from a UNICEF study found the United States is second to last among 21 developed nations for child well-being as the result of high infant mortality rates, a high percentage of low-birth-weight infants, and an average rate of immunizations. In addition, the United States is last in health care system performance when compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Despite spending twice as much as these countries on a per-capita basis, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity."
  • Gwally Lurch 2010/03/12 21:05:22
    Gwally
    +1
    Your ignorance of the UN's agenda, purpose, & bias is obvious.

    Anyway, my question you avoided answering by re-pasting your unicef summary ?

    your UN doesn't define infant mortality. Each member nation detemines what constitutes a live birth. The US, where those tiny little preemies are considered baby people, even if they don't survive?

    Yeah, all those countries ranked ahead of the US consider those babies stillborn
  • Lurch Gwally 2010/03/12 21:11:51 (edited)
    Lurch
    I have heard that same rumor going around amongst RW e-mail chains, just like all the other debunked RW rumors and accusations.

    I'm sorry, I don't believe that the UN would create and pay for a survey that was so inept. You do realize the professionals from places like Harvard who did the survey are academics whose entire reputations and careers are on the line for those surveys, right? These people do comparative health surveys for a living, and so to accuse them of so blatantly comparing apples vs oranges is something I would need to see some proof of before I believed. Call it greed or whatever, but those folks behind the survey can turn around and get published, get raises, get promotions, meet the president, make an extra million or so if they do these things right. If they mess up so blatantly as you suggest, they could lose all of that prestige, added income, and even their current jobs.

    I'm sorry, I believe you believe it but it just doesn't make sense to me without more info/details.
  • Gwally Lurch 2010/03/12 21:28:10
    Gwally
    +1
    Sure they would. Can't believe the UN is corrupt? really?

    Is wiki suitably lefty enough for you?

    The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation
  • Lurch Gwally 2010/03/12 21:46:21
    Lurch
    Awesome editing. I love how you left out the most important sentence in the whole paragraph.

    "However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]"

    --------------------------
    The full Wiki citation.

    The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under...





    Awesome editing. I love how you left out the most important sentence in the whole paragraph.

    "However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]"

    --------------------------
    The full Wiki citation.

    The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[10]

    ------------------------

    So, only a few countries use different counting methods, and those few differences do not account for the differences in IMR or general healthcare rankings.

    If the RW would just try half as hard to work with the Left to improve our systems and institutions as they try to block the Left from improving our country, we would be in much better shape.
    (more)
  • Gwally Lurch 2010/03/15 20:55:18
    Gwally
    +1
    Hey look, you kinda sorta did some independent (wiki) research. And you jump all over "unlikely to be" as somehow convincing proof.

    Perhaps you should read the [10] footnote
  • Ray 2009/08/16 00:47:12
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    Ray
    +4
    I hope reform prevails and if it does, thousands of our poorer folks will complain and bellyache about a "socialistic" system that could save their lives. It's strange how many people will use the term "socialism" without realizing that they are already socialized from the Federal government to the neighborhood level. Nor do they seem to know the classic definition of "socialism" which is where the government owns the means of production of goods and the the means of distribution of those goods. We don't have that. Even our Armed Forces buy their arms from corporations that are then shipped by private businesses. One exception is probably nuclear arms since Los Alamos is a national laboratory.
    It sure would be nice if a lot more of the opponents knew what they were talking about but all they have is meaningless slogans spouted by those with millions of dollars at stake who espouse free enterprise and competition but then do their best to stifle it. Let them get by with it and they'll own the country lock, stock and barrel before long.
  • dianne615 Ray 2009/08/25 13:07:46
    dianne615
    +1
    OMG, Thank you, they won't listen but thank you for saying it maybe if we say if enough times they'll get it..
  • Lurch Ray 2010/03/09 19:55:01
    Lurch
    It's hard to sell fear if there's no boogeyman.
  • Manwé 2009/08/15 21:34:42
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    Manwé
    +6
    What the insurance industry is afraid of is that people will find out that other countries with single payer or government health care (two different types of delivery systems) have full coverage for all and better health outcomes at a lower cost than the US has. People go on about rationing. The problem is we currently have rationing through what your insurance will cover. Preexisting conditions not covered, deductibles to access your doctor, copay to get your medications, denial of procedures, and termination of benefits due to 'you should have know you would get this disease' or sometimes to an error or omission made years ago on an application form.
  • kmay 2009/08/15 20:29:53
    Screw America...LET GRANDMA DIE
    kmay
    Read the bill yourself.... only then will you know the truth.

    This is the problem....

    As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group, said in a report released this month, it’s tough to save money while greatly expanding health care coverage at the same time:

    CRFB: More access and broader coverage do not save money, however. Greater coverage will increase health spending. Unless major changes are successfully implemented in health care delivery and payment systems, costs will continue to rise from a larger base at a rapid pace. Moreover, potential savings are speculative, while costs are far more certain. That imbalance suggests that unless there is broad popular support for the measures that will be required to achieve savings, the nation’s health care bill could become that much more unaffordable.

    The Brits are warning us a socialized system doesnt' work!
    Without TORT REFORM the system will not change!

  • Manwé kmay 2009/08/15 21:38:02 (edited)
    Manwé
    +7
    Your listening to what Glen Beck says??? Listen to the British themselves.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/wor...
    Additionally, the current proposed legislation does not tear down our current system of private insurance, just regulates the coverage at a national level so if you move state to state, job to job, job to unemployed, you can continue to be covered.
  • 519378 Manwé 2009/08/16 03:07:47
    519378
    +3
    kmay's advice to 'read the bill yourself' was right on, but kmay forgot to include the link to the bill:
    http://edlabor.house.gov/docu...

    Or the link to what AARP says about the bill at:
    http://aarp.convio.net/site/P...
  • Manwé 519378 2009/08/16 03:17:01
    Manwé
    +3
    I do have a copy of HR3200 and have read it. I also know about the AARP site. Thanks for the links.
  • dianne615 519378 2009/08/25 14:02:43 (edited)
    dianne615
    +1
    Thank for the link, now if we could just drag people to read them!
  • 519378 dianne615 2009/08/25 23:45:34
    519378
    +1
    I can hardly wait until mid September when this bill is up for a vote.
    I wonder how many Republicans will start crying that the bill is 1000 pages long and 'no one had a chance to read the bill' before it was voted on.

    There are very few words per page, and if it was published as a paperback book, I would be surprised if it ran much more than 50 pages.
  • dianne615 519378 2009/08/26 00:53:17
    dianne615
    +1
    The sad part is your right..
  • Patriot... kmay 2009/08/16 04:11:20
    Patriotic American
    kindly keep your Faux Noise crap off of my polls! kindly faux noise crap polls
  • KUDABUX 2009/08/15 20:19:39
    Bring on health care reform..WE VOTED FOR CHANGE!
    KUDABUX
    +2
    Stan Brock is an amazing individual. I read about him a few days ago and was going to do a blog, but never got around to it.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/19 23:29:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals