[bradclark1]

Ask the American Medical Association. As doctors, these folks have a vested interest and perhaps their opinion about giving away their services are up for discussion. Doctors spend a great deal of personal resources both monetarily and educationaly to do their jobs. Are you willing to give up that quality of care because those who spent much money and time can no longer make a living? Are you willing to give up the best medical care on the planet for your loved ones for mediocre care?

Doctors are owned by HMO's also. They go by the HMO's rules and prices or don't get patients. I'm not saying doctors should give away their services. They can still work for a national health-care system and be well paid. People should have the option to choose and pay for private care if they wish however private care people can't turn around and use public health just to get out of paying that tax. Doctors should have the option of taking private or public health. Now that is just a generality.
We don't have the best health care in the world. We have the worst health care for the dollar then any modern nation. In Canada an average of $630 dollars is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the United States this number is $2719.

What about the choice of the unborn who are murdered at the rate of 25,000 per week. How can anyone object to the deaths of any other subset of the population when they allow, no promote by using the term 'Pro Choice' this kind of genocide?

This depends on your definition of what is a living being. This could be a topic of it's own. I myself am against abortion but I believe that a person should have choice.

Can say that homosexual unions promote procreation, contribute to society by promoting healthy social relationships (you criticized Rep Mark Foley for being gay
even after it became clear that the intern was of legal age and perhaps gay himself).

A marriage is a union of two people. It doesn't say squat about creation and yes a gay couple can promote healthy social relationships. What makes you think they can't? I didn't criticize Foley for being gay. I criticized him for being a pedophile. Two sets of parents would not allow their children to be questioned in regards to Foley. I don't think parents would talk for legal adults. I also don't think a legal consenting gay adult would complain about sexual overtures unless they were unwanted. On top of that Foley was using his position for sexual purposes.

This sounds like the same question, but the shoe is on the other foot.

Not really, because I know people have different morals and as long as it's not criminal or degenerate I feel that people should be able to exercise their own.