KaskadskyjKozak

OK, more anecdotal evidence. It doesn't prove anything. Even if your portrayel is accurate, it doesn't mean that the program will work in the US. We are not Canada or France - we are a much larger country with much different demographics and structures (business and government), not to mention the cultural differences. I am interested in the history of Canadian health care, however. Do you know when your health care was nationalized, why this was done, and how? I'm assuming of course that at one time you had privatized health care like we do in the states. What precipitated the change up there? Did costs decrease and quality of care go up?

I don't think there is a "crisis". Obviously there are problems - and they are getting worse. But 'crisis'? Politicians love to "manufacture" crises when they don't exist. I don't trust government programs and their costs. I want to understand exactly why we are doing something, what the "solution"'s goals are, how much it will cost and be convinced that the quality of care will not go down. And I want the people who institute these programs to be accountable with adequate oversight. If the program fails it should be scrapped. With government that rarely happens. I've already proposed a palatable solution for me. Let people opt in to a gov't sponsored program and see how it flies. Every card-carrying Dem can sign up, along with the 43 million uninsured. According to Jim's arguments it would be more efficient than private health care, eliminating the "middle man", and address issues like denial of coverage. My suspicions as to why people don't support this idea is that they know damn well that the program will fail to be any better than private care and will cost more. What they want is to nationalize health care first, ask questions later, and just shrug off any failures by either denying that they ever said the plan would be cheaper and better or blaming failures on "the other side" or "lack of adequate funding".

My, my, my, how fragile our arguments must be to be threatened by anyone with a countrary POV. BTW, I was not too impressed with the link YOU posted as a "typical" view of the issue. The "debunking" of the myths essentially amounted to an argument as follows: Myth: universal health care will cost more Fact: not necessarily Wow, that convinces me!

Easy to beat? I don't know about that. Especially with the non-descript crowd running against her.

Whatever you say, tweaker.

The left's "solution" to EVERY problem is a new/bigger/more-expensive government program.

That about sums it up!

I'll be right over.

Which goes hand-in-hand with the theme of the statists on the left side of the aisle: "you must be educated on this issue". Somehow I just get an image of Communist Reeducation Camps in my head. I wonder why?

The only "educated position" is of course, the one the leftist holds.

Every time someone is rescued from Hood or Rainier by helicopter there is an outcry: "why is the American taxpayer paying for this!!" If there is nationalized health care, and people are not getting the care they think they should be - the utopian vision of our left-leaning friends falls on its face, be damned sure that people will try to get you to cough up the full cost of treatment for climbing-related injuries.

That's the modus operandi of every card-carrying Democrat. If you oppose their position, then you are a "bad person" - fill in loaded derogatory slur here: 1) oppose illegal immigration, affirmative action programs, hate-crime legislation, etc: you are a racist 2) oppose gay marriage, gay couples adopting, etc: you are a homophobe 3) oppose social programs: you are callous and care about yourself only 4) oppose tax increases: you're a rich capitalist who cares only about yourself 5) if you oppose abortion, stem-cell research, etc: you are a religious fanatic It goes on and on. Basically, if you oppose anything on their agenda, then they make attacks on you as a person - the politics of personal destruction. Smacks right out of the Soviet Commie strategy - just one step short of calling all opponents bourgeosie capitalists and enemies of the state.

And what happens when Hillary tells you that accidents resulting from climbing are not covered by the nationalized health care system?

When I hear of uninsured I think of elderly folks, or poor families and kids, not "healthy, athletic, 20-year-olds". Seems to me the person looking out for #1 is YOU and the other posters on this site, who want ME to pay for YOU.

Yes Porter pays me for every post, so he can subsequently mock me.

more like $40 for beer, cigarettes, CDs, concert tickets, expensive climbing gear, or gas to get to the crags.

Gonna have a bake sale? Yeah. Look. Just how expensive is catastrophic health insurance for a young, healthy person. It's just not that high. I think there's a lot of excuses that go around here. If you are young and uninsured and do nothing about it, then don't whine if you get sick or hurt and have to pay for it. I was not responding to other situations - where people truly are in a bind. And I realize there are many of those.

Truth be told he was working "undercover" in this memorabilia thing as part of his hunt for the real killers.

First Hillarycare2, now OJ in handcuffs. It feels so 1994!

that's funny. I know people who have had expensive operations AND been covered by both private insurance plans and gov't plans.

Iran a threat? It's all part of the fear-mongering of BushCo and the right wing war machine. They are as peaceful as lambs with no ill-intent for anyone.

The French grew a pair? Must be a hoax.

And THAT is a compelling argument? The government will decide this? FUCK YOU.

20K. That's about the price of a car, isn't it? I'd find a way. I wouldn't like it, but I'd not accept a "lifelong, debilitating" injury. The gov't will be worrying about costs too. Anyways, I've already said I'm with you - if you could prove a better system in parallel with what we've got.

sounds like she is making that choice - not to get the money for this surgery. Yeah, she is "choosing" to suffer a life of disability rather than trot on down to the magic money tree and pick a few $10k bills off the low-hanging branches. If I was in that position I'd find a way to pay for the surgery. Actually, I'd never let myself get into that position in the first place. and your anecdotal evidence proves nothing, btw