This is a good, civil discussion. I approve.

I do disapprove of the current trend in web forums to not allow certain kinds of discussions, specifically politics and religion. While that shows small-scale wisdom (i.e., it keeps a lot of arguments from starting), it also shows large-scale civic bankruptcy, because if no one will discuss things for fear of arguing, how can we ever expect our country to come out of the mess that we currently have? Saving the country is going to take everyone, everywhere. You can't ignore it.

 

Everything is always pushed to a later date. chuckle. Spending cuts, sign ups, reform of any kind, all except the taxes. Taxes are always applied right away.

 

I like Oldsmobiles.

 

I have not had any type of health insurance for about 5 years & have gotten along just fine until recently. My wife had to have surgery & I had to spend about $5,000.00 in cash to make that happen. We are making payments for the rest of it at about $50.00-$100.00 a month. We are both healthy other wise & I look at the expense as about the equivalent of having health insurance & never using it for the last 5 years. I don't have health insurance, but did get health care.
I refuse to sign up for obama care & will not pay the taxes or penalties. If I need health care, I can pay in cash, or liquidate some assets to make it happen, or pay monthly indefinitely.
I realize my opinion may not jive with what others think, but that's ok, I've always been a little weird.

 

There is NO free health care any where in the world, not in the USA, not here in Britain, nor anywhere else.
What we do have here is free at the point of demand healthcare, but the British taxpayer foots the bill. The French have a more sophisticated system than us, but even more expensive.
A constant political football is how to reform our national health service, politicians claiming they have an answer to ever escalating costs which arise as better treatments are available for a decreasingly healthy population. They don't. Healthcare costs money and has to be paid for, the haves mainly wanting everyone to pay for their own, the have nots wanting the better off to pay.
Obamacare is just another approach, it suits some of the population and doesn't suit others.
What will work?, beats me, but it's possible an across the entire political spectrum united approach not seen since Pearl Harbor might come up with something.


Roger.

 

Until last Thursday, I would have been curious to see how you would accomplish this. As I understand it, penalties would have been collected by the IRS in the form of withholding a portion of your tax refund or an increase in your taxes due if you did not have a refund or not enough of a refund. I don't think there was going to be any (legal) option to "refuse" to pay any more than there is a legal way to refuse to pay your income taxes.

But now, with the change announced last Thursday, all you have to do is claim that buying the required coverage would constitute a "financial hardship," and you're off the hook for either having to buy the insurance or pay the penalty. This is what will undermine the whole program. With not enough healthier people buying coverage as the law originally intended, the premiums collected by the older population will not offset the cost of their care. This is the so-called "death spiral" that has been talked about in the news for weeks now, and Obama's action actually makes it very likely to happen. If he wanted to destroy the biggest achievement of his presidency, he couldn't have picked a better way.

One kicker that might affect you, though, is that this financial hardship exception only applies to people who had health insurance before and had that policy cancelled but now cannot afford the new policy choices they're confronted with. It does not apply to people who had not had insurance before, which is apparently your situation. So you might still be affected by the buy-the-insurance-or-pay-the-penalty portion of the law.

But this is untenable, as these newspaper articles note. How can the government say, on the one hand, that it's ok for one class of people to avoid having to buy insurance or pay the penalty while telling another class of people in the same financial situation that this is not ok simply on the basis of whether or not you had insurance prior to the law's taking effect? The will be tremendous pressure on the president to extend this exception to all Americans, and I predict this will happen.

This exception declared last Thursday is outside of the law, of course, as are all the other changes and delays Obama has unilaterally declared ever since the employer mandate was delayed for a year a few months ago.


The huge irony in all this is that this "financial hardship" exception was always part of the law, but it was meant to apply in certain select circumstances, and certainly having to participate in the new health insurance system was not one of those circumstances. But now you can claim that Obamacare itself is the source of the financial hardship that prevents you from being able to afford the insurance. As I say, we now have a whole new definition of irony.

 

Now that the Gubment has fubar'ed the healthcare as we knew it, it will never be affordable. Now that the insurance co's have a taste of the outrageous premiums that they are now charging, it will never again be affordable. Even if this law is repealed, it is now destined to become what Detroit and the USPS have become, which is deplorable

I feel the same way Scott does and I refuse to participate, fines and all.

 

X2.

Obamacare is going to fall apart even if it is not repealed. Many Doctors are not accepting obamacare patients and most of those say they will leave the profession before they are forced to take them. Our pediatrician was 5 years from retirement and he said screw this, I am out of here now. My doctor said he will leave if it comes to being forced to take them.

 

LOL! You guys will pay. They'll stick a gun up your nose when you don't and you'll fork over the money. Wait and see. It is the new Amerika.

 

I hope your wrong brother.

 

Jaunty, I agree 100%. For the guys who do not carry insurance, I had the same attitude until I had my heart attack in August and got a $100k bill that the hospital dropped down to $48k. Like I said in an earlier post, I was able to get on my previous employers Cobra insurance after the fact, which helped dramatically. I now 100% believe in catastrophic health policies for older folks. You just never can predict when something will happen.

 

I can see why. When you go into the doctor's office and your annual deductible hasn't been met they are in effect extending credit. There would need to be some sort of guarantee to the doctor that the patient is credit worthy when coverage doesn't pay and some are not.

 

Z11,
I hope it does not come to this, but I'm self employed & don't pay taxes till April. I'll just hold back the "fine" or "tax" amount. I'm sure they will eventually show up at my door with guns. I have plenty of weapons too & I'll have to decide then weather to die on my feet or live on my knees.....

 

I hope these comments will never come to pass. But remember the enforcement is being done by the IRS. Even before the recent scandal the IRS was known as way worse than any private collection agency. People can have different opinions on who knew what when concerning the recent scandal. But a little time spent on research and I think people would agree what the IRS did was appalling.

John

 

Here, here! My sentiments exactly Scott Amen brother

 

I must say that in the greatest, strongest nation in the history of the world, with the strongest tradition of freedom and autonomy, it is both sad and disturbing that all of us find ourselves having to contemplate things like this, whether about this law, or about other things.
Something is definitely very wrong in this nation.

- Eric

 

X2

Makes me sick for my kids.

 

This has been a good discussion,
but I have to wonder what state the nation
will be in when my grandkids are my age.

How can we better the country when the
ones in charge are in a constant battle between themselves?

 

I am concerned for my son as well.

As an example, when I was in high school, one year in the spring, "Senior Day" seemed to be getting a bit out of hand. We'd perfected some shaving cream techniques (like using the spray cap from an "Edge" can on "Colgate" to make it spray 20 feet), and it looked like fun could break out at any moment. That morning, we found that the school security guards were arrayed at the entrances, asking to look in everyone's bags for shaving cream.
We flat out refused, told them they had no business looking at out stuff, and they backed down and let everyone in.
Today, I expect the kids would just bend over for the cavity search, and if they refused, they'd be cuffed and taken away.

It's really not the same country I grew up in.

- Eric

 

Eric,
Since you brought it up, one of our high school pranks was this. On the last day of our senior year, I had acquired a military smoke signal grenade, yellow in color. We had a large area of lockers in a rectangular shape about 100 x 50'. My locker was in the middle of this area & since it was the last day of school, nothing was in my locker, how convenient.
It was let off & it pretty much completely filled that locker area. No cops or fire department was called & no one got in trouble for it. I was standing next to the principle when it happened & his face was beet red from anger!
Also, during hich school, we had a kid drown in the indoor school pool during class & another kid fell off the bleachers & was paralyzed. :O

 

I may have come off as someone who thinks they know everything on this post. I don't of course. I just know that if you have a SS number you WILL be enrolled and you WILL pay for health care. It is now the law of the land. The fines will increase year after year until it will be the right economic decision for everyone. Be they rich or poor. Your SS payout will be garnished, your tax refund will be reduced, perhaps they will make our children pay the bill for those who won't. That is what is wrong with this law. The US government is forcing its citizens to buy a product whether or not they want it. It is against everything that IS American. Brought to you on Christmas Eve in the dead of night by a partisan vote with NO Republicans voting for the bill. If that isn't the definition of the Ruling Elite, I'll eat my hat. What's next? If you don't buy a 44TOO MUCH you will be fined the amount of what it would cost to buy it? That would help the 44TOO MUCH industry wouldn't it?

 

This topic is too important not to chime in. I'm going to make several comments and try to keep them clean.
1. I have a cadillac plan that I cannot keep even though we were promised "if you like your plan you can keep your plan". My employer is subject to a 40% fee beginning 2018 because of it. They have already told us that our plan will get cropped so the fine is avoided.
2. Why would the law penalize employers for giving employees great insurance?
3. Why does anyone want to buy insurance to cover things they can afford? Think about it. Do you need car insurance to pay for a new alternator? Do you need home owners insurance to paint a couple rooms in your house? You have a deductable on your car and house. Why do you need health insurance to pay for your birth control? You don't. But now your insurance has to cover it. Cost goes up whether you use it or not.
4. The public supported and the voting congress put this law into place based on many false promises including the one above. A massive bait and switch if we've ever seen one. For that reason alone a new vote should be put forth on whether to keep or scrap.

 

The voting congress was not elected on the promise of this "act" it is simply a situation that was taken advantage of after controll of the 3 branches was taken. Then in the following years the opposition was ignored, villified (for any other reason than this), and subject to constant character assasination. Now the public with absolute proof in their mailboxes and reaching for their saving accounts has no way to ignore the facts. And the big media corporations still cover as much as they can without losing complete credibility. There is no such thing as a "unforseen consequence" when an entire party was warning the actual effects of this "law" or "tax". Lies from the beggining or absolute inexcuseable incompetence and ignorance followed by apathy. What is "affordable" about skyrocketing costs??? I used to regularly hear on the local news about our local healthcare providers raising rates (as much as 17%) and would need a PRC hearing to possibly get approval. No public hearings for my rates far over doubling though. Almost seems like a forced prelude to a disaster.

 

1. My dad is in the same shoes

2. The libtards call it fairness. It is not fair that someone has a cadillac plan when the poor can't have it.

3. even single men have to have maternity care coverage. Otherwise it is "unfair" that women have to pay but not men.

4. Just remember that it was ONLY one side that voted for it. Not a single person on the other side voted for it.

 

It's a crock of $hit.
No matter how many times
times they vote to season it,
it will still be a steaming bowl of...

 

Looks to me that Little Johnny isn't the only one that understands Obamacare. Got some money? Thanks, we'll take that.

 

I don't know how your system works, with or without Obamacare. I agree that our system is not perfect however I know it is better than what you guys have and other than ultra conservative Canadians, we would not trade it for the US system.

I pay my taxes to the government so our health care is not free, however I will never lose my house, car, etc. because of some unforeseen medical bill. We are covered for everything unlike some insurance companies that cover you for everything (except what's in the small print). We have no small print. Boob jobs, plastic surgery is not covered (unless it's brought on by...lets say a car accident), then it's covered. Do some horror stories make it to the media? Sure, but I've seen some doozies from the US as well. Those are probably rare on both sides of the border.

If I don't feel well I can go to a doctor (I don't have to go to a hospital) to get a check up. Medicentres will take you in right away. You may have to wait depending on how busy it is, as someone in a motorcycle accident will get in right away even if you've been waiting longer with your sprained finger.


Canadians on average live longer than Americans, and we have 4 deaths per 1000 births compared to 6 in the US and you system is more expensive than our on a per-capita basis. So if our system is bad (as the conservatives in the US like to point out), it's not as bad as yours. Perhaps you're comparing ours to the European system, but I don't know a lot about theirs.

Our system is also not socialist. In Russia the government tells you what doctor to visit and then asks the doctor if there is a cheaper prescription to offer. Here I visit what ever doctor I choose. For recovery, he consults with me. The government will pay him and it's none of their business what he prescribes.

If I need knee surgery, it's not life threatening so I may have to wait. I snapped my Achilles tendon years ago playing hockey and after finally going to a doctor (thought it was just a bad sprain) I was in the doctors office at 8:30 am, in a bed at 11 am and had surgery at 1 pm. He gave me **** for waiting a week. My wife broke her ankle at 4 am and she had surgery at 11 am the same day. She asked for an extra day in hospital to relax and it was granted. Our cost for these examples combined? $0.00. So my experience may be different than others.

I remember in the 80's a girl was born here in need of a heart transplant. It seems if organs are required, Canada and the US share a list of donors. In her case the procedure needed was new, I don't know the details. Since it was only done at one hospital in North America and that was Loma Linda at the time, she was flown to California (along with her parents) and the surgery was done. Because her doctor referred her to this hospital, all costs were covered. Her parents received a statement of the cost and on the statement it said "Do Not Pay, for your information only". I got one like that for a broken leg playing football, however it was much less than hers. Bottom line, our system works for me and my family, and that's fine with me. I can buy insurance when I visit the US.

 

Nobody does here, either. This happens maybe twice a year in the U.S. It gets in the news, and everybody thinks it happens every day.

I am curious about one thing. If the Canadian system is superior to that of the U.S., how do you explain the experience of Kyle's 77 Cutlass referenced above? The Canadian system apparently let him down, and he felt it necessary to travel to the U.S. to get the care his son needed.

Here's the thread:

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...ce-please.html

 

I don't know his details or situation. There are Canadians who travel to the US just like...there are Americans who travel to Canada, for medical procedures.


I didn't say we were superior, our system has flaws...because it's run by human beings. However I would never trade it for your system. I don't know if what your president has passed is like ours, but from what I've heard, it not anything like it. If I lived in the US, perhaps I would be against it too. But I have watched Republican commercials when an election is near and they just bold-face lie about our system. It must be the old "keep the population in fear" tactic. As for the one or two people that lose their home...I suspect it's pretty devastating. A homeless man pushing a grocery cart full of pop cans here has more coverage...or did, than 50 million Americans.


I happen to know Americans who came to Canada because they watched their neighbour lose their house. Apparently their insurance policy had a clause that said the insurance would pay when they couldn't. Owning a house meant they still could, because it could be sold. True to their word, the insurance company paid after they had nothing. Anyway that was his story as to why he moved. Anyway, Obamacare or your old system, I'll keep ours. If your system works for you great. Ours works for me.

 

That's why you're in Canada! You like it there. I don't like having things jammed down my throat in a semi socialist manner. Post up one news clipping showing someone going to Canada for better health care. I'd like to see it.

 

Did I say better health care? No, I didn't...you did. I would think it's equivalent because even though on average we live longer it's close...not like comparing say...Sweden to Angola.


Some remarks were made about our system and some said they did not have any experience with ours. I have experience with ours. So I posted a couple. It's not the dungeon and lighting rod system your right wing likes to make it out to be. You like your system, fine. I'm happy that you're happy. I'm happy with mine.

 

No, you didn't use that word directly, but you did say this:

Better? Superior? In this case, they amount to the same thing.

 

On the other side of that coin, do you have any experience with ours? I'm not talking about what you might have read or heard, but actual, first-hand experience. If not, then how can you proclaim, as you did above, that your system is better that ours?

 

So this is it? It has to be a we win/you lose deal? We can't say you like yours and I like mine. Someone has to lose correct?


Well I won't go that far. I'll just post answers to some comments that have been said about our system by some right wing US politicians (Right wing Canadians politicians know better, if they want to get elected).


Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it. While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

 

Apparently it is, because you have already proclaimed us in the U.S. to be the "losers" because you said your system is better. Those are your own words. I didn't make them up. What on earth you so upset about? If anyone is naming winners and losers, it's you.

 

I'm not familiar with the Canadian system or the costs. I do know that both yours and our quality of health care is probably equivalent to each other. The problem with yours is the waiting and the bureaucratic red tape to get treatment in a timely manner.


This is probably what's going to happen here. The right in this country is the side that has to form the balance and pay for the things the left dreams up. Our government has created generations of people who get everything for free and don't have to work for it. These entitled people have no reason or desire to contribute and are basically leaches on society which is what will destroy this country. It's easy to spend other peoples money until there is no money left.


History tells us that all super power civilizations last around 300 years. Just look at the history of the Roman Empire. We are on that path.


Obamacare was created to get 3 million people covered in health insurance. So they created a whole new system that only has 1.2 million people apply and threw 9 million people under the bus. Next year when the employee mandate part of the new law goes into effect, I feel the proverbial crap will hit the fan. At this point many will lose their coverage, as there is no incentive monetarily for employers to keep the current insurance going.


That's what we are up against.

 

Jaunty, I'm not upset. And as I said, your system works for you, just as mine works for me. I would hardly call the US medical system a "loser". You have top notch doctors, medical facilities, equipment etc. The average life span between Canadians and Americans are exceptionally close to being the same. I just happen to prefer ours, just as you prefer yours. However I have heard US commercials that make it sound like we are so unfortunate (with some Americans believing it) because we have the system we have, when most Canadians feel it's a blessing. There are myths on both sides. Can we just leave it as a tie?

 

I'm not going to argue the point of better or worse, because it won't go anywhere, but I will say that I am familiar with OHIP, the system in Ontario, because I have had friends there for many years, and I believe that their health care system is, overall, better than ours.
I've seen it, that's my personal observation, and I won't argue about it.

That being said, to clear up any confusion, I think that the Affordable Care Act sucks dog testes, and I would be fully in favor of repeal, but not because the US system is such a shining star, rather because the ACA is such a steaming pile.

When discussing the Canadian and US systems with actual Canadians, I think that arguing the actual details is probably not productive (Do people in the US go bankrupt because of health care expenses? Well, seeing as how health care expenses are the most frequent cause of US personal bankruptcies, I'd say, Yes. Do Canadians? No. Now what?).

The point isn't whether, if the Canadian system were magically transported by the USS Enterprise, past the dark side of Uranus, to the US, would it be better?
Who cares? It couldn't be done.

Why not? Because the US and Canada are different countries, populated by different people, who, in spite of appearances, are from different cultures and have different beliefs.

Canadians can't understand why the US won't just create a system similar to theirs, but that's because Canadians have a very different relationship with their government.
The US was founded on the basis of rebellion against a government that was, for its time, actually pretty reasonable and non-abusive, but which did not provide enough freedom, and especially not enough economic freedom (Remember the Stamp Act, the tax on tea, etc.?).
Canada was founded, essentially, by the people who ran away from the US after we won the Revolutionary War (they're called "Loyalists" up there), because they liked the English government just fine.
To this day, the Canadians trust their government, and believe that it's there to help them. In spite of some imperfections, it usually comes close to living up to these expectations.
Compare this to the US, where we fear and hate almost all governments, including our own (what was the most recent approval rate of the US Congress again?), and, considering all the evidence, have very good reason not to trust our government as far as any of us could throw it, and where, because of this, our Constitution has structured our government to be as ineffective as possible (three branches, two houses, all designed to be able to block each other indefinitely). Even though there are a lot of very bad things that can happen when there's essentially no government (free-for-all violence, rampant pollution, warlords, really bad roads, Amtrak running later than usual), a pretty large proportion of us in the US would rather take our chances with that than put our full trust in our government, which, truth be told, is run by a nest of pathologic liars and narcissists, whose only goal in life is to steal as much as they can before "retiring" to a nice job in some corporate field that they used to regulate.

Because of this, you can't just say, "This system works well - Use it!" Any system in the US has to fit within the political philosophy of the majority of the people here, and a Canadian system doesn't, so it's a non-starter.
I think that the Canadian system is great. For Canadians.
Here in the US, even without the ACA, the government has its nasty fingers into so many facets of care that it's terrifying, screws all kinds of things up, and makes care more expensive than it needs to be. Could some perfect law or government do better? Sure. Unfortunately (for health care), we're in the US, and have the US government, which will never be perfect, trustworthy, honest, or competent.

The US government has proven itself to be unparalleled at certain things, including fighting wars and supporting industry in such a way as to create a fabulously successful economy for nearly 200 years, which has come to dominate and be the envy of the world.
If it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight, I'll call the US Marines.
If I need to know what some dingbat in the Congo's score is on Angry Birds, I'll call the NSA.
If I want to deliver a letter to Mars, I'll call NASA.
But if I want someone to stick a needle in my butt, the US government is the last bunch of salivating technocratic homicidal maniacs I'd trust.

Just my 2¢.

- Eric

 

That's totally up to you as you're the one who said it wasn't a tie.

 

I think he made a great point that we all live to about the same age/life expectancy. Really, that's what it boils down to. We happen to live in the best country ever created. Health care or no. The Gov is just going to take a heapin helpin of what's in our wallets if you happen to make decent money. If not, it's free. Just like it always was. Canada has its good points. I just don't know any. The only thing I have ever heard of is that Canadians go to other countries to use their health care systems because the Canadian system is unable to meet their needs. I personally know a woman who went to europe for hip surgery dealing with cancer because she can't get it in Canada. I've NEVER heard of this from a US citizen. My sister lives in Toronto. (The family has disowned her) MD, THAT WAS A GREAT POST.