Okay, your poll of June 29, 2008 showed that 91% thought that Canada health care was better than the US.

But according to the poll taken by Harris-Decima on July 2009, only 82% thought that Canada health care was better than the US.

So in a little over a year, 9% of the population believed that the health care provided in Canada compared to the US actually was worse.

 

Thank you for your information but I think you are picking and choosing what you want to prove to me. Have you heard of Americans going to Canada for surgery, medical needs or any healthcare services? I would assume that the answer would be no. But I'm also sure that you have heard Canadians going to the US because we have the best healthcare, the best medicine, and the best medical equipment. There have been plenty! Their system is bankrupt; it's unsustainable therefore the long lines, the ration of care. Like I said before in another post, if the Canadian Premier has to go to the US for his medical needs, enough said!

 

One finds the same fluctuations in American polls. I'll settle for "only" 82%.

 

True, because polls are so inaccurate. But for some reason people love polls. And because of that I use and show polls. But sometimes I do not believe polls and think the paper that the paper polls are taken on, should better be used at toilet paper.

 

Really?!?! Their healthcare system is BANKRUPT!!!!!!! I think you are the babbling fool! And yes, if you think that I'm a well educated kid, just because state facts, so be it.

 

Welcome to the forum I hope you love Obama and everything he stands for because if you don't...look out! Lefties here only want you to spend money you worked for on causes they see fit while they sit at home eating cheetos playing with themselves? just the picture I get, peace.

 

WOW you folks are amazing...my hat is off to all of you...

I left to do some happy hour drinking with friends and you guys are still hard at it.............I have read all the posts since my last post here...

My eyes hurt........

Carry On....I appericate your hard work !!!

 

For decades public opinion surveys have proved their validity by predicting elections. Political disagreements are primarily over different values, concerns, and goals. These are not really debatable. One likes something or one does not. That is why I like facts that can be verified. Most political opinion surveys fit into this category.

The fact that the vast majority of Canadians are happy with their system is an adequate rebuttal to American Republican arguments that the Canadian system is something to avoid. In no country with universal health care is there a popular demand for a return to a private system.

Of course, there are fake opinion surveys. I often get something from various political organizations that pretend to be an opinion survey. In truth, it asks leading questions in order to get contributions.

 

So that's all you can say? What "misinformation and lies" are you talking about? Next time you respond to me, give me some facts to rebuke what I say.

 

The fact that you believe this Bull***IsLogicalisLaughable, that it represents anything remotely American displays your stupidity. Liberals are like pests, if they only had a giant bug zapper we could get rid of them all one by one... lies??? ok

 

hugs

You don't have a single payer system but many insurance companies (including the government).

 

Success of the left in Europe, the right in US

By Edward Glaeser February 5, 2010

It was a mistake to think that President Obama’s sweeping victory was a sign that America had moved significantly to the left. America remains remarkably conservative by world standards...

There are underlying factors that explain the differences between the United States and Europe. Five years ago, my colleague Alberto Alesina and I wrote a book, “Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference,’’ which tried to understand why the United States devotes far less on social services and redistribution than nations in Western Europe. These differences can’t be explained by economic forces. Before taxes, incomes in the United States are more unequal and more volatile, which would seem to call for more, not less, redistribution. Some argue that America has less redistribution because disadvantaged Americans find it easier to climb out of poverty, but poor Americans are actually less likely than poor Europeans to move up the income ladder...

Before welfare reform, US states with more African-Americans were significantly less generous to their welfare recipients. My colleague Erzo Luttmer found that people in the United States who live around poor people of a different race are more likely to oppose welfare spending...

Over decades, the success of the left in Europe and the right in the United States has led to wildly different beliefs about the nature of poverty and success. We found that 60 percent of Americans thought that the poor were lazy, while only 26 percent of European share that view. Fifty four percent of Europeans think luck determines income; only 30 percent of Americans concur. These differences don’t reflect economic reality. The American poor work longer hours than their European counterparts.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...uccess_of_the_left_in_europe_the_right_in_us/

-------

Behind many of the arguments against universal health care in the United States one can detect the attitude, "I don't want my tax money helping blacks."

 

So you are saying that we don't have a single payer system like Europe and Canada? We don't now but we will have it soon. Just think about it, over 60% of the people don't want this healthcare but congress was able to buy votes with their backroom deals and cram this bill down our throats; so be on the look out for a single payer system here in America.

 

lol

I don't see the insurance companies falling by the wayside any time soon.

 

Sorry but you're not even close. Of the poll your quoting 13% of those responding thought the health care reforms were not liberal enough. Subtract them and you lose you alleged majority.

Now I know of people going to Canada for prescriptions and I've seen Americans go to Mexico for dental care and sometimes other medical treatments.

You're actually just playing chicken little running around screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

 

You're misreading the legislation, and you're uninformed as to the budget process.

Block Quote 1) Explicitly prohibits the federal government from mandating abortion coverage within the essential benefits package (the baseline HHS will set up for health insurance plans)

Block Quote 2) Explicitly funnels the funding through HHS. While, yes, in a fantasy world without the Hyde Amendment federal funds would go to abortion - that's true for Medicaid, TRICARE, and the IHS as well. There is nothing exceptional about this legislation. The Hyde Amendment has passed every year with strong support since 1976. The Hyde Amendment explicitly bans HHS funding from providing abortions. This support may change 20 years from now: but the Congress with the political will to vote against the Hyde Amendment would have the political will to amend this legislation anyways. Nothing changes.

Block Quote 3) No, you missed the ball here. This piece of the legislation provides an extra layer of protection against abortion funding. If you're correct and abortion funding gets into this bill somehow - then your state can ban abortion funding from their essential benefits packages. Of course, this is a smokescreen: The Congress with the political will to not renew the Hyde Amendment would probably have the political will to amend this section of the law.

Block Quote 4 and 5) This prevents discrimination against facilities that provide abortions. IE - if the hospital that sets your broken arm on floor 4 provides abortions on floor 7, they still get paid for setting your arm. No abortions coverage is provided here. Same goes for individuals: doctors can't be discriminated against if they refuse or provide abortions.

Block Quote 6) This is the money shot. This clause explicitly prohibits taxpayer dollars from providing subsidies for health plans that provide abortion coverage. 222d4A is Block Quote #2 in your post.

Now STOP. Before you start jumping up and down screaming, "But That's Under subsec (e)!!!" THAT'S JUST THE WAY LEGISLATION IS WRITTEN. As a rule of thumb in reading a floor bill, if you're looking for a highlighted clause, search for the Sec. number, then the subsec lower case letter, then the clause number, then the subclause Upper Case Letter - ignoring everything else you see. This is usually evidence of the committee amendment process. At some point, a Senator in committee said, "I move to amend sec 222, subsection (d) with an exemption for subsection (e)." There was a vote and the amendment passed. The floor bill is written to preserve the order of debate for ease of use for the legislative aides. Then maybe another Senator said, "I move to amend the amendment to sec 222, subsection (d)." Once all the amendments to the amendments to the amendments, etc. are done and the votes are tallied, the legislative aides will rewrite the section. The committee with then vote on the finalized amendment.

That we still see the order of debate here suggests that there was very little controversy involved in this amendment (because, it's not controversial.) An index is attached to the floor bill with the heading from each subsection and clause and the floor bill is dissected by the Federal Registrar before entry into law. The lawbooks actually have a completely different numbering scheme and different parts of this floor bill, according to the index, may actually be in different physical books.

In no way should you construe this as derogatory or condescending, but this is evidence that you are not familiar with reading legislation. Please take your lack of practice into account when you are reconsidering your previous interpretations of this legislation. People you wrongly trust are telling you that abortion funding is in the bill, so you're seeing abortion funding where it doesn't exist because you are looking for it, because you don't know any better.

Block Quote 7) Again, same as above. The IHS has its own rules, guidelines, and departments. This section simply says that this legislation follows whatever the relevant law is concerning the IHS at this time. The Hyde Amendment explicitly prohibits IHS from funding abortion. Yes, you are correct - in a fantasy world without the Hyde Amendment - abortion funding could be provided through the IHS. This piece of legislation changes nothing in regards to the IHS.

 

Like the fact that this bill is NOTHING LIKE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE?

Or did you totally ignore that one, miss so-called well educated?



Don't overestimate yourself, please.

 

When the governmnent is regulating all aspects of insurance companies, then turn around and compete with them, you won't even know what a private insurance looks like. Everyone will be on the government plan.

 

Oh shit, my numbering got screwed up and I'm not going to be able to fix this before the edit time limit. I'll try my best...

Edit: Nevermind! Fixed it within 10 minutes! Damn, I'm good...

 

I've got to join the chorus pointing out you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Your ignorance on this topic is profound. Health Insurance Companies didn't even lose their anti-trust exemption status until last month.