Illiberal Statism

[Hobbit]

Excellent column by Mike S. Adams. Most of what is being pushed as 'liberalism' is actually statism.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/11/07/illiberal_statism

[darin]

http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif

[JohnDoe]

the author LOST me on his first LIE....

Rather than suffer needlessly for months as they await an MRI or an appendectomy, many “choose” to come to the United States for better health care.

he was speaking about Canada....his LIE was about waiting months for an mri needed for someone who has appendicitis.... someone who had appendicitis is handled IMMEDIATELY in the Canadian system....

Couldn't get past that outright lie....

so, pure garbage, partisan rhetoric, filled with exagerations to make some invalid political point imo.... not worth the read.

jd

[darin]

the author LOST me on his first LIE....

Rather than suffer needlessly for months as they await an MRI or an appendectomy, many “choose” to come to the United States for better health care.

he was speaking about Canada....his LIE was about waiting months for an mri needed for someone who has appendicitis.... someone who had appendicitis is handled IMMEDIATELY in the Canadian system....

Couldn't get past that outright lie....

so, pure garbage, partisan rhetoric, filled with exagerations to make some invalid political point imo.... not worth the read.

jd

because you are familiar with EVERY CASE of appendicitis in Canada? Miss Cleo is that you?

[Hobbit]

the author LOST me on his first LIE....

Rather than suffer needlessly for months as they await an MRI or an appendectomy, many “choose” to come to the United States for better health care.

he was speaking about Canada....his LIE was about waiting months for an mri needed for someone who has appendicitis.... someone who had appendicitis is handled IMMEDIATELY in the Canadian system....

Couldn't get past that outright lie....

so, pure garbage, partisan rhetoric, filled with exagerations to make some invalid political point imo.... not worth the read.

jd

Got an example, 'cause I've actually seen lots of Canadians who couldn't get emergency, life-saving medical treatment in Canada, and had to come across the border into America just to be able to live for more than a few months. There's even a lot of money to be made in arranging for Canadians to seek care in the U.S. and it's a booming business.

[diuretic]

I'm with jd. Townhall has some really bad essay writers on it. I'd like to rip that shite apart but I can't be bothered, I'm a bit tired, hectic day at work. Maybe at the weekend.

[TheSage]

I'm with jd. Townhall has some really bad essay writers on it. I'd like to rip that shite apart but I can't be bothered, I'm a bit tired, hectic day at work. Maybe at the weekend.

You can't rip it apart. I call you out again.

[bullypulpit]

Excellent column by Mike S. Adams. Most of what is being pushed as 'liberalism' is actually statism.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/11/07/illiberal_statism

I find it interesting that the article fails to address the steps taken by the Bush administration, which are far more likely to result in the establishment of of "statism". Fer example...

1. Raising the specter of a shadowy enemy out to destroy th nation in order to silence critics.

2. The creation of secret, extra-legal, prison systems to "deal with America's enemies" who, eventually, wind up being anyone who voices opposition to government policies.

3. The development of private armies which are not in the military chain of command. We know them as Blackwater and other PMC's.

4. The establishment of secret domestic surveillance operations against US citizens, in direct violation of US law.

6. The arbitrary detention and release of US citizens as well as innocent foreign nationals.

7. Equating dissent with treason.

All are parts of the pattern the 20th centuries most brutal regimes took in their rise to power. The issues mentioned in your little article, or similar issues, were nothing more than a distraction to the average citizen, masking the real efforts to subvert the law and eventually undermine and over throw the democracies the real "statists" took root in.

[Gaffer]

I find it interesting that the article fails to address the steps taken by the Bush administration, which are far more likely to result in the establishment of of "statism". Fer example...

1. Raising the specter of a shadowy enemy out to destroy th nation in order to silence critics.

2. The creation of secret, extra-legal, prison systems to "deal with America's enemies" who, eventually, wind up being anyone who voices opposition to government policies.

3. The development of private armies which are not in the military chain of command. We know them as Blackwater and other PMC's.

4. The establishment of secret domestic surveillance operations against US citizens, in direct violation of US law.

6. The arbitrary detention and release of US citizens as well as innocent foreign nationals.

7. Equating dissent with treason.

All are parts of the pattern the 20th centuries most brutal regimes took in their rise to power. The issues mentioned in your little article, or similar issues, were nothing more than a distraction to the average citizen, masking the real efforts to subvert the law and eventually undermine and over throw the democracies the real "statists" took root in.

You really have gone off the freaky dep end haven't you. You and sage belong together.

[theHawk]

I find it interesting that the article fails to address the steps taken by the Bush administration, which are far more likely to result in the establishment of of "statism".

Of course its all about BUSH!!! :laugh2:



:poke:

[Hobbit]

I'm more concerned with Bush's statist approach to education than anything else he's done. Some children need to be left behind because not leaving them behind means everybody else has to wait for them to catch up.

[Hagbard Celine]

Every country in the western world except us has some sort of universal healthcare system. You guys are worse than idiots if you really believe that the people in all those countries don't have access to emergency medical care. Wake up!

[Hobbit]

Every country in the western world except us has some sort of universal healthcare system. You guys are worse than idiots if you really believe that the people in all those countries don't have access to emergency medical care. Wake up!

Yeah, they have access, but it sucks. That's why it's booming business to come to America for health care, because in other countries, you can be told that without some procedure, you'll only live another 6 months. By the way, the waiting list is 8 months. This is also where virtually all medical breakthrough happen. If you want to see health care improve, we need LESS government intervention, not more.

[JohnDoe]

Yeah, they have access, but it sucks. That's why it's booming business to come to America for health care, because in other countries, you can be told that without some procedure, you'll only live another 6 months. By the way, the waiting list is 8 months. This is also where virtually all medical breakthrough happen. If you want to see health care improve, we need LESS government intervention, not more.

like what, hobbit? it is so easy to say and slip out these utopian statements that ''sound'' good but what less than now, in government intervention would make the ungodly costs of heathcare go down, verses the double digit increases we have had in healthcare costs every year for the last 7 years minimum?

what's your sollution?

jd

[Hobbit]

like what, hobbit? it is so easy to say and slip out these utopian statements that ''sound'' good but what less than now, in government intervention would make the ungodly costs of heathcare go down, verses the double digit increases we have had in healthcare costs every year for the last 7 years minimum?

what's your sollution?

jd

First off, tort reform. Institute a 'loser pays' system, or at least make it easier for defendants to counter-sue for legal costs. Lawsuits more than anything else drive up the cost of health care. Far too many slick lawyers have gotten rich by suing doctors for everything under the sun. The doctors lose far more often than they should, and even if they win, there's the legal costs.

Second, ridiculous regulations on health insurance have to go, such as minimum coverage requirements. I'm a young male. I shouldn't be forced by the government to pay for a plan that covers hospice and maternity, nor should the government force me to buy policies that cover things I think are either bogus or over hyped, like aromatherapy and acupuncture (like in Pennsylvania). Then there's the ridiculous stuff in some states where insurance companies are REQUIRED to grant you a policy, even for pre-existing conditions (New Jersey) that you knew about.

Third, if the government gives tax breaks to companies for insuring employees, the the self-insured should also get a tax break. This makes people less reliant on others for their health care, so maybe they'll shop around a bit instead of just grabbing everything. Insurance shouldn't cover check-ups, maternity, or other foreseeable expenses. That would be like car insurance covering gas and oil. If people actually shopped around and paid for their own insurance, they might notice that getting a policy that doesn't cover foreseeable expenses and saving for those instead is much cheaper. Then, doctors might actually have to compete over prices. Right now, doctors spend about half their payroll on people to handle insurance forms for every little thing, and never hear the question 'how much does it cost?' Don't believe me? Ask a doctor how much a check-up costs and you'll get a blank stare.

I think those three things alone would trigger a vast improvement in the system.

[theHawk]

First off, tort reform. Institute a 'loser pays' system, or at least make it easier for defendants to counter-sue for legal costs. Lawsuits more than anything else drive up the cost of health care. Far too many slick lawyers have gotten rich by suing doctors for everything under the sun. The doctors lose far more often than they should, and even if they win, there's the legal costs.

Second, ridiculous regulations on health insurance have to go, such as minimum coverage requirements. I'm a young male. I shouldn't be forced by the government to pay for a plan that covers hospice and maternity, nor should the government force me to buy policies that cover things I think are either bogus or over hyped, like aromatherapy and acupuncture (like in Pennsylvania). Then there's the ridiculous stuff in some states where insurance companies are REQUIRED to grant you a policy, even for pre-existing conditions (New Jersey) that you knew about.

Third, if the government gives tax breaks to companies for insuring employees, the the self-insured should also get a tax break. This makes people less reliant on others for their health care, so maybe they'll shop around a bit instead of just grabbing everything. Insurance shouldn't cover check-ups, maternity, or other foreseeable expenses. That would be like car insurance covering gas and oil. If people actually shopped around and paid for their own insurance, they might notice that getting a policy that doesn't cover foreseeable expenses and saving for those instead is much cheaper. Then, doctors might actually have to compete over prices. Right now, doctors spend about half their payroll on people to handle insurance forms for every little thing, and never hear the question 'how much does it cost?' Don't believe me? Ask a doctor how much a check-up costs and you'll get a blank stare.

I think those three things alone would trigger a vast improvement in the system.

Well said! :clap:

[bullypulpit]

Of course its all about BUSH!!! :laugh2:



:poke:

Well, he IS the POTUS...has been for almost seven...long...disastrous years.

[theHawk]

Well, he IS the POTUS...has been for almost seven...long...disastrous years.

Then why aren't you in Gitmo getting waterboarded for 'treason' for all of your dissent?

[diuretic]

You can't rip it apart. I call you out again.

Oh fuck off and bother someone else.

[diuretic]

Yeah, they have access, but it sucks. That's why it's booming business to come to America for health care, because in other countries, you can be told that without some procedure, you'll only live another 6 months. By the way, the waiting list is 8 months. This is also where virtually all medical breakthrough happen. If you want to see health care improve, we need LESS government intervention, not more.

You don't have a clue what you're on about. Have you undergone medical treatment outside the US?

[diuretic]

First off, tort reform. Institute a 'loser pays' system, or at least make it easier for defendants to counter-sue for legal costs. Lawsuits more than anything else drive up the cost of health care. Far too many slick lawyers have gotten rich by suing doctors for everything under the sun. The doctors lose far more often than they should, and even if they win, there's the legal costs.

Hang on, isn't US health care supposed to be the best in the world? If so, how come there are so many negligent health care professionals being sued?
Get rid of your incompetent doctors and the malpractice lawyers will starve.




Second, ridiculous regulations on health insurance have to go, such as minimum coverage requirements. I'm a young male. I shouldn't be forced by the government to pay for a plan that covers hospice and maternity, nor should the government force me to buy policies that cover things I think are either bogus or over hyped, like aromatherapy and acupuncture (like in Pennsylvania). Then there's the ridiculous stuff in some states where insurance companies are REQUIRED to grant you a policy, even for pre-existing conditions (New Jersey) that you knew about.

If there was a single-payer system - ie paid by government - you would only have to contribute a fixed amount from your salary per year, just like everyone else, regardless of gender or age. Then, regardless of gender or age, everyone could get decent health care.



Third, if the government gives tax breaks to companies for insuring employees, the the self-insured should also get a tax break. This makes people less reliant on others for their health care, so maybe they'll shop around a bit instead of just grabbing everything. Insurance shouldn't cover check-ups, maternity, or other foreseeable expenses. That would be like car insurance covering gas and oil. If people actually shopped around and paid for their own insurance, they might notice that getting a policy that doesn't cover foreseeable expenses and saving for those instead is much cheaper. Then, doctors might actually have to compete over prices. Right now, doctors spend about half their payroll on people to handle insurance forms for every little thing, and never hear the question 'how much does it cost?' Don't believe me? Ask a doctor how much a check-up costs and you'll get a blank stare.

I think those three things alone would trigger a vast improvement in the system.

Have private health insurance as a "frills" option for those who want it and can afford it.

[diuretic]

Then why aren't you in Gitmo getting waterboarded for 'treason' for all of your dissent?

There's no room :laugh2:

[Hobbit]

Hang on, isn't US health care supposed to be the best in the world? If so, how come there are so many negligent health care professionals being sued?
Get rid of your incompetent doctors and the malpractice lawyers will starve.

No, it's all about jury education and stupid lawyers. To date, there's been no link found between C-section deliveries and cerebral palsy, but John Edwards got rich suing obstetricians for not doing C-sections every time he found a crying mother whose kid had palsy. 85% of all obstetricians get sued. There's no way that many incompetent doctors got through med school. The problem is that there are some problems that can't be fixed and some problems that are nearly impossible to diagnose, and lawyers see these people as easy tools and use them to get rich. Sometimes, cancer kills a relative and there's nothing to be done. Most people move on. Some sue for millions. It's not the doctors, it's the legal system.


If there was a single-payer system - ie paid by government - you would only have to contribute a fixed amount from your salary per year, just like everyone else, regardless of gender or age. Then, regardless of gender or age, everyone could get decent health care.

And we'd end up just like everybody else with a single payer system. People would go to the doctor for common colds and hangnails, while the government set price caps on medical services, causing a doctor shortage, just like some towns in Canada where there's a lottery to see who gets a family doctor.


Have private health insurance as a "frills" option for those who want it and can afford it.

Or we could let everyone buy their own damn insurance, the way we do car insurance.

[diuretic]

No, it's all about jury education and stupid lawyers. To date, there's been no link found between C-section deliveries and cerebral palsy, but John Edwards got rich suing obstetricians for not doing C-sections every time he found a crying mother whose kid had palsy. 85% of all obstetricians get sued. There's no way that many incompetent doctors got through med school. The problem is that there are some problems that can't be fixed and some problems that are nearly impossible to diagnose, and lawyers see these people as easy tools and use them to get rich. Sometimes, cancer kills a relative and there's nothing to be done. Most people move on. Some sue for millions. It's not the doctors, it's the legal system.

If there's no link then how come damages were awarded? I'm not yanking your chain, that's just a question. There must have been some evidence of cause and effect put to the court I would have thought.



And we'd end up just like everybody else with a single payer system. People would go to the doctor for common colds and hangnails, while the government set price caps on medical services, causing a doctor shortage, just like some towns in Canada where there's a lottery to see who gets a family doctor.

Those towns in Canada might be in Churchill, Manitoba or anywhere in Alberta. My experience here in Aus is that we have a single-payer system and it's easy to get in to see a doctor. It's more difficult in isolated communities where a doctor is on the circuit of course but it certainly isn't as bad as you mention in your Ca example.




Or we could let everyone buy their own damn insurance, the way we do car insurance.

Buying a car is optional, getting medical care isn't.

[Hobbit]

If there's no link then how come damages were awarded? I'm not yanking your chain, that's just a question. There must have been some evidence of cause and effect put to the court I would have thought.

Like I said, it's jury ignorance. Many times, they'll look at the crying plaintiffs and think to themselves, "You know, this guy's innocent, but she should get SOMEthing. Besides, the insurance will pay for it." John Edwards once got a record-breaking award in a case by claiming to be channeling the spirit of the disabled child in the courtroom. It's just another part of our broken civil legal system.


Those towns in Canada might be in Churchill, Manitoba or anywhere in Alberta. My experience here in Aus is that we have a single-payer system and it's easy to get in to see a doctor. It's more difficult in isolated communities where a doctor is on the circuit of course but it certainly isn't as bad as you mention in your Ca example.

Ok, so this system is supposed to be great...unless you live somewhere other than a major city. Sorry, but I like supply to meet demand, and that never happens when the government's involved. In America, you can get in to see a doctor promptly, no matter where you live, and anyone who wants one can get a regular physician.


Buying a car is optional, getting medical care isn't.

There's a lot of stuff you NEED that you have to pay for. What about food? Should the government pay for everyone's food? What if you had single-payer food insurance that paid for everything, no matter what it was? Well, the supermarket would charge whatever it felt like and you'd probably be eating steak and salmon instead of hamburger and catfish. After all, the insurance is paying for it. If somebody can't afford even basic health coverage, then do what we do with food...grant a subsidy (though I'd like there to be an incentive to be thrifty, since food stamp people tend to eat better than I do).

[diuretic]

Like I said, it's jury ignorance. Many times, they'll look at the crying plaintiffs and think to themselves, "You know, this guy's innocent, but she should get SOMEthing. Besides, the insurance will pay for it." John Edwards once got a record-breaking award in a case by claiming to be channeling the spirit of the disabled child in the courtroom. It's just another part of our broken civil legal system.

Ah. In my jurisdiction there are no juries in civil matters, it's only in front of a judge and the amount being claimed dictates the arena.




Ok, so this system is supposed to be great...unless you live somewhere other than a major city. Sorry, but I like supply to meet demand, and that never happens when the government's involved. In America, you can get in to see a doctor promptly, no matter where you live, and anyone who wants one can get a regular physician.

I can't speak for Canada. Here in Australia the government doesn't dictate where health professionals will serve. They will create financial incentives for doctors to work in isolated communities or in rural areas, but they can't order a doc to head outback. The government, through its agency, is simply the single payer. It's the medical profession - and in particular the various "colleges" which determine (in conjunction with universities) how many doctors will graduate from universities. The profession dictates the cost of its services, the government single-payer dictates how much it will pay the consumer of those services. If we allowed market forces to rule here, there would be quite large communities in rural areas without a doctor.




There's a lot of stuff you NEED that you have to pay for. What about food? Should the government pay for everyone's food? What if you had single-payer food insurance that paid for everything, no matter what it was? Well, the supermarket would charge whatever it felt like and you'd probably be eating steak and salmon instead of hamburger and catfish. After all, the insurance is paying for it. If somebody can't afford even basic health coverage, then do what we do with food...grant a subsidy (though I'd like there to be an incentive to be thrifty, since food stamp people tend to eat better than I do).

What if someone can't afford food? Does your government ensure people won't starve to death? The rich eat better than the poor, the poor at least don't starve to death.

I don't think the insurance idea fits with that example.

[bullypulpit]

Then why aren't you in Gitmo getting waterboarded for 'treason' for all of your dissent?

Because we aren't at that point...yet. As I pointed out <a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=129867&postcount=1>HERE</a>, the Bush administration has laid the foundations for a fascist state. They haven't actually taken that next step to a functional fascist state.

[bullypulpit]

You really have gone off the freaky dep end haven't you. You and sage belong together.

Well, if pointing out the facts is going off the "freaky deep-end", perhaps you should be reassessing your own grasp of reality.

[JohnDoe]

First off, tort reform. Institute a 'loser pays' system, or at least make it easier for defendants to counter-sue for legal costs. Lawsuits more than anything else drive up the cost of health care. Far too many slick lawyers have gotten rich by suing doctors for everything under the sun. The doctors lose far more often than they should, and even if they win, there's the legal costs.

lawsuits, malpractice insurance and all related are 2% of the cost of heathcare so you are simply WRONG on this one the Hobbit. Also, the states that instituted their own reforms, with capping the amount in retributions, have had NO COST REDUCTIONS IN HEALTHCARE.

Second, ridiculous regulations on health insurance have to go, such as minimum coverage requirements. I'm a young male. I shouldn't be forced by the government to pay for a plan that covers hospice and maternity, nor should the government force me to buy policies that cover things I think are either bogus or over hyped, like aromatherapy and acupuncture (like in Pennsylvania). Then there's the ridiculous stuff in some states where insurance companies are REQUIRED to grant you a policy, even for pre-existing conditions (New Jersey) that you knew about.

Please provide a link where it shows the Federal government forcing the insurance companies to set up their health insurance plans to cover maternity if you are a guy. If anything the federal government needs to set up regs so that the INSURANCE COMPANY doesn't do this just to add people to their pool of people and find a way to charge you more.

As far as states that make insurance companies cover those with previous conditions, this is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and HUMANE. There is no other way to handle it. Most of us get insurance from our employers, employers in most states can layoff any employee at any time. They HAVE to be able to get insurance in the future, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PREEXISTING CONDITION that needs to be taken care of... If there is such a regulation it is a good regulation. This does not mean the insurance company can not charge them more for them with their condition, they can. Just like insurance companies are now charging MORE if the customer is a smoker.

Third, if the government gives tax breaks to companies for insuring employees, the the self-insured should also get a tax break. This makes people less reliant on others for their health care, so maybe they'll shop around a bit instead of just grabbing everything. Insurance shouldn't cover check-ups, maternity, or other foreseeable expenses. That would be like car insurance covering gas and oil. If people actually shopped around and paid for their own insurance, they might notice that getting a policy that doesn't cover foreseeable expenses and saving for those instead is much cheaper. Then, doctors might actually have to compete over prices. Right now, doctors spend about half their payroll on people to handle insurance forms for every little thing, and never hear the question 'how much does it cost?' Don't believe me? Ask a doctor how much a check-up costs and you'll get a blank stare.
Hobbit, YOU are asking for MORE regulation changes here from our government???? Hello??? You are asking for the government to change the laws so that individuals can get the tax break too. I believe President Bush and the republicans have touted they have accomplished this and passed laws to do this already by adding the individual health savings account.

Again, you are asking for the usa gvt to dictate to the insurance companies how to structure their policies???

and the cost of paperwork and the such of Health Insurance is 25% and not the 50% you just claimed.

Sounds to me like having Insurance companies instead of direct access to the medical care IS THE PROBLEM from what you are saying?

I think those three things alone would trigger a vast improvement in the system.

I am glad to see you thinking outside of the normal box Hobbit but you need to do some more reading on this, I believe you were off base with several things. And on the same note, I believe I too need to do some more research on this....the answers have to be out there for both of us to find...

jd

[red states rule]

the author LOST me on his first LIE....

Rather than suffer needlessly for months as they await an MRI or an appendectomy, many “choose” to come to the United States for better health care.

he was speaking about Canada....his LIE was about waiting months for an mri needed for someone who has appendicitis.... someone who had appendicitis is handled IMMEDIATELY in the Canadian system....

Couldn't get past that outright lie....

so, pure garbage, partisan rhetoric, filled with exagerations to make some invalid political point imo.... not worth the read.

jd

JD, there are huge waits for medical treatment in Cabada. The taxes are huge and the people are at the mercy of the government running the system.

This is the same thing the Dems want to give to all of us with government run health care

[JohnDoe]

JD, there are huge waits for medical treatment in Cabada. The taxes are huge and the people are at the mercy of the government running the system.

This is the same thing the Dems want to give to all of us with government run health carersr, those waits are for elective surgeries from my understanding, not for any kind of emergencies. Emercencies are treated as just that, emergncies and are taken care of right away.

But regardless of our disagreement on this, I am NOT, in any way suggesting we model our healthcare system off of theirs in Canada. There are a variety of national healthcare plans in various countries that are much more effficient than Canada's.

In addition to this, i am not necessarily a Universal Health care plan supporter of any sort at this time in the game. I think we do have huge problems with the cost of healthcare and the double digit increases in its cost for the past decade is crippling individuals and crippling businesses that are helping pay for it. SOMETHING has to be done, in drastic measures, to rein in what is happening with its costs....making healthcare cost prohibitive for most every American!!!

i think a single payer universal plan would give a ''free ride'' to the businesses that once paid it as a benefit and as part of the employee's total compensation package, and only if these businesses gave their existing employees this money that they spent on healthcare for them, as a pay increase to the employee, would I accept a Universal, single payer plan. Then, these people that once got their insurance paid by their employer would have this money in their salary part of their total compensation and could afford to pay the higher taxes that a system like this will cost them, or something on those lines.

jd

[red states rule]

rsr, those waits are for elective surgeries from my understanding, not for any kind of emergencies. Emercencies are treated as just that, emergncies and are taken care of right away.

But regardless of our disagreement on this, I am NOT, in any way suggesting we model our healthcare system off of theirs in Canada. There are a variety of national healthcare plans in various countries that are much more effficient than Canada's.

In addition to this, i am not necessarily a Universal Health care plan supporter of any sort at this time in the game. I think we do have huge problems with the cost of healthcare and the double digit increases in its cost for the past decade is crippling individuals and crippling businesses that are helping pay for it. SOMETHING has to be done, in drastic measures, to rein in what is happening with its costs....making healthcare cost prohibitive for most every American!!!

i think a single payer universal plan would give a ''free ride'' to the businesses that once paid it as a benefit and as part of the employee's total compensation package, and only if these businesses gave their existing employees this money that they spent on healthcare for them, as a pay increase to the employee, would I accept a Universal, single payer plan. Then, these people that once got their insurance paid by their employer would have this money in their salary part of their total compensation and could afford to pay the higher taxes that a system like this will cost them, or something on those lines.

jd

JD, anytime you provide something free to people - they don't care how much they use it. If Hillary has her way, our health care system will crash, there will no incentive for people to want to work in the system, the level of care will go down, and there will people who could die

BTW, the uninsured number the left throws out is very misleading and is inflated


But Greg D'Angelo, a health researcher at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the Census count is "very misleading" because it overstates the number of chronically uninsured, low-income Americans. The figure includes illegal immigrants, people already eligible for government programs, middle-class Americans who can afford but don't buy insurance and workers who have temporarily lost coverage between jobs, he noted

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/24691/

[diuretic]

It works here. It can definitely be improved but it's not crashing. I think Canada should allow a two-tier system though, I think it's blinkered to refuse it.