Someone
Vote him in and prepare for socialized medicine, which even the canadians admit is a failure.

OH JESUS THAT WOULD BE ALMOST AS BAD AS OUR SOCIALIZED POLICE FORCE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND OTHER GOVERMENT BACK INSITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS SUCH AS SCHOOL OH LAWDY LAWDY LAWD NO NO NOOOO.

Canada isn't the only country to have socialized medicine, and there are many different variations on the system. Just because one did it wrong doesn't mean there aren't options that can make it work.

Also you moron, Planned Parenthood is a Christain institution that teaches safe sex, and is only of the few places you can get discounted testing for STDs, birth control, pregnacy testing, etc. The only medication they have on hand, for that matter, is the morning after pill and birth control.

Wait, I forgot, the Christianity is just a cover, a front if you will. No Christain or Catholic would ever let a single drop go to waste. Planned Parenthood? More like ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION inc. (and then in small text under the logo "we hate babies, grr". If you want the true story on SEX, let me fill you in...

I know quite a few Canadians who would never give up their health care system. Has anyone done a poll as to whether Canadians want to give up their health care system and get a US style system?

I think Canada has the best of both worlds. The payer is single payer but the Doctors are free market. Basic health care is covered, but boutique health care is still out of pocket.

GOBAMA!

mapaghimagsik
I know quite a few Canadians who would never give up their health care system. Has anyone done a poll as to whether Canadians want to give up their health care system and get a US style system?

I think Canada has the best of both worlds. The payer is single payer but the Doctors are free market. Basic health care is covered, but boutique health care is still out of pocket.

Gosh every Canadian I correspond with would love private provider health care. But then they're mostly model builders who constantly cut their fingers with hobby knives.

They have done polls it's mostly cut down the middle. Canadians also say they like the convienence but hate the wait.

The Federal government in the US has usurped enough power that isn't provided for in the Constitution. I don't want them controlling health care too. The last time they did (in the 1970s) "fee for service" and cheap medical care disappeared and was replaced with HMO's that refuse care on a whim and where the insurers admit that no two people there will give you the same answer because it that is their policy as the HMO is trying to get you to give up trying to get the care so they don't have to pay.

My wife and I have had too much experience with this and have had to appeal to the State board of Insurance numerous times and even use our connections in the NJ state capitol. The private insurers blatantly break the law, get fined constantly but their beaurocracy would be nothing compared with what the US gov't would come up with for 300 million people (see Medicaid/Medicare, icky mess and ridiculous costs)

I'm not against socialized medicine, just doubt that the USA could legislate a workable and efficient system for our large population when it can't even get the partial programs right.

Last time I asked this question in a Sicko thread, all the Canadians who responded said they wouldn't trade for our system under any circumstances.

I ask again if any canucks here at DD would want our insurance companies trying to deny any claim possible system instead of their everything is covered(even if it isn't perfect) system?

No system is perfect, and I'm sure you can trot out a detractor -- or you can pay them.

The funny thing about the statement above is that Canadians *have* private health care. Its not the British system.

Obama hates babies, Obama's a secret Muslim, Obama hates America....

The good news is that this smear tactic isn't going to save the Republicans this year. Democrats are winning special elections left and right, with Republicans desperately linking the Dem candidates to Obama and Wright. Here are the three canaries in this election coal mine:

1) Democrats won Illinois 14th District seat held by Republican former Speaker of the House Dennis Hasert for 21 years, and the district that Bush got 55% in 2004. This is a Republican stronghold that should have been easy to keep. They spent over $1million trying to keep the seat and lost.

2) Democrats won Louisiana's 6th District seat , a GOP stronghold that Bush won by 19 points in 2004 and had been held by Republicans for 33 years. The National Republican Congressional Committee and other conservative groups poured $1million into this race, linking the Democratic candidate to Obama and Pelosi and even Rev. Wright. And it didn't work; the Republican lost.

3) and just tonight, the Democrat squeaked out a victory in Mississippi's 1st District , a solidly reliably Republican district Bush won by 25 points in 2004. VP Cheney personally went down to this district to campaign, the NRCC spent over $1.3million trying to defend this seat, and other conservative groups spent hundreds of thousands more. They ran ads of Obama and Rev. Wright, they threw a textbook smear campaign against the Democrat in a heavy GOP district and lost. They lost.

In special elections all over this country for Republican districts, Republicans are losing seats. This should be a wake-up call; if you Republicans aren't panicking yet, you should be. These are the harbinger of what to expect this November.

So all you Republicans, go ahead and have your posts about Obama hating babies, or doesn't love America, or how he wants to enslave white people, or anything else you want to throw at him. Because people all across the country are realizing what Republicans have done to this country for the past 7 years. Your smears aren't going to save you this year. Your personal attacks aren't going to work. People are seeing through it, and they are voting you out.

You do realize that an Obama presidency is going to give all these hate groups the green light, don't you? I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in domestic terrorism, ala Eric Rudolph.

The American Taliban aren't going to settle having "one of them" as president.

I guess they'll be a lot more eager to close Gitmo when a few more of their own are in it.

bobhhh
Last time I asked this question in a Sicko thread, all the Canadians who responded said they wouldn't trade for our system under any circumstances.

I ask again if any canucks here at DD would want our insurance companies trying to deny any claim possible system instead of their everything is covered(even if it isn't perfect) system?

There is a huge difference between people who reply to threads and those who are in a statistical sampling. You'd get the same kind of results (but oppositely skewed) if you polled the audience of the Sean Hannity show on the same topic. I had lunch with the Canadian contingent at a Model show and asked. (and the Brits, don't ever get them started on healthcare)

Obama does not hate America! Come on people, he subscribes to Black Liberation Theology, but having spent an entire summer researching it in preperation for teaching in a predominantly African American school district they have plenty of reasons for feeling and believing what they do.

Four centuries of oppression and four decades of freedom? I'd have a chip on my shoulder too. I can see where he's coming from. Do I agree? No, in choice between him and the Republican, I like the guy, he's a pragmatist.

Reparations would be a bit much as there are no surviving people who were slaves when it was legal in the USA, but maybe reparations for Jim Crow? If we had reparations for every decendant of a black slave, there would be a lot of "whites" in line (Probably the whole population whose ancestry in the Southern USA predates the 19th Century would be eligable)

arteestx
So all you Republicans, go ahead and have your posts about Obama hating babies, or doesn't love America, or how he wants to enslave white people, or anything else you want to throw at him. Because people all across the country are realizing what Republicans have done to this country for the past 7 years. Your smears aren't going to save you this year. Your personal attacks aren't going to work. People are seeing through it, and they are voting you out.

You can't base someone on the party there in or you sound like a fanboy. Really party politics are retarded and in my opinion should be completely abolished.

Atom Apple

arteestx
So all you Republicans, go ahead and have your posts about Obama hating babies, or doesn't love America, or how he wants to enslave white people, or anything else you want to throw at him. Because people all across the country are realizing what Republicans have done to this country for the past 7 years. Your smears aren't going to save you this year. Your personal attacks aren't going to work. People are seeing through it, and they are voting you out.

You can't base someone on the party there in or you sound like a fanboy. Really party politics are retarded and in my opinion should be completely abolished.

Couldn't agree more Atom.

Also: the republicans? I heard hardly a peep from them. Most (not all mind you) of the smearing against Obama has come from his very own party, Hillary, and people from his personal life.

Blindly going with party can be silly, just as "You're with us or against us" in most forms is very silly.

But, when you're talking about policial parties, they have platforms. If you read about those platforms and agree with those positions you're making a deliberate choice.

I hope this isn't the beginnings of a long string of "Republican Victimhood" posts.

You have to agree to some level or no endorsement. And if you can't get into a party nobody will even consider you. So anyone who disagrees with a major point has no chance. And sometimes major choices can fit into more than just yes or no, in which case "only the Democratic and Republican opinions matter!"

mapaghimagsik
Blindly going with party can be silly, just as "You're with us or against us" in most forms is very silly.

But, when you're talking about policial parties, they have platforms. If you read about those platforms and agree with those positions you're making a deliberate choice.

The majority of voters in the USA are very silly. They vote a party line and never quite realize just what they are voing for. New Jersey is famous for its party line knee-jerk voters. NJ will elect criminals and obvious incompetents just because they have a "D" next to their name.

Ed Koch talks about a percentage rule. You won't agree with everything that a party or a candidate is for, but do you agree with the majority or what she/he believes in? Say 70%? Do you believe in more of what she/he stands for than what the opponent stands for?

You've made your choice. I agree with a greater percentage of what McCain says than what Obama says, but no matter how much I would love see Obama elected just to shake things up, it'll be McCain.

@ Comicrasy- you're a dolt and you give conservatives a bad name. I live in Georgia, and trust me, there's not a lot of hardcore Librals in my neighborhood. However, I still have a lot of right-wing nut friends, teachers and coworkers, and I will tolerate and consider their viewpoints- many of which, I have decided are quite correct. You are facing the same odds stacked against you, albeit on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Here's a situation- if I'm in a political/philosophical argument with my conservative friends, I'm REALLY careful in what I say, because there's a lot of ears dismembering every word I say, ready to use it to their own ends. You might want to apply this concept in a forum populated by artists, which are stereotypically hyper-liberal. Worse, this is a forum, so any little mistakes you make in your argument can be constantly detected and reforged by every reader of the thread, not just a once-over by a passive listener.
Now, an example of this- While you constantly refer to us "worshipping" Obama and his respective viewpoints, and not conceding to any other opinions you only concede your ground when directly confronted with your own quote, thereby proving yourself wrong.
See how I took an insult and bent it to my own will? Yeah, you might want to be more careful with your speech, and seriously, quit stirring up controversy where there previously was none unless you have a veritable bulwark of irrefutable evidence to hold off the brunt of a ton of pissed off opponents, because you seem to have failed at that here.

I hold my statements above to be self evident, and anybody who disagrees with me, look the thread over before responding, please. As for myself, I'll shut up now.

Obama hates babies? Noooo! Far from it!

Obama Cures Man with Speech
Here is one political news story Fox News wont tell you. Obama (our future president) has cured a man of a serious illness. Or at least something he has said in one of his political speeches has some effect on the man. Nester Todd a 72 year old veteran from Cincinnati Oh has a rare condition known as Elbillug Degenerative Disorder, or EDD. Todd has been suffering from the affliction which slowly erodes the brains neuron processing abilites , basically it rots your brain while your still alive. Doctors gave him six months to live last November, but at a Obama Campaign Ralley Todd was attending, he said that during the speech he felt as though his mind was being cleansed. The following day Todd decided to go back to his Doctor who gave him a cat scan. It was a miracle, not only had the disease appeared to go into remission it apparently eradicated it from his entire system. Todd said that when the senator was talking about hope and change it brought tears to his eyes, and he along with several others believes that the inspiring words of the Senator Obama triggered a healing effect brought on by high levels of hope.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Obama heals hundreds!
AUSTIN --Ginny McCallum, 43, who has been confined to a wheelchair for much of her adult life, came to hear presidential candidate Barack Obama speak at the University of Texas. Afterward she found herself in a wheelchair access breezeway as Obama and his entourage exited the arena. The candidate spotted her, came over, grabbed her hand and pulled her up. She found herself standing for the first time in eleven years.

"He smiled at me and said, "Yes, you can," she says. "I was so stunned I didn't know what to do."

McCallum is among hundreds of people who say they have been healed by the Democratic candidate, in one of the most surprising and little-acknowledged aspects of his campaign. Reporters have shied away from the story, chalking it up to "Obama-mania" and people's feelings of elation.

"We don't talk about it a lot, but yeah, it does happen," says one staffer who says he has seen multiple people healed on a rope line. "We don't know exactly how or why it's happening, and the Senator won't talk about it. He usually insists that people keep it quiet and just report it to their pastor or priest."

Greeting supporters after a rousing speech in Houston, Obama stepped into the dense crowd and spontaneously began touching people: a legally blind woman, a man deaf in one ear, a cancer sufferer and a lame man.

"Yes, you can," Obama said as he laid hands on afflicted bodies.

The people's reactions were so joyous as to be almost frightening. They jumped and shouted and wept. Before they could thank or embrace the candidate he was well down the rope line healing others. Their excitement was lost in the general din of the crowd.

Aides acknowledge that the phenomenon is occurring with greater frequency.
"His power goes beyond simple inspiration," says one aide. "There is something developing here that I'm not sure any of us fully understands."

They say Obama has told them privately that his time has not yet come, so it would be inappropriate to talk about the healings right now. He says he will wait until the convention to speak publicly about the "special calling" he believes he has to lead the country. They do expect him to start alluding to "the providential nature of what is happening on the campaign trail" in an upcoming address, mostly because word is getting around.

People have begun bringing relatives by the score to campaign events in hopes of a healing touch.

"It's not the speeches that are drawing people anymore, as good as they are," says a senior staff member. "It's people wanting to get better, and wanting their friends and relatives to get better. It's the belief that there's something more here."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I love it! Of course, these are spoof stories from Republicans (the first story has Elbillug disease? How elbillug do you think I am?) But I'm thinking this leads to a whole slew of new campaign slogans...

"Vote Obama! or go to Hell!!"
"Do you need forgiveness for voting Bush into office? Vote Obama!"
"Vote Obama! Thousands of Republicans have converted, so should you!"
"Do you want to get back on God's good side after voting Republican? Vote Obama!"
"Vote Obama! Because God IS a Democrat"
"Obama, the salvation for suicidal Republicans everywhere"
"Obama -- the Barack of Ages"

Praise Obama! (isn't it wonderful having a candidate we can be excited about?)

*applauds arteestx vehemently*

"Obama hates babies"?

McCain LOVES babies.
He just can't eat a whole one by himself, so Cindy helps.

Eight years of Deputy Dubya is way TOO MUCH!
This election please "Think first THEN vote".
Try something different this year... This year bat-sh*t crazy is out.

Barack "He's Sane" Obama! Vote for sanity, vote Obama!

Have a good weekend,
Gil

bobhhh
Last time I asked this question in a Sicko thread, all the Canadians who responded said they wouldn't trade for our system under any circumstances.

I ask again if any canucks here at DD would want our insurance companies trying to deny any claim possible system instead of their everything is covered(even if it isn't perfect) system?

I was absolutely baffled when I watched sicko and saw so many people so scared of socialized mediciine.

I'm definitely one of those Canadians who wouldn't trade systems under any circumstances. I've never, nor has anyone I've ever known, had a problem with our system. The only thing I don't like is that we don't have socialized dentistry yet!

Hippie Van

bobhhh
Last time I asked this question in a Sicko thread, all the Canadians who responded said they wouldn't trade for our system under any circumstances.

I ask again if any canucks here at DD would want our insurance companies trying to deny any claim possible system instead of their everything is covered(even if it isn't perfect) system?

I was absolutely baffled when I watched sicko and saw so many people so scared of socialized mediciine.

I'm definitely one of those Canadians who wouldn't trade systems under any circumstances. I've never, nor has anyone I've ever known, had a problem with our system. The only thing I don't like is that we don't have socialized dentistry yet!

So there's no socialized preventative dentistry? Even orthodontics helps in long term health.

I think that's one of the big benefits of "socialized" medicine. Its well understood that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we had more preventative medicine, It would be a reasonably safe bet that health costs in the US would go down.

The problem with the question of whether to have socialized medicine or privitized medicine, the people who answer have generally only had one or the other.

If there was some data on Americans who lived under our current system (say, from 1990 to nearly now) and now live under a socialized medicine system, I'd think that would be more informative. A study of non-Americans who lived under socialized medicine and now lives with a privitized system in America would be useful as well.

Anecdotally, almost everyone I've seen interviewed in these situations prefer some form of socialized medicine. But that's hardly a scientific study.

I will say that without some form of universal healthcare, we're killing our domestic employers by forcing employers to pay for their employees' healthcare. By shifting that burden to the government and paying for it as a community, employers would be able to get out of the healthcare business and compete better internationally.

I will also say that there is no social system that works better when it has to be tooled for profit. The idea that private healthcare companies have to serve their customers' needs AND make a profit doing it seems to me fundamentally impossible.

Ronson
The problem with the question of whether to have socialized medicine or privitized medicine, the people who answer have generally only had one or the other.

Most people have had a mix.

John McCain supposedly hates socialized medicine, but that's all he's had his whole life.

Canada's system is a mix of private enterprise and single payer and that seems to work pretty good.

One of the "problems" with the public healthcare system we have in Australia, and they have it in Britain too, is that if you use that system for most surgeries and things you get put on a waiting list and it can take quite a while to happen.

However, as you say, the system is a mix. You're just as able to go private as well. I simply can't understand why people whine about the public system when if they don't like it they can pay a lot more and get it done however they want, nice and quickly. At least they HAVE that alternative. Sure, some people can't afford to go private, but in many places in the world you don't have the choice! It seems a good compromise to me.

-Private healthcare here in Australia isn't that super expensive either compared to the US and private health insurance isn't an extreme amout either.

When my wife needed back surgery, she was put on a waiting list for 5 months, and if my workplace wasn't providing the healthcare, there's no way she could have afforded the 3 month healing time because she went without pay for most of it. That's with private healthcare, and is fairly standard for non-critical surgery.

Are you saying public is longer than that?

I couldn't tell you. Honestly. I've never had an operation, so my knowledge is limited

Family members have however, but in most cases I can think of, they went private. The public system still covers that to an extent anyway. None of their waits were that long. But I have heard, anecdotally, that the public system has had some extreme waiting times of up to or over 12 months. That was on rather sensational news magazine type programs though, so while it was probably true, they probably weren't typical examples.

I hate that we are talking about such an important subject like health care in a stupidly titled thread like this. :(

EVERY civilized nation has some form of health care for their citizens. The facts are that most people would NOT be paying any more than they are now (if you have a job that provides it), and probably less, because once it gets regulated, I can gauren-damn-tee that Canadian drugs will suddenly be 'just fine' to the FDA.

This is also a way to bring the companies back to American soil, since providing health care is the #1 source of contention for them.

The only people that may be paying more out of pocket would be the people that ALREADY get FREE health care from their jobs (if there are any left at this point, besides congress). I would tend to think the supplemental Health Care companies that would start cropping up would take care of that.

Good point, Spang. I wish we could change thread titles... though the title makes me laugh each time I visit. I wish there were other threads called "McCain eats puppies" and "Hillary farts on cancer victims", where we discuss different political topics.

But as it stands, I'm going to trim the health care debate out into its own topic.

EDIT: Dangit, sorry. I guess we can't split threads in this system. I forgot. You guys are free to continue talking about health care systems here, or feel free to make a new post for it if the title is bothering you.

We can't even remove favorites without hackery. Whatever made you think we'd have robust thread management tools?

I kid -- sorta. Despite the endearing flaws, this is *still* worth the price of admission.

Now THIS is a nice touch of class from the Texas Republican Party's convention ....



While a number of speakers -- such as Railroad Commission chairman Michael Williams and Mike Huckabee -- have praised the advance of Barack Obama and what it means towards a colorblind society, at least one vendor hasn't gotten the message.

At the Republican state convention, a booth hosted by Republicanmarket was selling a pin Saturday that says: If Obama is President will we still call it the White House.

There were other pins that weren't necessarily conveying the positive, inclusive, united front that has been portrayed during the convention. One said, "Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Deportation" and another, "I will hold my nose when I vote for McCain"

Oh, that's fucking classy. HAHA GET IT HE'S A BLACK GUY