Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Title is self explainatory.

The Mexican border. Or is that Geographical?

Not taking the time to empathize with others.......It's simple. If people could, then they would not do the things they do on large and even small scales..

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Title is self explainatory.

The mentality that America need not change.

Our tolerance for British people bashing us

Poor and inaccessible health care
Very high crime rate
A crumbling public school system
Collapsing social security system
Religion taking over the government
Racism
Homophobia
A steadily increasing division between the richer and poor classes
Obsession with material possessions and celebrities.

So much on my list I can't really name them all.The goverment for start has way too much control for one thing.And allowing killing people is another thing.JM

political correctness

Originally posted by Starhawk
Poor and inaccessible health care
Very high crime rate
A crumbling public school system
Collapsing social security system
Religion taking over the government
Racism
Homophobia
A steadily increasing division between the richer and poor classes
Obsession with material possessions and celebrities.

Speaking like a true Liberal!jm

Media driven culture

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Speaking like a true Liberal!jm

I don't think so, many republicans agree on about 90% of those issues.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Poor and inaccessible health care
Very high crime rate
A crumbling public school system
Collapsing social security system
Religion taking over the government
Racism
Homophobia
A steadily increasing division between the richer and poor classes
Obsession with material possessions and celebrities.

What country doesn't have half of this crap? Talks a lot for a guy who doesn't live here.

Originally posted by chithappens
What country doesn't have half of this crap? Talks a lot for a guy who doesn't live here.

agreed

many of those are problems more inherent to western ideology than americanism in general

the religion one is purely american though

I guess I don't live there either....

Donuts for breakfast!! its a snack or dessert not breakfast

I argee with so me of them as a Repubican.

Poor and inaccessible health care
Very high crime rate
A crumbling public school system
Collapsing social security system




Obsession with material possessions and celebrities. jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee with so me of them as a Repubican.

Poor and inaccessible health care
Very high crime rate
A crumbling public school system
Collapsing social security system




Obsession with material possessions and celebrities. jm

High crime rate in comparison to what? (and when you make the comparison give a damn link. stop just saying stuff)

Public school system is totally dependent on where you are. Ohio has a great one, while TN is just.... yea. But that is everywhere. Work needs to be done of course; however, no education system, in any country, provides equal education to all.

Social security is only the way it is because of structure. It only makes up 1% of the budget but they keep talking about "reform." It is just politics for people who simply watch TV and think it gives the whole picture *cough*.

Health care is much the same, but that has more to do with kickbacks government officials get back from drug companies and blah blah blah. That's a corrupt part that is just inexcusable.

I'm leaving out context of course but all these damn generalizations... At least explain yourselves in some sort of discourse rather than just saying "it is."

Hey I just copy wht you put so I guess you should be taking your own advice!Night.jm

Health care should be free in America the way it is in almost every other industrialized nation.

yeah, that'll happen.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yeah, that'll happen.

Not saying it will, just saying it should.

I'm done. They never back anything they say. Not even with logic.

summed up:

2uo-9bFJcRM

Originally posted by Starhawk
Health care should be free in America the way it is in almost every other industrialized nation. Someone would have to pay for it, and if we don't, then the government will get raped with debt.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Someone would have to pay for it, and if we don't, then the government will get raped with debt.

Then how come it works in so many other countries?

Racist white men holdng minorities down.

We should give them more money and benefits and more help..since they all need it so badly.

Originally posted by KidRock
Racist white men holdng down.

We should give them more money and benefits and more help..since they all need it so badly.

*fixed & agreed

51% of the vehicles on US roads being trucks/SUVs. Thanks to that, our overall fuel economy for the entire nation is lower than it was back in 1987. I can guarantee you at least 30% of the people who own them don't need them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Then how come it works in so many other countries?

the answer is that it doesn't

in many ways, the american health care system is the envy of the world, especially for people with the money to afford it.

At the high end, America has the best doctors, equipment, facilities and all of those things. It is a day wait for a procedure that would be a month's wait in a public system.

If we look at it as necessarily being public OR private, it becomes a trade off of certain advantages for certain disadvantages.

I think ideology is brought into this discussion too often, with leftists being staunch in their demand for state controlled health, where as those who support private care do so as fervently. A real solution to both is probably somewhere in between, and will probably result in some health care being paid for by people who can afford it.

But the notion that the debate between public and private health care systems has been decided in favor of public is fallacious. There are many valid arguments on both sides.

Originally posted by inimalist
the answer is that it doesn't

in many ways, the american health care system is the envy of the world, especially for people with the money to afford it.

At the high end, America has the best doctors, equipment, facilities and all of those things. It is a day wait for a procedure that would be a month's wait in a public system.

If we look at it as necessarily being public OR private, it becomes a trade off of certain advantages for certain disadvantages.

I think ideology is brought into this discussion too often, with leftists being staunch in their demand for state controlled health, where as those who support private care do so as fervently. A real solution to both is probably somewhere in between, and will probably result in some health care being paid for by people who can afford it.

But the notion that the debate between public and private health care systems has been decided in favor of public is fallacious. There are many valid arguments on both sides.

Actually your pretty low on the list as far as best health care int he world. Canada isn't much better, Europe kicks both our asses according to the UN.

Originally posted by Schecter
*fixed & agreed

cute

Originally posted by Schecter
*fixed & agreed

Very true

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually your pretty low on the list as far as best health care int he world. Canada isn't much better, Europe kicks both our asses according to the UN.

Healthcare or health?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Then how come it works in so many other countries? I was unaware that healthcare for free was available. Please specify.

Canada, almost all of Europe I believe. And they score low on both.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually your pretty low on the list as far as best health care int he world. Canada isn't much better, Europe kicks both our asses according to the UN.

I'm pretty low on the list? What health care do I offer?

And regardless of the UN, the issues regarding public health do not disappear crossing the Atlantic.

America scores lower because of the cost for poor individuals. Where in the world do they have a better hospital than the Mayo clinic? Where is there technology better?

In the past 10 years, the winners of the nobel prize in medicine have been distributed like this: Sweden - 1, Australia - 2, UK - 5, America - 14.

High end stuff, America is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Canada, almost all of Europe I believe. And they score low on both.

haha

Free and subsidized through increased taxation are different things entirely.

As far as I know taxes in Europe are much higher than in North America, they certainly are in Canada vs America

Originally posted by inimalist
haha

Free and subsidized through increased taxation are different things entirely.

As far as I know taxes in Europe are much higher than in North America, they certainly are in Canada vs America

So? Whats wrong with paying taxes into healthcare?

Originally posted by Starhawk
So? what wrong with paying taxes into healthcare?

Nothing if thats how you feel. In fact I personally would support some type of a public/private partnership that enabled the poor to have full access without stifling the ability of the rich to afford better and more prompt care. There are lots of nitty gritty details that this thread probably isn't set up for discussing, but make a new one and I'm in.

The whole thing is, higher taxes would be a drawback of a public system. In a system where health care is public, we all have to pay for the stupid choices of others, be it drinking and driving, skydiving, smoking, fatty foods.

Originally posted by inimalist
Nothing if thats how you feel. In fact I personally would support some type of a public/private partnership that enabled the poor to have full access without stifling the ability of the rich to afford better and more prompt care. There are lots of nitty gritty details that this thread probably isn't set up for discussing, but make a new one and I'm in.

The whole thing is, higher taxes would be a drawback of a public system. In a system where health care is public, we all have to pay for the stupid choices of others, be it drinking and driving, skydiving, smoking, fatty foods.

Yes but part of living in a society is accepting that you pay for everyone, not just yourself.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes but part of living in a society is accepting that you pay for everyone, not just yourself.

Sure thing comrade

I actually believe in a little thing called personal accountability. You know, where you take care of yourself.

Originally posted by inimalist
Sure thing comrade

I actually believe in a little thing called personal accountability. You know, where you take care of yourself.

Wow. what a Right Wing comment, just because we believe in health care for everyone doesn't make us Communists. I might as well call you a fascist for your beliefs.

Not everyone is capable of taking care of themselves and they don't deserve to just die for that. What about the disabled or mentally handicapped? What about people who are born into a bad situation and can't escape it. There's nothing wrong with caring about more then yourself.

seems that since we pay taxes here in the states, everyone would have free healthcare. but it's not a perfect world.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Poor and inaccessible health care
Very high crime rate
A crumbling public school system
Collapsing social security system
Religion taking over the government
Racism
Homophobia
A steadily increasing division between the richer and poor classes
Obsession with material possessions and celebrities. I'm so glad we have you to point out our flaws

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm so glad we have you to point out our flaws

The question was asked...

Well since you so firmly believe this: Originally posted by Starhawk
I actually don't believe in interfering in other countries. Then don't criticize a country that isn't your own, m'kay, hypocrite?

Originally posted by Tangible God
The Mexican border. Or is that Geographical? I lol'd.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well since you so firmly believe this: Then don't criticize a country that isn't your own, m'kay, hypocrite?

I believe I made it clear that my belief was not to go over into another country and force myself into their problems. That has nothing to do with answering a question about that country.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I believe I made it clear that my belief was not to go over into another country and force myself into their problems. That has nothing to do with answering a question about that country. I daresay that's a deeply flawed piece of logic. Answering a question, sure. What is the capital? About how many people live there? Who is the President? Those questions are fine and dandy.

It is highly inappropriate to stick your nose into another country's affairs, however. Which is what you said you are against. And it is what you're doing now.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I daresay that's a deeply flawed piece of logic. Answering a question, sure. What is the capital? About how many people live there? Who is the President? Those questions are fine and dandy.

It is highly inappropriate to stick your nose into another country's affairs, however. Which is what you said you are against. And it is what you're doing now.

Well said

Originally posted by Starhawk
Wow. what a Right Wing comment, just because we believe in health care for everyone doesn't make us Communists. I might as well call you a fascist for your beliefs.

Not everyone is capable of taking care of themselves and they don't deserve to just die for that. What about the disabled or mentally handicapped? What about people who are born into a bad situation and can't escape it. There's nothing wrong with caring about more then yourself.

So someone is a facist if they beleive in people fending for themselves?!?

You really need to learn what a facist is

And in terms of what you are saying, you cannot force charity on people, it has to come from choice, not force. Otherwise its not charity, its just those with power taking rights away from others

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes but part of living in a society is accepting that you pay for everyone, not just yourself.

Freedom >>> Society

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually your pretty low on the list as far as best health care int he world. Canada isn't much better, Europe kicks both our asses according to the UN.

And since when has the UN been right about anything?

Hell they can't even do what they were created to do: STOP GENOCIDE!

The UN is a PR club. That's all.

1) Strangelove, I said I didn't believe in going into another country and forcing my way of life on them. Answering a question that was asked about a country is completely different. I'm not forcing anything. An opinion was requested and thats what I gave.

2) Grimm, I was making an ironic comment on how he called me a communist for suggesting that health care should be free. And yes it is right to make people pay taxes that go to benefit everyone, because if you left it up to them we would have no social programs at all and many people would suffer. Part of living in a society is understanding that not everyone is capable of helping themselves or taking care of themselves, and they should not have to suffer and die for that.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Freedom >>> Society

I am so glad I live in Canada.

So are we

Originally posted by chithappens
So are we

Thats fine, instead of taxes you pay for health insurance. And if you happen to catch a serious illness, you can be bankrupted by the medical costs.

petty, just petty LOL

Originally posted by chithappens
petty, just petty LOL

In what way? I just pointed out that instead of taxes you pay for your medical care in the form of insurance costs. And up here in Canada if we get seriously ill, we don't have to pay thousands in medical costs that would bankrupt us. So ironically in the end you guys can end up paying more over time then we do.

I did not bring that up when saying something about you living in America. It was unrelated.

No I was explaining one of the many reasons I prefer living north of the border and also defending one of my original points about the US health care system.

Originally posted by Starhawk
1) Strangelove, I said I didn't believe in going into another country and forcing my way of life on them. Answering a question that was asked about a country is completely different. I'm not forcing anything. An opinion was requested and thats what I gave. I know you're not forcing anything. You are however, being nosy and boorish by criticizing things about my country. I don't criticize Canada. I love Canada, actually. You shouldn't criticize something unless you're prepared to change it. And since you don't believe in forcing a way of life on another country, you can't do that anyway. So do us all a favor and stop talking.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
seems that since we pay taxes here in the states, everyone would have free healthcare. but it's not a perfect world.

This world will never be fair!We can't all have the world we want it to be.It is not perfect.jm

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
I was unaware that health care for free was available. Please specify.

The NHS here. Well you could call it free, we all pay for it via taxes,but it works out a lot cheaper than if we were to pay for it when we needed it. There is also private health care available which you pay for usually yearly, I use this because I'm not keen on the NHS service.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I know you're not forcing anything. You are however, being nosy and boorish by criticizing things about my country. I don't criticize Canada. I love Canada, actually. You shouldn't criticize something unless you're prepared to change it. And since you don't believe in forcing a way of life on another country, you can't do that anyway. So do us all a favor and stop talking.

A lot of the things being correct though.

What is your problem with people criticizing you country. If they have a point?

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Title is self explainatory.

I think america is messed up in the way where we'd rather see violence on T.V than a pair of boobs. Basicaly putting out the messege that sex is worse then violence. Thats messed up IMO

Originally posted by ~Bun Bun~
I think america is messed up in the way where we'd rather see violence on T.V than a pair of boobs. Basicaly putting out the messege that sex is worse then violence. Thats messed up IMO

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see Good Fellas on television than Bikini Car Wash IV.

When you say "rather see" and follow it up with "worse than," you're mixing drama and censorship, and they are two separate issues.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Wow. what a Right Wing comment, just because we believe in health care for everyone doesn't make us Communists. I might as well call you a fascist for your beliefs.

Not everyone is capable of taking care of themselves and they don't deserve to just die for that. What about the disabled or mentally handicapped? What about people who are born into a bad situation and can't escape it. There's nothing wrong with caring about more then yourself.

wow, what a nicely made extreme straw man argument.

It is funny that that when you make assanine comments like:

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes but part of living in a society is accepting that you pay for everyone, not just yourself.

It is understandable, but if I imply one back, completely inexcusable for me to do. Clearly I have overstepped the bounds of decorum by insinuating that your ideal of society being more important than the individuals that make it is leftist.

Look, the fact that you can so quickly say "This is what society is and this is how it works" shows that you are either completely unread on the history of political philosophy, or so ideologically committed to one point of view that you might as well be.

Originally posted by botankus
Call me crazy, but I'd rather see Good Fellas on television than Bikini Car Wash IV.

When you say "rather see" and follow it up with "worse than," you're mixing drama and censorship, and they are two separate issues.

I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with sex and violence

people (parents and educators) need to make very young children aware of the media and how it manipulates them. Studies have shown that barring the ability to censor these types of shows to kids, education does help them separate reality from fantasy.

However, I would like to see movies and TV where violence and sex are shown with realistic consequences. Schlindler's list never made anyone violent, I would be willing to extend that to the Soprano's or other similar shows, simply because it is not a glamorization and consequences to actions are shown.

I think we all know Starhawk's ultimate objective. I will say that while it's not fooling anyone anymore (or shouldn't be), he does a pretty good job with his build-up and presentation.

haha, I'm new to these here discussion forums, I need to learn all of these little patterns that people have

Originally posted by inimalist
However, I would like to see movies and TV where violence and sex are shown with realistic consequences. Schlindler's list never made anyone violent, I would be willing to extend that to the Soprano's or other similar shows, simply because it is not a glamorization and consequences to actions are shown.

That's interesting. So if I'm following you right, you want to see an even darker consequences for violent antagonists on screen. I mean, most films do show their downfall, but you really want to de-glamorize these acts. Am I on the right track here?

I just wondered if this would have as much answers as the American one. So, what is wrong in Britain?

britain sucks




close

They keep picking up Americas bad habits. Gun crime, obesity, sueing people for accidents etc.

Ok weve got America and Britain. Canada is the next logical step. I seem to be getting converted to Canadism

So do you think there is anything socially wrong with Canada?

canada sucks





close

the french

Originally posted by Alfheim
They keep picking up Americas bad habits. Gun crime, obesity, sueing people for accidents etc.

Brits wish they could be American...wannabes

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
the french

Whats wrong with the french?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Whats wrong with the french?

i'll wait for the whats wrong with France thread to tell you.

Originally posted by botankus
That's interesting. So if I'm following you right, you want to see an even darker consequences for violent antagonists on screen. I mean, most films do show their downfall, but you really want to de-glamorize these acts. Am I on the right track here?

absolutly

It isn't necessarily the violence or sexuality that makes us imitate it, like why I mentioned Schindler's list above. Nobody saw that movie and tried to oppress Jews (lol, the Passion... lol.... I honestly just thought of that...).

Without getting too in depth, seeing violence as a form of conflict resolution, where an attractive hero kills people and never has to worry about the consequences of his actions, in some way legitimizes that action for ourselves. It has to do with the way our brain understands the actions and motives of others and its inability to distinguish from moving picture and reality.

But ya, darker, but honestly, less childhood exposure to murder. Of course its only 1 in 10000000 (whatever) kids that goes crazy from seeing cartoon violence, however it does predispose certain responses to certain situations.

Quebec and Natives

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
i'll wait for the whats wrong with France thread to tell you.

Do it now please.



Originally posted by inimalist
Quebec and Natives

I think you already told me about Quebec. What about the Natives?

the same thing that's wrong with every country...the blacks...oh...and the gypsies as well...pikeys we call them...nuisance

Originally posted by Strangelove
I know you're not forcing anything. You are however, being nosy and boorish by criticizing things about my country. I don't criticize Canada. I love Canada, actually. You shouldn't criticize something unless you're prepared to change it. And since you don't believe in forcing a way of life on another country, you can't do that anyway. So do us all a favor and stop talking.

Excuse me, I have as much right to post my opinion on here as you do.

And I was asked to criticize it, perhaps you should read the title of the thread again.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
thats the perspective of ugly un-talented people



thats so terrible
good show

Originally posted by jaden101
the same thing that's wrong with every country...the blacks...oh...and the gypsies as well...pikeys we call them...nuisance I thought pikeys were gypsies.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Brits wish they could be American...wannabes It may seem like that, but not when Blair resigns.

Originally posted by inimalist
wow, what a nicely made extreme straw man argument.

It is funny that that when you make assanine comments like:



It is understandable, but if I imply one back, completely inexcusable for me to do. Clearly I have overstepped the bounds of decorum by insinuating that your ideal of society being more important than the individuals that make it is leftist.

Look, the fact that you can so quickly say "This is what society is and this is how it works" shows that you are either completely unread on the history of political philosophy, or so ideologically committed to one point of view that you might as well be.

Thats a pretty impressive diatribe, now why not address my points on health care? You don't pay taxes, true, instead you pay high insurance costs in a system that is grossly mismanaged. And as I said if a person in the US gets seriously ill, they can be bankrupted by the medical expenses.

And another point you skipped over, what about the people in society that cannot take care of themselves? The disabled and mentally impaired? Those born into poverty? Should they just die? No, we have a moral and in Canada thankfully a legal obligation to pay taxes to help not just ourselves but society as a whole.

Originally posted by inimalist
Quebec and Natives

I agree with you on Quebec wholeheartedly, The only natives I have issue with are the ones occupying land in our province against the law.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I agree with you on Quebec wholeheartedly, The only natives I have issue with are the ones occupying land in our province against the law.

You shouldnt break the law but maybe their bitter.

Originally posted by Alfheim
You shouldnt break the law but maybe their bitter.

It doesn't give them the right to do what they are doing. Canada's criminal justice system is still mostly a mess. But they have done great things in improving their civil court system and have been extremely receptive to native requests in the past. We gave them their own province. I think we can say we are trying, it's time for them to have some faith and work within the rules.

The bouffant hairstyles everyone seems to have. EDIT: About Canada

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Brits wish they could be American...wannabes

An average British person wants nothing to do with America. A few knobbers however do, therefore making us all look like idiots.

Chavs,high immigration with too many polish and africans putting a strain on housing,healthcare and unemployment,the majority of ****ed up inner city black youths killing each other,Hip Hop turning 75% of teenagers into total ****ing arseholes,dreams of a multicultural society that have gone totally ****ing pear shaped,asian youths who think they are the shit,white kids who think that they are living the life of a Grand Theft Auto character "24/7",indentikit city centres,feeling a minority in your own country,englishmen in baseball caps,the image of my city that was the influence on the sound of many a Smiths track being turned into something resembling an Afican township and PRIMARK!!
that kind of thing

What is a chav?

Originally posted by Starhawk
It doesn't give them the right to do what they are doing. Canada's criminal justice system is still mostly a mess. But they have done great things in improving their civil court system and have been extremely receptive to native requests in the past. We gave them their own province. I think we can say we are trying, it's time for them to have some faith and work within the rules.

Well compared to America from what I know the Indians have quite a good deal going on.

Why is the criminal justice system a mess?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well compared to America from what I know the Indians have quite a good deal going on.

Why is the criminal justice system a mess?

Sentences are to mild, the young offenders act is a joke, too much attention is paid to the rights of the criminal, and as I think the entire GDF knows I support capital punishment.

Metaphorically speaking, we have here a nation which puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquids and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Brits wish they could be American...wannabes

I dont.


Originally posted by vintageSW77
and africans putting a strain on housing,

Then Britain shouldnt have ****ed up Africa should it???

Originally posted by vintageSW77
of many a Smiths track being turned into something resembling an Afican township

Jerk. Not racist are we?

Originally posted by inimalist
absolutly

It isn't necessarily the violence or sexuality that makes us imitate it, like why I mentioned Schindler's list above. Nobody saw that movie and tried to oppress Jews (lol, the Passion... lol.... I honestly just thought of that...).

Without getting too in depth, seeing violence as a form of conflict resolution, where an attractive hero kills people and never has to worry about the consequences of his actions, in some way legitimizes that action for ourselves. It has to do with the way our brain understands the actions and motives of others and its inability to distinguish from moving picture and reality.

But ya, darker, but honestly, less childhood exposure to murder. Of course its only 1 in 10000000 (whatever) kids that goes crazy from seeing cartoon violence, however it does predispose certain responses to certain situations.

I agree. Just having the villain, who has brutally taken dozens of lives over an hour and a half of the film, die at the end is not cutting it.

Too avoid going down the road with Germany, Brazil, Italy, France...etc....we make a merge thread.

Furthermore you dont take **** from Africa then start b****** about Immigrants. Tough ****

From the Canada thread.

Originally posted by Alfheim

I think you already told me about Quebec. What about the Natives?

A good analogy between the issues with blacks in America and Natives in Canada can be made. They fill our jails, massive poverty, massive abuse (physical, psychological, substance), corrupt police.

But then there are all the policies we have had in the past that have ended up just making life worse for them.

At this point, the problem natives (that sounds terrible, I am only saying this to distinguish those natives that fit the description above from those who are successful, and there are many) live on government land or in low cost areas, are exempt from paying taxes and get many other benefits. My opinion is that this has let them become unaccountable, but thats another topic

An interesting story might be my friend S. S is a native who grew up in relative poverty. S had mild substance abuse problems but was able to get moderate grades in highschool. Because of S's native status, she was able to get into the University of Waterloo's Chemical Engineering Co-Op program (This is one of the world's best engineering schools. Normally required is something like a 90+ average to get in, which she did not have). Since S has been attending she has received many multi thousand dollar bursaries from organizations set up to support native students. This is not to say that she is not doing well in the program or that she will not make a good chemical engineer, it is just to paint a little more complexity onto the Native situation in Canada, rather than just saying "blacks"

Originally posted by Starhawk
It doesn't give them the right to do what they are doing. Canada's criminal justice system is still mostly a mess. But they have done great things in improving their civil court system and have been extremely receptive to native requests in the past. We gave them their own province. I think we can say we are trying, it's time for them to have some faith and work within the rules.

I agree with this pretty much 100%

A lot of native issues need to be settled with some finality, but the way certain groups go about getting their message heard is fanatical.

However, the government has never really dealt with the situations appropriately.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Thats a pretty impressive diatribe, now why not address my points on health care? You don't pay taxes, true, instead you pay high insurance costs in a system that is grossly mismanaged. And as I said if a person in the US gets seriously ill, they can be bankrupted by the medical expenses.

And another point you skipped over, what about the people in society that cannot take care of themselves? The disabled and mentally impaired? Those born into poverty? Should they just die? No, we have a moral and in Canada thankfully a legal obligation to pay taxes to help not just ourselves but society as a whole.

Both of those are straw man arguments that if you have read my previous posts you would know I am not advocating

Further, the extremist tone of these straw men seems to indicate that you have a moral outrage at even just the suggestion of a private system, which is one of my complaints about debating this topic (re: too many people have too much emotionally vested interest).

Originally posted by inimalist
From the Canada thread.



A good analogy between the issues with blacks in America and Natives in Canada can be made. They fill our jails, massive poverty, massive abuse (physical, psychological, substance), corrupt police.

But then there are all the policies we have had in the past that have ended up just making life worse for them.

At this point, the problem natives (that sounds terrible, I am only saying this to distinguish those natives that fit the description above from those who are successful, and there are many) live on government land or in low cost areas, are exempt from paying taxes and get many other benefits. My opinion is that this has let them become unaccountable, but thats another topic

An interesting story might be my friend S. S is a native who grew up in relative poverty. S had mild substance abuse problems but was able to get moderate grades in highschool. Because of S's native status, she was able to get into the University of Waterloo's Chemical Engineering Co-Op program (This is one of the world's best engineering schools. Normally required is something like a 90+ average to get in, which she did not have). Since S has been attending she has received many multi thousand dollar bursaries from organizations set up to support native students. This is not to say that she is not doing well in the program or that she will not make a good chemical engineer, it is just to paint a little more complexity onto the Native situation in Canada, rather than just saying "blacks"



I agree with this pretty much 100%

A lot of native issues need to be settled with some finality, but the way certain groups go about getting their message heard is fanatical.

However, the government has never really dealt with the situations appropriately.

In Canada we have done allot to try and improve the situation, giving them their own province I think is note worthy. But they have to realize that they will never get all the land back. Too much time has past and there is only so much we can do to accommodate them. They are exempt from taxes as well. I think we have done our part.

Originally posted by inimalist
Both of those are straw man arguments that if you have read my previous posts you would know I am not advocating

Further, the extremist tone of these straw men seems to indicate that you have a moral outrage at even just the suggestion of a private system, which is one of my complaints about debating this topic (re: too many people have too much emotionally vested interest).

Okay you gave the politicians response and didn't address or counterpoint anything I said.

Here try again,

1)You don't pay taxes, true, instead you pay high insurance costs in a system that is grossly mismanaged. And as I said if a person in the US gets seriously ill, they can be bankrupted by the medical expenses.

2)what about the people in society that cannot take care of themselves? The disabled and mentally impaired? Those born into poverty? Should they just die? No, we have a moral and in Canada thankfully a legal obligation to pay taxes to help not just ourselves but society as a whole.

Originally posted by Starhawk
In Canada we have done allot to try and improve the situation, giving them their own province I think is note worthy. But they have to realize that they will never get all the land back. Too much time has past and there is only so much we can do to accommodate them. They are exempt from taxes as well. I think we have done our part.

It can't be about doing our part though, because we cannot make up for hundreds of years of oppression.

There needs to be incentive for natives to get out of poverty. Maybe in the case of my friend that is exactly what we are doing.

I find that the ideological native groups do a lot to damage their own people by demanding more rights for their "way of life" and then expecting tax payers to give them a middle class western living standard.

And then there are the newspapers who like to try and compare reserves to 3rd world countries...

Originally posted by inimalist
It can't be about doing our part though, because we cannot make up for hundreds of years of oppression.

There needs to be incentive for natives to get out of poverty. Maybe in the case of my friend that is exactly what we are doing.

I find that the ideological native groups do a lot to damage their own people by demanding more rights for their "way of life" and then expecting tax payers to give them a middle class western living standard.

And then there are the newspapers who like to try and compare reserves to 3rd world countries...

We give them tax exemptions and many other advantages, we can only do so much on our end. They need to stop living in the past and acclimate to present day society.

Originally posted by Starhawk
We give them tax exemptions and many other advantages, we can only do so much on our end. They need to stop living in the past and acclimate to present day society.

That seems fair. I dont think they even have that **** in America.

ill stand by the township thing

i passed through an area near where i live for the first time in 5 years the other week
African foodshops everywhere and barely a white in sight and 5 years ago this was a mostly white area
so ill stand by what i say

they have changed the area and not for the good
its a ****ing dump and all the decent people have sold up and ****ed off
i forsee a ghetto in 6 years

Originally posted by vintageSW77
ill stand by the township thing

i passed through an area near where i live for the first time in 5 years the other week
African foodshops everywhere and barely a white in sight and 5 years ago this was a mostly white area
so ill stand by what i say

they have changed the area

Exactly you're racist. You dont give a **** wether African people are civil or not, you just dont want them in your ****ing area.

i dislike a nationality and there is "in your area" and flooding it

Before I begin, let me give you the concept of a Straw Man.

Basically, it means that you are making an argument against points that I am not arguing for. Basically, I agree with your stance, and if you read what I have posted about health care I have been very specific in stating that there needs to be government involvement to enable accessibility to all people.

Originally posted by Starhawk

1)You don't pay taxes, true, instead you pay high insurance costs in a system that is grossly mismanaged. And as I said if a person in the US gets seriously ill, they can be bankrupted by the medical expenses.

1 - I would never argue in favor of high insurance costs

2 - I would never argue in favor of a mismanaged system

3 - I would never argue in favor of a system that bankrupts people

4 - High taxes are part of a trade off of pros and cons of the public private debate. I would personally much rather pay directly for high quality care could I afford it, however, I would never deny adequate care to someone simply because of cost.

Originally posted by Starhawk
2)what about the people in society that cannot take care of themselves? The disabled and mentally impaired? Those born into poverty? Should they just die? No, we have a moral and in Canada thankfully a legal obligation to pay taxes to help not just ourselves but society as a whole.

1 - I would never argue that the mentally or physically disabled can fend for themselves in a modern western economy, however groups that represent the physically disabled would (if only in favor of the physically disabled).

2 - I would never argue for a system that ostracized those in poverty from the institutions they need.

3 - I've never argued against taxation for certain medical expenditures.

4 - Moral obligation by its nature is subjective and its use in this context shows a lack of understanding of the basics in classical liberal AND conservative philosophy.

5 - Making such extreme counterexamples to points I am not even making is a sign that you are too emotionally involved in this issue to have a non biased opinion. This is what I see as being the most prevalent problem in reaching a real understanding of how best to deliver health care to the people ensuring both high end research and technology but also providing low end accessibility. In my honest opining the UK is probably the best example of this in the world.

Originally posted by vintageSW77
nothing against west indians etc
its about africans

Bullocks if you analyse what you're saying, you're using the anti-social behaviour as an excuse to dislike them. On further analysis we can see its not about the behaviour you just dont want them there.

If lots of W.Indians came and started changing the area you wouldnt like it either. Get a grip.

see it however you see it
theres too many here and longterm its going to lead to big ****ing problems
they arent exactly known for being married with two children
add the hiv epedemic and the cases of TB we are hearing
add to that some of them coming from violent places that have encouraged for some a violent lifestyle that they cant shrug off
its all ****ing bad news

West Indians intergated well
these Somalis etc are creating their own little ghettos and sure maybe they aint getting the chance but the majority dont want to
half of them cant even speak English for a start according to my pal who deals with new income claimants
wheres the communication

So to sum that up you want to have your cake and eat it too.

You either have to pay for heath care through insurance costs and out of your own pocket when the insurance companies try to weasel out of their end. Or you can pay taxes which in the end are much less of an expense and more manageable over the course of your life and help everyone.

The classic conservative model is that everyone should be able to pull themselves up on their own with as little help as possible, in today's world however that is simply unrealistic. And those people who can't do not deserve any less quality of health care or social services then the wealthier classes.

Taxes in the end help everyone, and it always amazes me that the ones who can most easily afford to pay them are always the ones complaining about them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So to sum that up you want to have your cake and eat it too.

You either have to pay for heath care through insurance costs and out of your own pocket when the insurance companies try to weasel out of their end. Or you can pay taxes which in the end are much less of an expense and more manageable over the course of your life and help everyone.

The classic conservative model is that everyone should be able to pull themselves up on their own with as little help as possible, in today's world however that is simply unrealistic. And those people who can't do not deserve any less quality of health care or social services then the wealthier classes.

Taxes in the end help everyone, and it always amazes me that the ones who can most easily afford to pay them are always the ones complaining about them.

no, now you are making the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy

Why does it have to be either a public or private system, I am talking about a compleatly revised look on healthcare, in fact I even compared favorably my ideal to the British system, I would also extend that to the scandenavin and canadian systems, though I think they could all use with some high end research focus and opening up of private clinics to allow the economy to invest its own dollars in research and technology.

EDIT: and to assume that I am either against taxation or that I can easily afford to pay for things is egregious. I am a university student, if you aren't one go ask how much money they have for taxes.

And as a point of reference, classical conservatism would say that it is out of the governments authority to place restrictions on the sale of health care, classical liberal ideology would say that individuals have the right to sell their abilities to those who they wish free of government involvement.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, now you are making the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy

Why does it have to be either a public or private system, I am talking about a compleatly revised look on health care, in fact I even compared favorably my ideal to the British system, I would also extend that to the scandenavin and canadian systems, though I think they could all use with some high end research focus and opening up of private clinics to allow the economy to invest its own dollars in research and technology.

Again with the politicians response.

So how would you pay for health care? And insure that everyone in society is covered equally?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Again with the politicians response.

So how would you pay for health care? And insure that everyone in society is covered equally?

something moderatly two tier

government subsidization of treatment for those unable to afford it

free and walk/emergency services covered by the state

really, you don't seem to be getting what I am saying.

I love the fact that public healthcare give all people the same access to health service. That I have said since before the threads were merged.

I am against the restriction of the high cost side of things. For instance, if I owned a private MRI machine and was qualified to run it, it would be illegal for me to provide that care to people, even if they were willing to pay for it in order to free up the public system.

Again, in my understanding of the British system they have done this to a moderate degree of success.

I don't see where you get the audacity to make such broad sweeping accusations with regard to my beliefs even when I have consistantly said things to the opposite.

Seeing an issue as complex is not a politicians answer, neither is pointing out the logical fallicies in your arguments. In fact, dismissing argumentative logic is another logical fallacy, but who is counting?

Originally posted by inimalist
something moderatly two tier

government subsidization of treatment for those unable to afford it

free and walk/emergency services covered by the state

really, you don't seem to be getting what I am saying.

I love the fact that public healthcare give all people the same access to health service. That I have said since before the threads were merged.

I am against the restriction of the high cost side of things. For instance, if I owned a private MRI machine and was qualified to run it, it would be illegal for me to provide that care to people, even if they were willing to pay for it in order to free up the public system.

Again, in my understanding of the British system they have done this to a moderate degree of success.

I don't see where you get the audacity to make such broad sweeping accusations with regard to my beliefs even when I have consistantly said things to the opposite.

Seeing an issue as complex is not a politicians answer, neither is pointing out the logical fallicies in your arguments. In fact, dismissing argumentative logic is another logical fallacy, but who is counting?

So how would you pay for public health care? And the high cost end of thigs should also be made available to everyone. Using your MRI example, in canada if you were licensed and qualified to run that machine you are fully allowed to give care to people.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So how would you pay for public health care? And the high cost end of thigs should also be made available to everyone. Using your MRI example, in canada if you were licensed and qualified to run that machine you are fully allowed to give care to people.

ummm, if you are asking me to be more specific than two tier that is proposterous. Neither of us are economists familiar with the costs or expected income of hospitals, let alone how to properly estimate what changes would lead to what outcomes. Why is saying "something like the British" unacceptable here?

No, I do not believe that the highest end and highest cost form of health care necessarily needs to be available to people on government dollars. If you break your leg and need an ambulance fine, go to the emergency ward and get it casted up, get some physio, whatever. If you want specialists, massive X rays, top notch professional trainers and whatever else, that should be on your own tab.

Like, again, I don't think you realize what I am saying. The top end stuff I am talking about is the stuff that is almost entirely unavailable in public systems, it is the stuff the people of Canada cannot currently get in Canada because of the law. If I have 2000 dollars to spend on a 13 hour physical at a private clinic, that is my perogative, it does not mean that all people deserve that. They do however deserve what would be an adequate physical, which we do currently provide, it takes about 1-2 hours and requires some bloodwork that in a public system takes a few days.

And finally no, if I had an MRI I wouldn't just be allowed to use it on people. I would need to be a clinic run by the state with government emplyoees. I would not be able to charge people for it, nor would I be able to offer it to anyone who is not in the list for a public MRI. This is an overstepping of government regulation. Providing healthcare for people should not come at the expense of my ability to sell my care to people.

Originally posted by inimalist
ummm, if you are asking me to be more specific than two tier that is proposterous. Neither of us are economists familiar with the costs or expected income of hospitals, let alone how to properly estimate what changes would lead to what outcomes. Why is saying "something like the British" unacceptable here?

No, I do not believe that the highest end and highest cost form of health care necessarily needs to be available to people on government dollars. If you break your leg and need an ambulance fine, go to the emergency ward and get it casted up, get some physio, whatever. If you want specialists, massive X rays, top notch professional trainers and whatever else, that should be on your own tab.

Like, again, I don't think you realize what I am saying. The top end stuff I am talking about is the stuff that is almost entirely unavailable in public systems, it is the stuff the people of Canada cannot currently get in Canada because of the law. If I have 2000 dollars to spend on a 13 hour physical at a private clinic, that is my perogative, it does not mean that all people deserve that. They do however deserve what would be an adequate physical, which we do currently provide, it takes about 1-2 hours and requires some bloodwork that in a public system takes a few days.

And finally no, if I had an MRI I wouldn't just be allowed to use it on people. I would need to be a clinic run by the state with government emplyoees. I would not be able to charge people for it, nor would I be able to offer it to anyone who is not in the list for a public MRI. This is an overstepping of government regulation. Providing healthcare for people should not come at the expense of my ability to sell my care to people.


Again with politicians response (what I mean by that is a convoluted response that tries to skirt the real issues), Yes all people DO deserve the same health care whether they can pay or not. Those that are more wealthy do not deserve better care. Your basically saying that the amount of money you have should determine how healthy you get to be. What if getting better care and faster test results is the difference between life and death? Or the difference between a fully recovery and lasting effects or an injury or illness?

And as far as Canadian law, I know far better then you what our legal system allows. There is actually private offices in my city for x-rays and clinical tests that also provides free testing through referral of patients. And it is not a government office.

The issue your skirting around is that health care has to be paid for either by your own money through insurance companies or your own wallet, or by taxes, which over the course of your life in almost every case cost less.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Again with politicians response (what I mean by that is a convoluted response that tries to skirt the real issues), Yes all people DO deserve the same health care whether they can pay or not. Those that are more wealthy do not deserve better care. Your basically saying that the amount of money you have should determine how healthy you get to be. What if getting better care and faster test results is the difference between life and death? Or the difference between a fully recovery and lasting effects or an injury or illness?

yes, I am saying that the ammount of money you have should open up access to benefits as it does in all other sectors. You seem to be assuming that I am advocating a loss of care for those who cannot afford other care. I am saying that I don't want people to loose any quality of care at any level, but in fact that those who can afford it are able to get superior care.

Again, this is at the heart of all political philosophy. The role of government in society is not a closed question as you seem to assume it is.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And as far as Canadian law, I know far better then you what our legal system allows. There is actually private offices in my city for x-rays and clinical tests that also provides free testing through referral of patients. And it is not a government office.

Why would you know Canadian law better than I?

and ya, that X ray clinic is pretty much the exact representation of what I am talking about. Go look up the post I made referencing the Public/Private partnership issues.

Stop making arguments for me, they arent what I believe and it is intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The issue your skirting around is that health care has to be paid for either by your own money through insurance companies or your own wallet, or by taxes, which over the course of your life in almost every case cost less.

I am skirting no issues. I am fine with state funded medical insurance (which we have in canada) and I am fine with paying for it in taxes. I am also fine with people being able to pay for things they need or want.

I am talking about a reallocation of these funds.

When did I say "nobody should pay for healthcare"

This is becoming childish

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I am saying that the ammount of money you have should open up access to benefits as it does in all other sectors. You seem to be assuming that I am advocating a loss of care for those who cannot afford other care. I am saying that I don't want people to loose any quality of care at any level, but in fact that those who can afford it are able to get superior care.

Again, this is at the heart of all political philosophy. The role of government in society is not a closed question as you seem to assume it is.

Why would you know Canadian law better than I?

and ya, that X ray clinic is pretty much the exact representation of what I am talking about. Go look up the post I made referencing the Public/Private partnership issues.

I am skirting no issues. I am fine with state funded medical insurance (which we have in Canada) and I am fine with paying for it in taxes. I am also fine with people being able to pay for things they need or want.

I am talking about a reallocation of these funds.

When did I say "nobody should pay for healthcare"

This is becoming childish

See now that is a better response.

I am studying law in Canada at the moment, that is why I should know better then you what the law allows.

No, being wealthier should NOT mean you get superior care. If there is a better level of health care then it should be open to everyone.

I agree that if a person wants a bigger house or a better car then they have to pay for that themselves. But when it comes to health care, everyone should be entitled to the best care out there.

Originally posted by Starhawk

No, being wealthier should NOT mean you get superior care. If there is a better level of health care then it should be open to everyone.


this is my main point

the high end, high cost, new tech, research based stuff just isn't there without an economic base for it. Tax dollars just cannot compete with the private industry in this matter.

by saying everyone must have the same care, yes, you boost up the bottom but you also box in the top, there is no possible way that the Canadian government can offer everyone the quality of care that they would recieve at the Mayo clinic and also aquire nobel prizes in research while making sure the care is available to all people. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? We would be paying 90% of our salaries into taxes so that all people with hypocondriasis can get battery tested on your and my dollar.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is my main point

the high end, high cost, new tech, research based stuff just isn't there without an economic base for it. Tax dollars just cannot compete with the private industry in this matter.

by saying everyone must have the same care, yes, you boost up the bottom but you also box in the top, there is no possible way that the Canadian government can offer everyone the quality of care that they would recieve at the Mayo clinic and also aquire nobel prizes in research while making sure the care is available to all people. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? We would be paying 90% of our salaries into taxes so that all people with hypocondriasis can get battery tested on your and my dollar.

90%, I don't think so, I would like to see some proof of that amount.

And believe me talk to anyone at a Doctors office or at a hospital, they aren't hypochondriacs.

The main point is, you believe that people with more money deserve faster test results and a better quality of care. I do not think how much money you have should determine how healthy you get to be.

As I said in many cases the speed of test results or quality of care can mean the difference between life and death and a clear and complete recovery as opposed to lasting effects of an injury or illness.

Originally posted by Starhawk
90%, I don't think so, I would like to see some proof of that amount.

preposterous, that ammount is unknowable let alone proveable.

I was using poetic liscense, you do it often as well

Originally posted by Starhawk
And believe me talk to anyone at a Doctors office or at a hospital, they aren't hypochondriacs.

umm, its pretty consistantly reported that the majority of emergency room and doctor's office visits are unnecessary. This is because people, when they feel bad, go to the doctor. In the public system it is ok that they do this, because then the doctor can give them medicine or assure them that nothing is wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the human body is remarkably resiliant, and even without doctor's visits, we would naturally recover from what the majority of doctor's and ER visits are for.

However, even for these unnecessary visits, there is always MORE that can be done. If you go for an unnecessary physical at a private clinic they can charge you more and do far more compleatly unnecessary tests. This is compleatly unpractical in a public system, given that the doctor's know that these people will get better, and are largely reassuring them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The main point is, you believe that people with more money deserve faster test results and a better quality of care. I do not think how much money you have should determine how healthy you get to be.

Good point Comrade

Originally posted by Starhawk
As I said in many cases the speed of test results or quality of care can mean the difference between life and death and a clear and complete recovery as opposed to lasting effects of an injury or illness.

yes. I would argue that a public/private system would in fact decrease wait times and increase the general standard of care for more people. The X ray shop in your city is proof of this.

However, I think I'm done on this. You appear to be arguing from cognitive dissonance rather than even tryng to comprehend my point. See my past remarks on the problems with ideology in this debate.

Originally posted by inimalist
preposterous, that ammount is unknowable let alone proveable.

I was using poetic liscense, you do it often as well

now comes the part where he'll insist that the burden is on you to prove its not 90%

The fact that big business controls everything

Originally posted by inimalist
preposterous, that ammount is unknowable let alone proveable.

umm, its pretty consistantly reported that the majority of emergency room and doctor's office visits are unnecessary. This is because people, when they feel bad, go to the doctor. In the public system it is ok that they do this, because then the doctor can give them medicine or assure them that nothing is wrong.

Good point Comrade

yes. I would argue that a public/private system would in fact decrease wait times and increase the general standard of care for more people. The X ray shop in your city is proof of this.


Okay Fascist, (Thats about as appropriate as you calling me 'Comrade')

No, the majority are NOT hypochondriacs, support that with some proof. Because I have had to wait in an emergency room a few times over the years and what I see is extremely sick or injured people. And Emergency rooms at least in Ontario, screen patients as they come in to determine the level of severity in their cases.

And for an example of why testing and better care can make the difference. I went into my doctor's office about 2 years back, and he made a diagnosis without proper testing and it was incorrect and he followed about half a year of ineffective care because the root diagnosis was wrong. Then I switched doctors to a more thorough one who did do the adequate testing. And I would rather have a doctor do a test that turns out to be unnecessary then not do one and have a patient not get the care they need.

My main point is that people with more money do not deserve superior health care. That is saying one person's needs are worth less based on how much money they have.

Originally posted by Starhawk
My main point is that people with more money do not deserve superior health care. That is saying one person's needs are worth less based on how much money they have.

No, they don't deserve better treatment, but they get it. Even in a country with socialized healthcare.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, they don't deserve better treatment, but they get it. Even in a country with socialized healthcare.

That doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by Starhawk
That doesn't make it right.

I didn't say it did. But that's a matter of fact.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A lot of the things being correct though.

What is your problem with people criticizing you country. If they have a point? I never denied that the things he said were indeed problems with the country. But it's not his place to criticize

Originally posted by Starhawk
Excuse me, I have as much right to post my opinion on here as you do.

And I was asked to criticize it, perhaps you should read the title of the thread again.

Originally posted by Devil King
I didn't say it did. But that's a matter of fact.

And that can and should change.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And that can and should change.

And how would you like to make that happen?

Originally posted by Devil King
And how would you like to make that happen?

LOL have you read over the thread? I believe it should be covered through taxes.

It is dispute that people whom contribute to the welfare of the state should receive health care. Those that don't contribute to the commonwealth should not get free health care.

Ponder that one for a minute.

the solution doesnt come in such a neat package

Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL have you read over the thread? I believe it should be covered through taxes.

So how do you make it happen? Through charity? The way it's done now in America?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It is dispute that people whom contribute to the welfare of the state should receive health care. Those that don't contribute to the commonwealth should not get free health care.

Ponder that one for a minute.

Yes they should, it's a matter of social and moral responsibility.

Your saying how much money a person has determines their right to life and health.

Originally posted by Devil King
So how do you make it happen? Through charity? The way it's done now in America?

As I said, tax revenue.

Originally posted by Devil King
So how do you make it happen? Through charity? The way it's done now in America?

Sorry, I thought you said "shouldn't", when I knew you'd said so before.

Okay, so you're all for socialized medicine. But how do you get the equitable treatment? You seem to think it's possible.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sorry, I thought you said "shouldn't", when I knew you'd said so before.

Okay, so you're all for socialized medicine. But how do you get the equitable treatment? You seem to think it's possible.

By making sure that everyone gets the same level of treatment, testing and access to medications and physical care.

Originally posted by Starhawk
By making sure that everyone gets the same level of treatment, testing and access to medications and physical care.

Yeah, right. I get that. But how? How do you intend to do it? With your earlier notion of moral and social responsability? If there's anything the human race has repeatedly demonstrated, it's that it doesn't give two shits about those concepts.