I can't speak for CCIP, but personnally, I had to pay 70$ for a medical exam, and it strained my budget.

ETA : I don't want to imagine an emergency surgery in the thousands of dollars. Even another 30 dollars a month of insurance premium would be a pain... And right now, 30$ a month of renter's insurance give me 15 000$ of coverage. That's good for what, the first three months of chemo?

Yet I eat, shower, have a roof to live in, study, etc.

Just because someone has an acceptable standard of living, that person might not be able to stretch it further. If my girlfriend expends her Epi-Pen and we have to replace it, we have to skip a grocery, as it won't be reimbursed by her private insurance until... Well, it could be a few months.

Canada's system isn't as bad as some people make it sound. Yeah, if you show up in the ER with a sunburn, it might take 12 hours before you get processed. But I've never had to wait in the ER (But then, I don't go for non-emergency stuff)... And the most I've waited to see a doctor was two hours, at a walk-in clinic. I don't have a familly doctor ; don't care to get one. Yeah, MRI's, elective surgeries and the like can have a good waiting list, but you're still free to fess up the money and go to the US or India, if you want to. And if you can afford it. I don't see where I'm being controlled.

The biggest healthcare problem in Quebec is the shortage of qualified personnel... And even if we had a private system, that couldn't be helped. Nurses don't fall from the sky.

What the government needs to do is get a grip of the doctor's college (Essentially, a supervisory board / licensing body / union) and force them to allow more doctors to be licensed every year. The current quotas are ridiculous.

As to question three, I voted for Duceppe (Well, I was planning to, then stuff happened and I didn't vote), but I'd vote for Harper now. The Bloc and the PQ are... Well, they aren't dead yet, but it's coming, and it'll be a real cold day in hell when I vote Liberal.

TteFAboB must of grown up in the 1930's. Thats the only reason I can think of for his stupid comments.

As far as healthcare goes, it seems absurd to me that the world's richest nation has citizens that go without basic medical or dental care. If you can afford healthcare, as I can, fine. But for those that cannot, our nation needs to provide for them.

That's a myth. Here are the facts:

"TUESDAY, April 4 (HealthDay News) -- Even though the United States spends more than twice as much per capita on health care as some other western nations, it trails them in such measures as efficiency, equity, and patient safety and access to care, according to two new reports...

"What is disturbing about these findings is that while the U.S. ranked first on health-care spending in the world, we are often last in measures of quality of care," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Higher spending doesn't mean that we receive more or better care -- we simply pay more.""

Full article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=60890

I was thinking the same thing regarding his comments.

Personally I am a supporter of national healthcare programs. I do however support Government programs which encourage those who can afford it to go private. National healthcare to me is a safety-net for those who can't afford medical care. In a modern society no person should have to say I can't afford a visit to the doctor.

Not being a US citizen I will answer to question 2 only. I would say that Senator John McCain has a very good chance and if I was a US citizen then I would vote for him as I think he best represents my middle ground political conservitive views. Back in Australia I have always voted for the Liberal Party (conservative), with PM John Howard at the helm.

I would certainly accept Lieberman. I just think that he's going to be crucified in the pirmarys due to his moderate stance. The Democrats have been working for the past six years to re-energize their base, and will almost certainly seek to put up someone who will tow the party line. Biden is willing to do that, but seems to me to be more a moderate in leftist clothing.

Lieberman has the same problem as McCain: He speaks his mind, regardless of platform or consequences. This makes him popular in a national election, but, conversely, weak in the individual state races. In today's style of delegational voting, where candidates are cast aside early in favor of base unification, relatively honest politicians like McCain or Lieberman don't stand a chance.

a·mor·al (a-môrl)
adj.

1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

a·moral·ism n.
amo·rali·ty (mô-rl-t, -m-) n.
a·moral·ly adv.

I think Lieberman has much the same problem as McCain - he's a bit too far from the centre of his party's platform and, conversely, a bit closer to the other's than his party would like. Given that the parties have been getting increasingly polarized over certain issues lately, it doesn't seem like a political advantage to be more moderate. :hmm:

Hillary amoral? That's a bit too strong. She's not so much amoral per se as she is opportunistic.

That said, "moral" politics is a classic staple of conservative rhethoric.

But let's face it, Hillary isn't going to run around killing Jews or something. I'd rather focus on her political agenda, however she plans to get to it. What is her platform?

Frankly, I think her problem is that she still hasn't come up with any big "bright idea" yet, and she's being terribly "domestic" in her orientation (and not in the way everyone likes, either) - at a time when foreign relations seem to be the political thing-to-do.

CCIP, I understand where you're coming from. I was dirt poor in college myself. I believe everybody should have access to healthcare, but I prefer a system where the individual controls the healthcare, not the system controlling the individual. And like it or not, the private sector almost always delivers a superior product with less waste than government. The only real difference being military and some security services.

Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that don't scare me. Hillary's running around today trying to extend the Family Leave Act to include time off from work for participation in parental activities. The cost to employers will be huge. . More Socialist B.S. And some Democrats wonder why Businesses are leaving The CONUS. :roll:

I respect Lieberman for the way he will resist parroting the Democratic party line. If he had run against Bush last election, he would have gotten my vote.

Isn't that just terrible. Giving parents more time to raise their children, what a nightmare! How could she? And the weekend, what's the deal with that? Two days when you don't have to work? Come on! And overtime, getting paid extra for working more than you're supposed to! Geez! What is this country coming to?

There is, of course, another issue with Lieberman that has not been mentioned here, probably due to its sensitivity, but is certainly a factor holding him back from being successful in a bid for the presidency: his religion. As a member of the Jewish faith, he'd have an incredibly hard time being elected in the hardcore-Christian Bible Belt states, and elsewhere. As much as this country attempts to hide it, discrimination against people of minority religions and races does still occur here on a regular basis. For example, the sole president that was not protestant: JFK, a Roman Catholic. It is quickly approaching almost fifty years since that election, and not a single other Roman Catholic has won the presidency. In fact, I can only think of two Roman Catholic candidates other than JFK to even win their party's nomination: Al Smith (D) back in 1928, and John Kerry (D) in 2004.

Half of those "measures of quality" have nothing to do with access to healthcare. Last in the the leaving the doctors office with lingering questions? Last in weekend doctor's visits? And of course we spend the most money per capita... we have the most unhealthy population with the fattest populous and probably the most unhealthy lifestyles of any western nation. Added to that is the fact that we spend the most money of elective procedure (plastic surgery, botox, etc) and its hard to see how we wouldn't be spending the most money per citizen. Our incidences of heart attacks, high cholestrol, and generalized bad habits probably surpass all.

I can tell you this. I'm a senior medical student at a Texas medical school. I've seen and worked in every aspect of medical care (its part of our medical school training), and I've seen, talked to, and participated in the care of every type of patient; from those with insurance who can choose any doctor they want, to those without a dime to their name and can't pay for anything... from those with minor coughs and colds, to those with terminal illnesses...from the primary care clinics to the ERs to the operating rooms to the intensive care units...... and I can tell you this after seening all that...... institulized healthcare will stink to high heaven.

btw, don't forget that we already have established healthcare programs in place to certain individuals in our country: medicare for those over the age of 65, and medicaid for children and needy families (qualification varying per state)...

What I've seen shows me that government funded healthcare are subject to constant waste and abuse. I would say that probably 50% of all the medicaid funded doctors visits are friviolus and really didn't warrant a doctors visit at all, but the fact that the bill is on the governement prompts many to come in for stuff that not even treatment worthy... waiting rooms are often packed with the insignificant and frivilous complaints and doctors constantly sorting thru what really warrents treatment and what's a waste of time. But heck even when the medical complaints don't warrant treatment, the doctors visit itself cost money (billed to the taxpayers), and what worse whenever the doctor comes around to figuring out that this "whatever medical complaint/ache/sore/etc" probably doesn't need any treatment at all, the fact that "heck they're already going to get charged for the doctor's appointment, might as well give them something... they're on medicaid" happens more often than not. The patient gets the satisfaction of getting something, the doctors get to charge for it, and the governement (and tax payer's) get stuck with the bill. Its a sad fact but its the reality. Of the government healthcare programs that we have already.... staggering amounts of money are probably wasted and abused (such is the nature and reality of all of "government programs" not just healthcare). The larger a healthcare program gets, the more it will be abused and money wasted.

And even when the program isn't being abused, half of the policies and bueracracy doesn't make sense... there are some medicare and medicaid policies that force doctors to provide X drug instead of Y drug... even when X drug is actually 3-4 times more expensive than Y drug and doesn't work any better. And as ridiculous as that sounds the doctors are actually forced to provide the more expensive drugs when the cheaper drugs are the smarter choice... not because it makes sense, but because the incredibly slow and cumbersome beuracracy can't change its policy, or even approve the use of paper clips, without what seems like an act of congress. If you think healthcare is bad when decisions are taken away from the patients, think how bad it would be when decision are taken away from even the doctorss... decision making now controlled by a large, faceless, nameless beuracratic government agency...

... be afraid my friend... and I haven't really even started with the detriment to the quality of doctors that it would produce.

Yes their is no perfect solution... those that would benifit from UHC suffer detriment without it, and those the benifit without a UHC would suffer detriment with it. For those that don't have healthcare there are options and a lot of programs are in place to help. For example, my hospital is one of the largest indigent care hospitals in the state of Texas... in fact the hospital went 25million dollars in the hole last year for all the free patient care we dished out, last year to those that couldn't pay. In fact, almost all hospitals, county's, or regions have some sort of indigent care program to take care of those that can't afford health insurance.

Government controlled healthcare sucks

Well somebody's got to pay for it. Truth is companies will have to pay for it through lost productivity and higher costs. You know, I have a child myself. What happens when this tripe that Hillary is promoting becomes law and companies figure out that the best way to save on lost productivity is to prefer applicants with no children? Hillary's "good" intentions become hell for those of us who wouldn't abuse the system but have chosen to have kids.

But it doesn't end there. Hillary's policy is to give time off for aging parents, parental activities, etc. Where does this B.S. end? Not that those things aren't important, but people should fit these things in on their own time. Of course it's all about the "good" intentions and screw the results......right? More proof that people in the House and Senate like Hillary are hostile to business, and detest the concept of a responsible individual in control of their own life.

Most Americans (Left and Right) are concerned about outsourcing jobs. This is one of the reasons why companies are doing it.