Too bad it isn’t Canadian-style. We depend less on private insurers than European countries do, and that would drive you bonkers even more, and I would be entertained even more.
Depend less? Hell, you outright forbid private treatment of ailments covered by your government’s health system.
And how 'bout those wait times?
Yay, Canada.
Whats that you say? National Review Online? Well, that certaintly settles that, if you got such a non-partisan, unbiased source! Certainly trumps all those people who actually live in Canada, what say different.
Doesn’t matter where the info comes from if it’s correct.
Except when its from Daily Kos or Huff-Po, of course.
Good news! Under Obamacare, we’re going back to barber surgeons!
No, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m fine with them. But I wouldn’t subject myself to the way health insurance is run in the states for a big clock no matter how ideologically pure it is or how many dead guys in wigs you think would approve of it.
For anyone who was around when Medicare and Medicaid got passed in 1965, was it like this then?
Oh, wait! You’re right. Under a fairly recent Supreme Court decision people can sometimes be allowed to get private care once wait times get ridiculously long even by Canadian standards. Sorry, I forgot about that. (And isn’t it interesting to note that the Canadian government saw fit to argue in favor of maintaining no private option to coverage offered by the state, and despite ridiculously long wait times, all the way to the Supreme Court?
Yeah, there were people who were fine under communist rule in the Soviet Union, too. Some people will gladly put up with anything as long as they can get everyone else to pay for it.
You must not count yourself as being among the 85% or so who live here and are quite satisfied with their coverage. I wonder why that is?
Not quite exactly this way.
Some Republicans voted for those. 
In debates such as these, especially when Canada’s system is held up as an example of some sort, I’m always amazed at the Americans who cite American sources in regards to the Canadian system, and who never cite Canadian sources. Even if you’re against UHC, you could find something in a Canadian source to back up your position–it does have its local critics, and our media is not censored. Anyway, citing Canadian sources when discussing problems with Canada’s system might lend such an argument a little more credibility than citing yet another American source on the same thing.
I know I’m right. The government of Alberta provided information on how to opt out of AHC on their own websites, should one choose to do so. Also, my doctor has a long list of what things will cost you if you don’t have insurance.
Perhaps you were thinking of private hospitals or some other thing that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Yes, they’d probably put up a fight if the pharmaceutical companies decided they didn’t like the arrangements too. At least I hope so.
I never thought my bodily fluids were all that precious anyway.
What you wonder is not my problem. Why don’t you make up a reason? You’re good at that.
I cited Canadian sources out the ass several months ago and typically it counted for nothing. In fact, I cited them so often that luci began using his hackneyed tactic of trying to make fun of them, not because they were wrong, but because I cited them so often.
When it comes to arguing against things liberals favor around here, cites count for nothing, logic counts for nothing, and examples of bad consequences count for nothing. They’re like petulant teenagers who just want what they want, facts to the contrary and consequences be damned.
You need to have your facts right. First of all, the SCC decision you’re referring to is Chaoulli. Further, the respondent is not solely the Canadian government, but the governments of Canada and Quebec. A number of other parties representing provinces and private health interests acted as intervenors. And the decision is binding only in Quebec.
Lots of players in the case, not just “the Canadian government.” And some very complex constitutional and human rights issues; not just “wait times.”
I won’t bother explaining Chaoulli; it’s available to anybody who wants to read it. I would suggest that if you plan to use it in an argument, you would do well to acquaint yourself with it, so as to avoid embarrassing factual errors.
So a private care option in cases of ridiculous wait times is only available in Quebec then? Everybody else just gets to suffer and/or die?
I’m not embarrassed in the slightest. Canada has a system of health care that carries with it lack of funding, cutbacks on treatments, and long wait times. So does the U.K. and many other European countries with UHC.
I’ve cited all this straight from the Canadian horse’s mouth several times. Predictably it counted for naught.
Well, OK, lets just take you at your word. You have oodles and gobs of undeniably non-partisan cites available to you, cites with solid and unmistakable credentials and entirely free of any ideological association.
And yet, you chose to use the one from a decidedly partisan source, National Review Online.
Why is that, St. Arving? When you have the option, why do you choose to deliberately weaken your citation when you have better stuff available?
And if what you say is true, oughtn’t we be flooded with Canookies testifying loudly to the truth of your words, telling us about how wretched are their lives under socialized “medicine”? But we don’t, now, do we? Are they lying, Starkers? Weighing their first hand knowledge against your bald statements, who should we believe?
And just to be needlessly clear, I’m not “making fun” of your sources, I’m “making fun” of you. Nothing funny about National Review Online, they have all the wit and humor of a roomful of actuarial tables.
As you habitually claim to have cites without ever actually producing them, I’m calling bullshit on this one, and I’m certainly not going to do your work for you. Provide at least one such cite, or link to one or more threads where you did link to them, if you please.
Well I can’t talk about Canada, but I can certainly confirm that living in the UK I have only ever come across one opinion in response to the US healthcare system, that of bemused horror.
People here will bitch and moan about specific issues with the good old NHS till the cows come home. However consensus opinion is massively and overwhelmingly in favour of the state healthcare system as a whole, at least according to my perception and the opinion of everyone I have ever talked about the issue with.
You may find the odd, very well off, naysayer who wishes they could pay for more comprehensive private healthcare than is available. And I have no doubt that such individuals views receive a lot of attention from the anti health care side of the debate, but they are certainly not representative of any substantial proportion of UK society.
I’ll say it again, socialised healthcare is overwhelmingly popular in the UK.
You have to admit though, that Mitt can be an absolute cut up when he makes a guest appearance there:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzgyMzA1NWUwNjA5OTg2ZTUzMTliYzQyOTM1ZmIzNTI
Mormon humor. Kinda subtle.