The point is there are problems with Canadian health care - you finally acknowledged it. Only a little more than than half of COVERED Canadians believe they receive quality care and less than half of COVERED Canadians think it's going to get better and more than half of COVERED Canadians believe private insurance would improve timely access and quality of care.

Being covered means NOTHING if you can't get the timely, quality care you need.

More ranting of an uneducated foreigner to the ways of our country!
The homosexual mayor of Portland has his house in foreclosure because he has not made a house payment since January. Believe that he does not have health insurance? Simply because you have a job does not automatically insulate you from financial problems.
What you refuse to accept is that our health care system works. The numbers that Nobama spews out are skewed and even the Government will admit it if cornered. It would be far cheaper to simply pay for the health care of those individuals that are for what ever reason uninsured than to make everyone cow tow to a universal health care system that is/has failed in more places of the world that we can count. Except to make more people beholding to the government, thereby securing the democratic parity's place in history as the part that changed our form of government from what we have known and enjoyed for over 200 years to a socialist state that has never in the history of the world enjoyed a life that long.
If you really want to get on a band wagon, why don't you go out and fight to get basic health care in countries like Africa, India, where a child would be very lucky to see a doctor once or twice in their life time. Which by the way is far shorter than here in OUR poorly run health care system.

Hello:

The problem is that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about...

The debate is NOT a debate. It's one set of fantasy's v another set of fantasy's. Are we ever going to figure it out?? Nahhh, because the jerks in congress who are going to pass or defeat the bill aren't going to read it - they're going to vote based on THEIR own set of fantasy's.

Can we trust the pundits who are supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff? Nahhh. They TOO have their own set of fantasy's.

Are we screwed? We are. The HELL with health care. Vote for term limits.

excon

Here Here! Two terms, one in office one in JAIL!

Why don't you man-up and just kill him?

I can't believe that even you would be so stupid as to advocate murdering a head of state!

Well if he's not a citizen and is the antichrist plus you have your 2nd amendment that allows you to protect yourself against a leader you hate so much...

I gree with this much... there are very few people, if any, who have read the full bill.

Yet Obama wants it passed immediately, even though nobody has read it.

Nevertheless, there have been parts of the bill that have been read by a lot of people, and those parts seem to contradict what Obama has said about the bill. The stuff about being able to keep your own insurance and your own doctors if you like them is clearly contradicted by the parts of the bill that say that if you leave your current employer, you cannot move to another private insurance, but must immediately join the government plan (pages 425-430 of the bill, if my memory serves).

So there are certainly parts of the bill that should be questioned by those who have read it.

Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office HAS read the entire bill and has put out their own analysis based on what is written in the bill. THEY are not working based on fantasy, but rather based on the bill itself. And they are putting out some pretty dire warnings.

So your argument that everybody is working based on fantasy and nobody has read the bill is not exactly true, is it? Not everybody is doing that.

It's not a fantasy, excon. It's a nightmare.

Elliot

And Obama can't decide who the monster in this nightmare is. He's spent the past two years telling us it was the evil insurance companies and at his presser it was those greedy doctors that might dare recommend a tonsillectomy or prescribe the blue pill.

He has repeatedly told us he wants patients and doctors making decisions together, but when you factor in his advisory board that will determine what treatments are allowed, who will be allowed to have them and how he feels about greedy doctors - it sure sounds like he doesn't want patients and doctors involved in the decision making process at all.

Is that the logic you use? No wonder you always come off looking so foolish.

You really think that the second amendment is there to allow us to assassinate Presidents we don't like?

First of all, Obama may be a Marxist, but he is obeying the law. He has not violated the Constitution (although the appointment of "Czars" may be cutting it a bit close). He has not attempted to use the military to gain power or authtority that is not rightfully his as President. He is merely someone we dislike politically. Being wrong, politically or about anything else, is not an excuse for assassination. (Otherwise, you'd have been dead a long time ago.)

Secondly, there are political means by which to stop Obama's Marxist policies. They are clearly working... the health care thing is pretty much dead until the fall, and after that, I doubt it will have much support. By then people will have read the bill, or at least heard about it, and given the tendencies of Americans, they will hate Obama's proposals. And the health care bill will be dead in the water, just like Hillarycare. So there are political means by which to stop him.

Third, there is one major reason that nobody in their right mind would assassinate Obama. One thing that people fear even more than having a Marxist in office.

Biden. The walking, talking gaff machine.

'nuff said.

Elliot

I guess I was taking earlier threads about gun rights and armed insurrection to heart.

No you weren't, because those threads said nothing of the sort.

If you will look back VERY CLOSELY at those other threads, we talk about armed insurrection in the face of a government power grab using the MILITARY to enforce unconstitutional change. We talk about fighting the military IF THE MILITARY TURNS ON US. That, in fact, was the very reason that the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place.

Nobody at any point ever (that I know of) has talked about armed insurrection against a legitimate President using his legitimate powers in a legitimate manner to push his agenda, no matter how much we dislike that agenda.

That's just your fantasy at work. Don't try to push your ideas off on us.

Elliot

Hello again, Need:

Whatdya know about that? The ONE time you believe what they said, and then another of 'em comes along and tells you, nahhhhh - we were just kidding about that.

But, don't, for a second, believe this nicey nice the Wolverine is playing. He thinks the military overthrow of an elected president is the Constitution in action. He thinks Obama is a Dictator and a Marxist.

Uhhhh... I can add 2 + 2.

excon

I think NK and Ex are missing a point.

As long as any would-be dictator KNOWS there are millions of firearms in private homes, armed insurrection is not likely to be NEEDED.

Does that clarify it?

So by your reasoning it is impossible for someone to be a dictator in the US.

Hello again, gal:

Yup. Perfectly. But if it IS needed, you and the Wolverine'll be right there...

By the way, what would cause you think it's NEEDED? Socialism, perhaps? Marxism, and the destruction of the American economy for his own agenda? He's been accused of all those things and even worse by your side. The birthers (your side), think's he's an illegal alien. Isn't having an illegal alien with unknown loyalties reason enough for armed insurrection??

excon

Only as long as there is a well-armed civilian population.

Oh... it's possible for someone to TRY. But as long as the population is well armed and outnumbers the military, any attempt at a MILITARY dictatorship would be doomed to failure.

However, once the government takes away the right to bear arms, all bets are off.

Remember, the first of the Nuremberg laws (the laws that Hitler put in place to make it impossible for civillians to overthrow him) was the elimination of the right to own a weapon. From that point on, it became impossible for anyone to overthrow Hitler because he controlled the military... he had all the guns.

This same pattern is played out throughout history.

In Japan, only the Samurai were allowed to carry weapons, and the Samurai ruled like dictators. In Okinawa, the Japanese forbid anyone to be armed except members of the Japanese military, and they ruled Okinawa like dictators. Ditto for China. In the Soviet Union, only members of the military or the Politburo were allowed to be armed. The first thing that Castro did upon taking over Cuba was the confiscation of weapons from the public. From that point on, he was able to rule with an iron fist and no fear of being overthrown.

An unarmed society is unable to defend itself and is vulnerable to tyranny and dictatorship.

I know you would love to marginalize us, excon. You can't beat us in an argument, and that ticks you off. So the best you can come up with is some sort of fantasy about plotting Obama's assassination out of fear of him becoming a dictator. It would be so EASY for you if we really thought that way, wouldn't it? But we don't. That's YOUR fantasy, not ours. Ours is to stop Obama politically. And so far it seems to be working.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it. You can't beat us, and you can't marginalize us.

Elliot

Hello again:

On THIS point we agree. It's just that I thought the dufus was edging towards tyranny with HIS assault on the Constitution, and the Wolverine is worried about Obama.

Go figure.

excon

Ok, excon Goebbels. You keep repeating this lie in hopes that everyone will believe it. It was NOT a "military overthrow" in Honduras. The military was enforcing a lawful order by their Supreme Court against an unlawful attempt at a power grab. You apparently support the wannabe dictator instead of the Honduran constitution and rule of law.