shawn, let me ask you something. What would YOU think that "better health care" should mean. What about a "stronger military". And finally "more accountability"?

"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER

shawn are you 12 years old? Govt running everything? Why do you suppose Canadians are running to south of the border to have surgeries in the U.S? They'll give you all of the drugs you want...you'l just die sedated!! For crying out loud.

"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER

I can't find the video now, but a couple of weeks ago watched one where a Canadion woman needed a stimulator put in to activate her bladder. She was on a three year waiting list; she and her Mom kept trying to get a meeting with the Minister of Health (or whatever it's called up there). They could never get an answer or meeting with him.

However, a guy who wanted to be a girl, had his undivided attention over his/her plight. The MoH was promising to get something done about the freak's transition.

See, one of the problems with universal health care is not just that it's socialist, it's also a vehicle for promoting a social agenda.

Additionally, why should we change the health care system that is the best in the world? Where are most medical advances and techniques pioneered? Is our health care system perfect? Heck, no. But you know what else it isn't? It's not socialist. That suits me fine.

Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!

Shawn,

I have spent a lot of time in Canada over the years and not too many people I know like their healthcare system. It isn't bad if you have something minor or routine but forget it outside of that. In the US Universal Healthcare is unattainable. First it costs way too much. Does it also apply to all of the illegal aliens (here comes tumbler)? There is no way this can be funded. Our other social programs like medicare and social security are going bankrupt and now you want to institute the largest social undertaking of all time.

There is no way Obama can deliver a strong military. It is impossible. No democrat has ever delivered a strong military. It is against their core beliefs. It will be disassembled and defunded just as it was under Clinton and Carter.

I hate to break your heart, but the rise of the Canadian dollar has nothing to do with Canada's Socialist tendencies and everything to do with the oil industry in Alberta, as well as worldwide demand for other raw materials Canada is blessed with.  If the Canadians LOVE "free" health care so much, and it is "overall not bad", can you explain why the Canadians keep running south of the border to get health care on demand for a fee? 

Universal health care violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."  It will merely delude people into thinking there is one.  To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now?  Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now.  If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving?  No, because there would be no incentive to.  But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.

The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do.  Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves?  Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts.  This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage". 

The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only.  In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate will scream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system.  (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care.  France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time!  This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.)  Take a look at the history of Britain's NHS for an example. 

Another thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south.  Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.

I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program.  (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.)  But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them.  While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy.  And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity.  The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor.  The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200.  The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south.  I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.

Here's an admittedly unscientific measure of progression in health care: a listing of the nationalities of those who won the Nobel Prizes in Medicine from 1977 to 2004 in reverse order.

2004: U.S.

2003: U.S. /U.K.

2002: U.S. /U.K.

2001: U.K.

2000: Sweden/U.S.

1999: U.S.

1998: U.S.

1997: U.S.

1996: Australia/Switzerland (no socialized health care in Switzerland)

1995: U.S./Germany

1994: U.S.

1993: U.S./U.K.

1992: U.S.

1991: Germany

1990: U.S.

1989: U.S.

1988: U.S./U.K.

1987: Japan

1986: Italy/U.S.

1985: U.S.

1984: U.K./Argentina/Denmark

1983: U.S.

1982: Sweden/U.K.

1981: U.S.

1980: France/U.S.

1979: U.S./U.K.

1978: U.S/ Switzerland

1977: U.S.

Between 1977 and 2004, U.S. doctors won 22 Nobel Prizes in Medicine - more than the other countries shown combined.  To save server space I did not list ALL the recipients, but I noticed that the Nobel prize winners in the early going were from many assorted European countries.  This began to change in the 1960s, when the listing of winners trended sharply American. 

I wonder what motivated all of these doctors.  Pure altruism?  The commitment to doing work for free?  Did any of these doctors give away their prize money or refuse it?

And why are all of these Nobel prize winners hailing from the United States?  Could it be that the system of health care here favors innovation and different approaches, due to the market-oriented system that exists here?  (And rewards such innovation?)  Why do I not see any Canadians listed here?  Why did the last French recipient get his or her prize in 1980? 

Yet more evidence that gives me pause to wonder why there are so many in the United States dedicated to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)