Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Dangers Of Government Health Care  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Watch this short movie. I agree that something needs to be done to address the health insurance issue in the US, but having government handle everything is not the way.



[Edited 2007-03-28 13:43:40]

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1650 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Public hospital elective surgery waiting lists have been a hot political topic here for years. While the public health system here meets the needs of most people, if your surgery is not urgent (knee surgey, non-life threatining conditions, etc) you can be on a waiting list for years, while if you have private health insurance, any surgery you require will be done realtively quickly.


Essendon - Whatever it takes......
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

Yes Cfalk, we all know that the government is the great satan. It's Reagan who told it to me.

User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Yes Cfalk, we all know that the government is the great satan. It's Reagan who told it to me.

Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem. In fact, more often than not, government causes as many problems as it solves.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem. In fact, more often than not, government causes as many problems as it solves.

Good overal statment, but I would ammend that while the government isn't Satan, most of the people in it are.

If there could be some meaningful election and corruption reform, great, let the government do it. But until I can trust my lawmakers with the next door neighbor's 14 y/o daughter; the answer is  no 


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Yes Cfalk, we all know that the government is the great satan. It's Reagan who told it to me.

Did I say anything about the gov't being evil? No. But it's like calling a plumber to install an electrical system.

In this film, it was illustrated how politicians, when put in control of health care, divert funds and effort from normal people and divert them to special interest groups. The victim here lost her bladder simply because she was unlucky enough not to belong to a politically active minority. The minister was more interested in buying votes from the transsexual community than he was in actually providing care to people who really need it.

In a privately funded health system, that would not be such a problem. And what I find amazing in the US is that nobody I have heard about has advocated a 100% coverage by private insurers, as has been done successfully in Switzerland. The argument seems to be the Status Quo or government care for all, and nothing in between.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
Good overal statment, but I would ammend that while the government isn't Satan, most of the people in it are.

You're speaking of the people in the governments as if they were E.T.s
No they are human beings, and they make exactly the same mistakes as everybody does. They are not more dangerous because they are in a governement, except if you promote anarchy.

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem. In fact, more often than not, government causes as many problems as it solves.

A government is not an answer. It's a bunch of people who are here because they are indirectly chosen by the people (in a democracy) to rule the country. If somebody should take a decision about my country, I prefer that it's by people chosen by an election and who will not stay here 30 years, rather than by some lobby.


User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6170 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I always hear horror stories about the health care system in Canada. However these stories are always told to me by people that would be effected if we had national health care here in the USA. I have never heard any Canadias complaining too much. What is the Canadian system really like? How is the emergency care? the specialists? The family doctor? etc. How does it work?


My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2315 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):

Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem.

But the answer to health care problems. There are few spheres were the market doesn't work better or equal to public systems. Health care is one, because of bad risks.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
In this film, it was illustrated how politicians, when put in control of health care, divert funds and effort from normal people and divert them to special interest groups.

That sounds more like a problem of not enough public control and not like a problem of public health care per se. And a public health care system can be bad, too. I'm pretty sure you can also found examples of bad private health care.

pelican


User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
And what I find amazing in the US is that nobody I have heard about has advocated a 100% coverage by private insurers, as has been done successfully in Switzerland.

You forgot to mention that those "private insurers" are heavy (state) regulated non-profit organisations.

pelican

edit: spelling

[Edited 2007-03-28 17:17:19]

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting Pelican (Reply 9):
You forgot to mention that those "private insurers" are heavy (state) regulated non-profit organisations.

Bull. They are for-profit companies. Helsana for example made 114 million francs profit after tax last year, on equity of 939 million. Not a bad return for a "non-profit" company.

And they are regulated as much (or as little) as any other bank or insurance in Switzerland. However the products themselves (such as LaMaL, the basic health insurance package) is quite regulated, mainly to ensure a proper minimum standard of coverage.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2281 times:

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 6):
I prefer that it's by people chosen by an election and who will not stay here 30 years, rather than by some lobby.

I think you need to look at the composition of the body. For example the longevity of the US Congress is getting ridiculous. You've got people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL AISLE that have made being a representative a career path. People like Ted Kennedy (something like 30+ years in the Senate), Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens and the list goes on and on.

Ditto for the US House.

Fundamentally, the system does not work how it was envisioned. Congress was supposed to be a part time job, where representatives travelled to DC a couple times a year to deal with the matters of state and then went back home and lived under the laws they passed. Now, Congress exempts itself from just about every piece of legislation that it passes.

Anyone who's ever worked on the Hill can testify to the insanely dangerous condition of the underground tunnels that connect the various buildings to one another. They are literally fire death traps waiting to strike. But instead of dealing with the violations that would have OSHA shutting down the place if the building where in the private sector, Congress just exempts itself from those rules.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 8):
But the answer to health care problems. There are few spheres were the market doesn't work better or equal to public systems. Health care is one, because of bad risks.

As the president of a mid-sized enterprise ($150M in annual sales) I've got very mixed feelings about this. One one hand I've seen our health insurance premiums rise about 14% per year for each of the last 8 years. On the other hand I can't reconcile the irrefutable law of economics that any resources that is free is consumed in quantities that are uneconomical. The free-rider problem is something that needs to be addressed.

By the same token, my wife recently had a cancer scare when a mamogram indicated spots of concern. Her treatment options were (1) have it biopsied immediately or (2) wait six months and see if these spots grew. If they grew, they were probably malignant.

We opted for the biopsy. Given its location it had to be an open procedure. It was done in an outpatient manner but at a hospital. In at 8AM out at 5PM. The hospital billed $14,000. The insurance company paid them $2,800. We paid zero. Fortunately the results were negative.

A couple of weeks later, our housekeeper who comes once a week told my wife that her mamogram had the exact same findings. However, she didn't have health insurance nor $14,000 to pay for the biopsy. Therefore she had to wait the six months. If it is cancer, the Medicaid system will cover the treatment, which could involve surgery to remove the breast, chemo and radiation. I talked to physician friend of mine that said that such treatment could easily run $200,000. So here this woman, who works every day, may end up costing the taxpayers $200,000 because as a society we won't pay for her exploratory surgery. That just doesn't seem like a rational decision.

I don't think that there are any simple answers to this problem.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2281 times:

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 6):
E.T.s

Where did I say that? Interesting concept though "(S)E.T.; The Satanic Extra Terrestial "

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 6):
They are not more dangerous because they are in a government, except if you promote anarchy.

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  Everybody in government is more dangerous because they have more power. It's not a perception it's a fact. Now whether or not they choose to be dangerous is another story. Personally I have seen too much corruption in my lifetime to regard any politician as 'safe' or 'honest'.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 12):
Everybody in government is more dangerous because they have more power. It's not a perception it's a fact.

Bloody hell, Ted, you are starting to sound like a conservative!

Someone shoot me - that twice in a couple of days I agree with Ted!  Wink


User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):

Bull. They are for-profit companies. Helsana for example made 114 million francs profit after tax last year, on equity of 939 million. Not a bad return for a "non-profit" company.

I was not precise enough. Those private insurers are not allowed to make any profits with the basic health insurance. They are allowed to make profits with additional insurance products. There are quite a few "Krankenkassen" who work only on non-profit base. So no bull here.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
And they are regulated as much (or as little) as any other bank or insurance in Switzerland.

That's bull, indeed.
I didn't know that other Swiss insurances or banks have to insure everybody - the health insurances are not allowed to reject anybody who wants to be insured. And everybody living in Switzerland has to have an insurance. That's what I call heavy regulated. That's far from being a free market.

pelican


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
That just doesn't seem like a rational decision.

That's the best statment I have ever seen you make.. (besides the time you gave me a KO against Kroc)


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21875 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
And what I find amazing in the US is that nobody I have heard about has advocated a 100% coverage by private insurers, as has been done successfully in Switzerland.

How exactly does that system work? Does the government pay the insurance companies to provide insurance to those who can't afford it?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSKYSERVICE_330 From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 1427 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 7):
What is the Canadian system really like? How is the emergency care? the specialists? The family doctor? etc. How does it work?

Basically, Canada has a system of universal insurance- the system is publicly funded. Doctors are not employees of the state and the federal government, beyond picking up a huge tab for the cost of the system, plays a very little role. Each province is responsible for their own respective health care systems and the federal government uses its spending power to give the provinces money to support their systems as long as it meets the requirements found within the Canada Health Act, 1984. Canada, to a certain extent, does have a two tier system as private clinics do exist, but there are not that many. Doctors must choose to work within the private system or the public system, they cannot work in both.

The biggest problem in Canada at the moment, I would say, is wait times, although progress is being made to lower them. Wait times are a way for the government to control the costs of the system. If they train more doctors or allow more, for example, foreign trained doctors into the system, then wait times will go down but you will have more doctors within the system and pulling money from it, thus driving up costs. At the end, it is a balancing act. Have enough doctors to keep wait times at a reasonable level, but not enough to drive the costs of the system through the roof to an unmanageable level.

They are finding creative ways to deal with it though. For instance, if I remember correctly, one issue in Ontario relating to wait times was that there wasn't enough anesthesiologist in the system thus causing longer wait times. One way to get around this is to create a new level of specialty nurses with the necessary training to perform the basic anesthesiological(sp?) work required for every-day surgery and this was done in conjunction with universities with nursing programs. The nurses are still supervised by anesthesiologist though so their is no danger to the patient. For instance, in the past they would only have been allowed to have one knee surgery going on at one time because they only had one anesthesiologist available. Now, they can have 3 going on at the same time- in OR's 1, 2, and 3- each one with a specially trained nurse, and the anesthesiologist makes the rounds between the three rooms making sure everything is OK and supervising what the nurse is doing.

Overall, I would say Canadians are generally happy with the system or it wouldn't have the support it has among the populous. Although, some polls are showing that Canadians are beginning to become more receptive to a mixed system or would be willing to pay out of their pocket for certain services. Universal health care, I would say, is a sacred cow in Canada and I don't see it disappearing anytime soon. It is by no means perfect, but we like it.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_canada


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
That just doesn't seem like a rational decision.

I don't think that there are any simple answers to this problem.

And that's the crux of it - much of our health care system isn't rational, and yet, you can't get four people to agree on a course, let alone the nation.

The method CFalk describes for Switzerland intrigues me, and of all the models I've read about, seems, at least on the surface, the closest to a compromise between our free enterprise model and the Euro/Canadian National model. The part that continues to nag me however, is that as long as it is a for profit enterprise, there will always be a built in pressure to maximize profits and reduce costs. And if there is one thing the HMOs have shown us, the reduction in costs comes from one place, patient care.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2247 times:

Hmm, what happened to my post?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
Bull. They are for-profit companies. Helsana for example made 114 million francs profit after tax last year, on equity of 939 million. Not a bad return for a "non-profit" company.

I was not precise enough. Those private insurers are not allowed to make any profits with the basic health insurance. They are allowed to make profits with additional insurance products. There are quite a few "Krankenkassen" who work only on non-profit base. So no bull here.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
And they are regulated as much (or as little) as any other bank or insurance in Switzerland.

That's bull, indeed
I didn't know that other Swiss insurances or banks have to insure everybody - the health insurances are not allowed to reject anybody who wants to be insured. And everybody living in Switzerland has to have an insurance. That's what I call heavy regulated. That's far from being a free market.

pelican


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 7):
What is the Canadian system really like? How is the emergency care? the specialists? The family doctor? etc. How does it work?

To add to what Skyservice already mentioned:

Every Canadian resident/citizen gets a health insurance card from the province he/she lives in. This is used anytime the individual is admitted to a hospital or has any sort of medical examination or procedure. All reasonable procedures are covered, but drugs are not. Drugs are paid out of pocket, or with the help of a private health insurance plan (purchased by the patient, or the patient's employer/school/whatever).

Waits are indeed pretty long for non-emergency procedures. Even minor emergencies, the kind that require visiting the ER, often take a rather long time to sort out (a few hours for instance), obviously because more urgent cases are being taken care of first.

The system is pretty good all in all, but capacity is a serious issue.

What really baffles me are the doctors themselves. Canada (along with the U.S.) seems to have one of the longest possible training programs for doctors. It takes a good 12 years by my count to become a doctor here. One would think that this would result in some damn good doctors. Unfortunately, the number of blatant mistakes being made by practicioners in this country is ridiculous. It seems that every family has been affected by medical mistakes. Granted, usually it's a relatively minor matter that doesn't result in any real damage but rather just some wasted time and inconvenience.

But this summer I was at a funeral for a man who should still be alive today. He was still in his 40s. Over the course of a few months of treatment, he has been failed by pretty much all the doctors that treated him. Two of the doctors comitted blatant mistakes that were directly responsible for his death. Lucky for the physicians the widow wasn't interested in lawsuits/revenge/etc., but I can't help but wonder how many other people they've killed.

I can only speculate that poorly skilled doctors are the result of a system that doesn't have enough of them (overworked) and doesn't reward the ones it does have enough (underpaid, more lucrative offers in the U.S.). And let's face it, the system can't afford to lose even a single physician, so getting rid of bad doctors is almost impossible.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2162 times:

Let's change this a bit.

The Dangers of No Government Health Care:

47 million people without health coverage
17% of the population of the world's richest country without health coverage
20% of GDP spent on health care alone within a decade, double the amount spent in countries with government health care.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDisruptivehair From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

The US obviously needs to do something about its healthcare issues, but we should look at the Canadian and UK systems as examples of what not to do.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
47 million people without health coverage

A rather large fraction of which are either fairly well-off people between ages of 18 and 34, and who have decided not to pay for health insurance because they think they are always healthy. This is known as adverse selection. Only 24% of the uninsured earn less than $25K per year.

Another large fraction (over 40%) are non-citizen immigrants (largely illegals), who shouldn't be here in the first place, if they came illegally. No need to cry over them.

Over 50% of the uninsured have only worked part time or have not worked at all in the past year (about half/half)

So your numbers of 47 million people and 17% (actually closer to 15%) are misleading. I'd say only about a third of these numbers are genuinely in need of insurance and should have the right to find it at an affordable cost.

Look up the data for yourself.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Then there are the positive stories.

One of my best friend's sister is fighting cancer. She was pretty much living in poverty, and was working a series of odd jobs.

She inquired about Medicaid and Medicaid is now covering her cancer treatment 100% at a renown cancer facility (Moffett.)

And my friend said the way her sister is being treated is terrific.

So our system does often help the people it should.


25 Post contains images N1120A : No, that is only including those who are documented, not undocumented. And? No, it is actually closer to 17%. And we still are on pace to spend more
26 Cfalk : And what country spends more and achieves more in terms of new medical developments and research? Yes, medical spending is high in the US, but you ha
27 Pope : I'll provide a tangible example of this. We have an employee at my company who is 27 years old, married and with kids. She earns just under $40,000/y
28 767Lover : She thinks that the only people who need hospitals/doctors are people with illnesses? Does she believe she is exempt from car wrecks or other acciden
29 Pope : Look, I think she's insane and if she reported directly to me, I'd fire her ass for the lack of intelligence she's demonstrated on this issue alone.
30 N1120A : So you should just die then? One of the 3 rights of the social contract guaranteed by every modern democracy, and specifically noted in the US Consti
31 Post contains images Pope : This is the sort of BS that needs to be called out every single time. Please direct me to what part of the US Constitution guarantees anyone the righ
32 N1120A : I am not talking about how it has been interpreted, I am talking about it as a fundamental right of man in the social contract. We form governments t
33 ShyFlyer : Are you referring to this: Declaration of Independence
34 Pope : No sir, that's not what you said. You said: [emphasis added] So where in the US Constitution is it specifically noted that anyone has the right to li
35 767Lover : I understand that we all need healthcare. I just believe that able-bodied people who have the means to earn an income can pay for their own insurance
36 N1120A : I am talking about the Constitution, though that is also a social contract. I said nothing erroneous. You read, or should I say interpreted, a differ
37 Disruptivehair : I think healthcare is a right, and that's what this issue will ultimately boil down to: whether it's OK to let people suffer just because they're poor
38 Pope : I read what you wrote and nothing else. You state that the US Constitution specifically notes that there is a "right to life". I'm asking you where s
39 Post contains links Cfalk : Where did I say that? And BTW, it's kinda true... http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003794.html The right to life simply means nobody has the righ
40 N1120A : You pointed it out yourself. How that right is and should be interpreted may be in question, but I was presenting the view of the vast majority of th
41 N1120A : They both include the social contract and health is part and parcel of life Then why has Iowa, a state that has not embraced tort "re(de)form", seen
42 PPVRA : Government is a necessary evil. The less of it, the better. People call corporations evil because they act on their own best interest but then fail t
43 Pope : What did I point out? That the Constitution says nothing about a right to life? That seems to be in direct conflict with what you wrote. There is a h
44 Pope : What did I point out? That the Constitution says nothing about a right to life? That seems to be in direct conflict with what you wrote. There is a h
45 Cfalk : No. Life is an on/off switch. Health is a level of quality.
46 PPVRA : In fact, that would show a good trend - people value their health! If you have to take a penny out of your pocket every time you go to your doctor, p
47 N1120A : You live longer, generally, if you are healthy. Denying someone of health care shortens their life. It turns off the switch. Again, we spend twice as
48 Aa757first : Basically, there's three different major systems that are often compared. The Canadian, British and American models. Someone already explained the Ca
49 Pope : Not necessarily. Can it not be argued that providing health care extends life? If the life was going to end without intervention, why is the failure
50 JAGflyer : How come the first woman didn't go to another doctor to see if they could preform the surgery? Or, go to the US to have it done (she already was told
51 BHMBAGLOCK : I have several times. Also, my brother in law and his Canadian partner in Sarasota stay quite busy doing open heart surgery that is considered "elect
52 Post contains links and images 767Lover : Yes, I noticed that he seemed to be doing a lot of backpedaling after that initial statement. Anyway, my earlier post still stands as my view (that a
53 MD11Engineer : I have seen a system in Germany, which was in fact developed by the East German communists, but was transfered into the capitalist society after the f
54 MaidensGator : We could have a whole thread on the problems of over utilization, self-referral, and referral patterns in the US. The Stark anti-referral law contain
55 Aa757first : A lot of those procedures are done just as defensive medicine - why I think we should have some malpractice reform. In my experience, the American sy
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ban Of Health Care For Same Sex Partners Fails. posted Fri Nov 5 2004 20:10:07 by Gigneil
Your Health Care Costs? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 23:27:13 by AA787823
Whatever Happened To The Bush Health Care Plan? posted Sun Feb 11 2007 22:23:04 by N1120A
The Dangers Of Aspartame posted Sun Dec 10 2006 06:29:02 by NWDC10
Businesses May Move Health Care Overseas posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:27:39 by NWDC10
Balance Between Private And Public Health Care? posted Sun May 21 2006 05:16:56 by AerospaceFan
Police Warning: Dangers Of "Beer" posted Thu Jan 26 2006 23:51:44 by BCAInfoSys
Will Canada Phase Out Public Health Care? posted Tue Jan 24 2006 20:47:32 by AerospaceFan
The Unbending, Uncompassionate Side Of Government posted Thu Jan 5 2006 21:36:00 by Falcon84
Not-so-universal Health Care In Canada? posted Sat Jun 11 2005 00:38:17 by SQuared