Dennis Kucinich - A REAL CHOICE

Well, for one thing, Canada has always had private health care-the government doesn't own and operate the health care system, it just insures people.

On top of all that, the article you linked to on cbc happens to be 7 years old-it's dated December 7, 2000-and it says nothing about Canada taking steps toward 'private health care'.

I'd like to hear what Canadians on this forum think about their own health care system. I'm always hearing Americans criticize the Canadian health care system but I don't hear Canadians do it very often. I'd be very curious what Canadians think about this, especially in comparison to the American 'system'.

 

No government agency should decide on either of those two issue. They are personal, and only the individual can make a decision that truly affects either one.

 

When you register where I live you are entered into the jury duty system, and expanding on that many others probably have your data. I sympathize with Rat. When registration is totally confidential, perhaps more people would register and vote. Why is it we have to give up our anonymity to vote, in a supposedly anymous democratic voting system?

 

Why is it we are ask for our social security numbers every time we turn around. We used to be able to refuse that information, now you can be refused services for not providing it.

Our government should have done something about this years ago. But the corporations and marketers would be up in arms. How could they project their returns without that information? And the market is KING isn't it. It will float all boats it will even the playing field?...Not what my experience has been. Simply a marketing slogan, taught in our schools.

 

We were sold deregulation of utilities in California because it would provide better services at a lesser cost. Did it? We were sold HMOs for the same arguments. We were sold NAFTA, because it would lessen illegal imigration and create more jobs. Did it? We were told all these things could be turned around and things would go back to past states if they didn't work. Have we reversed any of them?

When is the consumer/voter going to wise up?

 

That article wasn't ment to be about Canada's steps towards private care. It was about the problems of long waiting list it has had and still has with their system.

Well you can go to Canadian news sources to find out what they have been reporting on the Canadian system.

I also think people shouldn't get caught up in asking Canadians what they think of their system in comaparison to the U.S system. They will always go for theirs. Instead Canadians should be asked if they acknowledge that their system has problems and whether the solutions will eventually come down to more private care to reduce those problems?

 

tdworld

As far as deregulation this may have to do with California's approach to implementing deregulation. I've pointed out before that Pennsylvania has provided a better model for implementing energy deregulation.

 

Yet while Enron rode us into a low GW and Cheney told us it was our problem. In the past utilities were seen as a necessity of life and protected through monoply government control. When we deregulated a minority got rich and many had to suck it up and turn their heat off. Grey Davis wasn't at fault, but the Governator won his seat backed by wealthy republicans. Maybe that won't happen in Pennsylvania, maybe it will. Somethings need to be regulated.

 

Have your winter heating costs gone down in Pennsylvania since deregulation?

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18391468&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415891&rfi=6

Not a big selling point for me as a consumer.

 

What about HMOs you think they provide adequate services and have they reduced rates?

 

The point here is to adress the reason these costs are so high in the first place... its the entire system that needs revamping, and no, the government should *not* have a hand in deciding the cost of things. If it gets a hand in *anything* it opens the door to corruption.

No it shouldn't cost so much to heat your house... its absurdly expensive at this point, but this does not solely rest on one man's shoulders, this is the result of many factors working together that must *all* be solved for our paper money, inflation, and cost of living to be as it should be.

 

Its not freedom, at all.

We do *not* need a big brother... and whats worse is that once big brother is established, he's gonna be much harder to kick out. We are already more than halfway to that point as it is... which is how anyone up to date with Ron Paul's stances must "assume" he's gonna get assasinated... how is that acceptable, and how does that now mean we should give up and vote our rights out the door.

It doesn't, it means its time to fight within the system yet harder

Which is why it pains me to hear you won't be voting...

 

"Big Brother" is the PATRIOT ACT, not Social Security.

"BIG BROTHER" is denying a woman's right to choice what goes on inside your own womb, not helping poor children get health care coverage.

"Big Brother" is SOCIAL CONSERVATIVISM, not child labor laws and environmental protection.

"Big Brother" protects PROPERTY & CAPITAL, not HUMAN RIGHTS OR LIBERTIES.

We all don't live in the wild, wild west, partner.

 

what was the point of your post

 

Dennis Kucinich is the best choice to protect human rights and the environment, which are, ultimately more important than your wallet.

 

See the big picture... there is more to running a country than the few issues you are interested in... there is the very method and mentality the government is based on... this is what must change before we can get anywhere.

Under Ron Paul, YOU will be able to vote on YOUR rights... and I will be able to vote on MY rights... not someone neither of us agree with deciding for everyone, as the current system allows.

 

crank, I like you.

You are a pleasant dude to deal with.

No hostility, just good dialogue. You keep everything positive.

That's hard for me to do sometimes!

Thumbs up to you!

 

Thanks

Anger does *not* have to be involved in any discussion about anything, ever... most folks just have a lack of self control, and that should *not* be socially acceptable.

I am rarely hypocritical in that regard... its cake online, but in person it can be a bit trying to keep a cool demeanor when your trying to converse with the typical close minded fool that doesn't even dance around his ignorance.

 

I assume you think all those reasons are pros. I don't. Her is my take is parenthesis.

1. Anti-War (pro)
2. Pro-Choice (I can see the argument, but I am against it. It sure seems like an issue for the states to decide if you read the constitution much)
3. Pro-Legalization of Marijuana (Pro)
4. Pro-Civil Liberties (not "states' rights", but YOUR rights) (The first part is a pro)
5. Pro-Environment (So is that anti-people? I guess I care about people more than plants and animals.)
6. Anti-Supply Side Economics (He must be anti-economics class too)
7. Pro-Poor (anti-everybody else above the poverty line?)
8. Anti-Corporate (anti-everybody who buys or sells anything?)
9. Pro- Civil Rights (See: Number 4)
10. Pro- Renewable Energy (Good, but it is the people's choice , ie. freedom)
11. Anti-"War on Terror" (which is bullshit) (Pro)
12. Pro-Religious (or non-religious) FREEDOM! (Pro)

 

I'm afraid Kucinich wants to create a nanny state.