Replies

Hillary, sadder but wiser since her first effort on the issue failed miserably, is seeking an opportunity for vindication.

the perot connection (remember him, he jumped back into the race...)
had to do with hillary! care... he stood to make billions if socialized
medicine metastasized in the good ole us of a.

follow the money on this one... this zebra don’t change it’s spots.

I know someone in Canada who needed immediate attention and surgery following a heart attack. He was moved from hospital to hospital for weeks before receiving treatment.

Anyone who thinks American health care is inferior to Canada's has no idea what he or she is talking about.

There are more MRI machines in the city of Philadelphia, PA, than in ALL OF CANADA!

For Ted Kennedy, the poster child of spoiled wealth and irresponsibility, to argue for Canadian health care is an outrage. Kennedy should be laughed and booed from any platform upon which he makes such an argument.

One key reason why Canuckistan cannot be a model for U.S. health care is simple - demographics.

Lacking a largely-racially-defined large underclass - or any large underclass - Ottawa politicians need not fear a middle-class backlash centering on white Canucks revolting over being taxed to fund another expensive welfare program mainly for the benefit of a different-looking underclass.

It used to be that Ted Kennedy championed the British system of socialized medicine. Of course, it had numerous problems. And, when it became apparent that the average Brit had to wait around 5 years for the surgery after a total hip operation was recommended, it became most clear why the delay. Simply put, the government, in my opinion, hoped that the oldster would die before getting the total hip operation. A great savings.

As the problems of the British system became more and more apparent to Americans, Ted Kennedy embraced the Canadian system. Being much newer, all of its problems had not yet surfaced. Now we see that the Canadian Government cannot control the costs even though it is using all sorts of rationing practices (including limited resources, etc.). More and more Americans realize that the Canadian system is not really any better than the British system.

So, with the help of the dominant liberal media, the shortcomings of the Canadian system are not mentioned, but the focus is on the comparatively few shortcomings of our American system. To the liberals, the only reason for the apparent failure of good socialized health care in England and Canada is because the wrong people are running it.

The liberals feel with such knowledgeable people like Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton, the system would work and be "fair" (a classic liberal buzz word).

Keep in mind that all three of the HillaryCare bills introduced to the congress in 1993 actually had an exemption for Federal Employees (including members of congress ... they wanted nothing to do with it, but did want to ram it down our throats).

As Canada moves towards increased privatization of health care, Senate Democrats want America to shift its health care model to where our neighbors to the north have already been -- and are desperately trying to escape.

Canada is running away from this.

What is the U. S. running toward it?