Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont need to actually live 60 miles further south to get some different viewpoint of America. I'm listening to the same Limbaugh,Beck,Jones,Levine,Doyle FOX,CNN,and MSNBC that you are, And in my opinion the American right wing hates their duly elected President and hopes he fails in his every attempt to improve things in the USA. The republican politicians obstruct filibuster and vote no on almost every piece of legislation tabled and the President must not appear in a positive light under any circumstance.,including the ACA program.
I guess if one sits around listening to only rightwing hate speech about the President its easy to conclude what your views on the President and Democrats will be, its called brainwashing.
How on earth is this any different whatsoever than what the democrats and their media minions did to Bush?
Both sides could lighten up, but to go ballistic on the republicans while giving democrats a full break when they do the same thing, if not 10 times worse?
because its called insurance, if only people who needed insurance paid for insurance most insurance companies would be out of business in short order.
Ultimately your country has 30-40 million people who for whatever reason cant afford or dont qualify for insurance,i'd call that a problem that needs addressing, Obama and the Dems have come up with this ACA act to try to address the problem,the Republicans have no plan of their own they offer no help to help make the plan run smoothly they just want the plan to fail because they dont like the President.
A significant portion of that 30-40% includes 20-somethings who still won't buy insurance. People who can't afford it can and often resort to medicare.
I was with Aetna. Was paying 645.00 per month (single male)$2000.00 deductible) They were cancelling me out due to not meeting govt standards. So they raised it to $708.00 for the last 2 months of Nov and Dec. I paid $25.00 per visit it for my Primary doctor and $35.00 for a Specialist and a discount on prescriptions.
My new plan is $159.07 per month and NO Primary doctor copay.$50.00 Specialist Copay,Generic Prescriptions are $5.00 and ER visit is $300.00 copay after deductible. i have a $1250.00 Deductible. Max out of pocket is $5k
I am glad the new welfare program is a good thing for you, and will save you a lot of money.
I'm not asking for gratitude, but I hope you don't spend any time bashing the fine folks who are paying most of your tab.
Umm, Canada has better outcomes? Lower costs? I would call that superior, without any hesistation.
Not as many problems as in the private for profit free-for-all.
Opinions are fine, we all have them.
Quote:
Able bodied intelligent people, and well, everyone else, have better things to do than deal with private insurers' various strategies for charging a lot and delivering little. In a single payer system, we could free up so much wasted time, money, and effort that we currently spend simply trying to get insurers to do the job we are paying them to do.
A system that the regressive elements of Congress have fought to ensure does not work well in their ongoing effort to prove the gummit is broken by breaking it.
Taxes are high, yet we see little results. So, I guess I don't get the point.
If single payer is what liberals want, then they should quit chearleading this hideous law. All Obamacare does is dismantle what we had, by driving it into the ground. I suppose in some sick twisted way that's a path to single-payer.
Breaking what's broken? I suppose.
Quote:
For those that can afford it. We do have a pool of 330 million people feeding the RnD departments of our healthcare companies, so I'd chalk it up to economies of scale and nothing more. By odds, we should have ten times as many med technologies in development as our Canadian peers. That does not mean we are doing a better job. There are simply more of us doing the job.
Well, when we refuse to pass laws that promote land use that encourages walkable, dense development, we shouldn't be surprised when people don't use their legs. When our minimum wage is a joke, we shouldn't be surprised when people load up on cheap, bad calories.
The cost of eating healthy vs. junk is about the same. People get spoiled to quick easy meals, regardless of income level.
I'm fine with walkable developments. The laws (if the locals want them) need to come from state and local governments so they'll reflect local culture and needs. Anything from the feds on such issues (and most other issues) would be far too broad for everyone to agree on.
Quote:
Riiiiight. So since he isn't some fascist TPer/libertarian buffoon from ol' dixie, he can't be a real Republican, and I assume by that logic a real American either? Wow. I guess Gov. Christie doesn't pass the purity test either then? Today's GOP is a f***ing waste of human meat.
I may have sounded anti-Romney, but actually voted for him over Obama, whose 4 years of on-the-job training still hadn't helped him be an actual leader. Even though I didn't vote for Obama, I was foolishly hopeful that maybe he could do something foreign policy-wise. But, no. For better or worse, he's only extended Bush's policies.
As for Romney, yep, he had my vote, but he's not nearly as far to the right as the Obama campaign tried to make him out to be. That's okay. Same with Christie. I may not agree with everything (again, that's okay), but he would be leaps and bounds better than Obama.
I like the northeast by the way, just not the politics. The south is fine, too. Different strokes, it takes all kinds, etc........
Last edited by northbound74; 12-22-2013 at 05:05 PM..
I have no idea who put together your ACA program but most of it was based on a Republican system based in Massachusetts and implemented by Mitt Romney..
I'm tired of hearing this. Yes, over the years both parties have put forth different ideas. What a Canadian might not understand is that our Constitution allowed certain privileges to the States that they did not afford to the Federal Govt. One of those is local/state level regulation of Insurances. Thus a state can require car insurance and - yes - health insurance. In fact, Hawaii has had a very well-functioning health care law that has worked for more than 30 years. One that was created and vetted by all interested parties. The bill was not more than about 100 pages long (versus what has now burgeoned to 27,000 pages for our Obamacare law.) Hawaii will now lose this highly functional and useful healthcare law due to Obamacare and thousands of people are now losing their affordable health insurance due to Obamacare. Can you say "irony?"
For the Record - as I posted elsewhere on CD last year - here is the difference between Romney's program and Obama's. And yes, I realize some of the numbers are now different. This is an older, but still relevant post:
Obamacare vs Romneycare
This ACA bill has so much pork, so many mandates, so many non-healthcare provisions, and so much crap added to it that it's a nightmare. Many Democrats who originally supported it are backing away from it. They are the ones whose feet are being held to the fire.
Also - obamacare is NOT romneycare. Just as obamacare is not the Hawaii healthcare law. If you support obamacare because the Massachusetts law works, then you haven't done your homework...
... here are some of the differences between the two laws
Overall Scope
Romney care:
- The bill is 70 pages long - Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance. -Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate -No federal govt. insurance option -Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
Obamacare:
-The bill was 2,074 pages (has now ballooned to more than 20,000 pages with added regulations)
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no "opt out" provision - Leaves open the option of creating single-payer govt. insurance in the future - Intended as a step toward govt. run insurance
- Favored groups such as unions and (being debated now) members of Congress being exempted
Costs
Romney Care: -No new taxes were imposed to pay for this insurance
- The state’s budget was balanced first, then they passed the healthcare law -No cuts to Medicare benefits -Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
Obamacare:
-Increased taxes by $500 billion -Despite massive federal govt. debt, Obamacare was still passed
- Hidden taxes, newly formed commissions, enforcement agencies, and onerous small business laws were included to help pay for the provisions -- most of which were ignored or missed by Congress as they were discussing it. Only now are we seeing what all those additional items were and what they mean. - Cuts to Medicare equaling or exceeding $500 billion
- Overall costs unknown and growing
Popularity
Romneycare:
- Strong bipartisan support as it moved through the process - Strong special interest support - hospitals, doctors, corporations, individuals all supported this during its creation and implementation
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts -Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
Obamacare:
-Absolutely no bipartisan support -Very controversial and divided special interest groups -Unpopular in nation overall - Currently 55% view the law unfavorably (Rasmussen poll) CNN did a poll in 2011 that showed half favored repealing the bill altogether and only 6% favored it the way it was written
-No consensus was ever built to support a mandate
Constitutionality Romneycare: -Constitutional both according to Massachusetts Constitution and the US Constitution
-Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, Romneycare will remain Constitutional (see note under Federalism - it's a STATE solution to a STATE problem.)
Obamacare:
- Penalties for non-compliance against individuals
- Potentially unconstitutional
- Supreme Court has yet to rule on 10th amendment limitations of federal govt. power regarding this law
- Implementation promises to be unwieldy and invasive. Three agencies will be looking at your private information; they will have access to all your bank records once you apply and have given themselves the right to snoop into your private accounts any time they want after that
- This is one step closer to the National ID they are trying to push through (nothing works in a vacuum)
Federalism
Romneycare: - A state solution to a state problem (Just as state-by-state vehicle insurance laws take the needs of the state into consideration, Romneycare - and the Hawaii law - are created to address local concerns)
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
Obamacare:
- Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan - which rarely works.
- States' Rights are being attacked with a law like this that crosses State lines.
- There are numerous questions about the Federal govt's ability and rights to force the purchase of anything on all citizens of the US. These challenges are currently pending before the Supreme Court.
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1 )Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2) Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3) Conservative states will reject implementation of federal govt. plan.
Thanks to Ben for your help with this, to my assistant for the research, and for the State of Mass. for printing a recap of your bill. The above is a paraphrasing of numerous sources, including the text of the ACA bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
I am glad the new welfare program is a good thing for you, and will save you a lot of money.
I'm not asking for gratitude, but I hope you don't spend any time bashing the fine folks who are paying most of your tab.
Since I'm one of the healthy, no pre-existing conditions, over 60 year olds who donated to the Medicare and Social Security programs since age 14, I'll chime in here. I've always paid for my own insurance. I took the highest deductible so I could have catastrophic care and covered the small stuff. Because of that, I knew every month how much I needed to make and to save in order to cover that and all the rest of my bills. Yes, we call that "being responsible." I didn't buy the latest iPhone or flat screen TV. I didn't eat out at expensive restaurants. I found ways to enjoy life without being extravagant.
My health insurance was $265 a month with $5,000 deductible up until age 60. Then it popped up to $315 with partial vision and dental coverage. In 2009 I was told it would hang at that cost until age 65 or 70, depending on my retirement status. NOW - with the "help" of Obamacare -- I just got a notice that my coverage will go up to $725 a month. The dental and vision coverage is gone. But HEY - NOW I get birth control and abortion services along with a free prostate exam every year. Just what a 62 year old woman needs!!!
So OP -- I'm happy for you that you got a "deal." Just remember on whose backs you got it. There's no way around it. Productive and hard-working citizens are paying for your care. So, to echo marcopolo -- don't get too carried away bashing those of us who, yes, ARE paying for YOUR care.
As for the Canadians who chime in here -- you don't live here. You may love your Canadian coverage because it's all you have ever known. But I can name at least a dozen Canadian friends who have horror stories about Canadian healthcare. One was an Olympian who had rotator cuff issues. Due to his being over 50, they delayed his appointments to get his Xrays and ultimate care. By the time they got around to scheduling him into the operating room, the ligaments had atrophied and he has lost complete use of his right arm. This man is a carpenter. Delays that in the US would be unheard of ultimately made him unemployed and unemployable in his craft. Surgery that could have / should have been performed within a month would have kept him a useful and contributing member of society. So - Yay Canadian healthcare.
IMHO - Obamacare was never about healthcare. It was about buying votes. It was and is part of the move to a centralized government. It was a lie from the get go and the only ones that are supporting it are people in the OP's shoes who "got a deal." But this is the kind of a "deal" that will ultimately bite us all in the a$$, including the OP.
The money gotta come from somewhere...
some day it will also come from Y O U.
Keep it up. You guys already look horrible over the government shutdown. You can only make it worse by continuing to spew your hatred and vitriol. The vast majority of the 40 million Americans who are uninsured and the additional 50 million who are UNDER insured are not lazy drug-using slobs. They're working class poor - a segment of the population that is getting larger and larger with every job shipped to China.
It wasn't the Republicans who shut down the government, it was Obama with his "my way or no way" stance. He wanted to push through his whole package or nothing. Republicans disagreed with some of the things in the package, rightfully so. Instead of agreeing to pass it with some exceptions, he refused unless everything he wanted in it was included. HE is the one who would not compromise.
It wasn't the Republicans who shut down the government, it was Obama with his "my way or no way" stance. He wanted to push through his whole package or nothing. Republicans disagreed with some of the things in the package, rightfully so. Instead of agreeing to pass it with some exceptions, he refused unless everything he wanted in it was included. HE is the one who would not compromise.
Amen.
The Republicans sent 19 different packages to Obama. Some of which he refused to even look at. The entire shutdown was to keep Obamacare from taking effect until the democrats could show that it was viable and ready to go. It wasn't.
I also am tired of the constant accusations of "vitriole" coming from the Right. I hear more hatred and intolerance from the Left than I do from the Right. I don't agree with everything the Right has said or done, but I sure as heck can't support what the Left has done to this country in the past 6 years.
Speaking Truth to Power is our JOB. If we see ANY politician or leader crossing the line it is our Responsibility as citizens to call them on it. That is not "being mean" or "being racist." It is how we have held on to our rights as Citizens for more than 250 years. This constant drive to divide us is a huge concern, and there are just too many in the media willing to enlarge the gap at every turn.
No matter how you slice it, this little gem below has been going around the internet and is a fairly accurate wake up call --
"Putting things in perspective: March 21, 2010 to October 1, 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days. December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day. What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this progressive federal government to build a working webpage.
WW2 required mobilization of millions of people, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!
And in that amount of time - this administration can't build a working website with what has now reported to be $643 MILLION of our taxpayers dollars. Imagine how much good that much money could have done if put towards cancer research. Or if they had just sent a check to each family in America at the poverty level. Or if they had even just hired an AMERICAN company instead of a Canadian company to create the website!" Anonymous
It wasn't the Republicans who shut down the government, it was Obama with his "my way or no way" stance. He wanted to push through his whole package or nothing. Republicans disagreed with some of the things in the package, rightfully so. Instead of agreeing to pass it with some exceptions, he refused unless everything he wanted in it was included. HE is the one who would not compromise.
Republicans had the majority in the house and therefore had the power to shut the government down,had Dems had the Majority they would not have shut the government down.
Republicans own the shutdown.
I'm tired of hearing this. Yes, over the years both parties have put forth different ideas. What a Canadian might not understand is that our Constitution allowed certain privileges to the States that they did not afford to the Federal Govt. One of those is local/state level regulation of Insurances. Thus a state can require car insurance and - yes - health insurance. In fact, Hawaii has had a very well-functioning health care law that has worked for more than 30 years. One that was created and vetted by all interested parties. The bill was not more than about 100 pages long (versus what has now burgeoned to 27,000 pages for our Obamacare law.) Hawaii will now lose this highly functional and useful healthcare law due to Obamacare and thousands of people are now losing their affordable health insurance due to Obamacare. Can you say "irony?"
For the Record - as I posted elsewhere on CD last year - here is the difference between Romney's program and Obama's. And yes, I realize some of the numbers are now different. This is an older, but still relevant post:
Obamacare vs Romneycare
This ACA bill has so much pork, so many mandates, so many non-healthcare provisions, and so much crap added to it that it's a nightmare. Many Democrats who originally supported it are backing away from it. They are the ones whose feet are being held to the fire.
Also - obamacare is NOT romneycare. Just as obamacare is not the Hawaii healthcare law. If you support obamacare because the Massachusetts law works, then you haven't done your homework...
... here are some of the differences between the two laws
Overall Scope
Romney care:
- The bill is 70 pages long - Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance. -Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate -No federal govt. insurance option -Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
Obamacare:
-The bill was 2,074 pages (has now ballooned to more than 20,000 pages with added regulations)
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no "opt out" provision - Leaves open the option of creating single-payer govt. insurance in the future - Intended as a step toward govt. run insurance
- Favored groups such as unions and (being debated now) members of Congress being exempted
Costs
Romney Care: -No new taxes were imposed to pay for this insurance
- The state’s budget was balanced first, then they passed the healthcare law -No cuts to Medicare benefits -Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
Obamacare:
-Increased taxes by $500 billion -Despite massive federal govt. debt, Obamacare was still passed
- Hidden taxes, newly formed commissions, enforcement agencies, and onerous small business laws were included to help pay for the provisions -- most of which were ignored or missed by Congress as they were discussing it. Only now are we seeing what all those additional items were and what they mean. - Cuts to Medicare equaling or exceeding $500 billion
- Overall costs unknown and growing
Popularity
Romneycare:
- Strong bipartisan support as it moved through the process - Strong special interest support - hospitals, doctors, corporations, individuals all supported this during its creation and implementation
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts -Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
Obamacare:
-Absolutely no bipartisan support -Very controversial and divided special interest groups -Unpopular in nation overall - Currently 55% view the law unfavorably (Rasmussen poll) CNN did a poll in 2011 that showed half favored repealing the bill altogether and only 6% favored it the way it was written
-No consensus was ever built to support a mandate
Constitutionality Romneycare: -Constitutional both according to Massachusetts Constitution and the US Constitution
-Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, Romneycare will remain Constitutional (see note under Federalism - it's a STATE solution to a STATE problem.)
Obamacare:
- Penalties for non-compliance against individuals
- Potentially unconstitutional
- Supreme Court has yet to rule on 10th amendment limitations of federal govt. power regarding this law
- Implementation promises to be unwieldy and invasive. Three agencies will be looking at your private information; they will have access to all your bank records once you apply and have given themselves the right to snoop into your private accounts any time they want after that
- This is one step closer to the National ID they are trying to push through (nothing works in a vacuum)
Federalism
Romneycare: - A state solution to a state problem (Just as state-by-state vehicle insurance laws take the needs of the state into consideration, Romneycare - and the Hawaii law - are created to address local concerns)
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
Obamacare:
- Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan - which rarely works.
- States' Rights are being attacked with a law like this that crosses State lines.
- There are numerous questions about the Federal govt's ability and rights to force the purchase of anything on all citizens of the US. These challenges are currently pending before the Supreme Court.
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1 )Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2) Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3) Conservative states will reject implementation of federal govt. plan.
Thanks to Ben for your help with this, to my assistant for the research, and for the State of Mass. for printing a recap of your bill. The above is a paraphrasing of numerous sources, including the text of the ACA bill.
Since I'm one of the healthy, no pre-existing conditions, over 60 year olds who donated to the Medicare and Social Security programs since age 14, I'll chime in here. I've always paid for my own insurance. I took the highest deductible so I could have catastrophic care and covered the small stuff. Because of that, I knew every month how much I needed to make and to save in order to cover that and all the rest of my bills. Yes, we call that "being responsible." I didn't buy the latest iPhone or flat screen TV. I didn't eat out at expensive restaurants. I found ways to enjoy life without being extravagant.
My health insurance was $265 a month with $5,000 deductible up until age 60. Then it popped up to $315 with partial vision and dental coverage. In 2009 I was told it would hang at that cost until age 65 or 70, depending on my retirement status. NOW - with the "help" of Obamacare -- I just got a notice that my coverage will go up to $725 a month. The dental and vision coverage is gone. But HEY - NOW I get birth control and abortion services along with a free prostate exam every year. Just what a 62 year old woman needs!!!
So OP -- I'm happy for you that you got a "deal." Just remember on whose backs you got it. There's no way around it. Productive and hard-working citizens are paying for your care. So, to echo marcopolo -- don't get too carried away bashing those of us who, yes, ARE paying for YOUR care.
As for the Canadians who chime in here -- you don't live here. You may love your Canadian coverage because it's all you have ever known. But I can name at least a dozen Canadian friends who have horror stories about Canadian healthcare. One was an Olympian who had rotator cuff issues. Due to his being over 50, they delayed his appointments to get his Xrays and ultimate care. By the time they got around to scheduling him into the operating room, the ligaments had atrophied and he has lost complete use of his right arm. This man is a carpenter. Delays that in the US would be unheard of ultimately made him unemployed and unemployable in his craft. Surgery that could have / should have been performed within a month would have kept him a useful and contributing member of society. So - Yay Canadian healthcare.
IMHO - Obamacare was never about healthcare. It was about buying votes. It was and is part of the move to a centralized government. It was a lie from the get go and the only ones that are supporting it are people in the OP's shoes who "got a deal." But this is the kind of a "deal" that will ultimately bite us all in the a$$, including the OP.
The money gotta come from somewhere...
some day it will also come from Y O U.
Informative but it leaves out the fact that an entire political demographic is doing everything it can possibly do to thwart the ACA plan. non of the other state run plans had to deal with obstruction from day one of the idea, Have the republicans in anyway tried to help this plan come to fruition,? have they done anything but call for its repeal?,have they offered any alternate plan? Even now those that are signing on to the plan and benefiting from some savings are being told by the right they are just taking the money through taxes from the backs of hard working republicans/
If any one is wasting tax $ its your republican representatives wasting time on 48 efforts to repeal the ACA act..submitting the government to near dysfunction by constant obstruction and close to 500 filibusters and still no plan to help the 30-40 million people who cant afford or dont qualify for healthcare..
As this is a public forum Canadians have as much right to chime in as anyone else.
And if you want to point out medical anomalies in the Canadian healthcare system i'm sure with a bit of a Google search we can cherry pick some similar deficiencies in the American system.
Informative but it leaves out the fact that an entire political demographic is doing everything it can possibly do to thwart the ACA plan. non of the other state run plans had to deal with obstruction from day one of the idea, Have the republicans in anyway tried to help this plan come to fruition,? have they done anything but call for its repeal?,have they offered any alternate plan? Even now those that are signing on to the plan and benefiting from some savings are being told by the right they are just taking the money through taxes from the backs of hard working republicans/
If any one is wasting tax $ its your republican representatives wasting time on 48 efforts to repeal the ACA act..submitting the government to near dysfunction by constant obstruction and close to 500 filibusters and still no plan to help the 30-40 million people who cant afford or dont qualify for healthcare..
As this is a public forum Canadians have as much right to chime in as anyone else.
And if you want to point out medical anomalies in the Canadian healthcare system i'm sure with a bit of a Google search we can cherry pick some similar deficiencies in the American system.
The republicans have offered alternatives recently.
In the beginning and throughout the process, they cautioned more time was needed for more debate, more options, changes and implementation of healthcare reform. They were absolutely right. The democrats said let's shove it through and see how it all pans out later. Not wise. Wisdom. There's something we desperately need.
The democrats got stuck on one idea. Their way or nothing. Obama is notorious for his lack of compromise, especially when it comes to his big hope 'n change stuff.
Nobody is saying the "backs of hard working republicans" other than accusatory liberals. Perhaps they think republicans are the hard working ones. Instead, opponents of this legislation quickly point out anyone who's cost of insurance has increased due to Obamacare. If anything, they highlight (former) Obama supporters.
Again, a significant portion of that 30-40 million are people who either do qualify or can afford insurance, they just don't bother with it. I was once one of them, and most I knew at the time were the same way. It's called being in your 20's. Others simply don't care or think about it, but could get insurance if they chose to do so. These are the backs that Obamacare highly depends on, yet aren't signing up in great enough numbers.
The obsession and mental dependency on health insurance is still a relatively new concept in this country. I'm not that old, but I do remember a time before the freak-out-over-healthcare era. It was nice.
My attitude with health insurance is a stubborn one. I trust insurance companies slightly more than the government, which is to say not at all. Now that they're both in full cahoots with each other, it's quite terrifying. Personally, I think you're better off spending 600 a month on lottery tickets. Better chance of payout, even with Obamacare. Especially with Obamacare.
Yep, you have the right to be here. You know, however, that if/when an American went/goes onto a Canadian-based forum and starts to gripe and complain about the Canadian government, he/she would get the same type of responses.
Yep, we can cherry-pick all day.
Last edited by northbound74; 12-23-2013 at 06:23 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
