Irwin, this insult dealt a shattering blow to my ego, well done.  But I did note some problems with it...ummm, first, I don't drink.  Thus, I don't often find the opportunity to "swing off barstools".  Second, Depending on my mood I might lead with my groin, but I try to play down my gut as much as possible.  As far as "shouting from ignorance", I rarely shout, and it's usually "at" ignorance, not "from".  I'm guessing you confused the word "ignorance" with "Irwin",  No problem, its a natural mistake.
  So, good job on the insult, just work on your facts a little more.



Yes, I know.


Do I sense some sour grapes here, Irwin?


Irwin, Social Security, is not the problem.  The problem is the misappropriation of Social security funds. The money collected for decades from current retirees, along with the interest payed on said funds, is gone....spent elsewhere.  Current retiree payments are now being funded by S.S. wage deductions of the current work force.  Do you not see a problem here, Irwin?  If S.S. were a private company, they would of already gone bankrupt and those responsible for spending the funds would be in jail.

I do not have exact statistics. Just from looking I'd say half of the ones I see are at or above retirement age.  And I will bet that nearly 99% are addicts.   As to your theory that they are homeless because of people like me , may I remind you that I do not decide where my tax dollars go and the local crack dealers are not buying ammo and prostitutes with any of my hard earned money.   Once again you have jumped to the wrong conclusions based on false assumptions manufactured by an overactive imagination controlled by an under active intellect. 

Once again,Irwin,  you are smart enough to know how to speak, but not intelligent enough to know what to say.

We already have an artificially restricted supply because there aren't as many doctors produced in our schools in a year as we need.  That is part of why we have so many foreign born doctors.

The "we're not like them" argument. Are we not like Canadians? Britons? Bullshit. We are not special aliens who need wildly inflated health care to survive.

Perhaps you will try to sling that crap with someone more gullible. We are NOT different.

Off the top of my head in no particular order:

-Because Americans, generally and more than most, want the option to pay more for the comforting idea that means they will get more, regardless of whether or not this is true. There. I said it.

-Canada is one of the worst performing models of health care. I am not going to parrot the rightwing socialist paranoid rantings I've heard that it's "going under" because we've heard that for 50 years and it's no more true today. The real reason Canada's health care is one of the worst performers is because of the sheer distances involved when it comes insuring everyone has access to the same level of care. Look at Belgium, Spain and the UK. The distances between remote communities and the nearest city (where supplies are kept and doctors are made) are dwarfed by the sheer expanse between remote communities in Canada and the same nearest cities. This transportation plus low population is a heavy burden on the system. Many will claim the same thing about European countries - that there is a vast distance between isolated communities and an urban center but I don't think those people are really thinking about it. How can the distance between a 'remote' UK village and the nearest urban center be anything near comparable to Canada 4-5 UK's could fit in Western Canada alone? There's no comparison. The US is also vast in this sense.

-The state-to-state system already in place in the US would create a buerocratic nightmare to start.


Ahk

Primary is the fact that our conservative, free market hertitage blinds so many of our citizens to any alternatives that involve government.
There's also the fact that we speak different languages.
Other than that, I don't see any differences that would prevent us from using government provided health insurance like we already do for our population over 65.

As for Akh's objections, Germany is a federation of states just like the U.S., so that is not a real issue. Our federal systems such as Social Security work just fine across state lines.
Geographical distance is a little hard to swallow as a significant obstacle to health insurance. How is it any easier for private insurance companies? Remember, we're not talking government-provided health care, like England. We're talking government-provided health insurance. Canada's system is one of the worst of the univeral health insurance countries, I agree, and not a model we should follow. And yet they still deliver health care to all of their citizens much more efficiently and every bit as effectively as we.
Ahk's point that Americans just seem to want to pay more, regardless of the results, is hard to dispute. We sure do. Just ask Patton.

Not one difference that can prevent national health. Yes, we have a party of corrupt theives that want to destroy government and sell it off for scrap. But they will be dealt with sooner or later.