Aetna to pull out of ObamaCare ENTIRELY by 2018 by AURaptor

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Government and Corporations are pretty much the same thing. Just enough to separate them to make it look like separate entities on paper. Trying to live outside of them isn't exactly living in the Savage Land yet, but we are quickly heading to that Brave New World. SIX

Corporations don't have the force of law in their DNA to compel a person to do as it wishes, or face jail time. Sure, some may say corruption allows that , but in the end, " stroke of a pen, law of the land, kinda cool " , ( as Paul Begala famously said ) is what controls us more.- RAPPY

RAPPY, what is the "force of law" except the police (guns) that enforce it? Without the "force of law" ... and I mean the enforcement of law .... the law is nothing. So perhaps you have not heard of the "goon squads" that companies used to enforce their scrip/ strikebreaking/ debt collection in the company towns where the company WAS the bank, the employer, the law (their law), and also its enforcement? The only thing that changed since then is that companies have more-or-less outsourced their "enforcement" to the government, because it is far cheaper (FOR THEM) to pay politicians relatively nominal contributions and have the politicians use OUR tax dollars to enforce their law, then to spend their own revenues to enforce it themselves.

Quote:
Govt, much like religion, is a myth that people agree to accept so that we all get along. And like all things, some folks take it too far. -RAPPY

Here are a few other religions: Money, ownership, corporations. Those are ALSO myths that we agree to accept. But there is nothing especially real or fundamental about money, ownership, or corporations.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 1:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But to get back to your concept that the FF thought that government was more dangerous than business ....

I reiterate that the FF didn't have the example of modern monopolies to think about. The closest instance that they had was the East India Company, a Crown Corporation which received its original charter from Queen Elizabeth I and continued under King George III.

Quote:
The Tea Act of 1773 was one of several measures imposed on the American colonists by the heavily indebted British government in the decade leading up to the American Revolutionary War (1775-83). The act’s main purpose was not to raise revenue from the colonies but to bail out the floundering East India Company, a key actor in the British economy. The British government granted the company a monopoly on the importation and sale of tea in the colonies. The colonists had never accepted the constitutionality of the duty on tea, and the Tea Act rekindled their opposition to it. Their resistance culminated in the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773, in which colonists boarded East India Company ships and dumped their loads of tea overboard. Parliament responded with a series of harsh measures intended to stifle colonial resistance to British rule; two years later the war began.

http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/tea-act

So, we know how the FF reacted to a foreign globalist monopoly attempting to extract money from the colonies: They rebelled.

There were such things as "corporations" in the day, not exactly like ours. Also, there were banks.

You should look up what the various FF had to say about corporations and banks. We already know how they responded to government-backed globalist monopolies.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:09 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Assuming that you believe in the long run your vote actually counts for anything. I think they've done a fine job of allowing us to believe that we have any power at all, when really we don't.

That's just you feeding into the myth that's EXTREMELY convenient for the corporations.

We already know that people in other democracies are doing MUCH better economically than we are - right? And that that result came about due specifically to pro-populous government policies and interventions - right? And that the various governments were voted in, OR OUT, based on how well they represented the people - right?

We already have many, many examples of democracies that represent the good of the people. Not perfectly of course, but measurably, significantly, far better than the US.

If they do there, why not us here?

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Assuming that you believe in the long run your vote actually counts for anything. I think they've done a fine job of allowing us to believe that we have any power at all, when really we don't.
That's just you feeding into the myth that's EXTREMELY convenient for the corporations.

We already know that people in other democracies are doing MUCH better economically than we are - right? And that that result came about due specifically to pro-populous government policies and interventions - right? And that the various governments were voted in, OR OUT, based on how well they represented the people - right?

We already have many, many examples of democracies that represent the good of the people. Not perfectly of course, but measurably, significantly, far better than the US.

If they do there, why not us here?

I'm not saying that we have zero power. I'm just saying that the way things are now nobody takes the possibility of that power seriously and a very long string of trying to "vote our problems away" hasn't done squat for us in a very long time.

You should read a book called Bloody Williamson: https://www.amazon.com/Bloody-Williamson-Chapter-American-Lawlessness/
dp/0252062337

Specifically the chapter about the Herrin Massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrin_massacre

I'm not advocating violence. On the contrary, I'm saying that even those of us who have it pretty bad off are "taken care of" relatively well compared to generations past by the Government these days so things like this aren't happening, at least not now.

I'm pointing out that if things were to escalate to this point again than things would change. I just don't see that happening any time soon.

I don't believe in the power of the vote though. Maybe that's just me buying into the corporate myth as you say, but I don't see any evidence that it matters at all when the people running the show have no fear of the population.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:35 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
I'm not saying that we have zero power. I'm just saying that the way things are now nobody takes the possibility of that power seriously ...

Then they need to be educated.

Quote:
... and a very long string of trying to "vote our problems away" hasn't done squat for us in a very long time.

The last president who wasn't under control of the deep state was perhaps Kennedy. Carter wasn't, but that wasn't a problem for the deep state. They just operated around him because he was too naive to even know they were there and that they needed to be challenged.

I don't think the US has ever seriously tested the power of the vote.

But testing it would require that people stay alert. That they set aside the bamboozling words they hear - freedom, hope, god, country, patriotism, exceptionalism, right to protect, shining city on a hill, welfare queen - all of that - and listen for specifics. What is the concrete goal? How, in detail, is this going to get us to that goal? And that they remember, from election cycle to election cycle, who walked the talk, and who didn't.

It doesn't seem that difficult to me. All you have to do is treat the government like a skeezy relative. Why do you want my money? What is it going to get me? How do you propose to do that? When can I expect results? And then, a relative who stiffs you doesn't get to do it twice.

For sure people are capable of that kind of thinking.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 4:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
corporations are actually quite limited in what they can do
Back in Jefferson's day, if you didn't want to work for someone else, you could head out to the wilderness and try and make a living for yourself, by yourself.

Today, no one can escape the power of the corporations. If it wasn't for the government making sure we don't outright starve to death on the street, our lives would be entirely at their mercy. Work for them - or die. We work at their sufferance, buy their goods at their prices, and even live by their laws the government writes for their benefit.

Try explaining that to Russia, Korea, Ottomans, Yugoslavians, Argentinians, Venezualans, and any other country which has been shredded by strife. If our strong National Defense including the citizens willing to defend the Rights to Freedoms, the Free Market and Free Enterprise failed and America became chaos and societal breakdown, the Corporations would cease to be viable.

You only choose to pay the prices of the Free Market in America because you desire to continue living in a house or building which doesn't fall down in a strong breeze, and you wish to have unparalleled food availability - fresh or made by others - and you cannot survive a day without paying rental fees for your newest gadget that you call a phone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 4:08 PM

For those confused about modern, current references to readily understood analogies, Communists and Socialists either outlaw religion or decree only one - there is no choice or FREEDOM. Same for Corporations - even in Japan Corporations don't really compete with each other, they all work for the nation, and Russia, N. Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba are far worse.
And yes, most of the current versions of Governments of those nations have arisen AFTER 1776. Our Founding Fathers were PIONEERS of Government.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Siggy, just curious, but were you even born in the USA ? If so , were you never taught anything of the Revolutionary period, the Founders, the Federalist Papers... anything like that ring a bell ?
It ALL rings a bell.

I've certainly read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and parts of the Federalist papers.

Most of the discussions refer to the relationship between people and government
OK.
Quote:
or people and the church
Wow. Between people and the Church. Are you not missing the part about between the government and the Church, and confusing this important division with "people and Church?" The Declaration was for Independence from ENGLAND (not France, or other European Governments influenced by The Social Contract), which had declared itself to BE The Church (helloooo - anybody heard of Communism, Socialism, etc?), and the ideals were to disentangle Colonists from the subjugation of a pre-assigned religion from their Government/King.
There seems to be some missing component in your understanding, which may reveal why others who are taught as you were cannot comprehend the Freedom of Religion.
Quote:
... a reasonable POV because at the time absolute monarchies were the form of government,
OK.
Quote:
the churches were very powerful.
Really?
Like how the Church of Rome (The Papists) was able to reign throughout the British Empire?
And English subjects were free to associate with the Roman Church of Christianity (post-HenryVIII)?
Quote:
But very little discussion about the relationship of people and corporations (the FF were mostly against corporations)
because corporations WERE the Government (hellooooo - remember Communism, Socialism)
Quote:
or people and banks
because banks WERE the Government
Quote:
or people and people. There's been a lot of discussion about what "freedom" means or whether or not it even exists at all. I would like to know what YOU mean.

That was my point to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Because they realized the far greater evil was that of govt impeding on the lives of men.Unlike govt's, who have the force of power to enforce their will , corporations are actually quite limited in what they can do. - RAPPY
Er ... you DO realize that the modern corporation didn't come into existence until almost 100 years after the American Revolution, right?

That corporations which existed back then, when they did exist, were either Crown Corporations or they were created by states or cities as limited-duration, single-purpose entities designed to allow private investment in public projects?

As far as I know, nothing like them exists today, just as the modern corporation didn't back then.

It looks like you have proven my point.

Compare the following 2 statements, both from you.

But very little discussion about the relationship of people and corporations (the FF were mostly against corporations)

As far as I know, nothing like them exists today, just as the modern corporation didn't back then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 4:29 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
corporations are actually quite limited in what they can do.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Back in Jefferson's day, if you didn't want to work for someone else, you could head out to the wilderness and try and make a living for yourself, by yourself.

Today, no one can escape the power of the corporations. If it wasn't for the government making sure we don't outright starve to death on the street, our lives would be entirely at their mercy. Work for them - or die. We work at their sufferance, buy their goods at their prices, and even live by their laws the government writes for their benefit.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Try explaining that to Russia, Korea, Ottomans, Yugoslavians, Argentinians, Venezuelans, and any other country which has been shredded by strife.

Has Russia been shredded by strife? South Korea? North Korea? Argentina? Once again, your words are self-contradictory, and confused.

Quote:
If our strong National Defense including the citizens willing to defend the Rights to Freedoms ...

Has America been attacked in the last few days? The last few years? I admit, I sometimes get behind on the news. But I can't recall any serious need to defend the country's territory.

Quote:
... the Free Market and Free Enterprise

Can you please find that in the Constitution? I must have missed that. The only thing I recall that we're guaranteed is a semi-representative government of a specified form, and freedom from government searches and prosecution without cause. Though lately those freedoms have been all-but exterminated. But what we do with our vote is up to us.

Quote:
failed ... and America became chaos and societal breakdown, the Corporations would cease to be viable.

I'm still trying to figure out how 800 military installations around the globe figures in. Or what the point is you're trying to make. Once again, your words are uninterpretable.

Quote:
You only choose to pay the prices of the Free Market in America because you desire to continue living in a house or building which doesn't fall down in a strong breeze, and you wish to have unparalleled food availability - fresh or made by others - and you cannot survive a day without paying rental fees for your newest gadget that you call a phone.

And what other vendor am I going to chose from? What other market can I buy from? If I don't have an alternative, I'm pretty much paying whatever they're charging me. How is that a 'choice'?

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
For sure people are capable of that kind of thinking.

I think you give the people too much credit.

What are you going to do though? I voted for Trump, not only to keep Hillary out, but because I believed that things were going to get better and we'd be pulling out of wars we have no business in, yet here we are continuing what has become our norm since 2001.

Voting means nothing. Not when the two parties in control are really just flip sides of the same coin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 4:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I think you give the people too much credit.

'People' have done better elsewhere. 'People' are capable of better.

Quote:
What are you going to do though? I voted for Trump, not only to keep Hillary out, but because I believed that things were going to get better and we'd be pulling out of wars we have no business in, yet here we are continuing what has become our norm since 2001.
Voting means nothing. Not when the two parties in control are really just flip sides of the same coin.

Well then, vote for someone else. If you settle for empty words over and over, it only makes you a fool.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 5:14 PM

lol

how many times have you been happy with a politician you've voted for?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 5:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Waxman? Really happy! Boxer? Tolerably happy. But I never vote for Dianne Feinstein, even though she's a democrat. Jerry Brown? Terrific! Too bad he'll term-out. I need to see what my choices are next time around.

But yanno, six? You seem to think that voting is like dying. You do it once, and, if you're lucky, you go to heaven forever and ever, amen. Voting is more like doing dishes. You have to keep at it.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 10:26 PM

I didn't say I don't vote. I still do. I even vote in mid-terms. I actually feel that voting local is much more worthwhile, and the higher level the vote is the less powerful that vote is.

I kind of look at it like Pascal's Wager, but politics. I think I'll call it Jack's Wager. There's no harm in actually voting... just in case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2017 10:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm not saying that we have zero power. I'm just saying that the way things are now nobody takes the possibility of that power seriously ...- SIX

Then they need to be educated.- KIKI

Here's the crux of the problem.

Who is going the educate people about their options? The mainstream press? Oh, wait ... they're corporately-owned and depend on corporate advertising (which itself is a tool to turn people into non-thinkers.)

Mainstream politicians? They're the LAST people who want change.

Third-party politicians? Oh dear. THEY have to advertise their policies because the government has adopted a corporate-friendly policy that paid-for speech counts as "free speech".

Corporations? 'nuff said.

Schools? THEY'RE focused on educating students to be able to fit themselves into our corporate culture, as opposed to being independent thinkers.

Although people may need to be educated about their options, nobody in power has an interest in doing so, and those who are interested in doing so aren't in power.

-----

It seems to me that over thousands of millenia, concentrations of people have fostered parasites (not just the biological kind, the human kind too). And some of these parasites have been especially good at vaulting a little bit of excess power into MORE power, and that this progresses until everything in a society ... its religion, its ethics, its education, its production, and even its view of what is real and not real... becomes wrapped up around promoting the interests of the parastical few, until the parasitism becomes SO egregious (or a changed environment puts an extra stress on society) that revolution ensues.

And then, it starts all over again.

The FF instituted a process whereby the government could evolve gradually, instead of society erupting in revolution. This is an important development: There IS power in voting. However, even the FF realized democracy's fragility. When asked “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Various Founding Fathers spoke about the importance of a generally-educated public as the foundation of a successful republic.

But it took probably less than 100 years for a cabal of wealthy people (less time in the South)... plus a flux of mostly-uneducated immigrants who were ready to be exploited ... for the power of the vote to be completely diminished.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2017 12:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
For those confused about modern, current references to readily understood analogies, Communists and Socialists either outlaw religion or decree only one - there is no choice or FREEDOM. Same for Corporations - even in Japan Corporations don't really compete with each other, they all work for the nation, and Russia, N. Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba are far worse.

Ok, so for you choice= freedom. And that includes choice between religions or between corporations.

Quote:
There seems to be some missing component in your understanding, which may reveal why others who are taught as you were cannot comprehend the Freedom of Religion.
... a reasonable POV because at the time absolute monarchies were the form of government - SIGNY
OK.-JSF
...the churches were very powerful.- SIGNY
Really? Like how the Church of Rome (The Papists) was able to reign throughout the British Empire? And English subjects were free to associate with the Roman Church of Christianity (post-HenryVIII)?- JSF

[SNIP!]

JS- I said churches (plural) not Church (singular). During the Middle Ages in Europe, when "governments" were mostly reduced to villages and cities, it was only THE Church which maintained a common language (Latin) and common heritage. Once the various secular powers began to re-consolidate, they initially depended on the Holy Roman Church's blessing for legitimacy. But once monarchies wealthy enough to exist on their own developed and the printing press came into being, THE Church was openly challenged. It's not coincidence that the printing press (1440), Martin Luther (1483-1546) and King Henry VII (1491- 1597) all occurred more or less at the same time. The FF were highly aware of the terrible religious wars that ravaged Europe once the power of THE Church fell.

=====

Quote:
It looks like you have proven my point.Compare the following 2 statements, both from you: - JSF

Quote:
But very little discussion about the relationship of people and corporations (the FF were mostly against corporations)

As far as I know, nothing like them exists today, just as the modern corporation didn't back then.

The view of the FF on business and corporations was complex. Some of the FF were very successful businessmen, merchants, or plantation-owners.

As I mentioned before, they rebelled against the East India Company, which was a Crown Corporation and therefore a foreign monopoly, so they were pretty nationalistic about business ownership.

In general, they do seem to be "for" family-owned or privately/ individually -owned businesses because they equated prosperity with individual striving.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." – James Madison

But when it comes to "corporations", "banks", and "federal borrowing" they had a diversity of opinions.

Insofar as "corporations" were concerned, they were originally strictly limited ...

Quote:
After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. ... The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust

http://addictinginfo.com/2013/06/09/founding-fathers/
https://hbr.org/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html

The experience of the FF with the East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company (also Crown chartered) led them to be very wary of anything like our modern-day corporations.

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”- Jefferson

Now, as far as BANKS are concerned, the FF seemed to have far more relevant experience and quite a few more things to say about them. Some thought they were evil -

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Jefferson

Some thought they were necessary
The tendency of a national bank is to increase public and private credit. The former gives power to the state, for the protection of its rights and interests: and the latter facilitates and extends the operations of commerce among individuals. Industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state. Hamilton

Jefferson was against, Hamilton was for, Jackson was against. In any case, there was an active discussion about the Federal government borrowing money, the worthiness of the currency, etc. Many Founding Fathers were against the government borrowing from banks.

It's complicated, but the FF were generally NOT for corporations, were split on banks, and were mostly against government debt. If they were to see our modern situation, I suspect most of them would advise us to tear it all down and start over.

=====

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2017 2:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, back to the original discussion: I think the FF would be horrified by our current government, not only for its intrusions into every gorram corner of the globe, the debt that we piled on to do it, and the erosion of the Bill of Rights ...

but (more topically) the government's fostering of these (in essence) corporate monopolies or near-monopolies which have a stranglehold on America. I suspect that they would urge us to tear down all of the laws which authorize and empower the current corporate structure, beginning with the recognition of "corporate personhood" and the laws which govern the establishment corporations, all the way to Citizens United.

That would mean all of the insurance monopolies and hospital chains and pharmaceutical would be dissolved and presumably broken down into smaller individually or privately-owned units.

Of course, that will never happen.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2019 3:12 PM

I thought there was another thread on the Horrors of Governemnt-run Health Care, but I'm not finding it now.

More Canadian horror:
https://ca.style.yahoo.com/inez-rudderham-health-care-crisis-viral-ide
o-181024672.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2019 8:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I know three Canadians personally (all in Ontario) and one online in BC, and I would define their healthcare as somewhere between average (like Kaiser HMO) and stellar.

I think the problem with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and PEI is that they're rural, and poor, and doctors keep migrating out of those areas to the richer provinces and big cities

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2019 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know three Canadians personally (all in Ontario) and one online in BC, and I would define their healthcare as somewhere between average (like Kaiser HMO) and stellar.

I think the problem with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and PEI is that they're rural, and poor, and doctors keep migrating out of those areas to the richer provinces and big cities

I mostly meet or hear of Canadians who are escaping the Canada Healthcare to obtain life-saving medical treatment in USA we which they are denied in Canada.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:10 PM