Their health care plan really is, ‘Don’t get sick.’

I assume you have no pre-existing conditions, then?

BWAH HA HA HA HA! Oh, Farris. You have such a wicked sense of humor.

Yes we do.

Like the people who decide to attack my nationality instead of the facts.

“You have much real world experience with American insurance companies?”

Do you have any experience with Canadian Heath Care? You seem to have a lot of opinions on the matter.

I guess that makes you a hypocrite, as well as a fucking ‘tard.

There are a lot here that think ‘Socialized Health Care’ will somehow cost more, even though it costs less in every other industrialized nation.

Why do you think that will happen?

Except if you are actually sick.

Then you might not be able to get health insurance. Period.

If you have a pass illness, you can be denied health insurance.

If you are healthy now, it should be very easy to change citizenship.

Of course, to change national health care, you just need to vote for different politicians.

However, since the party you support will likely be a minority party for a while, I can see your point.

He doesn’t. He was.

“According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. spent $7,290 per person in 2007, while Britain spent $2,992 and France spent $3,601.”

It was interesting to read Associated Press writer Maria Cheng’s seemingly misleading wording of death rates in Britain. When I first read the article it sounded like the US had the same or better death rates than Britain.

That’s wrong, a quick check of the 2009 CIA Factbook showed that the United Kingdom (Britain) has a longer life expectancy than US. The United Kingdom’s rank is #36, the US is ranked #50 for life expectancy (expected length of life). France is ranked #9.

Brits live longer than US and pay a lot less to do it.

The US also ranks poorly on infant mortality rates in 2009, 44 other countries beat US. United Kingdom beats US coming in at #39, France beats US coming in at #8.

And the World Health Organization ranked the US #37 out 191 countries in 2000.

A better article is “Healthy examples: Plenty of countries get healthcare right” from the Boston Globe.

Your system means that Americans’ have shorter life spans and a worse infant mortality rate than the ‘government’ systems you casually dismiss. Other countries governments pay less and get better results than the overcharging private, corporate-system you’re arguing on behalf of.

Those are American babies and American grandparents you’ve turned your back on, “Buzz Killington”.

You’re position is a betrayal of what our American Constitution refers to as promoting the “general Welfare” of the American citizenry.

Did those “menus” offer choices from different companies? Or just different plans from one company?

Farris’ assertion is that one can change providers without much hassle. That has never been my experience.

Additionally, there are other options besides government run healthcare and doing nothing.

And that’s exactly what you’d get with a public plan: very little.

Nonsense. You don’t and can’t know that.

I’ve had incredibly sucky private plans, it would take very little for a public plan to beat them.

As for the “anti-trust type scenario”, the health care monopoly currently enjoyed by the corporate-medical-industry is currently NOT competitive.

That’s one of the reasons corporate-medical-insurance companies can charge extortionist rates and walk away with billions looted from the healthcare-system: “while the opponents of a private public plan say that they’re trying to defend market competition, what they’re actually doing is defending lucrative local monopolies.”

The corporate-medical-insurance company monopolies aren’t a new thing, it’s been well known that health insurance monopolies have been growing for years.

Corporate-monopolies are inherently anti-competitive.

Right wingers are supporting anti-competitive monopolies.

Period.

What you are arguing for is a defense of the inflated prices of the corporate-medical-insurance companies that are largely just a monopoly racket.

… OR … if you stacked the deck so that companies who don’t subscribe to the Government plan are severely economically hindered, which the linked article proves is exactly the case.

And “SaveFarris”, the only way that a public option could replace private insurance is if Government provided a superior plan and private corporations weren’t able to compete.

Nobody will prevent you from paying for a private insurance plan.

If you are saying that private corporations can’t compete with services provided by public government, “SaveFarris”, than a core claim by the right wing is a complete lie.