Well, I respect your opinion that you disagree with Bush.

However, your assumption that Bush is dumb because he isn't a great public speaker is wrong. Clinton was a great public speaker, but was an immature, undisciplined, unfocused waste of space who surrounded himself with pseudo-intellectual slackers who couldn't make a decision to save their lives.

Screwie, you think bush sits in his lil office.. going like so...

Bush: ah what the hell, lets go bomb Iraq..
Mrs Bush: good idea honey, want some vodka?
Bush: not right now, gotta run the country.
Intern: would you like a cigar Mr Bush?
Bush: You're thinking of Clinton sweetie, not me. I'm loyal to my wife.

I highly doubt it, theres a chain of command. He has advisors, who to my knowledge, are plenty skilled.

------------------

Ray - The Donut Man!
Fierosite.com - The webs #1 Fiero Search Engine

I'm notsaying Bush is just dumb cause he isn't a great speaker, there are a lot of other factors that come with that

And Galen, actually, you're kinda right, my idea of Bush is:

Bush(bored): So... What did my father do now then?
Advisor: Bomb Iraq
Bush: Iraq? Where's that? Well, anyway, let's bomb it, I'm bored all this stuff about education and healthcare is booooorrriiiinngg.
Advisor: But it is important, Mr President.
Bush. Whatever, if we don't defend ourselves we'll get killed, you know what? I just got a great idea, take the money we would spend extra on healtcare and education and put it in defense!
Advisor: But Mr President...
Bush: Man I'm smart, isn't that a great idea?
Advisor: Sure, Mr President, if you say so...

Maybe a bit extreme, but I betya it comes close

highly doubtful.. some people do not think before they speak. not all of them are american.

quote Originally posted by Galen: highly doubtful.. some people do not think before they speak. not all of them are american.

Okay now I'm getting bored with this thread, "you're not informed cause you're not american" or "you're just not informed" or anything else like that has been said many times, without proof. Just plain boring and irritating way of arguing.

Anyways, let's wrap it up. You can't convince me Bush is even slightly good at what he's doing

quote Originally posted by Screwie: ...You can't convince me Bush is even slightly good at what he's doing

That's okay.
We don't have to convince you. We have enough confidence on our own.

------------------
Raydar

From the Department of Redundancy Department.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: That's okay. We don't have to convince you. We have enough confidence on our own.

Bush isn't half as stupid as Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

He let Japan sucker us into WW II with their act of terrorism. All those healthcare and education dollars we blew back then. He sure was a stupid warmonger way worse than Bush.

And what was up with him getting us into Europe?? It was Japan that attacked us.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Bush isn't half as stupid as Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He let Japan sucker us into WW II with their act of terrorism. All those healthcare and education dollars we blew back then. He sure was a stupid warmonger way worse than Bush. And what was up with him getting us into Europe?? It was Japan that attacked us.

A little history 101 Hitler declared war on USA when we declared war on japan in a deal he had with them, japs were when suposed to declare war on USSR but they chickened out, do to asskicking they had got in 1940 border war with USSR in N china MANCHURIAN war!!

tipical grasp of facts by bushreruns fans!!

WW2 was needed as is 9-11 war on terror BUT bush needs to do better than his dad did !!!
FDR and harry got hitler and japs both
GODDAMM INSANE, ben, and omar are still free now where is great leadership going to next??
give up like dad did???
more BS like drugs=terror BS next ASH-HOLECROFT will say ****=terror!!!!!

actually next G is gonna say Ray_B=needs to stfu

------------------

Ray - The Donut Man!
Fierosite.com - The webs #1 Fiero Search Engine

ray b, I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic to make a point here on how ridiculous Screwie's comments were.

Agreed that George Bush, version 1, didn't finish the job. At least he started it and did liberate a country. Clinton, apparently only impotent in the areas we needed him, didn't do ANYTHING. But, I guess, do what you do best.

So now George Bush, version 2, is talking about doing it, but that isn't good enough.

Screwie, if you actually followed all that news like you talked about, you would know that W has no plans to go in "...with guns blazing...". Every news source I've checked has talked about how covert the whole operation will be, and that it might actually already be under way. But I guess I'm just a dumb, under-educated Texas boy...

And last I checked, Yale likes it status as an Ivy league school, so they certainly wouldn't taint that image by handing out diplomas to anybody that asked.

------------------
SCCA ITB '84 Fiero 2M4
AOL IM- DGPFiero

quote Originally posted by ITB 2M4: And last I checked, Yale likes it status as an Ivy league school, so they certainly wouldn't taint that image by handing out diplomas to anybody that asked.

BS not only DO THEY HAND them out BUT HAVE DONE SO FOR YEARS AND YEARS but only to the select few that are call LEGACYS [rich grand dad and dad were yalemen so your in with a automatic pass]

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

quote Originally posted by ray b: BS not only DO THEY HAND them out BUT HAVE DONE SO FOR YEARS AND YEARS but only to the select few that are call LEGACYS [rich grand dad and dad were yalemen so your in with a automatic pass]

if a bear sh!t in the woods you'd find a way to disprove it was actually his wouldn't ya?

quote Originally posted by Screwie: Once again, I have gathered the facts, I've seen and heard all kinds of things about Bush from many different channels (I've looked at Dutch, French, German, Belgian and American(!) broadcasts about this) and I've seen the debates and I'm reading the cold facts of his plan or the US. So the argument that I don't know the facts is not very valid. It is a difference of opinion, but I just don't agree with his plans, maybe he did what he said that he would do, yes, but what he said he would do was wrong in the first place, in my opinion. Iraq is a very delicate situation. And you cannot just go in there guns blazing. There is so much diplomacy you SHOULD consider. Bush does not do that. The best example of his ignorance and non-existent skills in diplomacy is that he put Iraq, North Korea and Iran on one pile as "terrorist nations". Iran is trying to become a democracy, is trying to improve relations with the western world, especially their former biggest enemy the US and then Bush comes with these kind of statements... Nope, I haven't been convinced at all he is doing a great job, on the contrary, all the things he's doing and saying now, he convinces me of the opposite.

I agree with you. The comment I made about gathering the facts was uncalled for...

I just wonder what people would be saying if Bush didn't do anything after 6,000 innocent Americans were killed while at work just trying to put food on the tables for their families.

I believe that some people will never be happy no matter who is in charge or what decisions are made. There is always something better that should have been done. But those same people that complain, never offer a possible solution.

So what's the use in letting your complaints be known?

quote Originally posted by 87GTBro: I believe that some people will never be happy no matter who is in charge or what decisions are made. There is always something better that should have been done. But those same people that complain, never offer a possible solution.

You hit the nail on the head, people are never happy with what is there. human nature

------------------

Fierosite.com - The webs #1 Fiero Search Engine

Well, so now I'm not ignorant anymore (thank god ), but just complaining and never happy with the situation? K, that is easily defused. I was very happy with Clinton, he did a great job turning the economy around and getting Iran back on the right side of the US. I wish he could have had another term in office. So what you said is not true. Now I just complain and don't offer solutions? Here's a solution for ya, kick Bush out of the White House and put Clinton back in. And as extreme as it sounds, it actually would be a good solution.

Then about the fact that you go "covertly" into Iraq. So you go in there and do what? Watch? Nope you shoot some people, that's guns blazin for ya. What I mean is, it should not be a unilateral war-action. Just like with the war on terrorism it is very important to have the support of many countries ESPECIALLY the Middle Eastern countries. Like you have noticed, they don't like it a lot when the US just barges in and "helps them". Diplomacy is a key word there.

Also, I'm not saying Texans are dumb, I'm saying that statistics showed that the level of education was one of the lowest there. That does not mean Texans are dumb, don't try to make it seem like I'm flaming you.

And Bush went to Yale? Hihi, I have to agree with ray-b on this one, who doesn't want a guy with that kind of family? Nope, I'm sorry, I know how those politics work, I've seen it with my own two eyes and Yale won't be an exception to that, sorry.

I agree with Screwie 100%.

------------------
~Ditz88GT

E-mail: cditzler@hotmail.com
AIM: Ditz88GT
http://go.to/fiero

All we can do is wait and see what happens. This is no longer just the United States' war on terrorism. Other countries are involved now. Iraq will not let us go in and see what kind of weapons they are developing. That breeds a lot of fear for other countries. We could have a disaster much bigger than the WTC if they are (and I am not saying they ARE) producing nuclear weapons to attack the US.

Just the fact that they will not let us go in and look is probable cause that they are up to something. I am not condoning any actions to go in there with guns blazing and I hope we don't do that, but we need to be very alert and watch them with eagle's eyes if we are going to protect ourselves in the future.

Just imagine you are a police officer and you have chased down a person who is suspected of shooting someone. You catch up to him, gun drawn, and scream for him to bring his hands out from behind his back and above his head so you can see what he has in them. And he refuses to comply. You don't know if he has a knife. You don't know if he has a gun. You just don't know! If he makes a sudden move, are you going to wait until you know it's a gun (which will probably be too late) or are you going to shoot first?

There are other things in play as well. Many Iraqui witnesses have claimed that terrorists were trained in Iraq. So the source of the terrorism may not have been in Afghanistan at all. That was just a group of them. We just never know.

Guess we'll have to wait and see...

LOL... Maybe I'm not as edumacated as I thunked... (spelling errors...)

[This message has been edited by 87GTBro (edited 02-19-2002).]

Wow. You really, truly think that the U.S. economy would be like it was in the '90's if Clinton was still president?? The economy was slowing at the end of his presidency. It was obvious to all that whichever person became president would be inheriting an economy on the skids. Then 9-11 happened, which made things even worse. And Clinton would have changed all that??

Regarding multi-national support, I agree with you. We should have it. Here's how it goes: The U.S. was attacked. Here is what we intend to do about it. Get on board and support us.

Now if that doesn't happen, then that is not Bush or the U.S.'s fault. But he and we are still going to do what we need to do, support or not. And if the support isn't forthcoming, don't blame Bush or us.

And what is with your Chamberlinic euro-sissy attitude anyway, thinking Bush is acting all harsh and rashly? Did you happen to forget the extreme constraint he used in NOT acting quickly or rashly after 9-11. He didn't just start firing missiles, and launching attacks everywhere. So why do you think he is going to just go off on Iraq? Where is your justification for that, based on his previous behavior?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Wow. You really, truly think that the U.S. economy would be like it was in the '90's if Clinton was still president?? The economy was slowing at the end of his presidency. It was obvious to all that whichever person became president would be inheriting an economy on the skids. Then 9-11 happened, which made things even worse. And Clinton would have changed all that?? Regarding multi-national support, I agree with you. We should have it. Here's how it goes: The U.S. was attacked. Here is what we intend to do about it. Get on board and support us. Now if that doesn't happen, then that is not Bush or the U.S.'s fault. But he and we are still going to do what we need to do, support or not. And if the support isn't forthcoming, don't blame Bush or us. And what is with your Chamberlinic euro-sissy attitude anyway, thinking Bush is acting all harsh and rashly? Did you happen to forget the extreme constraint he used in NOT acting quickly or rashly after 9-11. He didn't just start firing missiles, and launching attacks everywhere. So why do you think he is going to just go off on Iraq? Where is your justification for that, based on his previous behavior?

Nope, I didn't say the economy would have been a lot different under Clinton now, there comes a lot more to play there. But what I am saying is that Bush is tackling the economy problem absolutely wrong. Clinton, in his eight years in the White House managed to get a budget surplus of a couple of billion dollars, Bush in his 2 years in the White House manages to turn that around to around 10 billion debt by the end of his term. Especially his "tax-cuts for the rich" is one of the most retarded policies I have seen in my life. So no, I don't think Clinton would have been able to stop the recession (or anyone else for that matter), but I do think when it comes to damage control, Bush is doing a bad job.

My justification for the fact that I don't really trust Bush to build a coalition before entering Iraq is that he said himself he would go in there with or without support as soon as possible. And, you even said yourself there are already troop in Iraq in covert missions. The fact that he built the coalition before he did anything after 9-11 was because he wanted to go into a country where the US hadn't fought in for a longer time. If he had gone in without any backing of the Middle-Eastern countries, that would have been disastrous for all diplomacy efforts in that area. Iraq is a more "common" problem in the Middle East. The US have ever since the start been on alert there. So Bush now obviously thinks that that justifies this kind of action.

I don't disagree with the fact they want to get Saddam out of there, don't get me wrong! Sooner rather than later even. But there is a wrong way of doing it. I can't stress enough how volatile a situation it is in the middle east.

So why do I think Bush is going in guns blazing without thinking? Here's your answer:

quote Here's how it goes: The U.S. was attacked. Here is what we intend to do about it. Get on board and support us.

Diplomacy and building a coalition is not "here's what we do, join us or not, we're going in anyway". If the support isn't forthcoming, why don't you consider the fact that you might be doing something wrong there, first?

[This message has been edited by Screwie (edited 02-20-2002).]

But coalitions and diplomacy are the only reason we even have to go back into Iraq at all. The main reason Hussein was not taken out in the Gulf War was because part of that coalition (Saudi for one) insisted we not go into Bagdad. Bush is simply saying this time we are going to define the mission first, then ask who's with us.

The 'Axis of Evil' statement was an attention getter (worked, huh?) to let them know we're serious. Bush publicly offered yesterday to talk with North Korea, he's just letting them know up front what's going to be non-negotiable.

screwie, who said we already had troops in Iraq.. I merely saw someone say we might? but ok. I dont watch the news, dont read newspapers. I bow to your knowledge.

I love that "tax-cuts for the rich". Let me accurately word it. We are shamefully over-taxing a certain portion of the population, but now we are going to slightly less shamefully over-tax them.

How about this for a novel idea--QUIT SPENDING SO MUCH. Let individual people be responsible for themselves, and quit making them dependent on the government.

Clinton had a fantastic opportunity to pay down the debt EVEN MORE due to the economy he inherited (NOT was responsible for), but he and congress (yes, republicans bear responsibility for this also) squandered it.

You are right. The Iraq thing isn't anything new. Those that would be on board (and there are some middle-eastern countries that are) have accepted what might be done. The other countries against it--too bad.

I just don't get where you get this idea that we need to ask permission from your country, other European countries, Russia, or other middle-eastern countries what we are going to do. Bush is right. We have been attacked. We are going to respond. We are asking you to be with us. If you are not, then so be it. Don't think that is going to influence what we do. Don't try to mis-label that as being reckless or cavalier. It is not. It is being more than fair, and decisive. He is not some mamby pamby touchy feely spineless sissified wimp.

They used to try to stick that reckless war-monger label on Ronald Reagan, too. It should be obvious to you who was right.

income TAX WAS ONLY TO BE ON RICHEST 3% OF ALL TAX PAYERS WHEN FIRST PASSED!!!!
OLD RATES WERE AS HI AS 90% BACK IN I LIKE IKE DAYS, RICH NEVER PAID THAT RATE DO TO LOOPHOLES!!!!!
TAX CUTS ONLY AFTER PAYING OFF DEFIIENCY AND NO SPENDING $$$$$$$$$$$ WE DONOT HAVE!!!!!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

Galen: pls don't bow to my knowledge, especially not on this forum, I couldn't fix a car if my life depended on it

Frontal lobe: Why do you have to ask permission you ask? Do we remember something called NATO? An attack on an ally is an attack on the whole of NATO? Don't we live in a global community where more people are involved than just the USA? Yes we do! And why do you need the permission of the middle eastern countries? Because they are Arab, they are all Arab. When you attack Iraq, you attack Arabs. For them it's the same as for you Americans, you attack one American, you attack them all. THAT's why you should consider them. About that spineless sissy stuff...that's really not necessary. We're all Fiero lovers here, we're merely disagreeing on something and discussing it.

About the spending and especially letting the people decide for themslves what to spend it on. I don't know... I don't think we have enough knowledge of how the economy works yet to know how that would work out. I do think though that the government has a responsibility to make sure education and healthcare are on an acceptable level. And they aren't. So those ridiculous tax-cuts are only money taken away from a possible better education and healthcare system in your country.

No offence Screwie, but NATO is a bunch of bull. They couldn't stop the war in Yugoslavia for how many years? And how many people died in Somalia before NATO acted?

Having said that, I'm not sure I support the US going into Iraq at this time. Yes, the job should've been finished originally but, in part thanks to Nato, it wasn't. I'm not sure just how big of a threat Iraq is and I'm certainly against ANY country 'policing' the world.

Having said THIS, I fully support whatever Mr. Bush and his advisors decide to do. This is the smartest bunch the US has had in the office in a LOOOONG time.

Screwie - you seem to be in love with Clinton. This is the same dude that knew about Osema Binladen and did nothing about it for 8 years. The economy just HAPPENED to be on an upward swing when he took office and ended up taking credit for it. In reality, the economy has been in a downward spiral just before he bailed out. 9-11 didn't help Mr. Bush either.

That tax-cut thing sounds a bit like jeaolousy to me, huh? The last I heard, everyone was getting tax cuts in the US - those of you that are American can correct me on this. I work with 2 middle-class Americans and both of them got some relief. It just so happens that the rich make the most and it looks like they get the biggest cuts.

Now think about this from the logical standpoint. What would there be to gain from cutting taxes for the rich only? The rich are a minority, the middle class is majority, therefore it wouldn't assure you any votes. There must be a reason why the cuts are structured in the way they are.

------------------

No jealousy for me, sorry. But how bout those tax-cuts for the rich? Aren't they the most powerful people? Yes they are. And "it just so happens that the rich get the bulk of the tax-cuts" that doesn't bother you? There is a way around that you know. Or is all that equal stuff in the constitution just as much bull as you think NATO is? And yes, why do you think they are structured this way, that the rich have the most to gain from the tax-cuts and the average American hasn't? You should think about that...

And the effect of tax-cuts you talk about "people had a couple of more dollars now". Yeah that might be great in the short term, but you should consider the long term effects as well. Education and healthcare, two important words... You Americans and tax-cuts, I'm amazed how much you care about that.

Well, round and round we go.

Funny how NATO wants their say, and who winds up disproportionately PAYING. Nice to be able to tell other people what to do, AND have THEM pay for it.

The rich get a bigger drop in their taxes BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING SO MUCH MORE. SO MUCH MORE. SO, SO, SO, SO, SO MUCH MORE.

And for you to think there is not enough dollars spent on education and healthcare in the U.S.????

The problem with U.S. education isn't money, it's that "parents" have tried to turn it into a social system and child care. Again, the problem of the people shirking responsibility and then looking to the government to take care of them, and then the government taxing the responsible people to death to pay for the irresponsible.

Same deal with health care. Spend ALL your money, take terrible care of yourself, reach an age where your decisions start to take their toll, and then want the HIGHEST QUALITY (not just reasonable) health care AND WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT.

Yeah, you funny Americans. Complaining about a system like that. Go figure.

sure LETS CUT STAR WARS FIRST [IT NO WORKIE]
AND aSH-HOLECROFT,S PLANNED WAR ON ****
AND HOW ABOUT CUT IN ARAB OIL INPORTS
THEN LETS CUT ALL WELLFARE TO BIG-BIZ
AS THAT IS BIGGEST WELLFARE COST BY FAR
cash FOR CORP. FARMS
SUGAR PRICE SUPPORTS
END THE WAR ON DRUGS IT IS A LOST CAUSE AND A VERY VERY COSTLY ONE IN VERY MANY WAYS
EVERY ENRON THEIF SHOULD BE FINED AND JAILED INCLUDEING ABOUT HALF OF BUSH'S INNER CIRCLE

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

Well, there are some of those that I wouldn't want cut, but you can't pick and choose so I'm with you. Cut them. And keep going.

how bout cutting out the caps? we can all read them lil letters perfectly fine.. theres a lil caps lock key that you push, it cuts em off

Diplomacy my left butt cheek!! Screw NATO, & the UN. They couln't fight their way into OR back out of San Angelo, Texas without the US. Bunch of whinning brats. If you don't have the guts for combat, stay under the dam* covers & cry for mommy.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-21-2002).]

quote Originally posted by Galen: how bout cutting out the caps? we can all read them lil letters perfectly fine.. theres a lil caps lock key that you push, it cuts em off

It looks kinda like this:

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Well, round and round we go. Funny how NATO wants their say, and who winds up disproportionately PAYING. Nice to be able to tell other people what to do, AND have THEM pay for it. The rich get a bigger drop in their taxes BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING SO MUCH MORE. SO MUCH MORE. SO, SO, SO, SO, SO MUCH MORE. And for you to think there is not enough dollars spent on education and healthcare in the U.S.???? The problem with U.S. education isn't money, it's that "parents" have tried to turn it into a social system and child care. Again, the problem of the people shirking responsibility and then looking to the government to take care of them, and then the government taxing the responsible people to death to pay for the irresponsible. Same deal with health care. Spend ALL your money, take terrible care of yourself, reach an age where your decisions start to take their toll, and then want the HIGHEST QUALITY (not just reasonable) health care AND WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT. Yeah, you funny Americans. Complaining about a system like that. Go figure.

There you say exactly what I mean. First you say, we need tax-cuts and everybody should pay for themselves, and now you also see that sometimes people, when they get that opportunity, don't take good care of themselves. So I think we basically agree here. On the one hand, overtaxing is of course wrong, people should have the right to spend some of their money the way they want to. On the other hand, some people just don't do that the right way, and that's where the government steps in. How far does the government have to step in? That's a difficult balance, overtaxing is wrong, undertaxing can be desastrous as well. My opinion is just that you might be "undertaxing" by having so much tax-cuts. But again, I agree, the balance is hard to find.

Ow, and np about crossing the line, other than that one lil thingy, it is great discussing with you

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Same deal with health care. Spend ALL your money, take terrible care of yourself, reach an age where your decisions start to take their toll, and then want the HIGHEST QUALITY (not just reasonable) health care AND WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT.

Now THAT has got to be one of the most arrogant things that I have EVER heard.

I suspect that you don't have a chronic illness, or do not care for someone that does.

Of course there is potential for abuse of the system. But who the hell are you to distinguish? If you don't jog 1 hour every day, then it's your own fault for having congestive heart-failiure?

I pay my taxes. High taxes. In return, I get quality health-care. Hmm... Doesn't sound like I'm expecting too much..

I am a chronic asthmatic. I have been hospitalized 11 times for this, 3 times for other issues. My total bills are up around the $50-60k mark. There is NO WAY I could afford that. Even with Blue Cross health insurance (which I ALSO pay for), I would still be out SERIOUS coin for something I have NO control over. You say to me to take responsibility for my health? I say F*** you.

Thank GOD I'm Canadian.

[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 02-21-2002).]

Wow Mach10,

How did you reach the conclusion that what frontal lobe said was even remotely aimed at your situation?

I'm picturing something more like a life long heavy drinker demanding a liver transplant...

quote Originally posted by DRH: Wow Mach10, How did you reach the conclusion that what frontal lobe said was even [b]remotely aimed at your situation? I'm picturing something more like a life long heavy drinker demanding a liver transplant...[/B]

So who draws the line? That's MY point. We have 2 extremes (well, mine isn't THAT extreme). But what about the grey areas? What about the middle? It's arrogant to think that ANYONE has the right to determine whether the health-problems are based on my actions, or things beyond my control.

I go on a one-night drinking binge. Turns out I had a pre-existing liver condition that I knew nothing about. My liver turns green and exits through my skull. Is it because I went drinking, or because I had some bad genes?

Ray

For whatever reason, you seem to get hung up on the War-On-****. Are you some kind of **** addict??

While I do support the current US gov't and think highly of Mr. Bush, Mach has some good points about healtcare.

The fact is that if you don't have some relatively costly insurance in the US you are SCREWED. Ok, someone will say 'why NOT pay for your own insurance? Why have someone else pay your way'. Why NOT?? Because that's what taxes are for! You ARE paying your way, you just aren't getting the proper return on it.

Having said that, yeah, Canada does have a SLIGHTLY better healthcare system, i.e. our OUTRAGEOUS taxes give us SOME return in the form of healthcare. How much better is it? Not a whole lot. Let me give you an example. We've had 5 hospitals in Calgary in 1995 for about 800,000 residents. Today we have 3 hospitals for about 1,000,000 residents. If you go to the emergency room on an average evening, you can expect about a 3 - 6 hour wait. But it's free, right?

Anyone who tells me that Canada has the best healthcare in the world, obviously doesn't know anything about the world.

Anyone who tells me that the US has a perfectly good system has obviously been blinded.

Yes, the US has some EXCELLENT technology and specialists. Yes, many Canadian doctors are moving to the US. Why? Because the 'relatively' high premiums in the US cover the doctors' outrageous salaries. Do our doctors make little incoms? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Is $25 per STANDARD visit (checkup, etc) low? The doctors would have you believe that it is. Think about it. I've seen doctors cranking out 4 patients an hour. This does not include costs of prescriptions or ANY other services. This discussion can go on and on and on...

My idea on healthcare? As long as I give up 25-30% of my salary, the f***ing government better take damn good care of me, no matter what country I live in.