Dan and JaTo â??? thanks for your insights â??? I respect your positions, but havenâ??t heard anything compelling me to change my own. Good debate, though â??? hope you feel the same. Just a couple of final responses, if I may.

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Right to life was I believe intended to imply that the government would not deprive you of same, not interviene against "natural causes"...


Understood â??? but surely the common good in todayâ??s circumstances requires a 21st century application of the intent.

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Life requires more than just heathcare..food, shelter as well. Are we then OBLIGATED for providing food & shelter for all who need it?


If food and shelter become as relatively unattainable by a significant portion of the population, then frankly, I would have to say â??yes.â?


Quote:

I am sorry but I do not accept that the US Constitution is a blueprint for communism.

Providing certain publicy funded social and civil benefits universally within a free market economy is neither new nor anything close to a blueprint for communism, IMO.

Originally posted by JaTo:
And this is what it is precisely about; better healthcare for the MAJORITY of the population instead of marginalizing healthcare for ALL through wholesale socialization to address the needs of a few.


Thanks for your candor - not everyone who beleives as you do would be so open. However, you are obviously in a position to make this philosophy work for you. I sincerely hope that in a time where fewer and fewer Americans have the same access to healthcare that you do, at some point you donâ??t find yourself unavoidably in the other camp.

Originally posted by JaTo:
I don't believe in marginalizing quality to simply bring quantity to the masses, especially when there are better ways to address the need.


IMO universal healthcare does not preclude a two-tiered system that provides the superior level of care that the wealthy can afford â??? and again, respectfully, I see no evidence to suggest that a totally private system can in fact provide a â??better wayâ? to â??bring quantity to the masses.â?

Originally posted by JaTo:
If we take care of the issues that have begun to plague our healthcare industry, I would suggest that we could certainly lower the cost where it would become much more affordable.

Socializing medicine isn't going to solve the issues we need to reform, namely malpractice costs. Medical procedures haven't innately gone up in value; the RISKS associated with performing them in today's legal environment have and the insurance premiums have poked through the roof due to this.


Agreed, 100%.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Why is it in Canada that I've read that wait times for treatment is outrageous in some cases and some Canadian citizens are heading to the US for medical assistance?


With respect, most Americans are grossly misinformed about Canada and things Canadian â??? usually because it is only discussed in the U.S. by one side or another with an ax to grind. Thatâ??s not to say there arenâ??t problems â??? there are, and Canadians want improvements in many areas. What most agree to however, is that universal access to basic healthcare is a right that does not necessarily require any diminishment of a superior level of care for those who can afford it. Additionally, we are convinced that not only is it in the better interest of individual citizens, it is of particular benefit to a country that relies on its citizens to operate a competitive market economy.

As for Canadians traveling to the U.S., they always have, even before our current system was put in place; plus I think youâ??ll find that a significant number of Americans who can afford to, travel to Switzerland and many other countries (including Canada) for some forms of specialized care.

Originally posted by JaTo:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
-Sir Winston Churchill


This is a great quote; Iâ??d forgotten about it. I am quite certain, however, that the context was a discussion about the then current regime in the Soviet Union which you may recall was brutally repressive â??? that was the socialism Churchill spoke of, and IMO doesn't apply to our debate.

And with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I offer you these Churchill gems:

    â??The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter.â?
    â??Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.â?

    And perhaps the most appropriate to this post:
    â??It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.â?


Cheers.