Ask An American

[Dunnyman]

I love bolt actions from the WW1 era

As do I. My most recent firearm purchase was a beautiful M1903A3 (manufactured by Smith-Corona in 1943, but state of the art in WW1). Don't really have the storage space for an extensive collection of long guns, but looking at adding an Enfield and a Mauser 98k to the collection regardless. Then likely branching into main battle rifles of World War II. I love Garands, and they're getting hard to come by at decent prices.

Ah....Mauser 98k's, superb bit of work, my weapon of choice for long distance target shooting. I have the oddball, 6.5x55 variant, (Swedish Army issue) but if there's a rifle for that one critical shot, it's the one I'm choosing. I have a pair of Enfields, and while both are pretty accurate, the price of the ammo has gone into the stratosphere lately, and those damn brass rifle butts are shoulder killers. Finally got a line on one of my most sought after pieces, a British officer's 455 Webley. A local guy has one and he's wants a fair price for it, now if I can only afford the ammo for it at nearly three bucks a round...yikes!
A Smith Corona? Good pickup! I prefer the M1 Carbines myself and would love to find the Rockola manufactured one.

[Zanarkand]

I know next to nothing about guns, but as an avid collector of many things, I do wonder:
What is the most sought after gun in the world? The Holy Grail of guns. How many are there to have?
Where was it made, what makes it the gun better than all the other guns? And of course, how much
would one cost a gun collector?

[TemporalWisdom]

I know next to nothing about guns, but as an avid collector of many things, I do wonder:
What is the most sought after gun in the world? The Holy Grail of guns. How many are there to have?
Where was it made, what makes it the gun better than all the other guns? And of course, how much
would one cost a gun collector?

I'm no expert myself, but I'd like to throw out a guess. A Colt SAA, a real one from the late 19th century, would have any collector drooling, I'd bet.

[Dunnyman]

I know next to nothing about guns, but as an avid collector of many things, I do wonder:
What is the most sought after gun in the world? The Holy Grail of guns. How many are there to have?
Where was it made, what makes it the gun better than all the other guns? And of course, how much
would one cost a gun collector?

Don't know about the rarest, but I'd love to find me a vintage De Lisle carbine. They were an incredibly silent sniper rifle that was one odd-ball design, a Thompson machine gun barrel, Enfield action, 1911A magazine, and so on. Frighteningly accurate at 250 meters, and the bolt being chambered made more noise than the shot did. Uber-rare. I'd love to have one.

[Zanarkand]

Dunny, what what you say the cost of that would be? What do high end guns go for anyway?

[Dunnyman]

Dunny, what what you say the cost of that would be? What do high end guns go for anyway?

DeLisles are so rare I've never seen one offered. As far as new, super high quality ones can go for several thousands of dollars, historic or vintage ones can go well into tens of thousands. Good quality pistols run from 100.00 to several thousand for fine target shooters. You get what you pay for with guns.

[Stubblecat]

Here's a new question: Research In Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie has been trying to buy an NHL hockey team fo a while now, and bring it to Southern Ontario. He has his eyes on the Phoenix Coyotes, which is a bankrupt team in a market that doesn't give a rat's ass about hockey.

It's a super-long story, but the NHL simply does not want him to buy the Coyotes or any other team for that matter.

The actual question is this: Is there much coverage of these goings on in the U.S. sports media? It's front-page news here every week.

My thinking on this issue falls squarely on the 'American Xenophobia' party lines. America would NEVER allow a sports team, no matter how terrible or how much money they hemhorrage, to leave the U.S. and go to Canada. It's some sort of nutty patriotic protectionism.

Thoughts?

[mkiker2089]

Here's a new question: Research In Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie has been trying to buy an NHL hockey team fo a while now, and bring it to Southern Ontario. He has his eyes on the Phoenix Coyotes, which is a bankrupt team in a market that doesn't give a rat's ass about hockey.

It's a super-long story, but the NHL simply does not want him to buy the Coyotes or any other team for that matter.

The actual question is this: Is there much coverage of these goings on in the U.S. sports media? It's front-page news here every week.

My thinking on this issue falls squarely on the 'American Xenophobia' party lines. America would NEVER allow a sports team, no matter how terrible or how much money they hemhorrage, to leave the U.S. and go to Canada. It's some sort of nutty patriotic protectionism.

Thoughts?

It's very small news where I live, but so is hokey. I haven't read much on it but the thought that I've seen is that it's less of what country the team is going to and more of where in general. If you keep them in the southern US you have a chance of expanding hockey, if you put them in Ontario then they are just another team in an area that doesn't need them.

It's what they did with Nascar. They put it in places where it wasn't exactly wanted to spread it out to more states than the handful it previously held. You can have a dozen races in NC and sell them all out, but when it's time to talk to ABC are they going to listen? If you sell a dozen races out in a dozen states, they will.

I'm speaking a little above myself here but when it comes to US and Canada I don't think patriotism plays into it. Most US citizens have great respect for the UK and Canada as it's our own heritage. Sending a hockey team to India might invoke some patriotic fervor, but Canada, I think would be OK.

[mkiker2089]

Dunny, what what you say the cost of that would be? What do high end guns go for anyway?

DeLisles are so rare I've never seen one offered. As far as new, super high quality ones can go for several thousands of dollars, historic or vintage ones can go well into tens of thousands. Good quality pistols run from 100.00 to several thousand for fine target shooters. You get what you pay for with guns.

I have a friend with a 50 caliber and when I ask how much it cost he just blushes and says he's ashamed to tell me. He spends more on guns than food. I've never fired it personally as I'm not into guns.

[chris_mcclinch]

Here's a new question: Research In Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie has been trying to buy an NHL hockey team fo a while now, and bring it to Southern Ontario. He has his eyes on the Phoenix Coyotes, which is a bankrupt team in a market that doesn't give a rat's ass about hockey.

It's a super-long story, but the NHL simply does not want him to buy the Coyotes or any other team for that matter.

The actual question is this: Is there much coverage of these goings on in the U.S. sports media? It's front-page news here every week.

My thinking on this issue falls squarely on the 'American Xenophobia' party lines. America would NEVER allow a sports team, no matter how terrible or how much money they hemhorrage, to leave the U.S. and go to Canada. It's some sort of nutty patriotic protectionism.

Thoughts?

Around here, it's not a story whatsoever. It may be some quixotic attempt by Gary Bettman to make hockey a truly major sport in the US, but it's hard to claim that "America" would never allow a sports team to leave the US and go to Canada when it's a niche sport in America. And I say this as a hockey fan.

[Stubblecat]

Interesting... I figured that it wasn't much of a story in the U.S.

It's so tense up here that a friend of mine was actually fired from his ground handling job for Balsillie's private jet because he (as a hockey fan) started asking Balsillie a bunch of questions about how things were going with his attempts to buy the team.

[Dunnyman]

Here's a new question: Research In Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie has been trying to buy an NHL hockey team fo a while now, and bring it to Southern Ontario. He has his eyes on the Phoenix Coyotes, which is a bankrupt team in a market that doesn't give a rat's ass about hockey.

It's a super-long story, but the NHL simply does not want him to buy the Coyotes or any other team for that matter.

The actual question is this: Is there much coverage of these goings on in the U.S. sports media? It's front-page news here every week.

My thinking on this issue falls squarely on the 'American Xenophobia' party lines. America would NEVER allow a sports team, no matter how terrible or how much money they hemhorrage, to leave the U.S. and go to Canada. It's some sort of nutty patriotic protectionism.

Thoughts?

As a not exactly huge hockey market, but a city with some grand history in the sport, it's been covered fairly well here in Seattle, then again, we're mentioned as a possible location for any team that might move.
I see it as anti-Canadian bias, plain and simple. Bettman is such an out of tune, clueless retard that it's gone from bad joke to downright tragic. Given a chance, he'd snuff out every team in Canada and move 'em all to San Antonio, New Orleans, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, Las Vegas and Birmingham. The owners, including well known money-grubbing douchebag Jeremy Jacobs, have been blinded by the distribution of expansion fees, and the idiotic idea that Bettman is somehow making the sport better by trying to market it in places where no one gives a crap.

Problem is, the Phoenix/Hamilton mess will prove to be his undoing because there is no way in hell that an American bankruptcy judge will disallow a 212 million dollar bid vs a 148 million dollar bid for the team. The object of a bankruptcy court is to recoup as much of the losses as possible, and Moyes' creditors don't care about where the team goes after they get their money. If I was one of them I'd be raising such a stink.

IMHO, we could kill Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix, Carolina and Nashville and move 'em to Winnipeg, Victoria, Hamilton, Halifax and Seattle.
IMHO, we could allow Marty McSorley the opportunity to drag Battman into a dark alleyway and beat him with a hockey stick for about six hours and then get a real commissioner for the sport that actually cares about the history of the game and it's incredible heritage. A guy that'd get rid of this Eastern/Western Conference crap and gives us the Campbell and Wales Conferences.

[Steve T Power]

Here's a new question: Research In Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie has been trying to buy an NHL hockey team fo a while now, and bring it to Southern Ontario. He has his eyes on the Phoenix Coyotes, which is a bankrupt team in a market that doesn't give a rat's ass about hockey.

It's a super-long story, but the NHL simply does not want him to buy the Coyotes or any other team for that matter.

The actual question is this: Is there much coverage of these goings on in the U.S. sports media? It's front-page news here every week.

My thinking on this issue falls squarely on the 'American Xenophobia' party lines. America would NEVER allow a sports team, no matter how terrible or how much money they hemhorrage, to leave the U.S. and go to Canada. It's some sort of nutty patriotic protectionism.

Thoughts?

As a not exactly huge hockey market, but a city with some grand history in the sport, it's been covered fairly well here in Seattle, then again, we're mentioned as a possible location for any team that might move.
I see it as anti-Canadian bias, plain and simple. Bettman is such an out of tune, clueless retard that it's gone from bad joke to downright tragic. Given a chance, he'd snuff out every team in Canada and move 'em all to San Antonio, New Orleans, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, Las Vegas and Birmingham. The owners, including well known money-grubbing douchebag Jeremy Jacobs, have been blinded by the distribution of expansion fees, and the idiotic idea that Bettman is somehow making the sport better by trying to market it in places where no one gives a crap.

Problem is, the Phoenix/Hamilton mess will prove to be his undoing because there is no way in hell that an American bankruptcy judge will disallow a 212 million dollar bid vs a 148 million dollar bid for the team. The object of a bankruptcy court is to recoup as much of the losses as possible, and Moyes' creditors don't care about where the team goes after they get their money. If I was one of them I'd be raising such a stink.

IMHO, we could kill Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix, Carolina and Nashville and move 'em to Winnipeg, Victoria, Hamilton, Halifax and Seattle.
IMHO, we could allow Marty McSorley the opportunity to drag Battman into a dark alleyway and beat him with a hockey stick for about six hours and then get a real commissioner for the sport that actually cares about the history of the game and it's incredible heritage. A guy that'd get rid of this Eastern/Western Conference crap and gives us the Campbell and Wales Conferences.

Amen, Hallelujah, and hosanna in the highest!

[Stubblecat]

Okay, here's a complicated one:

Can anyone explain in plain English and in one paragraph exactly what the hell is going on with these weird health care protests in the States?

Didn't you people desperately want health care reform a few month ago? Didn't any other country with what you perceive as this scary 'socialized' medicine inform you that this sh*t ain't free? Yes... Your taxes will go up. And yes, you *need* government organizations to oversee these programs. When you allow privtae corporations to run health care, then you get into the situations where drug companies call the shots.

Am I missing something here? Is there some aspect to this topic that I simply don't get as a foreigner?

Is there a legitimate problem with whatever Obama's proposing, or is this just more Republican fear-mongering for the sake of scaring people? After all... I did hear Sarah Palin's rant about 'Death Panels'. Uh... I don't know what country she's referring to, but countries with universal health care like Canada, France, Britain, etc... don't have any Nazi-like powers of deciding the life and death of the unborn, regardless of birth defects.

Help me out here.

[chris_mcclinch]

It's 85% fearmongering, 15% reasonable (and reasoned) questioning of whether or not providing healthcare is an inherently governmental function. I'm one of the people who believes that the government has no business providing healthcare but that it has a responsibility to better regulate the private healthcare industry through tort reform, accounting reforms, reforms of Big Pharma, etc. I'm not protesting, and I think socialized medicine is better than what we have now, but I don't really think it's the right answer. Of course, I generally think the government is far better qualified to regulate the providing of services than it is to actually provide services.

[Stubblecat]

I'm of the opinion that America will never have a health care system that can compete with its neighbours, mostly for one plain reason: Time.

Canada and most of the rest of the first-world nations have had a socialized health care system in place for decades. Long before the internet, long before every nutcase fringe group was allowed to have a voice, but most importantly long before the pharmaceutical companies and corporations figured out that peoples' health was 'for profit'.

Much like the electric car will never be allowed to take off because of the oil companies' power, American health care will always be left in the control of private corporations. And there will always be plenty of Republicans to scare people into thinking that it's the best and only option.

[chris_mcclinch]

I'm of the opinion that America will never have a health care system that can compete with its neighbours, mostly for one plain reason: Time.

Canada and most of the rest of the first-world nations have had a socialized health care system in place for decades. Long before the internet, long before every nutcase fringe group was allowed to have a voice, but most importantly long before the pharmaceutical companies and corporations figured out that peoples' health was 'for profit'.

Much like the electric car will never be allowed to take off because of the oil companies' power, American health care will always be left in the control of private corporations. And there will always be plenty of Republicans to scare people into thinking that it's the best and only option.

There's some mind-blowing stupidity in this post, and the anti-Republican fearmongering here is just as bad as the Republican-led fearmongering against socialized medicine in the US.

The US actually has a very strong track record when it comes to reining in politically powerful industries that play fast and loose with public health or public safety. Whether you want to look at the clothing industry at the turn of the century, the auto manufacturers in the '70s, or the tobacco companies in the late '90s, our government has shown itself willing to force major industries to retool their products and practices in the interest of the public good. As I said in my previous post, there are some valid reasons to question whether or not the government should provide healthcare, but no reasonable person questions whether the government needs to step in and regulate the healthcare industry.

My own belief is that without tort reform, healthcare accounting reform, bans on direct advertisement of prescription drugs, and regulation of pharmaceutical sales reps' practices, socialized medicine will cost more out of the average American's pocket in tax dollars than our broken coverage does today in medical costs. If all I'm getting out of socialized medicine is writing the same--or a larger--check to a different entity, you can count me out. The problem is how the costs are calculated, not who's paying them. And it's cheaper to create a government organization dedicated to reviewing, monitoring, and regulating the cost of healthcare than it is to nationalize the healthcare system.

As for the electric car, your understanding of economics and markets borders on the nonexistent. No superior technology has EVER been successfully suppressed by the powers that be, no matter how invested the powers that be were in the previous technology. The electric car hasn't taken off yet for three reasons: 1) higher purchase cost than gasoline engines, 2) less range and performance than gasoline engines, and 3) no available "quick charge" that will have a driver traveling cross-country back on the highway as quickly as refilling the gas tank. The electric car is a less attractive product right now than the gasoline engine or the gasoline/electric hybrid. Once those three challenges are solved, gasoline engines will go the way of the horse and buggy--and the Republicans will be leading the charge because our dependence on oil weakens our national defense both directly and indirectly. Even if the Republicans aren't leading the charge, though, the gasoline engine will be like long distance on your home phone in a world where Skype and cell phones exist: unable to compete economically.

[Stubblecat]

There's some mind-blowing stupidity in this post

Tsk-tsk on the name calling. I'm not going to start any back-and-forth here. I'll just be a pessimist here: If America ever fixes its health care system so that all of its citizens are covered, I'll be pleasantly surprised. But I wouldn't count on it.

As for the electric car, sure there are obstacles which are not directly controlled by the oil companies that need to be put in place. But after about 100 years the internal-combustion engine is still just about as fuel-efficient as the one sitting inside the Model 'T'. I'm inclined to lean on the side of 'probably not gonna happen'.

[chris_mcclinch]

There's some mind-blowing stupidity in this post

Tsk-tsk on the name calling.

No name-calling intended, but you made some statements that are shockingly misinformed to the point of flat-out stupidity. I don't think you're a stupid person, but, well, even Einstein said some stupid things from time to time. Pointing out the fact isn't name-calling.

I'll just be a pessimist here: If America ever fixes its health care system so that all of its citizens are covered, I'll be pleasantly surprised. But I wouldn't count on it.

I wouldn't really count on it either, any more than I'd count on America, Canada, or any other nation fixing its employment system so that all of its citizens are employed. I see the government's responsibility as ensuring that I can afford coverage, not as coercing me to have it under financial terms that it dictates and obscures from me.

As for the electric car, sure there are obstacles which are not directly controlled by the oil companies that need to be put in place. But after about 100 years the internal-combustion engine is still just about as fuel-efficient as the one sitting inside the Model 'T'. I'm inclined to lean on the side of 'probably not gonna happen'.

The Model T got 18-21 miles per gallon, from a 2-9 liter engine that got the car up to a top speed of 45 miles per hour. My Civic (not a hybrid) gets 35-43 miles per gallon, from a 1.7 liter engine that will get the car up to a top speed of ~100 miles per hour. How's that "just about as fuel-efficient"?

The internal combustion engine is cheaper to run and more convenient than an electric engine. As soon as that's no longer the case, you'll see a massive shift to electric motors. It's no different from how pay phones and home long distance usage all but disappeared with the rise of the cell phone, letter writing (a service provided directly by the United States Government) all but disappeared with the rise of e-mail, or VHS disappeared with the rise of DVD. Regardless of what the companies want, the market chooses what makes the most sense for it. If the current companies (call them IBM) can't figure out a way to provide what the market wants, new start-ups (call them Dell) will rise up to fill the void. Again, simple economics--no conspiracy theories needed.

[mkiker2089]

Here's the issue that most people have in the back of their mind but are too polite to talk about. This health care isn't free, and it isn't fair. I'm a healthy person, so I end up paying more than I use. Someone else decides to make a living having babies and living off the system (don't flame me, I know they exist) and they get much more than what they pay in. Someone else who is morally sound perhaps get's cancer, once again I'm footing the bill.

The good thing for society is not always the good thing for the individuals in that society. We have to find a way to at least make it seem fair. Free health care will never do it until people pay premiums like they do to insurance that are at least somewhat based on health and prior usage. That compromise however alienates both sides.

I'd like to see the government simply take on the role of the insurance companies, it all areas actually. Car insurance is just as parasitic as healthcare. You have more middle men making money off of you and somehow it's supposed to make things cheaper. Economics 101 will tell you that somewhere things are going to break down.

[mkiker2089]

There's some mind-blowing stupidity in this post, and the anti-Republican fearmongering here is just as bad as the Republican-led fearmongering against socialized medicine in the US.
.

You disagree, but he isn't far off. A bit extremist perhaps but not far off. The pharmacuetical companies love the US because we pay more than anyone else. We fund R&D for the world. This isn't like the other markets you mentioned where one product pays for itself. This is where one company does research in hopes of a future profit, and they have to make money on past products to keep that rolling. They won't give in easily.

If Republicans fear monger, Democrats follow blindly. Neither statements are true, but sadly both are true also. For everyone that follows Limbaugh without questions you have someone who voted for Obama just because he's black without doing research. (don't flame me because you know it's true even if it isn't PC to say it)

[Future Man]

Any American who has a cell phone (maybe even one for each member of the family), internet, cable TV, and an SUV in the driveway, but not a health insurance policy of some stripe, should not be counted among the uninsured in debating the need for healthcare overhaul. Our "uninsured" numbers are not adjusted for the millions of who are uninsured because they are irresponsible.

And since (correct me if I am wrong) America currently leads the way in medical advancements of most every sort, it is only very gingerly and after much public debate and a full airing of what is being proposed that we tinker with our healthcare system. (And to think that the White House tried to insist that a bill be passed before summer recess,!)

[Stubblecat]

To try to get to the point that I was really trying to make originally: I think that the U.S. health care system is just too far gone to make any amountable changes in it. It could happen within decades, but don't expect anything noticable in our lifetimes.

It's sort of weird watching American television (as a Canadian) and seeing the endless barrage of commercials for brand-name drugs. It seems so foreign to have products design to keep to you alive/asleep/full of boners, etc.. being marketed for profit.

And I have to agree with mkiker a bit, too. I make a decent government wage here in Canada, but our tax rate is what you Americans would call 'insane'. Between Federal and Provincal taxes, I lose about $500 every two weeks. I've never had a hospital visit, and haven't had to go to a clinic for any medical mishaps in about 3 years. Yet, still I pay through the nose. And someone who chooses to be unemployed (like *ahem* my ex-wife) who lives off the system gets all the free medical services they want (within reason).

[TemporalWisdom]

It's 85% fearmongering, 15% reasonable (and reasoned) questioning of whether or not providing healthcare is an inherently governmental function. I'm one of the people who believes that the government has no business providing healthcare but that it has a responsibility to better regulate the private healthcare industry through tort reform, accounting reforms, reforms of Big Pharma, etc. I'm not protesting, and I think socialized medicine is better than what we have now, but I don't really think it's the right answer. Of course, I generally think the government is far better qualified to regulate the providing of services than it is to actually provide services.

But what do you do when someone like Bush comes along and stops Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies?

Another problem I have is, you want to fix the current system. How? How, in Obama's place, would you craft effective legislation that will get through both houses of Congress? How do you even know what would be effective? I can think of a few ideas that would help solve the problems -- like having the insurance executives whacked -- but I don't think any of them could actually pass muster.

I see the government's responsibility as ensuring that I can afford coverage, not as coercing me to have it under financial terms that it dictates and obscures from me.

I must have missed something. I admit I don't know as much as I ought to about the proposed plan. What part of the plan calls for making you buy insurance? In fact, my understanding that the idea is to ensure that you can afford coverage.

Here's the issue that most people have in the back of their mind but are too polite to talk about. This health care isn't free, and it isn't fair. I'm a healthy person, so I end up paying more than I use. Someone else decides to make a living having babies and living off the system (don't flame me, I know they exist) and they get much more than what they pay in. Someone else who is morally sound perhaps get's cancer, once again I'm footing the bill.

Nothing's free, of course. But let me run some numbers (not to be taken as gospel). We pay twice as much per capita as Canada does. That's with 45 million out of 300 uninsured. So say we're paying half as much per capita, but now we're paying for more people. So call it 59% of what we're paying now.

You're healthy now. That's sort of the best time to purchase health insurance. If you waited until you were diagnosed with cancer, no one would sell you insurance. You complain about paying for more than you use, but that's what happens sometimes, more so with free market insurance.

The good thing for society is not always the good thing for the individuals in that society. We have to find a way to at least make it seem fair. Free health care will never do it until people pay premiums like they do to insurance that are at least somewhat based on health and prior usage. That compromise however alienates both sides.

I'd like to see the government simply take on the role of the insurance companies, it all areas actually. Car insurance is just as parasitic as healthcare. You have more middle men making money off of you and somehow it's supposed to make things cheaper. Economics 101 will tell you that somewhere things are going to break down.

No good. The government is trying to make a buck just the same as the insurance companies. Only instead of using it to buy diamond rings for their wives, Congressmen use it to pay for unnecessary highway projects in their districts.

[Steve T Power]

There are times where i wonder if a privatized, health insurance-led system wouldn't be better in Canada. Take my current situation for example:

- My father went in for some testing on a Monday morning, they found 4 large blockages in his arterys. By Wednesday he was in surgery, had six bypasses, and by the following Monday he was home. He was shuffled in and out so insanely fast that he didn't have a chance to begin healing before the burden of recouperation fell upon my Mother (who has been an Angina sufferer for 18 years.) This was in early July.

- Last Monday my mother went in to get checked out, as her Angina began flaring up. Now, exactly one week later, she's STILL in there. Hasn't had any pain since, and is still waiting to receive the same test Dad wasn't even admitted for and received. She's wandering the halls of the Cardio ward, feeling perfectly fine.

What makes no sense to me - you have Dad, who had no physical complaints whatsoever, who felt fit as a fiddle, walked 5-6 miles a day, and went in for testing on the insistence of his Doctor because he had never been tested and turns 70 this year. Then you have Mom, who's kept in a week long holding pattern in spite of already having a history of a hereditary heart condition, and who's had open heard surgery in the past (4 bypasses 18 years ago).

Of course the counter argument there is that with an existing heart condition, her insurance would probably cost more than a California Condo.

[Dimwitted]

Medical issues have become like the other three, not to be brought up in polite conversation, sex, politics and religion.

That said, For profit basic medical care is an abomination. Thousands of horror stories of people turned away because they weren't covered, people kicked off of insurance plans because of new illnesses and the 9now old) stat of 50% of all personal bankruptcies in the US were because of medical bills. A reasonable medical system should be the exact same as the education system. A minimum standard is available to all. Everyone pays. Should you want further care/more exotic medicine then you can through insurance or other means. But that minimum level safety net should be in place for ALL citizens regardless of their financial means.

Strange that only the US doesn't see that as a requirement in their society. Yes, EVERY other system has flaws, mistakes and travesties. Nobody is perfect. And these are governmental systems. Reasonably competent is a massive plus. But to not try because? Someone might cheat? You don't need it right this second? This is unAmerican?

Sharing is a bitch isn't it?

[TemporalWisdom]

A reasonable medical system should be the exact same as the education system. A minimum standard is available to all. Everyone pays. Should you want further care/more exotic medicine then you can through insurance or other means. But that minimum level safety net should be in place for ALL citizens regardless of their financial means.

That's where it gets tricky. How do you define the minimum? Should I be covered for seeing my doctor and getting antibiotics every time I get the sniffles? You might say no...but what if, by seeking treatment now, I could head off something more serious? That's part of how these other systems save money -- you go in the minute you feel a strange, hard lump, and your tumor is removed before it can metastasize, thereby sparing the expense of months of chemotherapy. Meanwhile, you're much healthier than you would be if you were in the habit of putting off checkups due to financial constraints.

[Dan Mancini]

A reasonable medical system should be the exact same as the education system. A minimum standard is available to all. Everyone pays. Should you want further care/more exotic medicine then you can through insurance or other means. But that minimum level safety net should be in place for ALL citizens regardless of their financial means.

A reasonable safety net could be set up without the 1 to 1.6 trillion dollar price tag the CBO has placed on the plans currently circulating. (See McClinch's earlier post for more details.) You can say stuff like "sharing's a bitch" all you want, but you can't share what you don't have. The money isn't there to pay for a massive public health insurance program that covers everyone -- at least the way the bills are currently written. No combination of increased taxes on businesses and the rich (and the middle class, for that matter), cutting waste (which government is lousy at, anyway), and price fixing is going to fund a public health option that will cost over $1 trillion over the next decade. Rationing of services would have to come into play, and that's what has people hot under the collar. There are ways to insure the uninsured that won't break the bank and won't result in the currently insured having the quality of their health care significantly downgraded. But, you know, we'd have to sit down and discuss things like adults, and that's something our entire political class appears incapable of doing these days.

[Steve T Power]

But, you know, we'd have to sit down and discuss things like adults, and that's something our entire country appears incapable of doing these days.

Fixed that for ya Dan.

[Dan Mancini]

But, you know, we'd have to sit down and discuss things like adults, and that's something our entire country appears incapable of doing these days.

Fixed that for ya Dan.

Wurd.