You don't know what you're talking about. A hospital by law is only obligated to stabilize a patient, not provide ongoing care.
Incorrect it's the other way around. If you NEED a procedure in Canada or England the odds are you die waiting for it.
Exactly and it proves my point then you didn't read the links I provided or you would have clearly seen where it stated that our "healthcare" as you call it is 11th out of 11 industrialized nations. That has nothing to do with life choices. That is about direct care. You brought it up, not me.
bull shit and you have absolutely nothing to support this notion. in fact there is hords of information to the contrary. here is an article from AARP about this very subject. we ration health care in this country with cost. if you can't afford it, you don't get it. http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html
You know what I don't have? A plane ticket to come and kick your ass and a green fee at the local goat trail. Put up or shut your cock holster lib
I'm sorry you are all fighting over the wrong thing. You're really debating who pays for healthcare services not how it is delivered. The democrats and republicans are just fighting over who pays. That is just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Until there is transparency and real competition we will have neither grasp or control over costs and delivery of healthcare services. I've cited time and again examples of where open markets in medicine (there are a few) deliver controlled and consistently lower costs for services than under the current 'system'. ONLY AFTER WE CONTROL COSTS CAN WE ADDRESS HOW WE ACCOMODATE THE POOR.
I did read it. It just shows your lack of comprehension. It used 1/4th rating on life expectancy. Which is more about how people treat their body than anything else. It also uses weights such as total coverage. Again I say, you confuse coverage with care.
