http://www.startribune.com/local/15453806.html

 

International Falls, Minnesota, renewed their patent to the term "Icebox of the Nation". They have been in conflict with Fraser, Colorado, a ski town outside of Denver, for the title.

 

Then, this morning, they hit a record low of -38?F.

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

i dont see nothin wrong with it eh...so we canadian brethren like our cold weather, our pot and our beer...and our universal healthcare...what's so wrong with that eh?

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

i dont see nothin wrong with it eh...so we canadian brethren like our cold weather, our pot and our beer...and our universal healthcare...what's so wrong with that eh?

 

The 13-15% sales tax...

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

i dont see nothin wrong with it eh...so we canadian brethren like our cold weather, our pot and our beer...and our universal healthcare...what's so wrong with that eh?

 

The 13-15% sales tax...

at least that tax isnt going towards a frivelous war, towards a pointless drug war, etc...anyways...i love the cold weather...love it!

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

i dont see nothin wrong with it eh...so we canadian brethren like our cold weather, our pot and our beer...and our universal healthcare...what's so wrong with that eh?

 

The 13-15% sales tax...

at least that tax isnt going towards a frivelous war, towards a pointless drug war, etc...anyways...i love the cold weather...love it!

Well it certainly isn't going toward their schools it seems.

well its not like we can say the same...there is a healthy portion of people in this country who cant tell you where canada or mexico are...and probably think iraq and afghanistan are on the moon and were discovered by neil custer armstrong bush the 4th

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

i dont see nothin wrong with it eh...so we canadian brethren like our cold weather, our pot and our beer...and our universal healthcare...what's so wrong with that eh?

With year-plus-long waiting lists that are pushing people to private insurance in the provinces that have made it legal.

 

Plus, that 13-15% sales tax is on top of an income tax higher than ours, merely because of the higher rates applied to lower-waged workers.

 

But let's not turn this into a bash-Canada thread. :mischief

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

i dont see nothin wrong with it eh...so we canadian brethren like our cold weather, our pot and our beer...and our universal healthcare...what's so wrong with that eh?

With year-plus-long waiting lists that are pushing people to private insurance in the provinces that have made it legal.

 

Plus, that 13-15% sales tax is on top of an income tax higher than ours, merely because of the higher rates applied to lower-waged workers.

 

But let's not turn this into a bash-Canada thread. :mischief

hey, i live in massachusetts and our system is pretty damn similar...and yet...we have had pretty good results with it so far...so while their system might be different...does that really make ours better...especially when 1 in 7 in this country doesnt have any insurance?

in a state that is known for insanely cold winters - this place is the coldest of them all

 

i have no idea why anyone would want to live there - besides, it has a scary proximity to canada

there aint nothin wrong with good ol Canadian folk eh? :thumbup

This is the most incorrect post in the history of MB.com.

i dont see nothin wrong with it eh...so we canadian brethren like our cold weather, our pot and our beer...and our universal healthcare...what's so wrong with that eh?

With year-plus-long waiting lists that are pushing people to private insurance in the provinces that have made it legal.

 

Plus, that 13-15% sales tax is on top of an income tax higher than ours, merely because of the higher rates applied to lower-waged workers.

 

But let's not turn this into a bash-Canada thread. :mischief

 

I'm glad I live in the good old US of A where if I get a serious illness, I become financially devastated. Yeah, our system is perfect.

hey, i live in massachusetts and our system is pretty damn similar...and yet...we have had pretty good results with it so far...so while their system might be different...does that really make ours better...especially when 1 in 7 in this country doesnt have any insurance?

Your system is nothing like Canada. Massachusetts merely forces you to buy health insurance. If your employer doesn't offer it, you have to go shop for it yourself out of your own pocket.

 

I'm glad I live in the good old US of A where if I get a serious illness, I become financially devastated. Yeah, our system is perfect.

Though you can go into debt, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act protects people who are affected by medical debt. Also, medical debt is fully dischargeable through Chapter 7 bankruptcy, even after the 2005 law change.

hey, i live in massachusetts and our system is pretty damn similar...and yet...we have had pretty good results with it so far...so while their system might be different...does that really make ours better...especially when 1 in 7 in this country doesnt have any insurance?

Your system is nothing like Canada. Massachusetts merely forces you to buy health insurance. If your employer doesn't offer it, you have to go shop for it yourself out of your own pocket.

 

I'm glad I live in the good old US of A where if I get a serious illness, I become financially devastated. Yeah, our system is perfect.

Though you can go into debt, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act protects people who are affected by medical debt. Also, medical debt is fully dischargeable through Chapter 7 bankruptcy, even after the 2005 law change.

plus massachusetts offers its own health insurance which is the coverage i have...but i say...the more people that are insured, the better off those peoples are...

Also, I have a question for some of the liberals here, particularly those who smoke a lot of cannabis (jimmyjacko).

 

You are so vehemently opposed to having the government control your right to be able to consume certain plants at your own discretion. You are also opposed to the government setting guidelines on how a woman can deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

 

However, if you are apparently so opposed to the government telling individuals what they can and cannot do with their body, why on earth are you demanding that we as a society sacrifice our bodies for state control under a socialized medical system? Under such a system the government has significant influence on who your physician is via rationing care at state run hospitals. If you think these hospitals also don't deny care you are kidding yourself (see England). The supply of drugs and biotechnology. Ultimately you would indeed be sacrificing your body to public control.

 

 

Perhaps I am missing something here, but how are you not being hypocritical?

you are missing alot...the two situations are completely different...smoking pot or having an abortion is a personal choice involving personal freedom...

 

nationalized healthcare is for the benefit of society(which is why weed and various other drugs were made illegal in the first place)...

 

and here in massachusetts...we have the choice of something like 1,000 physicians that we can see...which certainly gives us plenty of options in the choice...

 

and you are kidding yourself if you dont think you are sacrificing your body to public control as the system is in other states...

 

there is absolutely nothing wrong with more people having health care in this country...i know this conflicts with your "the rich are the only worthy of healthcare theory"...but having more people being able to covered for XYZ problem that arises cannot be a bad thing

in the interest of not qouting that whole big thing....

 

how is government intervention is substance use/abuse anywhere close to government intervention in providing healtcare that alot of people could not otherwise afford?

 

and if you can afford better...whats to say that the government would allow you to seek privatized care? we all have rights as americans...it doesnt mean those rights are looked at equally under the law(especially when you have money)

 

i did read what you said...but what happens when one in seven american without insurance becomes to 2 or 3 or more? should insurance companies just keep raising their prices? i mean it is a free market...whats to stop them from inflating prices out of control? there not needs to be more government regulation here...there HAS to be...what you saying...say if some old couple in chicago who doesnt have much money and no family...they are finding themselves having to choose between whether to buy food, buy their medication, or buy their heating oil...and to me...that is beyond ridiculous...beyond...

 

and i actually agree with you here to a certain extent...if its government run healthcare, they should be able to tell you what you can and cant put in your body...at the same time...they need to stop with the lies they have spread about marijuana for the last 80 years...they need to have heavier regulations on all this pharmaceutical bulls*** that is coming out that is more likely to kill you by the worst case of the shits ever...

 

look...i dont like big government as much as anyone...but the health and well-being of its citizens as well as protecting our rights should be priority #1 of these united states

penguino, we can dance this dance all night...im not dragging it out...you feel that health care for all=socialism...and that is ridiculous but whatever...and yes i do understand what a right is...WE have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...and if you arent healthy and cant afford to be...this is when our government, the people we pay our taxes to, should step in and do what is needed for us to continue that life

penguino, we can dance this dance all night...im not dragging it out...you feel that health care for all=socialism...and that is ridiculous but whatever...and yes i do understand what a right is...WE have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...and if you arent healthy and cant afford to be...this is when our government, the people we pay our taxes to, should step in and do what is needed for us to continue that life

And what happens when the Government gets bankrupted and starts to ration (Canada) or outright deny (U.K.) care to people? Because that will happen if they attempt universal healthcare.

penguino, we can dance this dance all night...im not dragging it out...you feel that health care for all=socialism...and that is ridiculous but whatever...and yes i do understand what a right is...WE have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...and if you arent healthy and cant afford to be...this is when our government, the people we pay our taxes to, should step in and do what is needed for us to continue that life

And what happens when the Government gets bankrupted and starts to ration (Canada) or outright deny (U.K.) care to people? Because that will happen if they attempt universal healthcare.

maybe if we werent spending a billion a week in iraq....there would be more money...maybe if they stop this ridiculous drug war, there would many more billions from that...maybe if we didnt have a military base in virtually every country in the world, we could actually spend that money on our citizens who need it

penguino, we can dance this dance all night...im not dragging it out...you feel that health care for all=socialism...and that is ridiculous but whatever...and yes i do understand what a right is...WE have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...and if you arent healthy and cant afford to be...this is when our government, the people we pay our taxes to, should step in and do what is needed for us to continue that life

And what happens when the Government gets bankrupted and starts to ration (Canada) or outright deny (U.K.) care to people? Because that will happen if they attempt universal healthcare.

maybe if we werent spending a billion a week in iraq....there would be more money...maybe if they stop this ridiculous drug war, there would many more billions from that...maybe if we didnt have a military base in virtually every country in the world, we could actually spend that money on our citizens who need it

And there still wouldn't be nearly enough. Healthcare cost the United States $1.5 trillion in 2002. Nearly three times the complete FY 2008 defense budget PLUS Iraq and Afghanistan. ($626.6 billion)

 

To put in contrast, personal income tax accounted for $1.25 trillion of all tax receipts in FY 2008.

ok...so i stole this post from the user member "DON SHULA 84" over at finheaven...but he brings up alot of points here which are better articulated than by myself...

 

What people ignore in this issue is that it is in the interest of the government to have a healthy people, it isnt just a personal issue.

 

 

Quote:

When we exclude people from health care they suffer a triple deprivation?the misery of illness, the desperation of little or no treatment, and the cruel proof that they do not really belong to the community. We make them strangers in their own land.

 

Quote:

When individuals lack health care, the promise of our common life together is also diminished. In relieving private distress, the nation enables its people to contribute more fully to its public life. The nation thereby serves its own public flourishing.

 

Quote:

Our system also costs more to operate than any other health care system in the world; no other country exceeds 10 percent of its GNP in health care costs, yet we are above 14 percent and rising further out of control. The system now consumes one-seventh of everything that we make or do. Even this figure does not fully measure the cost. The "fringe benefit" of health care is anything but a fringe cost of producing cars, computers, refrigerators and, for that matter, education. In some of our industries, health care is the second-largest cost after wages and salaries. This fact reduces the competitiveness of American businesses: Why should companies build cars in Detroit if their health care costs per worker are $500 to $750 less across the bridge in Windsor, Canada?

 

http://www.religion-online.org/showa....asp?title=106

 

Beyond that, everyone is paying for the uninsured now. Many bipartisan people have argued that creating universal health care will lower cost. You can look at the cost the US spends on health care vs other industrialized nations and see we pay far more, while still leaving a lot of people out in the cold.

 

Then I read stuff like this:

 

 

Quote:

Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage

 

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/4660/17632.aspx

 

That's shameful for the richest country in the world imo.

 

As this link points out, universal health care doesnt even mean socialized medicine.

 

 

Quote:

Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector.

 

Total spending could atually go down, while more people are covered.

 

 

Quote:

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees? health insurance. About 20% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 20% of health care costs. In all, it is a very ?regressive? way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees? health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance ? so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes

 

This is a long article that address many fears about universal health insurance.

 

I just dont think we can continue the way we are with premiums continually on the rise and more and more people being left without health insurance. I dont want to become a socialist country. I do think a balance needs to be reached between "socialist" programs and the free market, something the US has been battling with for awhile now it seems. To me, universal health care doesnt step too far towards socialism and away from what this country was founded on, it's just the right thing to do.

What people ignore in this issue is that it is in the interest of the government to have a healthy people, it isnt just a personal issue.

So just because the government has good intentions, we should overlook inefficiency and the rights of the people?

 

Our system also costs more to operate than any other health care system in the world; no other country exceeds 10 percent of its GNP in health care costs, yet we are above 14 percent and rising further out of control. The system now consumes one-seventh of everything that we make or do. Even this figure does not fully measure the cost.

The link your spokesperson supplies is 15 years old, so I don't quite know the accuracy of those numbers. Furthermore, health care spending is hight because we are subsidizing the entire world in research and development. Overseas they buy our technology and drugs in bulk. Much of the time our property is not protected and the drugs are counterfeited and the expensive of the American. If you were to reduce research incentive in the US, the quality of most foreign health care programs would drop substantially from their current states. But again, health care plans in the US for both employers and home businesses are high because of the government involvement in the medical-industrial complex. Programs like Medicare and whatever else is going to come destroy the spirit of competition and inflate the costs of care, making it even more difficult for those who want private care to afford it. The ultimate goal of the government should be to protect personal freedoms; they should be attempting to minimize the number of Americans on governmnet sponsored care, not maximize it.

 

Beyond that, everyone is paying for the uninsured now. Many bipartisan people have argued that creating universal health care will lower cost. You can look at the cost the US spends on health care vs other industrialized nations and see we pay far more, while still leaving a lot of people out in the cold.

Yes, because they have no biotech industries. They are almost entirely dependent on the United States for everything related to health care.

 

Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage

For those who didn't seek out the link, it's basically a book review.

Why is this the role of the government to dictate people's lives and how they receive treatment. Again, universal healthcare does not equate to socialism. Universal health care can be obtained through free markets. Thus once costs go down, anyone who views care as a necessary expense should be able to find it more affordable.

 

Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector.

 

Total spending could atually go down, while more people are covered.

And look at the state of our VA hospitals for a point reference. Once government becomes involved in the pricing and rationing of care, the benefits of the private sector are hardly realized. I feel like I've responded to this point more than adequately in this thread and others.

 

The next link comes from a biased think tank group. Instead of doing his own homework he chooses to cut and paste. Given the source, I have no desire to fact check the numbers.

 

I just dont think we can continue the way we are with premiums continually on the rise and more and more people being left without health insurance. I dont want to become a socialist country. I do think a balance needs to be reached between "socialist" programs and the free market, something the US has been battling with for awhile now it seems. To me, universal health care doesnt step too far towards socialism and away from what this country was founded on, it's just the right thing to do.

Inflation and government intervention are what is making care expensive. This is why our country is on course for economic ruin. His claim that a socialized program would have been desired by the founders is completely without merit, as they were advocates of sound money and the rights of the people. Health care would have been defined as a natural right and government's involvement of health care would not be such a strain on the constitution.

 

 

I don't think he quite understands the issue and how the industry actually works. Given the haphazard reference sites I don't think that is an audacious claim. While free markets aren't completely perfect in themselves, he is certainly blinded by his perceptions of what the government can accomplish and what the true costs of a hypothetical socialized system would be. As I mentioned earlier, the typical government response to rising costs is not to maximize efficiency but to merely milk more money out of the people. At the rate this government is spending and printing money, any system with the government so heavily involved is likely to be a disaster. In all honesty we haven't given free markets a real chance yet in this country. It is indeed the government that has been complicating the issues and making costs unaffordable.we have had free markets in this country since we adopted the constitution...not a real chance? come on dude, thats laughable...the free market is what is driving the poor people to look elsewhere for medication...like mexico and canada

 

i believe our government is a bunch of f**k ups as much as anyone else...but they have the responsibility to care for their people more than spending in the trillions in defense, more than building a new government for the iraqis, more than feeding the people of other countries...as i said...our government is FOR the people, not to screw the people