How long of a line to vote?

[Dusty Chalk]

Funny thing is, the wait was mostly to look me up. There was a line of about 3 people for the A-G line, zero people for the H-O line, and about 25 people for the P-Z line, which is where I fall.

After that, it was "...in'n'out, baby...".

I don't mind, I'm just glad everyone cares so much this year. I think they're ashamed that things could have been different (either not as close, or completely different) four years ago if they had gone, so they're making sure they go this year.

Important? I disagree. Even with this turnout, it's still extremely close, indicating (to me, anyway) just how similar the two candidates are.

We need Ross Perot back. Either that or Gumby.

[Troy]

Even with this turnout, it's still extremely close, indicating (to me, anyway) just how similar the two candidates are.

Similar?

Science or religeon?

Stem cell or not stem cell?

Iraq war or not Iraq war?

Tax the rich or not tax the rich? To pay for healthcare for everyone, or to not give a damn about people that can't afford to go to the doctor?

Rape the environment or not rape the environment?

Similar? Do we live in the same country?

On a different tack:

Why were the initial exit polls in favor of Kerry, but the actual counts 10% lower? Which was wrong and why?

I'm just fulla questions today.

[Dusty Chalk]

They're both idiots who live in an elitist class and have no clue how to run the country -- Bush due to his fratboy IQ, and Kerry from his wishiwashiness. (Obviously an oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

Personally, I would like to have voted for the candidate that would get us out of this war with minimal casualties, especially ours (US of Americans). But I have no idea who that is: Bush isn't pulling out, and I don't have confidence in Kerry to do it right without getting inordinate amounts of people killed (at this point, we can't just pull out without making things worse for the people left behind).

I'll leave it at that, so as not to get too political, but that's example of the frustration I had with these two candidates, as I've had in many previous years.

[Stone]

They're both idiots who live in an elitist class and have no clue how to run the country -- Bush due to his fratboy IQ, and Kerry from his wishiwashiness. (Obviously an oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

Personally, I would like to have voted for the candidate that would get us out of this war with minimal casualties, especially ours (US of Americans). But I have no idea who that is: Bush isn't pulling out, and I don't have confidence in Kerry to do it right without getting inordinate amounts of people killed (at this point, we can't just pull out without making things worse for the people left behind).

I'll leave it at that, so as not to get too political, but that's example of the frustration I had with these two candidates, as I've had in many previous years.

You and I think alike on this. I really hate voting for the lesser of two idiots, but in the end, that's what I really have to do (or vote for someone who has no chance of winning). I don't have much faith in either one in running our country. It's really sad.

[kexodusc]

I voted Kerry, though a bit reluctantly...I just can't get myself to like either of these two goofs.
I think Bush is the most destructive president in American history, but I respect the dedication and consistent stance he has with his beliefs, even if I don't share them. He doesn't waver...I guess he's got a bit dignity that way. Being ignorant and being corrupt are two different things.

Kerry, I think he'd be better for America, but dang it, this guy hasn't done anything to deserve being president other than being in a race against Bush as "the lesser of two evils"...I don't think he should be rewarded with a term.

And this whole electoral college thing is really starting to tick me off...if the majority of Americans vote for someone, they should win PERIOD...a vote in North Dakota should have the same weight and impact as a vote in Florida or Ohio.

The good news is...we only have 4 more years of Bush worst case scenario...I hope we get some great candidates next time around...maybe Colin Powell for example...someone with integrity.

As for a third party...also being a Canadian citizen, I have a unique perspective on that...No freakin' way..you get too much vote splitting, meaning a country can be governed by a President with 31% vote or lower...that is dangerous. Also, because the choices are more abundant, parties cater to their hardcore fundamental supporters for votes rather than reach out to the undecided and common person. At least with a 2 party system there's effort to win the moderate voter.

Maybe ideally we'd have a playoff type system similar to Australia, but then we'd have to open a whole can of worms on that...so I guess we're probably stuck with 2 parties. I think the first and largest problem with democracy is the fact that organize parties can always exploit flaws or weaknesses in the system. I'm told that in Australia, the voters vote strategically against candidates, resulting in unkown, 3rd and 4th ranked candidates winning office...I guess that's not good either.

Could be worse, at least we CAN vote.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

To pay for healthcare for everyone, or to not give a damn about people that can't afford to go to the doctor?

I wonder how many Americans would think this way if they ever required healthcare in Canada - the great socialized healthcare paradise - where 3-month waits for MRIs are commonplace. If I had to choose, I'd take the American system any day over the Canadian system, as it is now consitituted.

[Troy]

I wonder how many Americans would think this way if they ever required healthcare in Canada - the great socialized healthcare paradise - where 3-month waits for MRIs are commonplace. If I had to choose, I'd take the American system any day over the Canadian system, as it is now consitituted.

That's great if you can afford the MRI. You can get one today at the mall . . . for about $500. To a vast majority of Americans holding multiple jobs, there's just no way they can afford it. Unless they saved for 3 months . . .

[Ex Lion Tamer]

That's great if you can afford the MRI. You can get one today at the mall . . . for about $500. To a vast majority of Americans holding multiple jobs, there's just no way they can afford it.

I'm not sure I follow. Can they not afford insurance? Why? How much does health insurance cost? You're self-employed Troy, I'm sure that you have taken care of your heathcare needs. Should you be paying for those who are irresponsible enough not to look after theirs?

I'm not American, so maybe this is an over-simplification, but my impression is if you're truly in need (ie. on welfare or unemployed), healthcare is provided at no cost. If you're employed, but your employer does not provide group insurance coverage, it's up to you to arrange for it yourself. This seems reasonable to me, you just have to budget for it; housing, food, clothing, health insurance. I bet a good portion of those people who you say can't afford an MRI, or the insurance to pay for it, pay for cable TV, watch their big-screens, and spend their money on things far less important than health insurance.

I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

No system is perfect, I guess I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

[Troy]

I'm not sure I follow. Can they not afford insurance? Why? How much does health insurance cost? You're self-employed Troy, I'm sure that you have taken care of your heathcare needs. Should you be paying for those who are irresponsible enough not to look after theirs?

I'm not American, so maybe this is an over-simplification, but my impression is if you're truly in need (ie. on welfare or unemployed), healthcare is provided at no cost. If you're employed, but your employer does not provide group insurance coverage, it's up to you to arrange for it yourself. This seems reasonable to me, you just have to budget for it; housing, food, clothing, health insurance. I bet a good portion of those people who you say can't afford an MRI, or the insurance to pay for it, pay for cable TV, watch their big-screens, and spend their money on things far less important than health insurance.

I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

No system is perfect, I guess I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

I'm on my wife's company insurance plan. We pay 50% for her, 100% for me. Hundreds every month. Coverage is limited at best. I pay every time I go to the doctor. I have to pay for all my prescriptions. We have no dental plan at all. They take credit cards. I'd have to be REALLY sick for Kaiser to give me an MRI. As a preventative measure? Never happen.

The healthcare provided to indigents for free isn't what I'm talking about. Aside from the fact that the care is horrible (seen it first hand) and wouldn't come close to a standard most people would find acceptable, it's about healthcare for the wage slave families that can't get a leg up on anything. There are more poor here than you think. The division grows every day because the guys at the top give themselves tax breaks on everything and put the burden on the shrinking middleclass.

It's not a question of people being too irresponsible to pay their way. Times are tough. Lots of people make 20K a year. They can't afford a car. They can't afford to eat out. Ever. How can you expect them to pay insurance on anything?


It's a question of medicine costing WAY too much, driven up by wastefull expenditures in the last 30 days of life and incredible R&D budgets.

It's a question of employers not willing to pay these extremely high med insurance costs for their employees. "We have to drop medical and dental cuz we can't afford it, even if you pay half".

I come from the school of thought that employers are supposed to take care of their people. Unfortunately, companies today treat employees like the computers. "Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones". This taxation on incomes over 200k (meaning business) to pay for medical insurance for the working class would FORCE business to pay for taking care of the people that they should be taking care of ANYWAY.

[JDaniel]

I come from the school of thought that employers are supposed to take care of their people. Unfortunately, companies today treat employees like the computers. "Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones". This taxation on incomes over 200k (meaning business) to pay for medical insurance for the working class would FORCE business to pay for taking care of the people that they should be taking care of ANYWAY.

Almost everyone has a choice.

Nobody forces anyone to go to work for an employer that doesn't "take care of their people". Your statement "companies today treat employees like the computers. Throw 'em away in 3 years and get new ones." is only a generalization. Some companies do this without a doubt. But many do not. My point is that the person chooses to go to work for such employers. There are plenty of employers who do offer good benefits, including health/dental insurance, to qualified employees. That person should take the initiative to actively seek employers who offer the benefits they are seeking. Even in down economies, companies hire. Maybe not your specific co., or not in the town you live in, but what about the company in the town 20 miles down the road etc... In my 20 or so years of being a working adult, I've never worked for a company that doesn't "take care of their people". Whenever I've gone on a job interview, I've asked just as many or questions as the person doing the hiring. I'm interviewing them too, and doing my research first.

Same as to where I choose to live. I get sick of hearing people complain about their school system. Then take some initiative and move. No way would I send my kids to lousy schools, or schools that I didn't believe were safe. I researched the heck out of where to buy a house before our last move. No way would I choose to move to a community with lousy schools.

But hey, that's just my philosophy. I choose not to work for a lousy employer, and I choose not to live where the schools are sub-par.

JD

[kexodusc]

First, I can't say for sure, but I'm almost positive that I pay more, probably a lot more, for my inferior health care through taxes, then you do for yours through insurance premiums.
Just the fact that MRIs are so easily accessible in the U.S. should tell you something. Guaranteed, that an MRI in Canada probably costs the tax payer triple the $500.00 that it costs in your country.

I have my doubts you've ever been to a US hospital, and I'm worried you believe too much of the current Canadian political BS about the sad state of canadian healthcare, and you think all US hospitals are like what you seen on ER.

I've sent more than 1/2 my life in 3 states, Michigan, Georgia, and North Dakota...there's no way in hell that the Canadian system is inferior...I'd say their about equal, both needing some serious fixing. I spent 11 hours in Atlanta waiting in an ER room to be treated for food poisoning...and it would have cost me $1200 if my insurance plan didn't pick up 80%.

Technology and quality wise, they're about even, but cost wise, the Canadian system has far less overhead and is far cheaper to run...not surprising since the insurance companies and drug companies don't have as much of a stranglehold on the system...

Second, you STILL believe that there's a significant difference in tax rates between the two countries...WRONG...the systems are different, but don't even kid yourself...I just moved to Canada to accept a payraise, I'm in a higher tax bracket here, but when it's all set and done, the difference MIGHT be 1 or 2% per year...factor in the cheaper cost of living and the whole cheap healthcare thing and I'm far better off financially in Canada...

SOME provinces are a bit harder on businesses, but my province (New Brunswick) has the lowest corporate tax rate in the country, and would be more than competitive back home in the US.

As far as the "unelected Supreme Court deciding social issues"...would you support a system that allows the wealthy upper classes to elect prejudiced judges to decide the fate of your country? The Canadian Supreme court doesn't make law..it interprets them..and interprets the fundamental freedoms in the Charter above all else...what's wrong with that?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I have my doubts you've ever been to a US hospital, and I'm worried you believe too much of the current Canadian political BS about the sad state of canadian healthcare, and you think all US hospitals are like what you seen on ER.

You're almost right. The only time I've spent in a hospital was bringing my Dad to the emergency room at Bellvue in NYC. No wait in the Emergency room (it was a possible heart attack, so that would have probably been the case in Canada as well), and the care was in his words exceptional. My only other evidence is anecdotal, and second hand, my Dad again, was in a car accident in Florida in the early '80s. He was quite badly burned, the care was, he felt first rate and better than he thinks he would have received in Canada...(to his dieing day he feels that he would have died from equivalent injries had they been sufferred in Canada.) He was air ambulanced from the sight of the accident (Pompano Beach) to Gainseville. he had three skin grafts in a 1 week period. When he was transferred back to Montreal, scheduled skin grafts were cancelled on 2 seperate occassions because of labour unrest in the hospital at the time. A fairly typical occurrence even today. He also liked to tell about the indigent man in the bed next to him, who was receibving as good or better care than he was, though he had no way to pay.

I spent 11 hours in Atlanta waiting in an ER room to be treated for food poisoning...and it would have cost me $1200 if my insurance plan didn't pick up 80%.

There isn't a system in the world that can prevent long emergency room waits for those who don't "need immediate care". Impossible to get away from a triage system where some will have to wait. As for the cost, at least you know what that visit would have cost, maybe we would think twice in Canada if we saw what the cost was to the taxpayer for hospital visits, maybe it would keep people from showing at emergency rooms when they have a cold...a not uncommon occurrence.

Technology and quality wise, they're about even, but cost wise, the Canadian system has far less overhead and is far cheaper to run...not surprising since the insurance companies and drug companies don't have as much of a stranglehold on the system....

The latest studies I've heard quoted is that Canada has the highest per capita health care cost in the western world...about twice the cost of the American system.

Second, you STILL believe that there's a significant difference in tax rates between the two countries...WRONG...the systems are different, but don't even kid yourself...I just moved to Canada to accept a payraise, I'm in a higher tax bracket here, but when it's all set and done, the difference MIGHT be 1 or 2% per year...factor in the cheaper cost of living and the whole cheap healthcare thing and I'm far better off financially in Canada....

I'm surprised to hear that, but I won't argue about it, though I will ask if you're factoring in the "hidden" taxes and not so hidden taxes...ie Federal and provincial sales taxes? Generally higher property tax? Outrageously high gas prices (because of taxes)? Deductibility of mortgage interest in the U.S? Etc, etc. Tax freedom day in Canada was sometime in late June, I believe, this year.

As far as the "unelected Supreme Court deciding social issues"...would you support a system that allows the wealthy upper classes to elect prejudiced judges to decide the fate of your country? The Canadian Supreme court doesn't make law..it interprets them..and interprets the fundamental freedoms in the Charter above all else...what's wrong with that?

.

Well, don't get me started on the Charter, what good is a Charter that can be overriden at anytime by any Provincial Government, by the "Notwithstanding Clause"? Why do you say "the wealthy upper classes" are electing the judges...isn't it one man one vote, or are the wealthy only allowed to vote for judges? As for the respective Supreme Courts, I am not in a position to argue which one is better, but I do think that the Supreme Court the way it is constituted right now in Canada is more often then not an arm of the Liberal Government to make (interpret?) laws that they don't have the guts to take a firm poisition on, (abortion, gay marriage). My argument though is that it is in fact better to have the people decide on issues like gay marriage, then to leave it in the hands of a few elite.

We think in this country that we are so morally superior to Americans...aren't we forward thinking with our laws on gun control (a fiasco) and gay marriage? I submit that if Canadians were ever permitted a vote on social issues, like gay marriage we would find that we are much closer to our American neighbors in basic ideology than we let on. But that will never happen, because our government knows whats best for us.