Will conservatives ever retake the White House?

[Argus]

The Republicans need to stop and look around them and see what's happened to their party. It's no longer the part of sound fiscal management and smaller government. It's the party of ignorant bible thumpers, race baiters and opportunists. America faces significant challenges which remain unaddressed while the Republican Party focuses all its energy on abortion, prayer in schools and making sure every child has his own M-16.

No one has exemplified the Republican Party's fall from intellectual and moral strength more than its current house leader Tom Delay. Delay, self-righteously thumping his bible, led the charge against the right to die of Terri Schiavo. He used and abused his position to push legislation through congress demanding repeated judicial reviews, then threatened the judiciary when they ruled against him. He called Sschiavo's husband a barbarian and worse, but then it emerged that the schmuck turned off his own father's breathing machine. What a hypocrite!

Delay is one of those "new" conservatives, the type who makes mouth noises against big government but loves spending the taxpayers money, especially to help himself. Wall Street Journal editorial writers said: "Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits."

All of which goes on top of the numerous ethics investigations into his behaviour and misbehaviour. And more ... Delay loves sweatshops

And this creature is the Republican House leader.

And then there's Bush, the Republican President. Bush was known as a fornicating semi-alcoholic in college (allegations of coke sniffing aside). He is remembered as a strong supporter of the war in Vietnam, except that daddy jumped him over long lines to get into the Texas national guard do he'd be safe. He used to wander around college in cowboy boots with a flight jacket, looking cool, impressing the girls, and talking about how America was gonna kill them commies. He's also remembered for saying that poor people were poor because they were lazy. Jesus, what a hypocrite. Like his great energy and drive earned him his wealth. So hearing this shallow rich boy thumping his bible and condemning everything from pre-marital sex to abortion to drug abuse to medical use of fetal tissue is a bit hard to take. As are his enormous budget deficits. Real conservatives like tax cuts, but not at the expense of borrowed money.

Is this what the Republican Party has come to? Led by the likes of Bush and Delay, with Robertson the mad hatter in the wings controlling 1/3 of convention votes? Aren't there any conservatives left in the United States?

[Toro]

I am not a (social) conservative, but let's think about this for a minute. 2 of the last 3 Republican Presidents have been self-described conservatives - Reagan and Bush. Both were re-elected. Only one Democrat has won more than 50% of the vote in 40 years - Carter. Only one President in the last 40 years could be considered liberal - Carter. That one President lost re-election. The only Democrat to be re-elected President in the last 50 years was a centrist from the South - Clinton. The Democrats have not elected someone from outside the South since 1960. The GOP controls both Houses and has done so for longer than at any time since Reconstruction. The moderates holding office in the GOP are slowly being hunted down and replaced within the GOP by more conservative people (unfortunately). Conservatives hold most positions of power within the legislative branch in the Republican Party. Conservatives hold most positions of power within the operations of the Republican Party. The best shot for the GOP in 2008 can best be described as a moderate conservative - John McCain - and who will probably win if he can get through a very conservative GOP base in the primaries, especially if its against Hillary. And to top it all off, 40% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative versus 20% liberal. I would love to see the moderates in the GOP rise, as that is with whom I most closely identify in American politics. But that's not what's been happening the past decade plus.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it true Argus.

[Argus]

I am not a (social) conservative, but let's think about this for a minute.  2 of the last 3 Republican Presidents have been self-described conservatives - Reagan and Bush.  Both were re-elected.  Only one Democrat has won more than 50% of the vote in 40 years - Carter.  Only one President in the last 40 years could be considered liberal - Carter.  That one President lost re-election.  The only Democrat to be re-elected President in the last 50 years was a centrist from the South - Clinton.  The Democrats have not elected someone from outside the South since 1960.  The GOP controls both Houses and has done so for longer than at any time since Reconstruction.  The moderates holding office in the GOP are slowly being hunted down and replaced within the GOP by more conservative people (unfortunately).  Conservatives hold most positions of power within the legislative branch in the Republican Party.  Conservatives hold most positions of power within the operations of the Republican Party.  The best shot for the GOP in 2008 can best be described as a moderate conservative - John McCain - and who will probably win if he can get through a very conservative GOP base in the primaries, especially if its against Hillary. And to top it all off, 40% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative versus 20% liberal.  I would love to see the moderates in the GOP rise, as that is with whom I most closely identify in American politics.  But that's not what's been happening the past decade plus.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it true Argus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, I think you're reading things wrong. Who won the election last two times around? The Republican? Nope. The folksy guy. Who won the previous two elections? The Democrat? Nope. The folksy guy. Bush senior beat who? Oh right, Mr Eybrows, Dukakis. Bush junior beat who? Two wooden faced stuffed shirts who could put sheep to sleep. Ronald Reagan, Republican - or folksy guy? Who did he beat? Mr. Charisma, Walter Mondale (duh!), and Carter, who had spent a year in his rose garden snivelling about hostages.

So is this really a victory of hard-line conservatives over liberals or a victory of folksy guys over bland, wooden boring guys?

I would also suggest that the House races are greatly affected by each party's presidential candidate. And that the Democrats have let themselves be trapped on non-important issues like abortion and gun control when they should be going afte the real issues, like public health care and doing something about that great mass of useless mouths called the underclass (like educating and teaching them job skills for God's sake so they aren't on welfare for generations!) Unfortunately, we haven't seen any great electioneering geniuses in the Democratic party of late.

BTW, I don't consider Bush to be any kind of conservative. As for his father - he could have been great if he had stood on his principals. Unfortunately, he tossed them down the crapper to get the support of the religious right.

[Montgomery Burns]

Bush Jr has been a disappointment in his spending; his so-called "compassionate conservatism".

Why did he give millions to the "arts community" which is mostly a bunch of drug-addled Berkeleyites?

However he is far more preferable than his weak father, Bush Sr, ever was.

Bush Sr hardly excited the base but Bush Jr does.

Had Bush Sr been a good leader, the US would not have had to suffer through 8 years of the dope-smoking Clinton; highest tax increase in history and the embarrassment of a President shoving cigars up an intern's wazoo - and the massmurdering Saddam would have been overthrown.

Reagan never appeared in the White House unless he was wearing a tie; Clinton walked around the White House in his underwear. What an embarrassment he was.

And Toro, John "Rino" McCain will never be the GOP candidate for 2008.

Never. Trust me on this.

If there was never a Ross Perot, the Democrats would have never won the popular vote since 1976.

Is the Democrat Party doomed?

Until they rid themselves of the LLL, yes they are doomed.

[Montgomery Burns]

Argus:

Unfortunately, he tossed them down the crapper to get the support of the religious right.

I have noticed your repeated red-hot super-nova hatred of religious people.

Why is that?

60% of Americans attend church at least once a month.

Why does that make you seethe with rage?

Does following a moral guide anger you that much or what?

[Toro]

Roughly half of all Americans go to church at least twice a month. In my Southern, Democratic city, I'd peg it at 75-80%.

[Toro]

And that the Democrats have let themselves be trapped on non-important issues like abortion and gun control when they should be going afte the real issues, like public health care and doing something about that great mass of useless mouths called the underclass (like educating and teaching them job skills for God's sake so they aren't on welfare for generations!)

I made a comment earlier about how Canadians think they understand American politics but they really don't.

Here's axioms about American politics that most Canadians do not understand.

"Taxes are bad."

and

"I don't trust the government."

Americans do not like their taxes raised. Americans love their taxes cut. Americans don't like expansive government (or at least they say they don't). Americans need a damn good reason to see their taxes go up to pay for increased government spending.

What you might think are important issues aren't necessarily the ones the vast majority of voters think are important. The Left often doesn't understand this, and its why they have been losing ground. Healthcare may an issue, but not the way you think. I live in a very Democratic town, and I know no one - and I mean no one - who wants Canadian-style healthcare - even the Canadians who live here! Americans simply do not trust the government. The thinking is that if the government can't efficiently deliver the mail (which they do a pretty good job of), why do I want them meddling in the single most important thing to me (though ironically, government expenditure accounts for 45% of all healthcare spending)? Canadians do trust the government. Also, you might think the poor should be taken care of, but Americans generally believe that you are on your own (more so). You might disagree with it, but if you think a massive expansion of the government in healthcare and welfare is what people want, you do not understand American politics, full-stop.

Sure, folksiness plays apart, but the simple fact is if the GOP can get all the conservative voters out, and win a majority of the independents, the Republicans will win every single time. That's why the only Democrats who've won the Presidency the last 40 years have been from the conservative South. You may think its a play on other factors, but the simple fact is that the GOP have steadily been increasing their seats in both the House and the Senate since 1994 - with a bump or two along the way - under both Bush AND Clinton.

[Montgomery Burns]

Toro:

Here's axioms about American politics that most Canadians do not understand.

"Taxes are bad."

and

"I don't trust the government."

In Canada, the axioms are:

"High taxes are good"

and

"We trust our elitist nanny govt to hold our hands and guide us dummies through life."

[Guest eureka]

I don't think there is a Canadian who does not understand that about America, Toro. We also understand why it is that Americans are so filled with the conformism they call individualim.

Mussolini once said something like "give me your children for six years and they are mine for life." Americans have that in spades. There children have this dogmas drummed into them from their pre=school days on. They are drenched in the mythology; wrapped in the flag as a swaddling cloth; "brain was hed" into believing that everything about their lives is ordained in a piece of paper called the "Constitution" that is interpreted by their betters and whose interpretation is not to be questioned.

The American people have no clue about taxes except that they are told they don't pay as much as the more socially advanced countries: which, of course, is not true. America is actuallt a highly taxed nation in that its citizens must pay for many services. Those services are necessities of life and the only difference in funding them is that Americans pay directly to the providers while other, more civilized peoples don't. That relieves the American poor of the drain of paying and also condemns them to being without essential services.

For trusting government, I would suggest that Americans trust their governments far more than peoples who have more connexion with government. Why else could they alone of the peoples of the world, accept the lies of their President and administration over Iraq? Why else would they accept the abdication of American responsibility to do its share over climate change? Why would they accept the government's withdrawal from International treaties? Why would they countenance the undermining of the world's hope in the UN?

They do this because their government tells them it is thee right thing and the "American Way." They do not question government because their whole lives have been an exercise in believing and trusting something that cannot be trusted anywhere not only in America.

[Argus]

Roughly half of all Americans go to church at least twice a month.  In my Southern, Democratic city, I'd peg it at 75-80%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that make them members of the religious right? I don't think so. The constituency that the Republicans play to is the Robertson constituency of wackos and religious fundamentalists. They're highly organized, granted, and they pour money and workers into campaigns, but their numbers are not that great. You can't include every churchgoing American. Not by a long shot.

[Argus]

Americans do not like their taxes raised.  Americans love their taxes cut. 

How is that different from anyone else? There is massive waste in the US, massive spending by the federal government on unneeded programs. Has that slowed under Republicans? Hardly. Instead you've got tax cuts on borrowed money. A half trillion dollar deficit! In good economic times!? Excuse me!? This is conservatism?! I want my taxes cut to but not to the extent we run a huge deficit and my children have to pay it off. Do Americans not like their children? Are thay that short sighted and stupid?

What you might think are important issues aren't necessarily the ones the vast majority of voters think are important.  The Left often doesn't understand this, and its why they have been losing ground.  Healthcare may an issue, but not the way you think.  I live in a very Democratic town, and I know no one - and I mean no one - who wants Canadian-style healthcare - even the Canadians who live here!  Americans simply do not trust the government.  The thinking is that if the government can't efficiently deliver the mail (which they do a pretty good job of), why do I want them meddling in the single most important thing to me (though ironically, government expenditure accounts for 45% of all healthcare spending)?

And that is a failure of leadership on both sides of the house. It is a failure by the Republicans in that they've taken advantage of this distrust (becuase they are paid to by the insurance and other health care lobbiests) to run scaremongering campaigns against national health care. And that is harmful to America and Americans. The Democrats have failed in leadership by failing to drive home a few damned obvious aspects of their current system - like it's more wrapped in bureacracy than any government health care program, like its private sector insurance companies and hospitals actually, incredibly, spend more money on bureacracy and red tape than GOVERNMENT health care programs in Canada and Europe, like most Americans are getting less health care choices now than those "socialist" Canadians. I mean, no Canadian doctor has to clear his prescriptions or medical decisions with an insurance company ahead of time. We don't have call centres staffed by nurses and bureacrats telling doctors what type of operation they can perform or what drugs they can issue. And people can choose their own doctor and hospital. I mean, really, the system evolving in the US is becoming more socialist than Canada's in a lot of ways. And it's frighteningly expensive and growing worse. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a fully public system either. I think ours is idiotic. But there are alternatives, which provide better, cheaper health care than in the US. Just look to Europe.

Also, you might think the poor should be taken care of, but Americans generally believe that you are on your own (more so). 

This is again a failure of leadership on both sides of the House, but primarily by Republicans. A conservative looks at those tens of millions of people and sees wasted resources. Those people should be working, producing. You get that done and what a boon that would be to the economy! Not to mention what a fantastical change it would make in American society, in the plummeting of the crime rate, the resurgance of the inner cities. You could close down so many damned prisons, redirect so much wasted money from crime prevention, courts, security... It's criminally stupid to leave millions of workers warehoused on welfare for generations. It would cost a little more in the short term, but in the long term it would be incredibly profitable from the standpoint of economics and taxes alone. But the Republicans are too short sighted to care about that. Cut taxes! Cut taxes! Sure. There's a good idea.

Sure, folksiness plays apart, but the simple fact is if the GOP can get all the conservative voters out, and win a majority of the independents, the Republicans will win every single time. 

How come there's still 72 million registered Democrats and only 55 million registered Republicans? I think folksiness plays more than "a part" it plays a huge part. We've seen basically the same thing up here, but in reverse, where it has been the conservatives who have failed to put forward any charismatic or "folksy" leaders over the past decades. The one time they did, they won big.

[Montgomery Burns]

eureka:

Mussolini once said something like "give me your children for six years and they are mine for life."

So that's why Paul "we lead the world" Martin wants to set up those govt-run unionized national daycare centres...

[Montgomery Burns]

Argus:

This is again a failure of leadership on both sides of the House, but primarily by Republicans. A conservative looks at those tens of millions of people and sees wasted resources. Those people should be working, producing. You get that done and what a boon that would be to the economy! Not to mention what a fantastical change it would make in American society, in the plummeting of the crime rate, the resurgance of the inner cities. You could close down so many damned prisons, redirect so much wasted money from crime prevention, courts, security... It's criminally stupid to leave millions of workers warehoused on welfare for generations. It would cost a little more in the short term, but in the long term it would be incredibly profitable from the standpoint of economics and taxes alone. But the Republicans are too short sighted to care about that. Cut taxes! Cut taxes! Sure. There's a good idea.

Let me try to figure out this convoluted thinking. You say that the Republicans are primarily at fault because not every US citizen is working and producing. Are you now blaming Bush because single person in the US is not working?

Then you mock Bush for cutting taxes.

After inheriting a recession, having 2 corporate scandals happen early in his first term, and then having the economic whammy of 9/11, the unemployment rate had rose to 6.4% in Bush's first term. In Canada, 6.4% is considered a fantastically low unemployment rate, but the Americans are far more demanding and some were calling for Bush's head (even though there is only so much a President can do regarding the economy).

Bush then issued more tax cuts which has resulted in a roaring economy, increased govt revenues, and reduced the deficit.

Are you unaware that the US unemployment rate is now 4.9% - a full 2 points less than Canada's?

[Argus]

This is again a failure of leadership on both sides of the House, but primarily by Republicans. A conservative looks at those tens of millions of people and sees wasted resources. Those people should be working, producing. You get that done and what a boon that would be to the economy! Not to mention what a fantastical change it would make in American society, in the plummeting of the crime rate, the resurgance of the inner cities. You could close down so many damned prisons, redirect so much wasted money from crime prevention, courts, security... It's criminally stupid to leave millions of workers warehoused on welfare for generations. It would cost a little more in the short term, but in the long term it would be incredibly profitable from the standpoint of economics and taxes alone. But the Republicans are too short sighted to care about that. Cut taxes! Cut taxes! Sure. There's a good idea.

Let me try to figure out this convoluted thinking.

Do you even know what that word means? I'm not being particularly complex here. This ain't rocket science. Everyone knows what the inner city slums have done and are doing to America. The mere existence of an "underclass" is a blight on the Untied States. Yet there is no national policy which aims to address this, just scores of under funded band-aid programs.

  You say that the Republicans are primarily at fault because not every US citizen is working and producing.

Never said that either. I said it was a failure of leaderhip that this isn't addressed, and that a so-called conservative party should deplore the vast waste of potential and resources more than any other kind of party.

[Toro]

How is that different from anyone else?

Sorry. You don' get it. In Canada, there is constant pressure to spend more money - on healthcare, on education, etc. In America, there is constant pressure to lower taxes. What do the Liberals do to get more popular? Ally themsleves with the NDP and promise more spending. What do political parties do to get popular in the states? Decrease taxes. If you do not understand that, you do not understand the American political psyche.

And that is a failure of leadership on both sides of the house. It is a failure by the Republicans in that they've taken advantage of this distrust (becuase they are paid to by the insurance and other health care lobbiests) to run scaremongering campaigns against national health care. And that is harmful to America and Americans. The Democrats have failed in leadership by failing to drive home a few damned obvious aspects of their current system - like it's more wrapped in bureacracy than any government health care program, like its private sector insurance companies and hospitals actually, incredibly, spend more money on bureacracy and red tape than GOVERNMENT health care programs in Canada and Europe, like most Americans are getting less health care choices now than those "socialist" Canadians.

Stop. You are projecting what you see as a problem and what you see as the obvious solution. It is not a failure of the political process any more than the inability to private social security pension system is a failure of the political process. This is what people want. People don't want Canadian style healthcare. As shocking as this may sound to Canadians who have been "brainwashed" that Medicare is an essential part of being Canadian, Americans don't want to wait 4 months for an MRI or not have the option to get a second opinion, or wait months to get a hip replaced or die on a guerney waiting in hospital hallway to be treated. The fact that you think American healthcare must be dramatically changed does not mean Americans do.

I mean, no Canadian doctor has to clear his prescriptions or medical decisions with an insurance company ahead of time. We don't have call centres staffed by nurses and bureacrats telling doctors what type of operation they can perform or what drugs they can issue. And people can choose their own doctor and hospital. I mean, really, the system evolving in the US is becoming more socialist than Canada's in a lot of ways. And it's frighteningly expensive and growing worse. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a fully public system either. I think ours is idiotic. But there are alternatives, which provide better, cheaper health care than in the US. Just look to Europe.

I am a Canadian. I have experienced Medicare. I live in the US. I am better off in America than in Canada with my healthcare. You may have a different opinion of what you'd want, that's fine. But its interesting that in our Canadian Club we have here that everyone - everyone - prefers the American system.

You are also mis-informed about America's "socialistic" healthcare. Not only does it supply the best care in the world - not for the poor and that is a weakness - but if I can't get the coverage I want, simple, I change insurance providers. There is bureaucracy and too much waste, no doubt, but there are no equivalents of the Mayo Clinic of the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic in Canada. I never - never - have to wait for anything.

Also, here's a secret they don't tell you in Canada as the culture drills it into your head about how awful America's private medical system is - almost every hospital has a fund that pays for operations for people who cannot afford it. For the people who are brought into emergency and are found they cannot pay, this fund will be used to pay for whatever operation they need. Is the American system perfect? No. The stories you hear about people losing their houses are true. Some people go bankrupt, and I have no problem with the government getting involved - and they do BTW. America has both a medicare program for the elderly and a medicaid program for the poor. The government pays a big chunk of these peoples medical bills.

Also, you might think the poor should be taken care of, but Americans generally believe that you are on your own (more so). 

This is again a failure of leadership on both sides of the House

Again, no its not. American culture is more individualistic. You can make whatever argument you want about how this being inefficient or whatever, but this isn't a failure of the politicians. It is a reflection of the American population.

[Guest eureka]

Do you have any idea how the US unemployment rate is calculated? I would ask whether you have any idea about anything but I don't want you to cry all night.

It is a survey of 60,000 HOUSEHOLDS. It does not pick up those who are not part of a household. It does not pick up any who are part time or temporary. It does not pick up occasional workers or any of the underemployed. It does not pick up many seasonal workers.

The rate ignores several million unemployed. The real rate is probably double the official pretense.

[Toro]

The US is no different than Canada or any other country in the world. All countries use statistical sampling. Do you think StatsCan phones all 32 million people in Canada? Of course not.

Also, it is much easier to get a job in America than Canada (excluding Alberta maybe).

[Guest eureka]

Actually it is different. Many other countries use claoms for benefits and other techniques. Those are not perfect either, but I think they are more reliable.

[Toro]

Actually it is different. Many other countries use claoms for benefits and other techniques. Those are not perfect either, but I think they are more reliable.

What do you base your conclusions on? What is your knowledge of statistics?

[Montgomery Burns]

Argus:

Do you even know what that word means? I'm not being particularly complex here. This ain't rocket science.

Of course I know what the word means. Apparently my attempt at facetiousness went over your head.

And you are the last one that should be lecturing on rocket science. You are the one who seems incapable of graspng the fact that the US has local, state and federal govts, and that this is the order in which crises are dealt with.

Everyone knows what the inner city slums have done and are doing to America.

Enlighten us. And when you are done, please enlighten us on Canada's inner-city slums.

The mere existence of an "underclass" is a blight on the Untied States.

Is it a blight on Canada too? You ever see the conditions that the majority of Native Aboriginals live in?

I guaran-damn-tee you that the underclass in the US is far better off than Canada's poor.

Yet there is no national policy which aims to address this, just scores of under funded band-aid programs.

So your suggestion is what? Higher taxes? Taxing the hardworking wealthy even more? And after telling us your suggestion(s), please email them to Canada's govt since Canada has no national policy for this.

Never said that either.

How is one supposed to take "This is again a failure of leadership on both sides of the House, but primarily by Republicans......But the Republicans are too short sighted to care about that. Cut taxes! Cut taxes! Sure. There's a good idea"?

[Montgomery Burns]

Do you have any idea how the US unemployment rate is calculated? I would ask whether you have any idea about anything but I don't want you to cry all night.

It is a survey of 60,000 HOUSEHOLDS. It does not pick up those who are not part of a household. It does not pick up any who are part time or temporary. It does not pick up occasional workers or any of the underemployed. It does not pick up many seasonal workers.

The rate ignores several million unemployed. The real rate is probably double the official pretense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prove it.

[Guest eureka]

Just use your head for something other than a decaying battering ram, Monty. That ain't rocket science, either.

Toro, that information can be found in US government sites showing the calculations. You will find more expamsive criticisms from those who do not like the real unemployment state in the US.

[moderateamericain]

i would vote for john mccain in a heart beat, i dream of getting back to a conservatism that values budgets and small government. lowered taxes for all. Bush is certainly not fiscally sound. hes a spender thru and thru. Even clinton was a much more moderate liberal when it came to economics, and liberal when it came to social agendas. I dont care what party they come from at this point as long as they help bring reality back into balance. Get the bleeding heart angry liberals out of power and get the bible thumping facist out of power. we need rational men in the us government and right now we have the farthest right or left in power instead of people who can see both sides on an issue.

[Toro]

Toro, that information can be found in US government sites showing the calculations. You will find more expamsive criticisms from those who do not like the real unemployment state in the US.

I know a thing or two about economics and statistics. All statistical methodologies are not perfect. The methodologies of the US government are not materially worse, nor better, than the rest of the industrialized world.

[Argus]

How is that different from anyone else?

Sorry. You don' get it. In Canada, there is constant pressure to spend more money - on healthcare, on education, etc. In America, there is constant pressure to lower taxes.

There are also constant pressures in the US to spend more money, and there are constant pressures in Canada to lower taxes. It's just that the power structure in the US is better at ignoring the former, and the power structure in Canada is better at ignoring the latter.

I mean, no Canadian doctor has to clear his prescriptions or medical decisions with an insurance company ahead of time. We don't have call centres staffed by nurses and bureacrats telling doctors what type of operation they can perform or what drugs they can issue. And people can choose their own doctor and hospital. I mean, really, the system evolving in the US is becoming more socialist than Canada's in a lot of ways. And it's frighteningly expensive and growing worse. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a fully public system either. I think ours is idiotic. But there are alternatives, which provide better, cheaper health care than in the US. Just look to Europe.

I am a Canadian. I have experienced Medicare. I live in the US. I am better off in America than in Canada with my healthcare. You may have a different opinion of what you'd want, that's fine. But its interesting that in our Canadian Club we have here that everyone - everyone - prefers the American system.

You are also mis-informed about America's "socialistic" healthcare. Not only does it supply the best care in the world - not for the poor and that is a weakness - but if I can't get the coverage I want, simple, I change insurance providers.

So long as you have a lot of money and neither you nor anyone in your family has a pre-existing medical condition. Yes, I'll grant you that the US system has few equals as long as you're healthy and wealthy. Where you run into problems is when you're being treated for cancer and the maximum on your coverage runs out, or when you can't get insurance because your child has an expensive medical condition, or you flat out can't afford insurance. Not to mention there are so many tens of millions who are under-insured and barely able to make the insurance rates for that.

The US system generally works better, at least for those with money, not because it's a better system - that concept is laughable - but because the US spends far and away more per capita than any nation on Earth on it. Note that this does not make it the best system. There are systems in Europe which spend far less than the US and produce excellent medical care without waits for everyone, rich and poor. And despite the fact the US spends so much more per capita than Canada this has not led to any statistical improvements I'm aware of over the sick in Canada's system (which itself is an indictment of the US system). You might not have to wait - for anything - but in public hospitals people can commonly experience waits of over 24 hrs for medical care and days for a hospital bed.

The US system is immensely wasteful and is only going to get moreso as the population ages. Insurance costs are skyrocketing, and more and more Americans are having to settle for second and third rate insurance or none at all. Saying you and the well-off expatriot community think everything is just dandy ignores that completely.

I certainly don't like Canada's system, which is why I've long argued for us to move towards a more European model of a mix of public and private health care providers. Not me nor anyone else in this country - sane - wants to immitate the US system.

In a way, the defenders of the imperfect US system and the defenders of the imperfect Canadian system help each other out. By resisting obvious changes both systems retain plenty of horror stories which proponents of the other system can use to scare their constuents into keeping their system. American politicians never look at systems in Europe, for example, where you don't wait long, or at all, for medical care, even though they pay considerably less than the US. And defenders of the Canadian system always point shrilly at the US system and it's numerous and glaring deficiencies, as if that were the only alternative to our present totally state run system.