You said, “Oh sure, regulate the health industries, that's fine…but answer me this:”
Ok. You agreed that you are willing to try regulation first. That's a start.

And I'm not a “typical conservative with which you may be used to dealing”. I even said that if the strict regulation doesn't work, then go ahead with single payer. How many conservatives have you ever heard say that?

The conservatives are correct in a few things. You are correct on a few things. I only wish for our government to try regulation first. Then try a new approach. Just like with the sweat-shops in the early 20th century. The government stepped-in and fixed the problem with massive regluation. They could have taken over the industry, but they regulated it instead.

This isn't me trying to out-debate you. This is me trying to get something done for the good of the country, and my own wallet. I already pay way too much in taxes, and I don't want to pay any more. I'm tapped.

2. “Rush?” What “rush?” Progressives have been trying to get this done since Teddy Rooseveld's day. If that's a “rush”, sloths are Kentucky Derby contenders. And I'll tell you what makes me suspicious: People who use the phrase “If you truly cared for…” In my experience, people who say that are typically selfish types hoping to guilt others into going along with them. “I really care for others, so I guess I have to agree with you. I'm so sorry I offended all those poor people I didn't really care for until you enlightened me *sob, sob, sob, boo-hoo* &c.”

No, “If you truly cared for…” doesn't move me by a micron.

You are absolutely refusing to at least TRY regulation of those industries first. You absolutely must have socialized medicine NOW, no matter what the cost and debt to the nation.

That's what makes people like me suspicious. Anytime a rush is called for, someone makes billions. If you truly cared for those that do not have health insurance, you'd at least try regulation, before you raised their taxes 10%.

First of all, why the “tone”. Geesh!

I might ask you the same. “Oh, how terrible! People in Canada have to wait sometimes because of socialized medicine! Wah, wah, wah! We don't want their system!” And then you get defensive when people call you on your… inaccuracies.

Let me guess. They all have hangnails?

Yes, or other conditions that won't move them to the front of the line fast enough to suit them. They come to the US because they have the money to pay for the treatment they don't feel like waiting in line for. And Americans who can't afford to get adequate treatment in the US travel out of the US to find better deals. India, Thailand and Turkey are popular destinations for American medical tourists, and South Korea wants in on the action, too. (There's an information booth for medical tourists at Incheon International Airport; I saw it the last time I came home from vacation.) Before the violence got so bad, many Americans used to go to Mexico for dental care because it was so much cheaper there, and my Canadian friends tell me that quite a few Americans used to go to Canada on forged health cards until the Canadian Government found out and tightened up the ID requirements.

But like I said (and you chose to ignore), we have excellent care here.

“Excellent care” means exactly nothing to people who can't get it. The US system is both “excellent” and immoral.

We have to regulate it to bring the costs down. Insurance, health, drugs, and lawyers all drive the cost up.

Canada has all those things, too. Why isn't their care as expensive as ours. What regulation did they put in place to keep the costs down while treating more people? It's on the tip of my mind…

But since the beloved Congress is in the pockets of those industries, we shouldn't expect change.

And we don't want that icky “socialized medicine”, anyway. Yeah, the insurance lobby is powerful and too much of Congress is in its pocket, but slandering the Canadian medical system doesn't help anybody but the US insurance lobbyists.

Secondly, how can you describe all of the Canadians that come to the US in border states?
Let me guess. They all have hangnails?
And yet no one ever jets away to Canada for that delicate surgery that only the best in the world could provide. Happens all the time in America.

But like I said (and you chose to ignore), we have excellent care here. We have to regulate it to bring the costs down. Insurance, health, drugs, and lawyers all drive the cost up. But since the beloved Congress is in the pockets of those industries, we shouldn't expect change.

Guess what? Under single payer and public option, those industries will continue to make BILLIONS. That's why it's ok for single payer, and we'll never see true reform.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/fu…

Except wait time.

So, you want me to address that one? OK. In Canada, to put it roughly, heart attacks go to the front of the line, hangnails go to the back, and everybody else lines up somewhere in between. Sucks if you're a Canadian with a hangnail; great if you're a Canadian having a heart attack. They triage their patients differently than we in the US do. In the US, money moves you to the front of the line and lack of money moves you to the back. (Except in the Emergency Rooms, but these are often clogged up with poor people who can't get treatment any other way.)

I daresay that the longer waiting times in Canada are part of the price they pay for having better overall health than US citizens do.

(Quick aside. My Canadian friend's father had a heart attack. He saw a specialist that night and was on the table having open heart surgery the next morning. We should all have such 'long' wait times. My own father had to wait at about a week for the same surgery. If my dad was wealthy instead of just middle-class, he could have gone to the head of the line, too.)

I did not say that our healthcare system didnn't need fixed. It has many many problems that could be addressed through tight regulation of the insurance, healthcare, pharmaceutical industries, as well as tort reform. However, as I'm sure you're aware, Congress doesn't want to go that route (either party) because their pockets are lined through those industries.

I noticed you didn't address the long wait resource.
That's established.

Canada continues to have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world, a trend that has held since the 1990s, according to a new study.

And while the Canadian infant mortality rate is 5.4 per 1000 live births, the US infant mortality rate is 6.6 per 1000 live births according to this site. Here are a couple more tables. The numbers are different, but both agree that Canada has a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

So… What are you trying to prove there? According to the article you, yourself cited:

Canada ranked 10th in overall health indicators, according to the study, which was based on data from 2006. The U.S. came in last.

Do you want us to think you don't read your own sources? Done.

Long Waits:
http://healthcare.ncpa.org/commentaries/canadia…

These are Canadian sources about Canadian mortality rates.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=20438…

Here's another;

Dr Joseph et al concluded that Canada's low rate of infant mortality can be attributed “substantially” to government health and social services programs designed in the 1950s and 1960s — such as the 1967 implementation of universal medical insurance

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/01/pau…

And the sources should shut-up LionAslan for at least a second or two.

There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Read about the other Canadian health care myths here:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

http://www.montrealgazette.com/
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/men/solut…
This Google search of the Montreal Gazette shows no evidence of lotteries for care.

No, pal. 80% believe healthcare needs overhauled – not, as you imply, want socialized medicine.
80% want healthcare legislation. If you were to put out a poll asking if people wanted strict regulation of healthcare, pharmaceuticals, insurance corps, and lawsuit abuse – OR – public option social medicine; I wonder which our countrymen would choose?

Scare tactics are not owned by Dems or Reps. Both use them. It's well documented.

What Canadian health care is really like: 1. My Health Card
What Canadian health care is really like: 2. Sword of Damocles
What Canadian health care is really like: 3. Heart surgery in a public system

The agenda, pal, is 80% of the People's agenda. Obama knows how to do math to get re-elected.

And the right having an issue herding with fear? Plllleeaaassseeee…lol…

Ever hear of Dick Cheney?