this isnt really sticking its nose where it doesnt belong. this is a clearly malicious behaviour, that lacks two consenting parties, because one has rescinded their consent by breaking off the relationship.
ill be fair to "coautheroed" guys. some i like, some i dont.
NetForce (clancy's coauther series) i didnt care for, because it seemed liek it was obviously written by the other guy, cause the comptuer stuff was just so....bad...and Clancy is really good at the research and realism side of things. so i read half ot two, and dropped both.
Jack Du Brul is an author i like. bit pulpy and predictable, but still entertaining. and he got his start (i thik) doing coauthors with Clive Cussler before couple of his series started off. And his coauthors were decent too (the Oregon Files).
Speaking of Cussler, he's got like 3 coauthored series. the Kurt Austin series...horrible. its Dirk Pitt-lite. more brainless, more sex, less story. the oregon files (two different coauther, Jack Du Brul and eariler...forget the other guy) are pretty good. And the Issac Bell series i enjoy. which is good, cause Cussler's own work has gone downhill fast, especially after he essentially rebooted the character by bringing "Dirk Pitt Jr" and his sister into the scene. meh.
the argument against that is that all law is essentially conflict resolution. solving problems according to a set list of rules that we agree to live by, in order to avoid, prevent, or end conflict. so really, the civl war then becomes a sort of ultimate legal precedent. and the South fired the first shot, btw.
"you cant have slaves" "we can too!" "the laws of freedom should apply to them too, they're people too" "no they arent" "they are!" "well we're gonna take our toys and leave. screw you guys, we're goin home"
And then Fort Sumter fires on an unarmed merchant ship, while the seccession and what to do about it were still being debated, determined, etc. and at that point the gloves came off, both sides said "feck it, we're gonna settle this once and for all". and they did settle it.
you know, this is a side of the immigration/border stuff i really dont know a lot about. i'd be interested in learning more, if you can point me to the relevent laws. thanks.
a country is soveriegn and its right to refuse access to any non-citizen is absolute. this cannot really be argued, and i wont really argue against that concept.
however, this case isn't really about that. this is man who has in the past been allowed to come and speak, indeed he was doing it again. and he happens to be critical of the NSA and its spying, and he has influence (apparently) in his home country, and so called on his governemtn to call the US on their NSA spying of the entire internet and say "wtf, eh?!"
so while the right to deny access is absolute, the reasons behind this particular case being denied at this particular time, when he hasnt been int he past, are very VERY suspect, and ultimately likely intended to silence dissent and criticism. and THAT is something i can and will argue against: the willful exclusion of dissenting voices, when many of those same voices already exist inside our borders, the willful exlcusion of an intelligent man here to speak on that very topic, etc. that isnt right, and is an attempt at damage control, at keeping the dissent within from spreading. that aint right.
i just wish he hadnt put his name on those "co-authored" series, never cared for most of those.
I liked the movies, but really the books had so much more going on. like Red October, they completely leave out the near conflict and nuclear war that almost starts, like the jets attacking or threatening each others fleets, and so on.
but i love most of his books. and his nofiction was pretty fascinating too.
The premise here is a false premise. Congress changes laws all the time. The Office of the President proposes changing laws all the time.
Yes, and they vote. and then they abide by the votes. however they dont dont keep revoting 50 times trying to get the result they want.
When the Executive branch stops refusing to enforce laws they don't agree with: Immigration laws, Marriage law, even this law itself, which the Executive branch has either delayed or ignored when politically convenient for them, then you can advance this argument.
if a law's validity is in question it is completely within the enforcer's power to withhold enforcement in the face of an impending reversal, as happened with DOMA. besides which, there was nothing to stop enforcing there.
and also, he never stopped enforcing immigration, in fact, more people were deported under obama's first 4 years than in the previous 12.
As for funding. Constitutionally it is the job of Congress, specifically the House, to hold the purse strings. It is their job to refuse to fund endeavors which in their opinion the U.S. government should not be paying for. It has been used in the past to refuse to fund wars, programs and ill considered legislation passed by previous Congresses. It is the reason that many of these House members were elected.
Again: they've tried to repeal it 50 times already They've lost each time. And now in denial of their losing side status, they've shutdown the government in a temper tantrum demanding to be given their way.
SO. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT OVER. Not if the Senate and the President want to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. If they want those things to happen they better start talking, because they most certainly do *need* to.
It is over. Voting once or twice to try and change minds is one thing. Voting FIFTS TIMES AND LOSING EACH TIME is something else. The discussion is over. They lost. Obamacare is here to stay. Get over it.
We did not have this debate. When we tried members of Congress, specifically democrats, stopped talking to people, because they were being told in no uncertain terms this was unwanted. We did not have this debate because the law that was passed was not argued in detail in either house of Congress prior to it being voted on.
We did have this debate. We had it for over a year before Obamacare was passed. We've had it each and every time they've tried to repeal it. We've gone over the bill in detail. Word by word, clause by clause.
For some reason Republicans havent stopped having this debate, even though they have lost the debate each and every time, FIFTY TIMES SO FAR . The debate is over.
Only republicans live in a fantasy world where there was "no debate" and the bill is this "giant mystery that no one understands". Those are lies, repeated by republicans over and over. But they are lies.
We HAVE had this debate, and Republicans KEEP LOSING IT. We HAVE discussed the bill, in detail. But apparently Republicans keep forgetting whats those details are.
Republicans are living in denial of reality. You dont have a clue what you're talking about. You're full of crap.
In the last election 33 Democraticic seats were up for grabs, far more than the Republicans. The Democrats not only retained their seats, but won a couple extra. the republicans only barely retained control of the house, and they did it with fewer votes (by redistriciting to marginalize democratic voters, and attempted voter suppression) than the democrats. IE, the republicans lost the popular vote in the election: more people voted democratic than republican.
The fact that one party has a majority in the Senate does not mean they get to set the agenda unilaterally.
Then explain how a minority of the House can dictate the agenda and hold the Congress, indeed the Government, hostage and force a shutdown over an issue they've lost 50 times already? The ONLY REASON the government shutdown is because the bipartisan majority that would have prevented it, is prevented from doing so by the Hastert Rule. the Hastert Rule is allowing a minority of the house, made up of extremists from one party, to dictate the agenda.
The Majority Leader of the Senate has refused to follow these rules. Why? Because he is completely unwilling to compromise. He has also refused to bring most House bills to the floor of the Senate, a power that is his, since every bill brought to the Senate floor must be proposed by Senate leadership. If he thinks he might lose he simply does not allow a vote. This is not democracy.
You just described the House, Beohmer, and the republicans, and dont even see it. The republicans are playing a PR game. They have created a false middle ground, and then dictated that the senate should go to committee, to re-liegistlate something that has already been legislated FIFTY TIMES. They've lost EVERY TIME. You lose a vote once, you try again a couple more after some persuasion, sure.
BUT NOT FIFTY TIMES.
Again: at what point do Republicans ackowledge that the reality of democracy is that you dont always get what you want, and that sometimes you're on the losing (minority) side?
Which party have voted to repeal The ACA 42 seperate times? Republicans. Which has lost each and every one of those votes? Republicans. Which party is using the Hastert Rule to deny a bipartisan majority of votes in the House from ending the shutdown? Republicans. Which party is now holding the country hostage in order to blackmail the country to giving them what they want? Republicans Which party is refusing to acknowledge they live in a democracy where sometimes you dont get your way? Republicans.
You say do the research? I have. Your daily caller article is pure BS.
It's a myth, frequently and easily debunked. No one sneaks into the US from canada to get treatment. Very few come to the US for treatment.
And no one is dying for lack of treatment in Canada. Its very improtant to note just what elective treatment is, and what treatments we're talkijng about specifically. the procedures your article is lying about arent lifesaving, arent emergency. that's what "elective" means! the statistics they always use are for treatmetns for senios citizens like hip replacements, being a popular statistic.
thing is....who pays for old people in this country? Medicaire. And what is Medicaire? A centralized single payer system....just like Canada's... that also happens to be the most efficient and cost effective sector of our health care system.
They pay similar taxes. They earn similar pay. Their healthcare is more effective, more widely available, and cheaper too. Oh, and they have a fairly balanced budget.
In short: Hey thanks for the story from your biased and full of crap article that was spoon fed you and you bought hook line and sinker without having to do all that crazy research stuff. So ya, it is all BS, Canada is a nice country, they aren't trained sheep, and their healthcare IS tons better than ours.
the phrase someone else said was "they've taken us hostage, and to prove theyre serious, they've just killed the first hostage. and now theyre threatening to kill the rest of them".
so thats what, attempt number 512094 by the republicans to refight the same fight they've already lost?
at what point do the republicans admit that in a democracy you sometimes have to accept defeat, accept that the opposition has won, and move on?
what hte republicans are doing is NOT democracy, it is extortion.
they have co-opted the democratic process, using the Hastert Rule to prevent the true majority in the house from having any say, so that a minority of the ruling party can dictate the agenda, creating a flase middle ground, in order to hold the country, its economy, indead hte worlds economy, hostage over a ideological battle that they cannot win and have already lost 50 seperate times.
they have put the gun to all our heads, and are threatening to pull the trigger and blow us all to hell unless they get what they want. they are acting like spoiled children who have no inlking of what living in a democracy entails, who refuse to accept that they can be on the losing side.
they have created their red line, and unlike the other recent one, they refuse to back down even though they will not only destroy themselves, but take everyone else down with them. and if they do this, it is the end of the republican party for the next 50 years or more; no one will touch them with a 10ft, indeed, 1000km pole.
think of it like scope in programming. their relative value/position to the outside world doesnt matter. from within the us system, you can clearly see that one is right and one is left. its stance relative to the outside world is meaningless. and frankly, saying "they arent left they are really right" is a lie anyway.
seriously? they spend less on healthcare than we do per person. significantly. and they get mroe in return for that money than we do. amd they pay comparable taxes to what we do. and they even have a fairly balanced budget.
"avoidong socialism comes out ahead" is hyperbole and meaningless and compeltely unconnected to the facts of the situation.
4) Claiming that hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the US does not prove that a single payer system doesn’t work
When people want to demonize single payer systems, they always wind up going after rationing, and more often than you’d think with hip replacements It’s not true. They don’t deny hip replacements to the elderly. But there’s more. Do you know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? The elderly. Do you know who pays for care for the elderly in the United States? Medicare. Do you know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.
5) Canada’s wait times aren’t due to its being a singe-payer system
PThe wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single payer system. Do you know who pays for care for the elderly in the United States? Medicare. Do you know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.
So our single-payer system manages not to have the wait times issue theirs does. There must be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course. It’s this: [[graph omitted...read article]]
Canada isn’t some dictatorship. They aren’t oppressed. In 1966, the democratically elected government enacted their single-payer health care system (also known as Medicare). Since then, as a country, they have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. They could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative. They chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, we attack.
7) In Canada, they may “ration” by making some people wait for some things, but here in the US we also “ration” – by cost
[[graph omitted..read article...it shows that 33% of Americans avoid care because of costs, while only 15% do in Canada]] About one third of Americans report that they didn’t go to the doctor when sick, didn’t get recommended care when needed, did not fill a prescription, or skipped doses of medications in the last year because of cost.
Slashdot Mirror
this isnt really sticking its nose where it doesnt belong.
this is a clearly malicious behaviour, that lacks two consenting parties, because one has rescinded their consent by breaking off the relationship.
your typical random commentor on a web page has between 0.0001% and 0.0% relevency to science.
trolling != dissidence
denial in the face of overwhelming evidence != dissidence
ignorange of basic science != dissidence
ill be fair to "coautheroed" guys. some i like, some i dont.
NetForce (clancy's coauther series) i didnt care for, because it seemed liek it was obviously written by the other guy, cause the comptuer stuff was just so....bad...and Clancy is really good at the research and realism side of things. so i read half ot two, and dropped both.
Jack Du Brul is an author i like. bit pulpy and predictable, but still entertaining. and he got his start (i thik) doing coauthors with Clive Cussler before couple of his series started off. And his coauthors were decent too (the Oregon Files).
Speaking of Cussler, he's got like 3 coauthored series. the Kurt Austin series...horrible. its Dirk Pitt-lite. more brainless, more sex, less story. the oregon files (two different coauther, Jack Du Brul and eariler ...forget the other guy) are pretty good. And the Issac Bell series i enjoy. which is good, cause Cussler's own work has gone downhill fast, especially after he essentially rebooted the character by bringing "Dirk Pitt Jr" and his sister into the scene. meh.
the argument against that is that all law is essentially conflict resolution.
solving problems according to a set list of rules that we agree to live by, in order to avoid, prevent, or end conflict.
so really, the civl war then becomes a sort of ultimate legal precedent.
and the South fired the first shot, btw.
"you cant have slaves"
"we can too!"
"the laws of freedom should apply to them too, they're people too"
"no they arent"
"they are!"
"well we're gonna take our toys and leave. screw you guys, we're goin home"
And then Fort Sumter fires on an unarmed merchant ship, while the seccession and what to do about it were still being debated, determined, etc.
and at that point the gloves came off, both sides said "feck it, we're gonna settle this once and for all".
and they did settle it.
like the woman labeled a terrorist for spanking her kids on a plane...
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-airline-felonies20-2009jan20,0,5183005.story
you know, this is a side of the immigration/border stuff i really dont know a lot about.
i'd be interested in learning more, if you can point me to the relevent laws.
thanks.
oh shutup.
a country is soveriegn and its right to refuse access to any non-citizen is absolute.
this cannot really be argued, and i wont really argue against that concept.
however, this case isn't really about that.
this is man who has in the past been allowed to come and speak, indeed he was doing it again. and he happens to be critical of the NSA and its spying, and he has influence (apparently) in his home country, and so called on his governemtn to call the US on their NSA spying of the entire internet and say "wtf, eh?!"
so while the right to deny access is absolute, the reasons behind this particular case being denied at this particular time, when he hasnt been int he past, are very VERY suspect, and ultimately likely intended to silence dissent and criticism. and THAT is something i can and will argue against: the willful exclusion of dissenting voices, when many of those same voices already exist inside our borders, the willful exlcusion of an intelligent man here to speak on that very topic, etc. that isnt right, and is an attempt at damage control, at keeping the dissent within from spreading. that aint right.
his are some of my favorite books.
i just wish he hadnt put his name on those "co-authored" series, never cared for most of those.
I liked the movies, but really the books had so much more going on. like Red October, they completely leave out the near conflict and nuclear war that almost starts, like the jets attacking or threatening each others fleets, and so on.
but i love most of his books. and his nofiction was pretty fascinating too.
we actually did use hershey bars. the ones with the 3x5 (?) breakable grid layout.
said no kid ever
The premise here is a false premise. Congress changes laws all the time. The Office of the President proposes changing laws all the time.
Yes, and they vote.
and then they abide by the votes.
however they dont dont keep revoting 50 times trying to get the result they want.
When the Executive branch stops refusing to enforce laws they don't agree with: Immigration laws, Marriage law, even this law itself, which the Executive branch has either delayed or ignored when politically convenient for them, then you can advance this argument.
if a law's validity is in question it is completely within the enforcer's power to withhold enforcement in the face of an impending reversal, as happened with DOMA. besides which, there was nothing to stop enforcing there.
and also, he never stopped enforcing immigration, in fact, more people were deported under obama's first 4 years than in the previous 12.
As for funding. Constitutionally it is the job of Congress, specifically the House, to hold the purse strings. It is their job to refuse to fund endeavors which in their opinion the U.S. government should not be paying for. It has been used in the past to refuse to fund wars, programs and ill considered legislation passed by previous Congresses. It is the reason that many of these House members were elected.
Again: they've tried to repeal it 50 times already
They've lost each time.
And now in denial of their losing side status, they've shutdown the government in a temper tantrum demanding to be given their way.
SO. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT OVER. Not if the Senate and the President want to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. If they want those things to happen they better start talking, because they most certainly do *need* to.
It is over. Voting once or twice to try and change minds is one thing.
Voting FIFTS TIMES AND LOSING EACH TIME is something else.
The discussion is over. They lost. Obamacare is here to stay. Get over it.
We did not have this debate. When we tried members of Congress, specifically democrats, stopped talking to people, because they were being told in no uncertain terms this was unwanted. We did not have this debate because the law that was passed was not argued in detail in either house of Congress prior to it being voted on.
We did have this debate.
We had it for over a year before Obamacare was passed.
We've had it each and every time they've tried to repeal it.
We've gone over the bill in detail. Word by word, clause by clause.
For some reason Republicans havent stopped having this debate, even though they have lost the debate each and every time, FIFTY TIMES SO FAR . The debate is over.
Only republicans live in a fantasy world where there was "no debate" and the bill is this "giant mystery that no one understands". Those are lies, repeated by republicans over and over. But they are lies.
We HAVE had this debate, and Republicans KEEP LOSING IT.
We HAVE discussed the bill, in detail. But apparently Republicans keep forgetting whats those details are.
Republicans are living in denial of reality.
You dont have a clue what you're talking about.
You're full of crap.
and thats why the "hastert rule" has got to go.
none of what you say is true.
there is ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATE to abolish obamacare.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html
http://editors.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/republicans-foil-what-most-u-s-wants-with-gerrymandering.html
In the last election 33 Democraticic seats were up for grabs, far more than the Republicans.
The Democrats not only retained their seats, but won a couple extra.
the republicans only barely retained control of the house, and they did it with fewer votes (by redistriciting to marginalize democratic voters, and attempted voter suppression) than the democrats. IE, the republicans lost the popular vote in the election: more people voted democratic than republican.
The fact that one party has a majority in the Senate does not mean they get to set the agenda unilaterally.
Then explain how a minority of the House can dictate the agenda and hold the Congress, indeed the Government, hostage and force a shutdown over an issue they've lost 50 times already? The ONLY REASON the government shutdown is because the bipartisan majority that would have prevented it, is prevented from doing so by the Hastert Rule. the Hastert Rule is allowing a minority of the house, made up of extremists from one party, to dictate the agenda.
The Majority Leader of the Senate has refused to follow these rules. Why? Because he is completely unwilling to compromise. He has also refused to bring most House bills to the floor of the Senate, a power that is his, since every bill brought to the Senate floor must be proposed by Senate leadership. If he thinks he might lose he simply does not allow a vote. This is not democracy.
You just described the House, Beohmer, and the republicans, and dont even see it.
The republicans are playing a PR game. They have created a false middle ground, and then dictated that the senate should go to committee, to re-liegistlate something that has already been legislated FIFTY TIMES. They've lost EVERY TIME. You lose a vote once, you try again a couple more after some persuasion, sure.
BUT NOT FIFTY TIMES.
Again: at what point do Republicans ackowledge that the reality of democracy is that you dont always get what you want, and that sometimes you're on the losing (minority) side?
Which party have voted to repeal The ACA 42 seperate times? Republicans.
Which has lost each and every one of those votes? Republicans.
Which party is using the Hastert Rule to deny a bipartisan majority of votes in the House from ending the shutdown? Republicans.
Which party is now holding the country hostage in order to blackmail the country to giving them what they want? Republicans
Which party is refusing to acknowledge they live in a democracy where sometimes you dont get your way? Republicans.
You say do the research? I have.
Your daily caller article is pure BS.
It's a myth, frequently and easily debunked.
No one sneaks into the US from canada to get treatment.
Very few come to the US for treatment.
And no one is dying for lack of treatment in Canada. Its very improtant to note just what elective treatment is, and what treatments we're talkijng about specifically.
the procedures your article is lying about arent lifesaving, arent emergency. that's what "elective" means! the statistics they always use are for treatmetns for senios citizens like hip replacements, being a popular statistic.
thing is....who pays for old people in this country? Medicaire.
And what is Medicaire? A centralized single payer system....just like Canada's... that also happens to be the most efficient and cost effective sector of our health care system.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/in-defense-of-canada/
They pay similar taxes.
They earn similar pay.
Their healthcare is more effective, more widely available, and cheaper too.
Oh, and they have a fairly balanced budget.
In short: Hey thanks for the story from your biased and full of crap article that was spoon fed you and you bought hook line and sinker without having to do all that crazy research stuff. So ya, it is all BS, Canada is a nice country, they aren't trained sheep, and their healthcare IS tons better than ours.
the phrase someone else said was "they've taken us hostage, and to prove theyre serious, they've just killed the first hostage. and now theyre threatening to kill the rest of them".
so thats what, attempt number 512094 by the republicans to refight the same fight they've already lost?
at what point do the republicans admit that in a democracy you sometimes have to accept defeat, accept that the opposition has won, and move on?
what hte republicans are doing is NOT democracy, it is extortion.
they have co-opted the democratic process, using the Hastert Rule to prevent the true majority in the house from having any say, so that a minority of the ruling party can dictate the agenda, creating a flase middle ground, in order to hold the country, its economy, indead hte worlds economy, hostage over a ideological battle that they cannot win and have already lost 50 seperate times.
they have put the gun to all our heads, and are threatening to pull the trigger and blow us all to hell unless they get what they want.
they are acting like spoiled children who have no inlking of what living in a democracy entails, who refuse to accept that they can be on the losing side.
they have created their red line, and unlike the other recent one, they refuse to back down even though they will not only destroy themselves, but take everyone else down with them. and if they do this, it is the end of the republican party for the next 50 years or more; no one will touch them with a 10ft, indeed, 1000km pole.
think of it like scope in programming.
their relative value/position to the outside world doesnt matter.
from within the us system, you can clearly see that one is right and one is left. its stance relative to the outside world is meaningless. and frankly, saying "they arent left they are really right" is a lie anyway.
truth is not flamebait
seriously?
they spend less on healthcare than we do per person. significantly.
and they get mroe in return for that money than we do.
amd they pay comparable taxes to what we do.
and they even have a fairly balanced budget.
"avoidong socialism comes out ahead" is hyperbole and meaningless and compeltely unconnected to the facts of the situation.
It's also important to note WHAT elective means: Not a medical emergency. Not "he's gonna die jim unless we do something now". Its "elective".
but I digress. Read this:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/in-defense-of-canada/
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/why-do-they-keep-talking-about-hip-replacements/
4) Claiming that hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the US does not prove that a single payer system doesn’t work
When people want to demonize single payer systems, they always wind up going after rationing, and more often than you’d think with hip replacements
It’s not true. They don’t deny hip replacements to the elderly. But there’s more.
Do you know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? The elderly.
Do you know who pays for care for the elderly in the United States? Medicare.
Do you know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.
5) Canada’s wait times aren’t due to its being a singe-payer system
PThe wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single payer system.
Do you know who pays for care for the elderly in the United States? Medicare.
Do you know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.
So our single-payer system manages not to have the wait times issue theirs does. There must be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course. It’s this: [[graph omitted...read article]]
Canada isn’t some dictatorship. They aren’t oppressed. In 1966, the democratically elected government enacted their single-payer health care system (also known as Medicare). Since then, as a country, they have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. They could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative. They chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, we attack.
7) In Canada, they may “ration” by making some people wait for some things, but here in the US we also “ration” – by cost
[[graph omitted..read article...it shows that 33% of Americans avoid care because of costs, while only 15% do in Canada]]
About one third of Americans report that they didn’t go to the doctor when sick, didn’t get recommended care when needed, did not fill a prescription, or skipped doses of medications in the last year because of cost.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/in-defense-of-canada/
dont quote the heritage foundation, its a pack of liars.
as for wait times.. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/enough-with-the-wait-times-already/
dont quote the heritage foundation.
they are liars.