And that is the problem - or difference - between the US and Canada.  We cannot MAKE the media do anything they do not want.  They are the ONLY priivate enterprise that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and as such the courts have made sure that no one can "make" them do anything.  It is up to them to perform their job.  We can hope they do it well, but there is not a damn thing we can do if they don't.

As for competition, if the government allows it, the government entity always loses and goes belly up.  Witness the USPS versus FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.  if government does not like it, then it kills the competition.

hehehe.  Leauki, you are one of the smartest people I have read.  But do not feel less so because you do not get it.  The truth is very few do, and least of all the ones that voted for it.

The only truth that has been spoken by the democrats on this bill was on March 23, 2010 at 11:15am.  When they said it was now a law.

It's the peoples responsibility to educate themselves and question whether the news is truth or opinion. Of course people these days refuse to be responsible for anything and want everyone else to do it for them.

Would the constitution really rule out forcing the media to tell the truth about something?

After all, advertising apples is speech to yet if someone sells poisened apples and advertises them as "healthy apples", we'd call it fraud. Why is it not fraud if the media tell us a lie? They are selling news. The news should be true and real. Otherwise, I would think, it's fraud because the product is not what they promised it was.

They are still subject to the same laws we all are, but as everyone knows, trutn and poltiics is an oxymoron.  A spending cut means that you do not increase spending by as much as you did the previous year.  That is a lie in normal speak, but the truth in political speak.

There are occassions where the media is forced to print (or make) a retraction.  However, on the front page the Headlines blare "Alar to kill millions", but 2 weeks later, on page A-39, a small story in the lower left hand corner reads "Alar safe in moderation - kills bugs only".

The damage has been done.  But they did say they were sorry (in their own convuled way - and BTW - the above is what actually happened and the Washington State Apple growers could do nothing).

What if you have a contagious disease?

Your insurance still pays for your care, not everyone else's that may contract it.

The point, though, is that receiving care sooner prevents the disease spreading from the person who has it into the wider community. There is a public interest in them being treated as quickly and effectively as possible. Somebody choosing to "opt out" of a system that prevents them from spreading contagion to others is not merely choosing to take their own risks at their own cost; they are imposing risks and costs on others.

Life sucks, then you die.  People 'opt out' in lots of ways, most of them having nothing to do with medical insurance.  You'll never have the hermetically sealed utopia.  And if you could, at what cost?  Not just in dollars.

It's a bit of leap from saying that someone with whooping cough should be treated as quickly as possible to demanding a "hermetically sealed utopia". A perfect solution to all tragedy of the commons problems is likely to be overly expensive, but not making any attempt to solve any of them is going to be pretty inefficient too. To me it seems the question is not, "always solve vs never solve", it's, "empirically, which mix delivers the best results?"

Medically speaking, most communicable diseases are in the infectious stage before symptoms appear, so receiving care sooner does not really do anything for the spread.  I understand your point, but do not agree that any kind of universal health anything is going to mitigate contracting measles or chicken pox.

Another point to consider is what you are going to do with those that "opt out".  The only solution the government has proposed is criminal prosecution and internment.  The reality of the issue is that there are going to be some that simply refuse.  And they will be arrested, fined and in some cases inprisoned.  So in essence, the government has just made living a crime.

No law can force 100% compliance (that is why we have prisons).  Nor will this one.

I wish to know how went the H1N1 vaccine distribution in the USA (or at least, the states that you lived in). Was it efficient? Did all people that wanted a vaccine got one? Who did the distribution? Did you had to pay?

I agree - that's the question that should have been debated all along.  The notion that we require a nationalized health care system in order to adequately deal with contagious infectious diseases is ludicrous IMO.

CF - Cluster flop!  Big time.  By the time they got the vaccines to be distributed, the danger (scare mongering) had passed and not many actually ran to get it (there was a lot of small panic in the beginning when it was obvious that the vaccine just was not there).

So hard to say if everyone who wanted it got it.  I know that a very small percentage got it in time to do any good.  Fortunately like most other scares, this one was way over hyped.

(Many places had it free, but then they did not have it long.  Most places had it for a nomimal fee - $7).

I see. Well, over here in Quebec, the government administrated the distribution all around, and while there had been some problems initially, they eventually developped an efficient system. I think that within 2 weeks of making the vaccine available, everybody that wanted to get vaccinated got vaccinated. In.. november, I think..

Something good to be said about government-run programs

Edit: Got vaccinated freely. Forgot to mention that.