Sicko

[DavidM]

(Joe, I'm trying to avoid having this thread go off into a different direction, as you can see the topic here is healthcare in other countries. As you can read I am getting contributions from another B.B. that are pretty fair/objective. Please start another thread if you want to discuss Mr. Moore)

Here's Canada,

I live in Canada. The system is not nearly as perfect as described in "Sicko", but yet it's not bad either. We do have waiting list problems, but it depends on which area you live in. A few years ago one of my friends was diagnosed breast cancer and had surgery the following week and chemotherapy and radiation treatment immediately after; it was a hard time but now she's fine. She has not had any problem with the health system. When my grandfather, in his last 4 years, was frequently very ill, he never had to wait to get treatment and he had free home services (a nurse coming twice a week, another person once a week who helped him take his bath), the pharmacy preparing his medicines and delivering them, and when he was not able anymore to stay at home, he got a place in a government nursing home, where he was very well taken care of, until his death. Right now my father's parents (the other grandpa I was talking about was my mom's dad), aged 85 and 90, have the same home services. But some other people do have problems, are waiting, and even seeking health care in foreing countries (US or others) to wait less. Working at the customer service for the health care department, I do know about that.

So it's true we do have some problems, but I still think that a universal public health care system is the best, but it has to be well managed and this is hard to do for governements. Here in Canada it is an important, and widely agreed, social value, yet it is being questioned, especially those years. Here in particular, about 10 years ago, the governement made a big mistake and offered early retirement to millions of doctors and nurses; they did not think they would all take the opportunity but they did. Consequently now we've been lacking doctors and qualified nurses for years, and this will not stop for years to come. It is also true that there is a parallel private system for people who have a lot of money. Recently some law suits made the Supreme Court decide that private insurance companies should be allowed to give basic health coverage (so fare they were just authorized to give complementary coverage - they could cover what the governement dit not pay), but the laws to arrange how it's going to work are yet to be passed.

My personal opinion is, while it's the best system, it has to be looked at and rearranged regularly, to avoid situations like the one we have now. It can work very well, but it has to be handled carefully. A few countries, whose name are not coming to mind right now, have a mix of public and private systems, and it seems to work well. But I definitely think that private health insurance companies should not have the whole field and rule everything.

[DavidM]

Sweden!

I'm not quite qualified to give you a complete or accurate description of the Swedish health care anymore, but I can say that when I grew up, it was great. Unfortunately there are some problems with it today - based on hearsay from my folks back there - that older people get less quality care. It has become a bit of "best service to best person", so if you're young and productive it seems you can get a faster care. My grandma (about 5 years ago) had to go to the ER and was pretty bad (this is according to my mom who took her there) but had to wait for 24 hours to see a doctor. Maybe the incident was just a fluke, but I've heard other stories from other people, to realize that no system is perfect. The other problem with a socialized system like this is that the rich people who supposedly pay the largest part of the tax burden, knows how to avoid the taxes or move to another country.

I know that during the 80's and 90's in Sweden they talked about implementing more private clinics, so people had a choice or maybe it was because the care was too expensive and it wasn't enough tax revenue to cover the costs, but I don't know what happened to that.

In the end I think it's important to see that both systems have good and bad sides, and if we go all out to one or the other, we're setting us up for failure. The only way to do it somewhat fair is to find a system that is in the middle. Moderation is better than extremism. We do need a system in US that can catch people like CelloChick and help them, but without creating a system that eventually will crash financially.


--------------------
Thanks Joe! We started out talking about Moore's message, then it started veering off towards Castro. So I suggested we get people who were from other countries to share their experiences. Pretty much it seems that all systems have their problems however, I have yet to read that the claims about, "long waiting lists" and "substandard care" are really true!

[DavidM]

Massachusetts!

As of yesterday, July 1st, all citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have medical insurance to cover medical expenses. Or so the government of the state would want you to believe.

As of yesterday, anyone NOT covered by some sort of medical insurance will be FINED and PENALIZED by the state, having tax returns garnished and other economic attacks on the working poor and the self-employed.

The state's solution to get people insured is to attack the individual and FORCE everyone to buy insurance, whether there is a plan that fits a person's (or family's) real budget.

If this plan had been in effect when I was laid off, it would have cost me hndreds of dollars a month, money I spent more wisely making sure my credit rating was good and not defaulting on any bills. If I had had to have health insurance for those couple of months, and then the months BEFORE my work's insurance kicked in, I would have missed several due dates for bills, wrecking my credit and my future. JUST SO THE POLITICIANS IN THE STATE CAN BRAG THEY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE....makes me sick.

[DavidM]

Quebec! (Don't tell them they are Canada!)

Some years ago, in Quebec, when my mother had her first hip replacement, she was a subject in a study which compared outcomes of hip and knee replacements in a few hospitals, some Canadian, some American. Yes, she had to wait a few months from being referred to surgery to getting the surgery (would have been a bit longer, but she got a cancellation slot). She got a copy of the study when it was published. There was in interesting conclusion in that study: The patients in the American centres did not have time on a waiting list, but their arthritis was more advanced, on average, when they got their surgery. This was, apparently, because the American patients did not get insurance approval for the surgery until their condition was more severe, or delayed the surgery due to expense. No, I can't find the study online, I think it was published in 1994. But it's coloured how I think about waiting lists, that they don't tell the whole story about delays in treatment. Yes, there are sometimes delays that there shouldn't be, but they really try to triage. Sometimes there just aren't enough resources, and some of the administrative decisions that have been made have been wrongheaded, but there seems to be a general sentiment that everyone should have access to health care.

Sometimes there's money questions in what's covered, but that happens with any kind of insurance, and at least the questions are debated publicly. It's complicated, especially since the underlying science changes all the time.

My experience is relatively good. If I have anything bothering me, I can go to either my GP or an after-hours clinic, and they'll usually be quite nice to me, and sort out my problem. I've had to wait for referrals occasionally, but not for an emergency. When I've been broke, I haven't had to worry about the wasted expense if it's nothing, and the doctors usually ask about drug insurance before prescribing anything expensive (and offer something cheaper and/or see if they have samples if cost is a problem). I've had some crappy doctors, and some that are amazing (one drew me pictures of the structures of the lungs on the examining table paper, and would always give a few fun facts about whatever problem I brought to him...I liked him) I can switch doctors at any time. When friends and family have been seriously ill, the hospitals have sometimes been grim, and the doctors, not always perfect, but they didn't need to really worry about money. When my husband had a nasty infection in his leg last year, he went off to the doctor every couple days for a few weeks, so they could keep track and make sure it was resolving, we didn't even have to think about the cost, and didn't consider skipping appointments to save money. My father had a pile of diagnostic tests all within a week of a crisis last year. Really, most of us just assume that if we really need it, we'll get care, and that that's the way it should be.

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here is a link to a slideshow from a Canadian source.  It discusses both the strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian system.  It also compares the Canadian system to other European systems.  The recent Supreme court ruling forcing the Canadian government to allow private health insurance is also discussed.

Use your arrow buttons to go from slide to slide.

http://www.boardoftrade.com/policy/CanadianHealthcareSystem10jun05.ppt#22

Tom Maddux

[DavidM]

The UK,

I've never been seriously ill myself, but generally I find the NHS (National Health Service) to be OK. I was a bit surprised that when I tried to re-book an appointment the next one wa a few months later, but it wasn't for anything serious so I think it's fair enough.

There are of course problems with our hospitals, and those need to be sorted out. But abolishing a system that is free at the point of care is not the answer.

I do realise private healthcare can be much better...my cousin went to a wonderful private hospital a while back and was seen and treated immeidately. However, if she'd had an ongoing problem there's no way she could've afforded to pay the money regulalry. Few people I know could, if anyone.

I realise it's my culture that has brought about this belief, but I see free healthcare as a basic human right. I, and many others, would be rioting on the street if the NHS was abolished. Life is not a business...the capitalists can go too far. Life is a right.

[DavidM]

  O.K. a pattern seems to be developing, people in countries with socialized medicine have some complaints but for the most part are happy with their care. The complaints are nowhere near the horror stories we are reading from people in the U.S.A. (A lot more people from the U.S. posted on the other board but I couldn't edit out all the language.) 


   I have yet to read about people in other countries losing their homes, going without food, waiting for months and months to qualify because of medical cost. Waking up in the hospital to find out your insurance company is denying your ambulance cost because you forgot to authorize it while you were unconscious! (See Sicko) So the arguments I have heard over and over about "Lawsuits" and "Waiting Lists" simply don't justify the the fact that "The Richest Country in the World" is 37th when it comes to healthcare.

   

[Oscar]

Dave,

A few quotes from one of your posts:

"I had two surgeries THIS year. I had one surgery last year. I had chemotherapy for almost two years. I had cancer surgery that cost $200,000 in 1998. Our insurance paid 80% of the bill. It took us five years to pay off that medical bill. We spent my daughter’s college fund. We spent our entire retirement savings. And I still have medical bills that are not paid for. And as long as I am alive, I will have MORE medical bills. What insurance doesn’t cover is shocking. It really is."

"We make too much money to qualify for assistance, and not enough money to actually pull this off."

"Groceries or medical care? Which do we buy this week? I have fed my daughter POPCORN for dinner because we could not afford food after paying for my medical care. Our house has been in foreclosure so many times because we paid the doctor instead of our mortgage."
 

You asked me, "Why are you always against your own best interests?"

There are two answers to your question:

1. First, I am not at all sure that government provided healthcare is in my best interest.  I have experienced that level of healthcare...adequate but spartan.  In the USAF I experienced the "take these papers and follow the green line to window 6" type of treatment you get in such places. 

I spent three weeks in the hospital at Norton AFB back in 1962 or 63.  I was in a 12 bed ward with guys with all sorts of ailments.  The guy in the next bed walked in with his feet spread three feet apart...he had the mumps.  I have never had the mumps.  They put this guy in the next bed to mine!!! 

2. The other reason is that I believe that dependence on the government is not good for people personally or as a society.  Look at the quotes above.  I sympathize with this woman's problem...but it is obviously partially self inflicted.

She complains that: a. She has had to feed her kid popcorn for dinner. b. Her house has been in foreclosure.  She also says they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

So, sell your house, move into an apartment that does not cost as much and use the money for health care.  Then perhaps her child will not have to eat popcorn!  In other words, take care of yourself until you can't do it any more, then we will help you.

This woman's sense of entitlement disturbs me.  I am supposed to pay for her medical care so she can continue to buy a house!  Why do I owe her this?  Why do you?

In the past, the USA we had a two-level healthcare system that worked quite well.  Those who could afford it got top level healthcare, those who could not got county provided healthcare.  It was slightly better than military level healthcare.  Spartan but adequate.  People we know from these boards have used that healthcare when they were poor students.  I can name three of them.

American leftists admire Europe and wish us to emulate its societies.  Dave, these are sick and dying societies.  They live by borrowing more and more money, mortgaging their grandkids lives so they can have it easy.

Abortion, hedonism,and loss of a sense of purpose for life as a result of their secular beliefs have led to sub-replacement level birthrates.  So they have to let foreigners, who they hate, into their countries so someone can do the work.  (Many of them are Muslims which they are finally realizing is a BIG problem.)  This problem is getting worse, not better. It has been calculated that in 200 years there will be no Italy, or at least no Italians!  Japan has the same problems.

These dying societies are our models for the future??

Here, we have a mild welfare state.  I have no problem with that.  Those that can take care of themselves.  Those that can't we can help. Those that simply won't take care of themselves...they need to experience the logical consequences of their choices.  Before being overwhelmed by illegal immigration our county healthcare systems worked quite well.  They are still in place but heavily strained.

Many complain that this is not "fair".  Life is not fair, never has been, never will be. Not for me, not for you.  I have no argument with the idea that we need to improve our healthcare system.  Lawsuit reform, a better drug approval system, improvements in our insurance programs and more.  But not at the cost of the basic American values of self-reliance, hard work, individualism and freedom.  We did not follow Europe to our present position in the world, and I see no reason to begin now.

Tom Maddux

[DavidM]

1. First, I am not at all sure that government provided healthcare is in my best interest.  I have experienced that level of healthcare...adequate but spartan.  In the USAF I experienced the "take these papers and follow the green line to window 6" type of treatment you get in such places. 

I spent three weeks in the hospital at Norton AFB back in 1962 or 63.  I was in a 12 bed ward with guys with all sorts of ailments.  The guy in the next bed walked in with his feet spread three feet apart...he had the mumps.  I have never had the mumps.  They put this guy in the next bed to mine!!! 

  Yes, as I mentioned before, I don't understand why our military seems to treat its' own in such a demoralizing way, It makes you wonder, Do they want to keep you in a subservient position? Like in the Assembly, we were treated like dirt and then we blamed ourselves, "I guess I just deserve to be treated like this." As "Sicko" and the people who have contributed  to this thread from all over the world have shown their system works much more efficiently.


This woman's sense of entitlement disturbs me.  I am supposed to pay for her medical care so she can continue to buy a house!  Why do I owe her this?  Why do you?

  You bring up a good point!


  Why?  Why should our medical cost eat up our life savings?  While working in the medical field I've seen it all. If a patient request 2 Tylenol they get charged $ 6.50 Other countries arn't doing this to their own citizens! 

   Dave, these are sick and dying societies. It has been calculated that in 200 years there will be no Italy, or at least no Italians!


  You really have to qualify these kinds of statements.


  My question concerning "your best interest"  is directed to the fact that our healthcare system works for the poor and the rich. But as we have read and many people have pointed out over the past thirty years it hurts the middle class. People who make too much to qualify for coverage. These people end up losing everything they have worked for. I can't help but wonder if one day you might find yourself in this position. How will you feel about it then?
 

[Oscar]

Dave,

You have brought up some excellent points.

Yes, as I mentioned before, I don't understand why our military seems to treat its' own in such a demoralizing way, It makes you wonder, Do they want to keep you in a subservient position? Like in the Assembly, we were treated like dirt and then we blamed ourselves, "I guess I just deserve to be treated like this."

The reason I have brought up my experience in the military is that it is analogous to government provided healthcare in general.  The main similarity is that military healthcare is a percentage of the overall military budget, just like any national healthcare system is a percentage of the overall national government of any country.

Healthcare in these systems must compete with all the other departments for their share.  So, political clout is what determines what you get.  In the military the sick folks can't vote, so they get leftovers...UNTIL there is a public scandal that focuses the public's sentiments on the bad situations that exist.

The same thing happened in England a few years ago.  You have to be over about 70 to have any real memory of a free market healthcare system.  So the people have never experienced a higher level of care, so they don't miss it.  Anyhow, things declined for years, until it became a big scandal, then the politicians fell all over themselves promising to allocate more money to healthcare.

The problem is that when you allocate more healthcare you have to either cut some other department's budget.  Roads?  Harbors?  Defense? Health Department?  Police?  Fire?  Water systems? Or....Education?  (Ever hear teachers complain that the gov't doesn't spend enough on education?)

Or, you must raise taxes.  However, when you are already confiscating 50% of what people make, (as they do in Europe), that isn't easy either.  So, they borrow, and borrow, and borrow more.  Our national debt, which is immense, is a far lower percent of our GNP than any major European country.  What this means is that our kids and grandkids will have to pay for all the "free" healthcare.  Imagine what it will mean for theirs.

Folks who never had any kids, or who killed the ones they started before they were born don't seem to care.  I think this attitude is deplorable.

  Why?  Why should our medical cost eat up our life savings? 

First of all, you are attempting to answer a legitimate question by asking another question.  But, I will answer you.  I should spend my savings for what benifits me and my family rather than making you pay for it. 

Now, I have answered your question.  Can you answer mine by building a positive case why you or I should have to pay for another person's lack of foresight?  I am not talking about poverty people, I am talking about folks who "make too much to qualify for medicaid" as the lady you quoted did.  They have money, but they have spent it on things they would rather have.

I will answer the last question on another post.

Tom Maddux

[Oscar]

Dave,

   Dave, these are sick and dying societies. It has been calculated that in 200 years there will be no Italy, or at least no Italians!

  You really have to qualify these kinds of statements.

Every major European country has this problem.  In Russia it is worse than in Italy.  In the 1980's Germany had to make the military service term for draftees longer.  There weren't enough young men reaching draft age to replace the ones that were finishing their terms.

My question concerning "your best interest"  is directed to the fact that our healthcare system works for the poor and the rich. But as we have read and many people have pointed out over the past thirty years it hurts the middle class. People who make too much to qualify for coverage. These people end up losing everything they have worked for. I can't help but wonder if one day you might find yourself in this position. How will you feel about it then?

In 1984 my daughter Glory was being treated for cancer.  I had an old copy of my policy description and it seemed to exclude paying for chemotherapeutic agents.  (Actually they were excluding insulin but the description was not clear.)  They came to me and told me I need to pay about $20,000 over the 18 month course of treatment.  I didn't have 20,000 cents!  I stood there and looked at that doctor and thought, "I'll sell the house." 

What had happened was I was having to choose between two things I valued.  My daughter's welfare and the house.  Glory's life was obviously more important than a house!  It took me under 15 seconds to make up my mind on that.

 Life if full of choices, Dave.  Not that big, but we can never have all we wish we could.  First things must be first.  Why should other people be charged so I can have all the stuff I want?

It turned out that my policy did cover the agents she needed.  But as long as I thought I was going to have to find the money myself, I was determined that she would have what she needed, no matter what it cost.   If we had had nothing, Medicaid would have paid for it.  But I had, at the time, a net worth of probably $300,000. Mainly the house. I was cash poor, but I had one big financial resource. Should I have sent the bill to other folks when I had hundreds of thousands of dollars available? 

So, I know exactly how it feels to face this.   But I still don't think you should have to pay my medical bills.

Tom Maddux

[DavidM]

In 1984 my daughter Glory was being treated for cancer.  I had an old copy of my policy description and it seemed to exclude paying for chemotherapeutic agents.  (Actually they were excluding insulin but the description was not clear.)  They came to me and told me I need to pay about $20,000 over the 18 month course of treatment.  I didn't have 20,000 cents!  I stood there and looked at that doctor and thought, "I'll sell the house." 

What had happened was I was having to choose between two things I valued.  My daughter's welfare and the house.  Glory's life was obviously more important than a house!  It took me under 15 seconds to make up my mind on that.

 Life if full of choices, Dave.  Not that big, but we can never have all we wish we could.  First things must be first.  Why should other people be charged so I can have all the stuff I want?

It turned out that my policy did cover the agents she needed.  But as long as I thought I was going to have to find the money myself, I was determined that she would have what she needed, no matter what it cost.   If we had had nothing, Medicaid would have paid for it.  But I had, at the time, a net worth of probably $300,000. Mainly the house. I was cash poor, but I had one big financial resource. Should I have sent the bill to other folks when I had hundreds of thousands of dollars available? 

So, I know exactly how it feels to face this.   But I still don't think you should have to pay my medical bills.


   That's very commendable!

    Let's say for a moment you had to make that sacrifice. Today you are living in an apartment and while you read the paper you come across an article about the healthcare system in Canada. You find out that a person in your same situation had everything covered in their healthcare plan. They were able to keep their house. The thought wouldn't cross your mind, "Hey, maybe they are on to something up there?"


(This probably should be the subject of another thread.)


  Personally if I lost my house it would take a big chunk out of my self-esteem. Why?

          I am an American! (Will explain later) I know (suspect) when I meet people and the conversation gets around to, 'Where do you live?" I know (suspect) they are sizing me up. If I say, "We rent an apartment in Santa Ana." It is probable they will think, "Oh, boy you sure haven't done much with your 45 years on this earth!"

    Being an American means that "I live in the land of Freedom and Opportunity!"  Being an American means  that I hold to the belief that any penniless immigrant who escapes the prison of his former government and comes to America has "every opportunity" to realize the "American Dream."  This maxim (myth?) is part of our heritage it is woven into the fabric of our nationality! I AM AN AMERICAN!  I CAN EASILY BECOME ANYTHING I WANT TO BE!  LOOK! SEE EVERYWHERE YOU CAN FIND PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO CAME FROM NOTHING! FROM WARREN BUFFET TO  BRITNEY SPEARS! SUCCESS STORIES ARE EVERYWHERE! NOW IF FOR SOME REASON I DON"T ACHIEVE THIS FOREORDAINED GLORY? IF FOR SOME UNEXPLAINABLE ANOMALY I DON"T MAKE IT! WHOSE FAULT IS IT BUT MY OWN? I AM A LOSER!!!!!!!!  I AM A BUM!!!!  O.K. I'll stop. But I think you can see my point. While we have this belief that America is the land of opportunity the truth is very few people ever achieve the "American Dream"  So my point is, if you have worked hard your whole life and your insurance doesn't cover the cost of your illness, I don't think people should have the right to look down on you. You should be treated better than that! The government should say, "Hey this guy has worked hard his whole life. We should in turn help him!" Other countries do it!  Why not the richest country in the world?


     

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here is some info on the European population problem.

 .................................................................  

 
Published: September 3, 2006
 
 
"...The result is birthrates that are the lowest in the world - and the lowest sustained rates in history: 1.2 per woman in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Latvia and Poland, far below the rate of 2.1 needed to maintain population.
 
West European countries are also suffering: Greece, Italy and Spain have had rates of 1.3 and under for a decade.
 
But Eastern Europe is faced with a desperate double whammy: plummeting birthrates combined with emigration to Western Europe for work, made easier by membership in the EU.
 
As countries begin to feel the demographic crunch, Europe's "birth dearth" is becoming a political issue. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany pushed through a package of family-boosting incentives for working women in June, and President Vladimir Putin warned in May that Russia's population decline was critical. Almost all governments are increasing baby bonuses.
 
"If you have a fertility [rate] of 1.2 or 1.3, you need to do something about it - it's really quite a problem," said Tomas Sobotka of the Vienna Institute of Demography.
 
In an attempt to turn the tide, the Czech Parliament voted unanimously this year to double the payment given to women on maternity leave to encourage new births. To maintain the country's work force, the Czech Labor Ministry several years ago set up a program to encourage emigration from Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, although so far with limited results.
 
With the population of the Czech Republic projected to drop by 20 percent over the next 40 years, to 8 million from 10 million, "in this year's election every political party had a platform on family issues," said Professor Jitka Rychtarikova, a demographer at Charles University who has been advising the government.
 
"Europe is at a turning point," said Hans-Peter Kohler, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has warned that some countries could see their populations decline by nearly half in the next 50 years.
 
In Brussels, Vladimir Spidla, the EU's commissioner for employment and social affairs, who coincidentally is Czech, has asked that all new EU policies be evaluated for their effect on demography.
 
"We take this very seriously and are trying to understand more about it in order to reverse the process," said Spidla's spokeswoman, von Schnurbein.
 
In 1990, no European country had a fertility rate less than 1.3; by 2002, there were 15, with six more below 1.4. No European country is maintaining its population through births, and only France - with a rate of 1.8 - has the potential to do so, according to a recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
who has warned that some countries could see their populations decline by nearly half in the next 50 years.
 
In Brussels, Vladimir Spidla, the EU's commissioner for employment and social affairs, who coincidentally is Czech, has asked that all new EU policies be evaluated for their effect on demography.
 
"We take this very seriously and are trying to understand more about it in order to reverse the process," said Spidla's spokeswoman, von Schnurbein.
 
In 1990, no European country had a fertility rate less than 1.3; by 2002, there were 15, with six more below 1.4. No European country is maintaining its population through births, and only France - with a rate of 1.8 - has the potential to do so, according to a recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."

................................................

All of the burgeoning population growth is happening in third world countries, with China and India in the lead.  In the future when overcrowded Asians look at depopulated Europe, what do you think they are likely to do?  

Ever hear of Ghengis Kahn?

Tom Maddux

[DavidM]

I don't understand your point? The decrease in population won't support the system?

So let's not save people from starvation today because they will just starve tomorrow?

Oh well I guess we've just about ezhausted this topic anyway.


 

[Oscar]

I don't understand your point? The decrease in population won't support the system?

So let's not save people from starvation today because they will just starve tomorrow?

Oh well I guess we've just about ezhausted this topic anyway.


 

Dave,

1. In the USA the only way one can starve is through ignorance or indolence.  Right here in Orange County there are a number of places where folks with no money can go and load up with free food.  My church, EV Free, is one of them.  We have a ministry called the Pantry where poor folks can come and pick up dry and canned goods.  We have a clothing ministry as well.  Those who claim that they must choose between medicine and food are either ignorant of the available resources, too lazy to help themselves,  or exagerating.

2. My point in giving the population statistics was that Europe, the great utopian dream in the minds of many "liberals", is a dying society.  Seems to me that a society that is in its death throes is not a very good model to copy. 

We need a tune up in our medical system, not a transplant.

Tom Maddux