Bullsh*t. You've already said that the entire spectrum of medical/biological scientists and technicians should only be allowed to work for the government.I got tons of tools in the toolbox but a hammer n a sickle ain't one.
You are the one who doesn't have a clue what one is. Would you like to know?mentalfloss said:Considering you don't even know what a subsidy is, I don't think you should be giving anyone economic advise.
Leading question
For the record we need to determine what industries benefit from the private sector and which ones are more appropriate for the public sector. I actually agree with a two tier health care system and but science that is primarily motivated by profit is not really science.
So what does the European example tell you?
No idea.
Please clarify.
Then we should just get rid of them and enjoy deficit after deficit.
Considering you don't even know what a subsidy is, I don't think you should be giving anyone economic advise.
The problem with private sector health is that it victimizes those who need it most, not necessarily with intent, but by design.
Crowing about the virtues of freedom from government's influence, is hypocritical, in that those who do it are very often first in line for help when they fall on hard times.
Looks like you're well ahead of the rest of us. Gasoline or farm diesel?Justin or Tommy going to tax all 16 rich people in Canada and we can sit on our asses getting high and spinning wax yo.
Poor managementSo how do you explain the European systems outperforming Canada's?
Poor management