CA NA DA CA NA DA
You don't need Healthcare when you're dead
@TechnoLogic, Same applies with the military
@Can yew knot, one keeps other people from killing you. I can care for myself just fine
@TechnoLogic, and one keeps one from people dying in general. Priorities
@Captain Penis, too bad it'll take you 6 months just to get in to see a doctor.
@AN AMERICAN, b-but my freehealth care
@AN AMERICAN, As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, versus 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, versus 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment.
America isn't much better in terms of wait. But I'd argue we are worse because those wait times can spike if you don't have the money to pay for an expensive specialist and such.
Canada = 6 months
US= 4/5 plus $$$$$$$
Pick your poison.
@TechnoLogic, so if youre stabbed by a criminal, you can take care of yourself?
@TechnoLogic, it's easier to defend you home than to 'stop' random accidents and diseases.
@TechnoLogic, I can take care of myself, I'll just make that random drunk guy on the rode NOT hit me while I'm walking. Easy.
@Star Wars Qoutes , two questions. #1 where are those statistics from?
And #2 what's the control?
@AN AMERICAN, 1. Reread the first sentence
2. I didn't do the study just read it
@Star Wars Qoutes , so a study about American healthcare BASED in Canada? Seems legit.
@Star Wars Qoutes , isn't much better? 43% of Canadians waited 4+ weeks as opposed to only 10% of Americans...
That's a big difference, and one that could be deadly depending on the specialist.
@talmet, not really. A specialist is like concussion specialist, or a Orthopedic doctor. None of which are lethal. If it was lethal you would go to an ER. The US probably has 2x more specialist than Canada so.
@AN AMERICAN, what does Canada's medical staff have to do with American politics? It was a survey Americans filled out. So blame Americans for being honest.
@AN AMERICAN, you can check the study lol instead of passively dismissing it like a jedi.
@Star Wars Qoutes , umm...you need to learn more about medicine.....
Here's a short list of specialists according to the AMA:
-Oncologists (that's cancer btw)
-Hematologists (that's blood disorders)
-Hepatologists (that's the liver)
heart disease, cancer, liver diseases, blood disorders, neurological issues, and childbirth....those all seem like things which should be treated quickly.
Hey! If you disagree, I have a great idea! If your doctor ever says "you might have cancer, you need to go see a specialist."
Here's what you should do...do nothing for a month, just wait and do nothing. I'm sure you're right. Waiting for a month or two won't affect your chances of being successfully treated at all....
You need to learn how to think critically, and have some knowledge before making up crap.
@Star Wars Qoutes , oh, and America has way more than 2x the specialists...do you know why???
It's because they get paid well here. The best doctors in the world come here. America is where the best hospitals/treatment centers for every disease is, from cancer to immune disorders, to infectious diseases. That's why the worlds wealthy come here to get treated when they get sick.
Firstly: what I said still wasn't wrong.
Second: every example you gave are of doctors in a hospital/ER (so still not wrong), so the statistics you referenced doesn't apply (which you would know if you read the study)
Third: yes I got cancer, guess where I'm going to get chemo? The hospital. Not a separate office for a specialist. Say like a concussion specialist. Or a infectious disease specialist. Who have separate offices, not in the hospital, for you know non lethal problems. (Still not wrong)
Fourth: Yes. They get paid more. So treatment cost more. Like I said in my original comment. Shorter wait time, way more expensive. (Not sure what I'm making up? I'm the only one that has evidence lol)
Lastly: did you have to practice making an ass of yourself? Or is that just on of your specialties? (Get it haha)
@Star Wars Qoutes , nothing. But you're pulling facts from one source and strictly sticking to that. So I'm ACTIVELY (get it? Clever huh?) dismissing based on your pretense that the CANADIAN council of medicines' survey is accurate enough to form your statements. While I'm not arguing the number of Canadians surveyed. I am bringing the survey itself into question. We could scour the web and always find counter statistics anyways.
@AN AMERICAN, you can't just bring the survey into question because it's Canadian. Its a health survey. They dont get extra funds or more patients. And as talmet pointed out, its puts canada in a worse light than the US. You have zero grounds to dismiss it other then it being Canadian. Not that the company has a habit of fixing surveys or that they are funded by big brand $$$. Nope just Canada.
Plus its a survey. Cant really fix questionnaire anwsers. I mean you could, but it wouldnt be worth the $$$$.
but if you can find a survey bring it to the table. Until then you are passively dismissing it on the pretense that it disagrees with your point.
@AN AMERICAN, The Commonwealth Fund survey ranked Canada 10/11 in terms of first world health care. US is 11th. I'm not saying Canada's healthcare is perfect. Or even good. No one is. But search an article anywhere outside of the US and they all say the same thing. Even a portion of US articles say it sucks.
@AN AMERICAN, a nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23 percent who said so in the U.S. For emergency physician visits, 23 percent of Canadians and 30 percent of Americans said they could get in to see the doctor the same day, but 23 percent of Americans and 36 percent of Canadians waited more than six days. Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of Americans.
Compiled by Katherine K. Shea, Alyssa L. Holmgren,
Robin Osborn, and Cathy Schoen
From 6 different sources.
@Star Wars Qoutes , not sure why I have to do all the research, get all the evidence, paste it all, and analyze it in the comments. Yet the responses I get are "learn to think critically and have some knowledge" and "get cancer and do nothing for a month". Gotta love the internet. Where knowledge goes to die.
@TechnoLogic, yeah I feel like you wouldn't be able to perform open heart surgery on yourself
@Star Wars Qoutes , im not dismissing it on the grounds of "its Canadian" im dismissing it because it's biased. Also that's only one source still, you listed the 4 people who wrote the article. Also surveys are not a viable source of facts since anyone can take it. I wasn't trying to "blast" you or anything. Just trying to bring things into question rather than just believing stuff you found browsing online while trying to argue ONE side of an argument. My very first comment (the 6 months joke) was only a joke. You just decided to take it to the polls.
@Star Wars Qoutes , also don't those numbers directly contradict what you said? Those numbers state that the US has a more reasonable wait list.
@AN AMERICAN, if so then Im slight confused as to what point you're trying to make and might have just made this mess even more confusing. In which case I apologize. Im starting to think the point got lost in all this.
@AN AMERICAN, I never said America had a longer wait time. I said it's a month or two shorter but costs you and arm and a leg.
I know it was a joke. I was just pointing out how it's incorrect. And there are hundreds of studies from all over the world that say the same thing. That's all I was saying. And it's not one source, it's 7. And i wasn't trying to blast you either.
@AN AMERICAN, it's a completely different article. That took evidence and complied it from six different sources. So now I have seven sources not one. Unless all seven are biased.
Never said the US was longer. Said it was mildly shorter but cost an arm and a leg.
And I'm not trying to put you on blast, I just don't find incorrect jokes funny. It's like when people say Strom troopers can't aim. They slaughtered the rebels boarding the ship, wrecked em on hoth, and wasted them on/above endor. I understand the joke, just don't find it funny.
@Star Wars Qoutes , not all private insurance cost an arm and a leg though. And my joke wasn't incorrect. Canada does have a longer wait list. Especially for transplants. I just over exaggerated for effect. Which everyone else (for the most part) found entertaining. That's what this app is for after all.
@AN AMERICAN, transplants have nothing to dz o with health care. America has a long wait too. Go watch house of cards for example (I know it's not real just easy example). And you know why they are longer? Everyone that needs a transplant can get on the list. They don't have to pay a ridiculous amount.
And I understand you exaggerated. So I commented what the actual wait times were, and provides seven different sources. You made an exaggeration, I gave facts. Not sure what your point is. Unless you are saying you didn't exaggerate and your claim is fact. In which case I'd like to see those studies.
@Star Wars Qoutes , transplants are covered by insurance are they not? Therefore they absolutely do have something to do with healthcare. That was entirely devoid of merit. Also you still have yet to provide those studies. Simply telling me about them doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Also all those are surveys not a real indicator of either countries true times (both Canada or Columbia(female personification of the U.S.) ). In order to use them we would need to know demographics surveyed, number of people surveyed, nationality of all those people, and something concrete that they were surveyed on because people lie obviously. And if it's like you stated earlier; that it was polled from several sources. Then that further dilutes the data. You can't just average 6 surveys together. It's completely benign. We are slipping further down a rabbit hole now my friend.
@AN AMERICAN, no we aren't. One is a survey. The first one. The other six are studies. And no it doesn't because in both countries your placed on a list till the organ is available. The times are only different becuase Canada has more people on the list, not because it's free. So not devoid of merit at all. I just understand how transplant list work.
And I gave you the name of the study. Go look it up. I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you actually find something wrong with ONE study bring it up. You are making baseless assumptions about something you haven't even looked at.
@AN AMERICAN, so once again. Let me point out your evidence. Baseless accusations of one survey being baised. Completely ignored the other six separate articles. Didn't even take a quick Google search at any of the above info. And I'm digging deeper into a rabbit hole. Lol please. Provide one counter article that disproves mine.
@Star Wars Qoutes , biased information from a biased survey. And you haven't provided ONE piece of counter evidence DESPITE your so called studies. You've only quoted the survey. Further more that's not how a debate works. You provide some location for your "facts". I don't need links. Even if you gave me a google page that'd be enough that way I can read it and put an end to this. Otherwise I'm just left to assume you dug these out of a magazine you read while waiting in a doctors office.
@AN AMERICAN, reread my comments. The name of all the studies and surveys are in there. Google it yourself. If you can't read simple comments I think this conversation is over.
@Star Wars Qoutes , either you can't articulate what you're trying to argue. Or what you were trying to argue has been lost by now. The point is. My joke of waiting 6 months isn't as "false" as you've claimed. Especially since you've provided evidence proving wait time in the US are shorter. And don't bother pointing out "four weeks isn't = 6 months" because it says "four weeks or more" and doesn't specify. Which makes what you said earlier even more ambiguous despite its arbitrary percentage base that lacks context.
@Star Wars Qoutes , the commonwealth fund survey, a "nonpartisan research foundation", and my personal favorite "the health council of Canada". That's 3 out of your claimed 7. And two are surveys. Regardless; this isn't going anywhere and I think we can both agree we've wasted enough time on it. So I'm done. I wish you a good evening sir, and hope our next comment meet up is a less debated one.
@AN AMERICAN, it's not going anywhere because you dismiss seven different articles of evidence and your rebuttals are all analytical. If this was a debate I would be absolutely crushing you.
I didn't have a point to argue. As I've stated before (to which you ignored), you posted an exaggerated joke. I posted the actual statistical evidence on recorded wait times. That was it. Never said US was longer. Never said Canada was better. All I said was your joke was exaggerated and here are the facts. I don't know why you became a douche and started arguing with me and getting all defensive. We said the same shjt. I just used facts.
But yes good evening.
@Star Wars Qoutes , what you said was wrong....but you can't deal with that, so you resort to making up long wall of text posts with incoherent rambling.
-yes, many doctors work in a hospital (my general practice doctor's office is in a hospital). What's your point? You still need an appointment to see them....you can't just walk in to a cardiologist and demand to see the doctor right that instant. Sure, they'll treat an emergency...but they aren't going to do any preventative or long treatments in an ER. They'll just get you ambulatory and then give you a referral to a specialist.
- you have cancer? Did you wait a month or so before seeing your oncologist?? Probably not...oh, you just go to "the hospital"...do you have an oncologist? You might want to look into getting one....
@talmet, lol everyone else seemed to understand it. I'm done talking to you m8. You are disrespect and arrogant. Good evening.
@Star Wars Qoutes , (cont)
- you made up your "list of specialists"...which also showed you know almost nothing about the medical profession....and you made that even more clear by claiming that all specialists have their offices outside of a hospital...
Do you even know what a specialist is? It doesn't mean "not employed at a hospital"....
Here, do a google search for "what is a medical specialty", or "do medical specialists work in hospitals?"
Psst..."surgeon" is classified as a medical speciality by the AMA, the BMA, FMA, CSMF, and IMA...probably all the others to, but I don't know every language.
Anyway, that means that EVERY surgeon is technically a specialist. Which means Canadians wait 4+ weeks to see a surgeon (hope you don't mind the ER cast they put on, or the open wound the ER put a bandage on....)
@Star Wars Qoutes , they understood that you have no idea what you're talking about....I.e. AN AMERICAN....nobody else was here discussing this, so idk who you think "everyone else" is...
But whatever dude, keep living in your fantasy land.
@TechnoLogic, um, actually, healthcare also pays for funeral costs just like normal life insurance does.
Don't make a Canadian angry
You wouldn't like them when they're angry
@MrWonka, they did win the war against America
@How is the Whether, EVIDENCE #1
@MrWonka, yeah, they all go Trevor Phillips if you make them angry
@How is the Whether, they also weren't a country at the time so they didn't do much of anything
@How is the Whether, don't tell anyone, but we're all secretly like Wolverine. When we get mad, we sprout blades shaped like hockey sticks and some of us are capable of spitting acidic maple syrup up to fifty metres away.
We're friendly until threatened.
@How is the Whether, I'm not going to blow my lid like the last time someone said Canada beat the US, but I will yet again point out that this is inaccurate.
@How is the Whether, When?
@I Are Lebo, do you swiftly apologize BEFORE or AFTER you attack though?
@AN AMERICAN, we apologize to their corpses.
@DustMonkey, that's like saying "the Americans had no part in the French and Indian war since they were still part of the British Empire". Colonies are there own entity. With their own culture, people, and military. Canada's milita did a lot of damage in the war of 1812. It's kind of fvcked to discredit them. People from Ontario have a very different view on it than you do.
But hey, does anyone really care?
@Star Wars Qoutes , except nobody won the war of 1812. Canada wasn't annexed (win for Canada) and the U.K. Stopped the impressment of US ships (US win). My comment wasn't about who fought, but it's dumb to say "x person won" when it isn't that simple.
@DustMonkey, also depends on how you look at it. If you look at it from the napoleon theatre, the UK won since they beat France and ended the war in America. If you look at as its own theatre then Canada kicked America's ass. Lol its just about perspective. But yeah I agree with you. Was one cluster fvck of a war.
@Star Wars Qoutes , yeah, while America, Britain, and Canada can each claim they won it is important to remember the true losers. The Native Americans. They joined the fight hoping to get their land back, but got screwed in the end
@DustMonkey, I mean, I don't think America can say they won. They had 3 failed invasions and the capital burnt down haha but yeah the natives definitely got the worse end of the stick. Actually they didn't even get a stick.
@Star Wars Qoutes , I think when you look at all sides of the given issue, 9 out of 10 wars don't have a winner.
Let me put it this way: it is commonly accepted that WW1 was won by the Allies and lost by the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians. However, the American economy tanked shortly afterwards, German resentment directly led to the formation of the Nazi party, which subsequently led to the Holocaust and WW2.
"War does not determine who is right. Only who is left."
@I Are Lebo, you are my favorite person.
@I Are Lebo, well next to athena and padme. But right up in there.
We get the americans to fight, then send them to canada.
This is way too true. When people don't want to spend the money for some programs like universal healthcare or education the will help Americans, I always point them to our absurd military spending, money wasted in Iraq, and bailing out billionaires because they were wreckless. If they like the free market so much maybe they should have dealt with its consequences
@Lord Commander Snow, so you're saying....we shouldn't have gone to Iraq? Just let them kill thousands unchecked? It's worth the money
@Lord Commander Snow, Yeah, we should totally have free healthcare. It's not like people die on the waitlist in countries that have it, because there's no quality in health insurance, due to the fact that there's no competition. If we just brought back all the 300 billion we spent in military in the Middle East, we totally would be able to afford it! Even though... *sigh* 300 billion isn't enough to pay for universal healthcare! W-well let's just tax the rich! B-but then that contradicts one of the biggest laws in economics... You can't multiply wealth by dividing it. *sigh* And here I thought """free""" sh!t dude lmao wad easy...
@Lord Commander Snow, You know who else has """free""" sh!t dude lmao? Greece. Need I say more? They had lots of """free""" stuff, and they totally have no debt. They are a happy happy country. Let's just give stuff out, like a good little socialist b!tch. Yeah baby, take that free stuff! MMM. YEAH.
@Lord Commander Snow, Welcome to Canada, ayy! The idiocy will give you a brain tumor, you'll schedule to have a CT, have to wait 9 months, but die on the 8th month!
@4Chan Ambassador , you know else has ""free"" shjt dude lmao? Germany one of the most powerful economies with some of the happiest and safest people in the world. Lmao that's crazy. Who'd have thought if you try to go way over your resources like Greece you go into debt. Luckily the US and Germany are vastly more wealthy than Greece. It's almost as if I understand that paying for ""free"" stuff requires higher taxation and revenue building and am totally okay with that lmao but I'm actually just a stupid kid who thinks stuff just appears because I want it too dude
@4Chan Ambassador , also welcome to America where we have spent enough on military to outpace all of our scores of allies and our 4 enemies combined but meanwhile have embarrassingly poor education and healthcare, absurd amount of wealth inequality while we've waited for it trickle down for 60 years, but at least we have the highest rate of people killed/injured by guns in the first world
@Lord Commander Snow, AHAHAHAHA! GERMANY = SAFE.
@Lord Commander Snow, Hey look guys, it's a liberal speaking typical liberal drivel. When will the masses learn that the leftist ideal is the source of woe they constantly whine about
@4Chan Ambassador , hey look guys, it's a typical conservative speaking typical conservative drivel. When will they learn the right-wing ideal is the source of the economic woes faced by the country?
My rhetoric may be typical of liberals but I've heard yours just as much from the other side
@Lord Commander Snow, There should be little to no federal investments in education, it's unconstitutional. #TRUTH
@4Chan Ambassador , Well we can definitely tell you're from 4chan after your anti-liberal rant
@ExtremelyIndecisive, No, I just named myself 4Chan ambassador for sh!ts and lulz
@Lord Commander Snow, "Let me take the exact thing you said, switch it around, and act smug because I know I'll get support from my fellow sheep. Then I'll act like you speak the same rhetoric"
As my buddy Corycogo stated, education is down the drain because the federal government controls it via common core. If each and every state or district controlled education, then there would be competition. When there's competition, each district/state will strive to make their education systems better and use each other to figure out what does and doesn't work. This goes for healthcare too, but due to the massive amount of taxes, economic failure, and Obongocare, the companies have failed to preform correctly. Momma Merkel was proven to be covering up and lying about Germany and it's well being right now, much of Europe has done the same. It takes months and months of waiting on waiting lists to get a mediocre product. The beauty of healthcare being bought is the fact that you can have option
@4Chan Ambassador , -in your choice for healthcare for something that better suits you. People have actually died on these waiting lists, and how bad it is has been stated via many personal accounts, but it's covered up. Europe is going socialist, and it's not working out very well.
You see, what destroys the liberal logic is fact. That's what they call 'drivel'. Us republicans are cold hearted, they love using people's feelings to their advantage, and saying that about the true middle and working class. Now Trump comes around and uses that very thing AGAINST the liberals, and now they are panicking. It's been 8 years buddy boy. How are things in the world looking right now? Hopeful and beautiful? I don't think so, and it's been because of one thing; a never-ending rein of democrat after democrat, socialist after socialist, saying the same stuff. Look at cities like Baltimore and Detroit, how they've crumbled under the leftist ideology... Now apply that to the whole country.
@Lord Commander Snow, Lord Commader Cuck, begone with you. Go shill somewhere else.
@Lord Commander Snow, that's because America has a majority of the worlds firearms. So of course the rates are up. That's like saying you should shut down a freeway because there are too many deaths by car accident on it. If you put all the worlds knives in a single country then the death rate by knife would be higher in said country.
@Lord Commander Snow, we don't have the highest rate of people killed/injured by guns....check your sources. The U.S. Isn't even in the top ten of most gun assaults per capital.
@talmet, auto-correct: per capita, not per-capital
@talmet, that's why he said first world. I know you can't copy but that is a link to a website where a guy goes gun violence per capita to every country and the US beats like 140 of 196. Most of which are 2nd to 3rd world countries.
@Star Wars Qoutes , we beat 140 out of 196?? So...we're #26...not number 1.
According to Bloomberg (which is a left wing news group).
-Norway is the highest 1st world country.
-Macedonia has the highest frequency of incidents.
If you look at only mass gun attacks, where 15+ people died.
-the US ranks below the UK and Germany
-Germany is 1.96x as high as the US
-the UK is 2.46x as high
According to University of Sydney School of Public Health. The US deaths per capita (100,00) via guns is 10.53. UKs is 0.23. UK has extremely strict gun laws. Law enforcement don't even have guns. And you think they have 2.5x more gun deaths than the US.
See the problem is you get statistics from newspapers instead of from people educated ans qualified in the field.
@talmet, I'm not even arguing that they are first. But they are probably 3-4th in the first world.
@Star Wars Qoutes , did you read what I wrote? Nope...just like a liberal...doesn't posses reading comprehension, let alone critical thinking skills.
Here, I'll spell this out for you.
Looking ONLY at MASS gun attacks per capita (defined as 15 or more people killed).
Did that make sense to you? It means that you make a list of every gun incident where at least 15 people were killed, and then divide by the population...can you handle division?...It's like breaking things up into groups...
There were between 2009 and 2015:
-4 attacks in America
-2 in Germany
-2 in the UK (and two in France).
Now, you take those numbers and divide by the population to remove the effect of just having a larger population.
That gives an accurate picture of how often those large scale attacks occur.
Does that make sense? Do I need to explain to you how to divide? Or maybe how to count?
Actually, can you even read these big words? You probably can't, and I'm wasting my time...
@Star Wars Qoutes , who said you were arguing that the US is first?!?!?! No one.
Lord Commander Snow said that the US was first, and I replied saying that he was wrong. You then came in and said I was wrong....even though now, you are agreeing with me that the US does not have the most gun violence in the first world....so, yay! We agree, Lord Commander Snow was wrong.
@talmet, Sorry talmet but explain to me how in 6 years, 1 country had the amount of attacks as 2 others and you think that the other countries have more attacks?
Sure, per capita those numbers seem like Germany, France and the U.K. might have "more" but on an average mass shooting per year per country, the USA loses every time. And let's take into account your gun laws while we're at it. You can buy a GSG 1911 semi-auto rim fire pistol for $419.99CAD (I'm Canadian so I have CAD prices) at Cabela's. That same handgun in the UK will probably cost 10 times that. And in Australia they cost the same as a new car. The probability of a shooting is way down. You need someone pretty motivated to pull those shootings off, possibly military or ex-military or you have connections to the black market somehow. In the States, everyone and their dog has a gun. I bet your house has several. The chances of a shooting are significantly higher. Don't give me some bs about per capita rates..
@TheOneWhoArrestedYou, ... if you don't want to use per capita rates, then you are going to be skewed by higher population...if you don't understand why that's bad, then you have no idea how statistics work, and don't possess critical thinking skills either...
@TheOneWhoArrestedYou, do you think he worked that hard on being an ass or do you think he just woke up like Beyonce?
@talmet, A.) That's your definition. There is no legal agreed upon definition of a mass shooting. Some say four and up not including the shooter. You say 15 including the shooter.
B.) Secondly this thread is about gun violence. Not sure what mass shootings statistics have to do with this.
C.) "We don't have the highest rate of people killed/injured by guns.... check your sources." Sound familiar? So please explain where mass shootings come in.
D.) I don't know why the fvck you think you can talk to people like that, but if you continue I suggest ifunny.
@Star Wars Qoutes , I'm just tired of liberals who don't posses reading comprehension or critical thinking skills whining about crap.
@talmet, lol cool. Ignore the points. Pls Uninstall and go to ifunny
@Star Wars Qoutes ,
A) it isn't my definition, that was the definition done by the people who did the study. They looked at all gun violence, they looked at all gun related deaths, at all mass shootings with 4+ deaths, and all mass shootings with 15+ deaths...
B) right...there is no relation between people being killed by guns, and gun violence....
C) where do mass shootings come in? They are just added information. I gave the country that had the most incidents, and which country had the highest frequency. And then added in which countries had higher mass shootings....just added information.
D) I'm not here to coddle you. And I'm not going to accept your incompetence, or your attempt to misconstrue what I said.
Welcome to public life. Sometimes, you're going to get called out on your sh!t. Either learn to deal with it, stop trying to pull crap, or go be a hermit.
@talmet, a.) Like I said. There isn't a set definition so.
B.) "Looking only at mass gun attacks per capita". You're argument was solely mass shootings. That's probably like 10% of shootings.
C.) It wasn't added, it was your only information
D.) I don't want you to coddle me. Basic human decency would be nice.
Lol get off your high horse kid.
@Star Wars Qoutes , oh look, you still can't read what people write, and make false claims about what they said.
-there isn't a set definition...so what? Does that mean the shootings didn't happen? That the people are alive, and weren't killed?
-what are you talking about...I gave the country with the most gun attacks (Norway). I gave the country with the most frequent attacks (Macedonia).
And as an added piece of information, I gave some information about mass shootings.
-You want people to coddle you. You can't handle actually reading things, so you make up crap about what they said. You're the epitome of a 18 year old liberal. Grow up.
-Basic human decency...it's called tough love kid. You've got to grow up sometime.
@talmet, lol I don't know you. Tough love isn't arrogance and you flexing on the Internet. Grow up. Later m8
don't need a large military when the quality is so high.
I like the way Canada thinks, USA is an idiot
Wars based on lies or free health care? Not a tough choice.
High taxes. No free school lunch program. Immigrant families can only get one work visa.
9 Months for CT scan!
Canada doesn't have free healthcare. They have a 40% tax rate that pays for that healthcare.
@Tumbleweed, yup, the right term is Universal healthcare
America could share its military power, and Canada could share its health care.
This is a very butthurt American post. I'm Canadian and I like being Canadian and our healthcare system, you can be American and like your system. No need to defend either side.
Waits for Americans to defend themselves