Two issues with your statements:

1) You allude that there is something wrong with the healthcare we as Canadians receive. This is false, our care is very good. Is it "the best" maybe not, but it is certainly better than most citizens in the US receive (since most are uninsured).

2) There is something wrong with having to wait your turn to get treatment. There are two issues with this:
a) If you and I arrive with the same issue, but I arrive first, it is only fair that I get seen to first, and in most cases our wait times aren't much worse than anyone else's, IIMO that wait times are so short in many US hospitals because the insurance companies prevent people from being approved for treatment. This simply does not happen in Canada, if you need treatment, you get it.
b) in Canada if you arrive and your condition is more sever than mine (ie: I can wait without any harm to myself for you to be treated) the you WILL be seen to first. This is proper.

I also like how you brought up "Cuba" and "North Korea" as the comparisons to our healthcare system, and not any of the many others (who aren't communist) who share our 1 tier system. How sad of you to lower yourself to such scare tactics.

"There's no reason to have such a blocklist to begin with except to engage in censorship."

Your right, sort-of, you seem to imply that censorship is wrong. IMO, it is not wrong to censor. I whole-heartedly believe in blacklists. I just think that for the vast majority of cases (if not all) that blacklisting/censoring should be opt-in and that any blacklist should be publicly available and usable.

Take OpenDNS as an example. I've setup OpenDNS for myself and friends who have young kids to help filter out porn, drugs, violence, etc (as well as phishing, malware, etc). Its not 100% accurate, but it does work most of the time. Its certainly easier and more cost effective than setting up a private ipCop/SmoothWall firewall and adding URL Filtering, updating it, etc... (which incidentally is what I did in the past).

FYI: OpenDNS uses "Domain Tagging" to help identify false positives, and to allow its users (or anyone I believe) to report a site that fits a certain category (or report the false-positive).

As I said, I do believe that all blacklists should be publicly accessible (ala OpenDNS). If someone wants to use the list to find porn sites, that's their prerogative, if they use site to find and view content that is illegal in their country, then well, when they get arrested, its their own damned fault. Publicly accessible black lists serve two main purposes (IMO):
a) people can see just how much porn is on the internet, makes them aware that maybe they should talk to their kids about what and who is out there. You know, educate them instead of sticking their heads in the sand.
b) allows people to identify domains on blacklists that may be false-positives, request them be removed.

In any case, education and knowledge are key. The more you know about a subject the better off you are to make a decision, the better you can protect yourself and those in your care from things that may harm them.

PS: (Sparx 139) No, Censorship is never 100% effective, but it is effective for the vast majority of users. Saying something doesn't work 100% so don't use it is (IMO) a little silly.