Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
So sorry, but talking about universal health care is NOT talking about a cheaper system that serves more people. In actual fact, universal health care gives you two choices: let costs balloon out of sight, or ration care. And hey, just letting people go without any healthcare is cheaper, but that's not really the point, is it? Shooting them in the head would ALSO be cheaper, because bullets don't cost that much.
If you seriously don't know what the debate is, then you're a frigging moron and should just take yourself out of here until you become informed.
Can't tell if you are joking or embarassing yourself.
Please don't flatter yourself that I would ever find it the slightest bit embarrassing to have you either disagree with me or not understand me.
As to you 'argument' - and your reference to 'actual fact' - universal healthcare applies to everyone (* see the word "universal"). As for cheaper, I was saying the CANADIAN system is cheaper per person (don't take my word for it, do a little research... or *gulp*, a lot of research).
Thank you, I'm well aware of both the definition of "universal" health care AND the actual usage of that euphemism, which is government-controlled and -administered health care (it being "universal" because of that fact). So if you're trying to pretend that by saying "universal", we're talking about something else, don't even bother.
I'm also well aware of the so-called "real cost figures" of Canadian and other single-payer health care systems, which is why I made the point about rationing care. Perhaps you want bargain-basement, thrift store-level health care. I don't, and I don't appreciate you and others trying to foist it on me just because you're unable to take care of yourself. "Cheaper" is not always synonymous with "better". Frequently - and certainly in the case of the Canadian system - it is more a matter of "you get what you pay for".
I live up here, and know that it doesn't matter how much $$$ I make, if I'm sick I get treated, not at the hospital of my choice, but at the CLOSEST one. Just like if I called 911, I get the CLOSEST cops responding, or firefighters arriving the fastest based on proximity, not the ones my boss got a deal with or the ones my company decided to use... or the ones I happen to be able to afford.
I'm very glad that you're so proud of your ability to make others pay for your upkeep. Myself, I feel no obligation to pay to keep alive people whose existence frankly means nothing to me whatsoever.
And please don't waste my time with your anecdotal "evidence". You were just touting "research", so why don't you do a little concerning the availability rates of state-of-the-art health care in Canada versus the United States, and survivability rates of serious illnesses like cancer, and wait times for a variety of procedures? If you want to live with that sort of second-rate garbage care, go for it. But since you're not even in the United States, I will doubly thank you to stop trying to force that shit on me, because it REALLY is none of your damned business what Americans do on the subject.
If private systems are the way to go - then go for it all the way.
Well, thank you SO MUCH for your permission to run our country as we see fit.
If it isn't then accept the bullshit argument in support of the US style healthcare system is just that. It works for those who run it, and profit from it. But since it isn't called Health profiteering, it is mislabelled. If you actually believe medical services should be about MEDICAL CARE, then big changes are in order.
Thank you again for your kind permission for us to run our own country without reference to your guidance if we so choose. I know how hard it is for you to accept that no one asked you.
I actually believe medical care should be about getting it before I die or am permanently crippled, so changing to YOUR system definitely is NOT in order.