Death Panels..Canadian Style
- Thread starter Lumpy 1
- Start date
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
Again, this is false. The GST is a federal tax which had nothing to do with health care. Health care is funded by the provinces.
This tax came about because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and replaced the manufacturing tax, this allowing Canadian manufacturers to sell goods to Americans at a lower cost.
Please don't spread misinformation.
tinydancer
Diamond Member
Dragon Lady. Wanna dance on our health care system?
Hey just for fun why don't you tell everyone who you fired because tey fucked up so bad and that Obama hired to run his healthcare website?
Why don't you tell the Americans who they outsourced to Montreal ***** and has completely fucked up their system girl?
Oh and has cost them the original bid?
Hey just for fun why don't you tell everyone who you fired because tey fucked up so bad and that Obama hired to run his healthcare website?
Why don't you tell the Americans who they outsourced to Montreal ***** and has completely fucked up their system girl?
Oh and has cost them the original bid?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
tinydancer
Diamond Member
*cough* what company did the American government hire?
What company did the Ontario government fire?
Explain it to the American public dragon lady. Over half a billion dragon lady.
And before I take you out on the GST on how money is transferred in the government I don't want to publicaly shame you again.
tinydancer
Diamond Member
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
What bearing does the ACA website have on this court case? Answer: None. So why are you even bringing it up in this thread?
The latest version of the Canada Health Act was passed in 1985, although publically funded health care in Canada originated in the 1960's when Lester Pearson was prime minister.
The GST was introduced in Canada on January 1, 1991. So please explain to me how we managed to have unfunded health care in this country for 30 years prior to the introduction of the GST.
Health care in Ontario is funded by the Employers Health Tax which is 0.98% on salaries up to $200,000. and slightly higher on salaries over this amount. In additional, employees pay $25 per month as a payroll deduction.
Federal transfer payments to the provinces and which are used, in part, to fund portions of our health care, are paid from income taxes received from the originating provinces.
Your ignorance on Canadian government knows no bounds. Last week you said Pierre Trudeau was responsible for Canadian Banking regulations which saved our banks from requiring bailouts. That would be Finance Minister Paul Martin and Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
Please check your facts before making comments on things you clearly know little to nothing about.
auditor0007
Gold Member
After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
---------------------
Last week CanadaÂ’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto familyÂ’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, CanadaÂ’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the familyÂ’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
In other words: Canada has death panels.
Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.
The whole problem with this argument is that it has nothing to do with killing anyone. The patient is going to die; it's only a matter of when. Life support is the only thing keeping the patient alive and there is not going to be a change in the patient's condition. Eventually the patient will have to be taken off of life support and then will die. This is the type of shit we do in the US that costs billions of dollars per year. We extend people's lives for no reason at all. These are people who are not going to get better. They are only alive because a machine keeps them that way, and it costs everyone.
But, it's that big bad boogeyman, the DEATH PANEL that we must all fear.
Peterf
Active Member
According to me relatives have no right, constitutional or other, to have taxpayers subsidise their religious beliefs by paying to keep someone who is brain dead 'alive' indefinitely.
Peterf
Active Member
After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
---------------------
Last week CanadaÂ’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto familyÂ’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, CanadaÂ’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the familyÂ’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
In other words: Canada has death panels.
Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.
The whole problem with this argument is that it has nothing to do with killing anyone. The patient is going to die; it's only a matter of when. Life support is the only thing keeping the patient alive and there is not going to be a change in the patient's condition. Eventually the patient will have to be taken off of life support and then will die. This is the type of shit we do in the US that costs billions of dollars per year. We extend people's lives for no reason at all. These are people who are not going to get better. They are only alive because a machine keeps them that way, and it costs everyone.
But, it's that big bad boogeyman, the DEATH PANEL that we must all fear.
In Sweden I will not be kept 'alive' artificially for an indefinite period. Do I therefore live in fear of some 'death panel'? Absolutely not! So your 'that we must all fear' line is just an unsupported assertion.
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
---------------------
Last week Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto family’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
In other words: Canada has death panels.
Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.
For those who actually WON'T read the article, and there will be MANY:
".......At issue in the Ontario case was the fate of Hassan Rasouli, a retired engineer who has been comatose in a Toronto hospital since he suffered complications following brain surgery three years ago. When Rasouli’s doctors determined that he had no reasonable prospect of recovery, they sought to pull the plug. His family, convinced that Rasouli was slowly recovering, took his doctors to court.
Last Friday, they won. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5–2 that Ontario doctors may not decide to withhold treatment from patients in Rasouli’s condition without consent from the next-in-line decision maker.
In Rasouli’s case, that is his wife. But, if she refuses consent, then her husband’s doctors can still ask for a ruling from Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board. The Supreme Court confirmed last week that the board has the power to overrule her.""""
""""....But American critics of Canadian health care will declare that merely asking this question is unacceptable, unethical, even unthinkable—and that it proves that the Canadian system gives doctors a dangerous incentive to kill off their patients as quickly as possible. They are wrong.""
Sorry, dumbass. Apparently you don't read either.
..I read the article and you missed the point....Big Surprise
They sure did
In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province,
a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
Which is why Slate is trying to spin it
to sound good. The usual "socialism is good" crap
Besides, reactionary leftists always like when people have to prostrate themselves
before the state.
Which is why, you see so many Papa Obama apologists come out to defend this,,,,
Last edited:
If that was my dad and he told me he wanted to live, then he would have his wish. At least, I like to think I would follow his wishes. I haven't been in such a situation, so I don't know.
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Last edited:
After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
---------------------
Last week CanadaÂ’s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto familyÂ’s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, CanadaÂ’s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the familyÂ’s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
In other words: Canada has death panels.
Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.
He is practically dead. He cannot be saved. Keeping him alive drains the healthcare system - the taxpayers. If they want to keep him alive, pay for his treatment. If not, pull the plug.
Talking about a drain on the tax payer, Then why don't we pull the plug on welfare? They are essentially dead until the end of the month. This man has every right to live as those scum I just mentioned
-Geaux
Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
Maybe the state should tell people when to have abortions?
If its a child involved, the State should certainly be able to force an abortion, but only if the life of the child is at risk, or if the child wants the abortion.
Then it is up to his wife to decide as they have agreed.
Not the people, doctors, or the government
-Geaux
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How many of you post here mostly just to be social?- Started by Anomalism
- Replies: 14
-
Trump says 'if anything' he forced Israel's hand on Iran attack timing, says Iran was going to strike US first- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 3
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
Why a Photon Moves at Lightspeed Directly After Being Emitted- Latest: trevorjohnson83
