shouldnt health care be free to all of us

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But in comparisons to other countries, you still are. The standard of living for the working poor is much higher than most other nations. Being poor isn't great, but it could be worse someplace else.

Isaac, man. the people on welfare in the u.s. still have cars and tvs. It'd make you sick if you knew how much people worked the system here. But it's not your system, so you may just find it only interesting in passing.

What's the real deal with the weed situation in canada? Sounds like it's all over the place if you listen to Shrub and his boys. Yes I refer to bush as Shrub in the context of the war on drugs, it's a bad policy.

 

[Bern80]

I debate this issue endlessly w/ some of my liberal friends. In know way do I support free health care for all. This is for many reasons.

First and foremost: No, you do not have the RIGHT to free health care.

Some people argue that it is unfair that some people can't afford health care when they need it and therefore it should be made free to them. I look at from the perspective of the person that does pay for their own health care. Is it fair that I pay for your health care on top of my own? No.

The second problem is an economic one. If you make something cheaper or free people will consume more of it. That is a certainty. I strongly challenge Isaac's assertion that all Canadians get treated WHEN they need to. Economically it just isn't acccurate.

Finally, In the words of Joe Soucheray, there is a simple linking problem here. Liberals can't seem to make the link that free health care or lack of it is not the problem here. Did know one ask themselves why we need free health care in the first place? My question/solution would be to address why American's are so unhealthy that the issue of free health care would even come up.

I have debated solutions endlessly about this. My solution, albeit highly idealistic, would be instead of employers dictating health plans to their employees that they take certain percentage of a paycheck and devote it solely to a private, interest bearing, account, the money in it would be yours and yours alone. This is just an arbitrary number, but say $5,000 a year. The money can only be used on physicians, but for what ever you want. After ten years you've accumulated enough for a boob job and you want to use for that, fine. Or just spend it as you need it. At the end of each year 75% or so of what's in the account is takin out to help pay for the next year.

It's a rough idea, but I think it would provide a good balance of the security that liberals want and the individual resonsibility that conservatives want.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think free health care for all will come to pass in human society. We could pay for it all too, if libs would just understand that governance is about growing life not making it feel guilty for it's needs.

 

[alan1234567890]

if you have no insurance$ 5000 might as well be $5,000,000 and thats what you dont get. and dont tell me to get a job i got one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
if you have no insurance$ 5000 might as well be $5,000,000 and thats what you dont get. and dont tell me to get a job i got one.

Ok. Then just shut the hell up.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
if you have no insurance$ 5000 might as well be $5,000,000 and thats what you dont get. and dont tell me to get a job i got one.

Uuuhh, I think you missed the point. If you don't have a job I can see how $5,000 might seem like a lot. However I did say that was an arbitrary figure. If you do have a job that isn't that much. Most people don't use any where near $5,000 in health care a year. Hell i can afford that stretched over a year and I only make $7/hr. And since I do only make that much, actually I do get it.

If you can't afford that get a BETTER job.

 

[JeffGuidry]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But in comparison to other countries, you still are rich. The standard of living for the working poor is much higher than most other nations.

And this is my argument against public healthcare. In the United States, with some decent financial planning and a commitment to taking responsibility for yourself instead of making someone feel compassion for you, you can take care of most all of your own needs even if you are not well paid. The only people in the U.S. who deserve a free ride are people who through no fault of their own are unable to care for themselves (i.e. the elderly, mentally handicapped, etc.). All others should petition private charities for assistance. It is the private sector that can best meet the needs of these other individuals, there is a wealth of compassion from religious and civic organizations for people who have fallen on hard times.

The goverment should make it easier to donate to private charities and increase the tax benefits of doing so, so that more of our money can be used efficiently, and provide better quality care for those that need it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

See, libs want government to do it all through force. SO they can feel high from the power. They hate private charities, it cuts into their racket.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
issack thankyou for you input. in the u.s 4 million people have no insurance. and so many more have sub rate insurance. What canada has would be much better then what we have now. i wish i could be canadian, i like your gun laws to. i dont think the us is the greatest as we like to say heres to canada.

Ok now here is a realistic possibility for you. Canada isnt some third world country thousands of miles away. Its just to the North of us. So if you really like what they got, then no one is begging you to stay. In fact, im telling you again. Get the Fuck out.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Bern80
Uuuhh, I think you missed the point. If you don't have a job I can see how $5,000 might seem like a lot. However I did say that was an arbitrary figure. If you do have a job that isn't that much. Most people don't use any where near $5,000 in health care a year. Hell i can afford that stretched over a year and I only make $7/hr. And since I do only make that much, actually I do get it.

If you can't afford that get a BETTER job.

while that may work for you, there are others who are not as fortunate. I've seen people have to spend 5,000 a year, Just on medications, let alone all the visits to specialists for an illness that is in no way their fault.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes, alan, please leave, you ungrateful p.o.s. You live in the most free nation on earth and you pine for socialism. 'tard.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
while that may work for you, there are others who are not as fortunate. I've seen people have to spend 5,000 a year, Just on medications, let alone all the visits to specialists for an illness that is in no way their fault.

Is their illness someone else's fault?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Isaac, man. the people on welfare in the u.s. still have cars and tvs. It'd make you sick if you knew how much people worked the system here. But it's not your system, so you may just find it only interesting in passing.

What's the real deal with the weed situation in canada? Sounds like it's all over the place if you listen to Shrub and his boys. Yes I refer to bush as Shrub in the context of the war on drugs, it's a bad policy.

Sounds about right. We've had a changing of the guard in terms of PM, so things are in limbo. It was going to be decriminalized but now it's being put off until after the federal election. Our government is about coherent as a drunk driving collision at the moment. Currently, police aren't enforcing usage very much just because convinctions could be turned over as soon as the new is passed, if it is passed.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Is their illness someone else's fault?

lets say its not. would we be a better society and nation to join together and help those having serious issues medically or would we be a better society saying 'tough shit, its not my problem?'

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
lets say its not. would we be a better society and nation to join together and help those having serious issues medically or would we be a better society saying 'tough shit, its not my problem?'

I think people should choose their own avenues of charitable giving. Forced "altruism" has all the compassion of a jackboot in the face.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I think people should choose their own avenues of charitable giving. Forced "altruism" has all the compassion of a jackboot in the face.

and in todays society a 'jackboot in the face' is the only thing people in need will see. we are, without a doubt, some of the most selfish and stingiest people on the planet. but hey, better that than forced altruism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and in todays society a 'jackboot in the face' is the only thing people in need will see. we are, without a doubt, some of the most selfish and stingiest people on the planet. but hey, better that than forced altruism.

DK. Anyone can walk into an emergency room and be treated. They cannot be turned away. Churches and private charities do great things for the poor. The only downside is you must be a member of the church to receive aid. PSYCH! NOT!:

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
I debate this issue endlessly w/ some of my liberal friends. In know way do I support free health care for all. This is for many reasons.

First and foremost: No, you do not have the RIGHT to free health care.

Some people argue that it is unfair that some people can't afford health care when they need it and therefore it should be made free to them. I look at from the perspective of the person that does pay for their own health care. Is it fair that I pay for your health care on top of my own? No.

The second problem is an economic one. If you make something cheaper or free people will consume more of it. That is a certainty. I strongly challenge Isaac's assertion that all Canadians get treated WHEN they need to. Economically it just isn't acccurate.

I'll challenge you back on that one. There are waits, but if it needs to be done, it will. There are not floods of ill on the street or people with stab wounds dying at hospital doorsteps. Of course one could point to cases where the system fails, but generally it is currently inconvenient, but it works.

By the way, health care is a right, if people decide it is a right, such as Canada. Just like bearing arms is a right, if the people decide it is a right, like the USA. Though it may seem unfair to you, which i can see, it is apart of the social contract we've bought into and still buy into.

Economically debating public healthcare is fair game and your points, valid. However, there have been studies (search for the Romanow report in Canada), about the costs of converting our healthcare to a private system. In Canada, the jury is still out, though I will freely admitt it'd be tough and mostly likely impractical to insitute such a system in the US.
[/quote]

Finally, In the words of Joe Soucheray, there is a simple linking problem here. Liberals can't seem to make the link that free health care or lack of it is not the problem here. Did know one ask themselves why we need free health care in the first place? My question/solution would be to address why American's are so unhealthy that the issue of free health care would even come up.

I have debated solutions endlessly about this. My solution, albeit highly idealistic, would be instead of employers dictating health plans to their employees that they take certain percentage of a paycheck and devote it solely to a private, interest bearing, account, the money in it would be yours and yours alone. This is just an arbitrary number, but say $5,000 a year. The money can only be used on physicians, but for what ever you want. After ten years you've accumulated enough for a boob job and you want to use for that, fine. Or just spend it as you need it. At the end of each year 75% or so of what's in the account is takin out to help pay for the next year.

It's a rough idea, but I think it would provide a good balance of the security that liberals want and the individual resonsibility that conservatives want. [/B]

Not a bad idea, but I'd worry about the stability of having my health care dollars in a trust fund. In addition, this would most likely not protect the working poor as they could not contribute to a fund in which you prescribe. Ultimately, that is the goal of universal healthcare. Rich are always able to afford healthcare, it is the poor that cannot.

I'd suggest a two-tier system where the poor can have basic healthcare, but of a lesser quality, while the rich can pay for their higher quality care.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Isaac, are there any canadian conservatives and do they have a site?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'll challenge you back on that one. There are waits, but if it needs to be done, it will. There are not floods of ill on the street or people with stab wounds dying at hospital doorsteps. Of course one could point to cases where the system fails, but generally it is currently inconvenient, but it works.

By the way, health care is a right, if people decide it is a right, such as Canada. Just like bearing arms is a right, if the people decide it is a right, like the USA. Though it may seem unfair to you, which i can see, it is apart of the social contract we've bought into and still buy into.

Economically debating public healthcare is fair game and your points, valid. However, there have been studies (search for the Romanow report in Canada), about the costs of converting our healthcare to a private system. In Canada, the jury is still out, though I will freely admitt it'd be tough and mostly likely impractical to insitute such a system in the US.

Not a bad idea, but I'd worry about the stability of having my health care dollars in a trust fund. In addition, this would most likely not protect the working poor as they could not contribute to a fund in which you prescribe. Ultimately, that is the goal of universal healthcare. Rich are always able to afford healthcare, it is the poor that cannot.

I'd suggest a two-tier system where the poor can have basic healthcare, but of a lesser quality, while the rich can pay for their higher quality care. [/QUOTE]


What is the extent of black market healthcare in canada? Don't tell me there's none.