On Canadian Health Care ... Fair & Balanced.

midgradeindasouth

midgradeindasouth

Well-Known Member
I guess the more I think about it you are right.
It is just hard imagining an emperor giving a fig about what the people think he should do.

I realize the senate would vote on legislation and making laws.

I just feel like back then it was more of a suggestive power than something to be heeded.

I just recall a senate from history though.
No house of reps or congress. I could be wrong.
I just do not recall it.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
I see nothing wrong in having private health care for those that can afford it. I just believe that no-one should be without health care because they can't afford it. With single payer, those young guys that don't buy health insurance because they are young and healthy, will have to pay along with everyone else, sort of like a medical savings plan for when they are old and infirm. If you take out the middle men, Insurance and HMOs and all their profit, universal health care would be feasable. Paying some insurance dude big bucks to sit on a doctors shoulder and decide who gets care and who doesn't is criminal, let the treating doctor decide the treatment.
 
suicidesamurai

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
I believe free healthcare should only be for those under 18 (if they aren't insured by their parents), since a child can't be responsible for being insured.

I guess the problem with that would be parents could just not include their kids on their insurance and just get it for free if needed. Although perhaps the insurance companies could force them to include any dependents if they want coverage.
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Then why is it that the US is the only Civilised country in the Western world that doesn't have some form of Universal Health Care?
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
suicidesamurai said:
I believe free healthcare should only be for those under 18 (if they aren't insured by their parents), since a child can't be responsible for being insured.

I guess the problem with that would be parents could just not include their kids on their insurance and just get it for free if needed. Although perhaps the insurance companies could force them to include any dependents if they want coverage.
Click to expand...
Republican talking points, for sure! Must be nice to be rich.
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
in summation, while state health care is invaluable as a bulleted item on the list of pandering topics, in practice state health care is proven to be sub-par, it stifles innovation, and is not cost effective... the dems still don't get it, even with the spiraling descent of their model of "success" in CA!

it's obvious that there are no benefits unless temporary social manipulation is something you consider a benefit.

does it feel good to say, "universal health care for all!!"? sure, but why not say, "extreme delays in obtaining inferior treatment at much higher costs"??? what moron decided that our many biotech initiatives should be sacrificed to the whim of shallow sound-bite driven politicians who want to corral their voting bots to the booths in droves?

the socialists/dems need to think this thing through, for once.

nice articles Vi!






.
 
suicidesamurai

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
Dankdude said:
Then why is it that the US is the only Civilised country in the Western world that doesn't have some form of Universal Health Care?
Click to expand...
The old and poor can have access to healthcare, which the governments help to pay for. If you have "universal healthcare", that just means you get "free" healthcare by having your taxes raised. You end up paying for it either way. It isn't free.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
From my signature:

If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce.

Vi​
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
The old and poor can have access to healthcare, which the governments help to pay for. If you have "universal healthcare", that just means you get "free" healthcare by having your taxes raised. You end up paying for it either way. It isn't free.
Click to expand...
suicidesamurai, this is a subject I have done a lot of research on..

I am willing to have my taxes raised as long as we get something for the money....Besides with what we send fighting the War in Iraq a month we could run Universal Health Care for a year. What makes it so expensive in other countries like Europe is because they have a Negative population growth and do not have enough new people to add into the tax system, The United States on the other hand has a Positive population growth, which means that there are new people coming into the tax system all the time. With a positive population growth the tax burden won't hurt as much.

Vi if you like it or not, that is the way the country is headed... Get used to it.
 
Cugine

Cugine

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
Republican talking points, for sure! Must be nice to be rich.
Click to expand...
If he is rich...he probably earned it..busted his ass...made the right decisions. can't expect him to pay for ppl who choose to be lazy and chose to freeload off the government.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Cugine said:
If he is rich...he probably earned it..busted his ass...made the right decisions. can't expect him to pay for ppl who choose to be lazy and chose to freeload off the government.
Click to expand...
Amen to that, Cugine.

Dank ...

There is a fund at the IRS for people to volunteer donations. Its understandable that perhaps YOU would be willing to be taxed more in order to pay for someone else's medical care, but by what moral authority do you offer up the money (the fruits of the labor) of another?

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
suicidesamurai said:
The old and poor can have access to healthcare, which the governments help to pay for. If you have "universal healthcare", that just means you get "free" healthcare by having your taxes raised. You end up paying for it either way. It isn't free.
Click to expand...
And the current system isn't free either, Insurance premiums and copays cost the average patient (including employers contributions) approx 1,000 a mo. What % of that is profit. take out the profit and I'll bet you can insure (Universally) a patient for a lot less. Hey you rich guys keep your fancy health care, I'm not suggesting you lower your standards, just let the rest of us have health care.
 
suicidesamurai

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
And the current system isn't free either, Insurance premiums and copays cost the average patient (including employers contributions) approx 1,000 a mo. What % of that is profit. take out the profit and I'll bet you can insure (Universally) a patient for a lot less. Hey you rich guys keep your fancy health care, I'm not suggesting you lower your standards, just let the rest of us have health care.
Click to expand...
RICH? FANCY HEALTHCARE? I'm actually not even insured at the moment. I'm in school and what money I make comes from working the poker tables in Biloxi.

I don't believe in things simply because they may be to my benefit. Individual freedom, minimal government, and personal responsibility are the standard I go by.
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
Amen to that, Cugine.

Dank ...

There is a fund at the IRS for people to volunteer donations. Its understandable that perhaps YOU would be willing to be taxed more in order to pay for someone else's medical care, but by what moral authority do you offer up the money (the fruits of the labor) of another?

Vi
Click to expand...
Get used to it.... That is where the country is headed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top