[quote]storey420 wrote:
I’m not willing to cough up 40% of my income Pookie, so that everyone in America gets free healthcare.[/quote]
Given the “obesity epidemic” that America is undergoing, I think it could even exceed that much to fund a universal health care system.
If they’re going to make citizens pay for others that caused their own disease by their lack of common sense or self control, they damn well better fund it with some huge taxes on any food handed to you while you’re still in your car. There is no reason that sensible, health conscience people should pick up the bill for the majority of the American publics’ laziness and complacency.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Talk to me in thirty years Canadian. Universal health care justifies a plethora of evil. Universal health care will rightly justify smoking bans.
Oddly, the US has seen the very same smoking bans we’re seeing here. I’ve even read that in Vermont, they’re considering making it illegal for you to smoke in your car if you have children present.
As best I can see, we have no restrictions imposed on us here because of our universal access health care. The restriction you mention is just as prevalent in the US as it is here. You do have seat belts laws and helmet laws too, right? If so, you can hardly attribute those to having universal health care.[/quote]
Yeah, and the .gov has no right making those restrictions. Universal health care actually makes most any desired restriction VALID. There is absolutely nothing that will stop the encroachment upon liberty and human progress except blood and steel. Even if you don’t intend to go Rambo after every encroachment, you shouldn’t be complicit in it.[quote]
Our universal HC has already been around for about 40 years. Some of the great evils you fear should already be happening. Where are they?[/quote]
Do you not see government advancing into every aspect of our lives? Health care JUSTIFIES it. Justification only speeds the process up. [quote]
Universal health care changes us from sovereign individuals to dollar signs. I’m in the business of advancing the species pookie.
You vastly overestimate your individual contribution.
[/quote]
Contribution to what? I’m not talking about the amount of money we put into it as individuals. I’m talking about the attitude the government will take to you. People are no longer people, but rather financial burdens upon their fellows. We are essentially democratizing the treatment of individuals. If a person is reliant upon the .gov for their health care their treatment will be what is decided for them, not what they have decided through their own labor and efforts. My wife’s friend is a day past her due date. Her husband is a Marine. Her choices and decisions for childbirth are NOT HER OWN because she relies upon government health insurance. The bottom line is that I AM NOT A NUMBER. I am a sovereign being and I don’t belong to anyone. Government health care forces us all to be the property of each other.[quote]
Getting us all health care is not worth the lessening of man. You seem very deficient in vision.
Yes, all great men were very sick men. When was the last time someone in good health accomplished anything? What worse fate could befall a people than for them all to be healthy! What mother deserves to be deprived of the great joy that comes from burying a son or daughter. What kind of family doesn’t have a handful of members with bum hips, bum hands, missing teeth, crooked noses and fingers, and badly healed scars. Where’s the character in that!?
[/quote]
Health is more than the strength of your heartbeat. Part of this comes to psychological health as well. When we look at each other as property or burdens that is not healthy. This is a case of health for the species.
For example: I am not alone in the belief that anyone on welfare should be required by law to wear a seat belt and to avoid smoking, ect. Why? Because I pay for those people. If I were to pay for your health care and you don’t do what the doc says, you should be charged with a crime.
Actually, let me make this simple, since the John Edwards already spoiled the ending to this. John Edwards claimed that in order for health care to work people must be mandated BY LAW to have preventative doctors visits. Let me drudge up a good quote:
“If you’re going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”
All law is backed up at the point of gun. ALL LAWS. So what? Are armed cops going to come to my door and arrest me, take away my freedom, because I don’t want to get a thumb up my ass to check for prostate cancer every year?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If we get Universal Health Care, I want the government to dictate by law what type of food can be sold and served. I want the government to ban fast food and soft drinks. I’ll change my mind on the legalization of drugs (hey, if I have to pay for their treatment, no thanks.) I want child services to step in on parents raising their children on fatty diets.
Unprotected sex should be punishable by a hefty fine and jail-time for repeatable offenses. Cigarettes and Alcohol would be completely banned. If I’m held by force as accountable for someone else’s health, I want their unhealthy/risky behavior to be held accountable, by force. On the other hand, leave me alone and I’ll mind my own business.
So you want universal health care with a side order of Islam?
You guys are weird.
[/quote]
Not at all, I invite my fellow Americans to oppose Universal Health Care. Don’t make me into your custodian, and I won’t act like one. That last line in your quote of myself is the one to really focus on.
If you want to argue with people who will actually vote for Hillary, go to theforum.com, politics section. The people there are rude, the topics are disgusting, and the vast majority are liberal elitists.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Yeah, and the .gov has no right making those restrictions. Universal health care actually makes most any desired restriction VALID. There is absolutely nothing that will stop the encroachment upon liberty and human progress except blood and steel. Even if you don’t intend to go Rambo after every encroachment, you shouldn’t be complicit in it.[/quote]
Two questions:
How do you explain that the US has nearly the same laws concerning alcohol, tobacco and road safety that we do, if UHC is the driving cause?
We also have a document known as “The Charter of Rights and Freedom” which defines the basics principles of Canada. Any law encroaching on the principles enounced in that chart is subject to being overthrown in court. Your equivalent documents would be the Bill of Rights I believe. THOSE documents, and not UHC - or the lack of it - are what defines your freedom.
You keep saying that, but are apparently unable to provide a single example. We’ve had around 40 years of UHC… surely that invading advancement of government should be quite evident, no? Give me a concrete example where I’m less free in Canada than I’d be in the US.
That’s a pretty distorted way to look at it.
You live in society. We’re all interdependent whether we like it or not. You use roads other have built; buy food others have prepared; get your house built by other people; use the wires and routers of a myriad companies to even be on the internet, etc.
UHC is simply what happens when people collectively decide that health is an important part of a quality life; important enough that no one should be denied it, no matter their personal ability to afford it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a great sentiment, but living and pursuing happiness when you’re dying is pretty hard to do.
Other than the “drama queen” argument, do you have anything else?
We accomplish more in groups; always have, always will. UHC is simply a decision made by a society concerning it’s collective health.
Your US system is not that different. You simply shift the “collective burden” from the government to employers and insurance companies. Large parts of what you collectively pay for health insurance ends up in the pockets of corporations, instead of in your health care system. Some categories of people are also left out; and some decisions concerning your health are subject to being vetoed by companies. Most of what you object to with UHC has direct parallels in your system. You might have more choice in the matter, but only at the expense of others who have no choice at all.
That’s your opinion. I now see why it’s useful to have document like our Charter of Rights and Freedoms or you Bill of Rights, because with people who value the dollar above anything else, we can get some pretty mentally defective reasonings.
If we scale back your argument to a non-fascist scale, is there abuse of the system? Of course. Are some people getting more than their fair share? Of course. Are those reason enough to scrap the whole thing? I don’t think so. It’s one thing to look at all the negatives, but you need to balance it with the positives. Your arguments have zero perspective. It’s like you’re discussing vacationing in an Auschwitz concentration camp or something.
[quote]Actually, let me make this simple, since the John Edwards already spoiled the ending to this. John Edwards claimed that in order for health care to work people must be mandated BY LAW to have preventative doctors visits. Let me drudge up a good quote:
“If you’re going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”[/quote]
And you think that law would stand up to it’s first constitutional test in your courts?
Like I said earlier: Show me one example where I’m mandated by law to do something you’re not because we have UHC in Canada. That’s the premise of your whole argument; you should have tons of example ready to back it up, no?
As far as I can see, all the examples you mention have similar or sometimes even harsher counterparts in the US. UHC seems to make zero difference where my liberty is concerned.
I’m not mandated to see a doctor.
I can smoke
I can drink
I can use recreational drugs (but shhhh! they’re illegal here too.)
I can choose to drive without a seat belt or ride without a helmet and I’ll get a fine if I’m caught. No hard time.
I’m hard pressed to find a single health related law that would support your claims. UHC might contribute to my tax burden (which is shifted to your employer and insurance in your system), but in regards to my personal freedom? Zilch.
Your argument doesn’t stand up. Your employer could make it policy to offer coverage only to those who get checked; your insurance company could jack up your premium if you choose not to have a check-up… And it’s not happening anyway. I can see a doctor anytime I want; but I don’t have to see one in 10 years if I so choose.
The “great evil” of UHC is only in your mind. Is a visit to a psychologist covered by your plan?
Her approval ratings beat those of your President and Congress combined.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If we get Universal Health Care, I want the government to dictate by law what type of food can be sold and served. I want the government to ban fast food and soft drinks. I’ll change my mind on the legalization of drugs (hey, if I have to pay for their treatment, no thanks.) I want child services to step in on parents raising their children on fatty diets.
Unprotected sex should be punishable by a hefty fine and jail-time for repeatable offenses. Cigarettes and Alcohol would be completely banned. If I’m held by force as accountable for someone else’s health, I want their unhealthy/risky behavior to be held accountable, by force. On the other hand, leave me alone and I’ll mind my own business.[/quote]
Absolutely. Grocery stores should only be allowed to sell healthy foods that fit the grain and soy based food pyramid and that food should be rationed according to our BMI. After all the government is responsible for our health.
And don’t worry about my vision; I can see an optometrist and get glasses anytime.
[/quote]
As can we but we can get an appointment faster at a lower total cost to society.
Optometry in the US is a good model for health care. Control is more in the hands of the individual, not the health insurance companies or the government.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
As can we but we can get an appointment faster at a lower total cost to society.[/quote]
I’ll grant you faster. I can generally get a next day appointment… There’s an optometry department at the local Costco that does “walk-ins” depending on how busy they are that day.
I think you’re wrong about your lower cost to society. We don’t have to pay profits to insurance companies, so that money stays in the health system.
We also don’t have people employed to try and get rid of “high-risk” customers like your insurance companies have. Any delays are offset by the universality of the service. We care for everyone, regardless of their social standing.
[quote]Optometry in the US is a good model for health care. Control is more in the hands of the individual, not the health insurance companies or the government.
Prices are very reasonable and access incredible.[/quote]
I’m not familiar enough with the US situation to draw parallels…
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
As can we but we can get an appointment faster at a lower total cost to society.
I’ll grant you faster. I can generally get a next day appointment… There’s an optometry department at the local Costco that does “walk-ins” depending on how busy they are that day.
I think you’re wrong about your lower cost to society. We don’t have to pay profits to insurance companies, so that money stays in the health system.
We also don’t have people employed to try and get rid of “high-risk” customers like your insurance companies have. Any delays are offset by the universality of the service. We care for everyone, regardless of their social standing.
Optometry in the US is a good model for health care. Control is more in the hands of the individual, not the health insurance companies or the government.
Prices are very reasonable and access incredible.
I’m not familiar enough with the US situation to draw parallels…
[/quote]
Walk in, pay cash and walk out. No insurance company or government skimming off profits without producing anything.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Walk in, pay cash and walk out. No insurance company or government skimming off profits without producing anything.
And if you can’t afford it?
Buy a helmet for when you bump in a telephone pole?
[/quote]
What if you can’t afford food?
There are plenty of charities that provide eyeglasses for the poor.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What if you can’t afford food?
You don’t have people who require ultra-expensive foods that they can’t afford.
Some people, on the other hand, have diseases and illnesses that are treatable/curable but unaffordable for them.
Your response is “Find a charity to help you or endure?”
There are plenty of charities that provide eyeglasses for the poor.
How would they afford the helmet?
Helmets are cheap. Health care, much less so.
[/quote]
Helmets are cheap because they are competitively produced. Health care is cheap when competition is allowed, such as the case with eye doctors.
I believe in society helping in the health care arena in catastrophic situations, not for the standard every day stuff like eyeglasses and most doctors visits.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Helmets are cheap because they are competitively produced. Health care is cheap when competition is allowed, such as the case with eye doctors.[/quote]
Until we can build AI systems that are as good as our best doctors, that’s not true.
Doctors are a limited resource and some of them will simply go where they can get paid the most for their services.
Similarly, many of the most advanced treatments and detections require million dollar equipment. There’s hardly any competition if you have only a handful of manufacturers for those products.
There’s really no accurate way to draw a parallel between producing helmets and offering complete health care.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Helmets are cheap because they are competitively produced. Health care is cheap when competition is allowed, such as the case with eye doctors.
Until we can build AI systems that are as good as our best doctors, that’s not true.
Doctors are a limited resource and some of them will simply go where they can get paid the most for their services.
Similarly, many of the most advanced treatments and detections require million dollar equipment. There’s hardly any competition if you have only a handful of manufacturers for those products.
There’s really no accurate way to draw a parallel between producing helmets and offering complete health care.
[/quote]
Most medical work doesn’t require million dollar equipment.
Interestingly when that is required people often leave the socialized medical systems and come to the US for treatment.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Interestingly when that is required people often leave the socialized medical systems and come to the US for treatment.[/quote]