national health care...how awesome!

[jeff f]

do you realize how inane this sounds? you have a system that hands control of medical care over to government, blame the people in government for all that is wrong with it, and then try to claim that it isn't the system that's to blame. you've just blamed government and government is the system. you're sticking you head in the sand, all because of what you think you're getting for free. good luck with that.

perfect! he says its getting worse cuz the politicians are increasing fees and dropping sevices....duh? yes, big duh. thats are whole point canuck. and it is going to continue to decline.

as for your army, when russia was possible going to launch nukes, where did canada set up their retalitory weapons? south of your border.

no offense to any servicemen of canada. and i have worked with canadians in norad. very good sharp people. but hardly enough to mount a defense even against a modest oponent without the US.

 

[jeff f]

of course it's magic. it's also magic that pays for the extensive government bureaucracy needed to oversee those magically appearing funds. like all magic, it's really a matter of misdirection. just don't tell that to the rubes.

maybe we can get dumbo and the fed to pay for it with some of that magic money they keep printing? problem solved.

 

[jeff f]

Yep they are lying to me...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/special-reports/2009/06/canadian-patients-face-long-waits-low-tech-healthcare

this guy is lying too...

 

[sputniknz]

For all that I paid nothing....? How WAS it paid for sputniknz, magic ?

LOL, ok, maybe my point escapes... magic - no, it comes out of the 14k i paid in tax of which 200 i paid in ACC annual fees. Please Rob, and anyone else reading this from America. Have a peak at the site WWW.ACC.CO.NZ (Accident Compensation Corporation).


So ok, maybe i did pay. But tell me how much would all that have cost you. And i had an MRI scan too. My wife is covered by public healthcare, which is prompt and considered well. My children receive dental care till they are 18 from when he leaves school to study he will be covered by public, again... great service. When he goes to work, ACC covers him. And if he is unemployed for whatever reason, social welfare see us through (granted some abuse it). Through social welfare, you get a "Community Services Card". Which entitles you to it. Prescriptions are subsidised anyway, and if you have the card - they are subsidised even further. Most prescriptions can be paid for with a single note. Our doctors dont have to consider the almight buck when telling you how to get better.

Please look at this. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/revenuehttp://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/revenue

So you can see our population collected $50 billion in revenue from tax. So thats were the bill went.

In NZ we have complaints about some parts of our healthcare system. But without a doubt, whole-heartedly i can say we would prefer to have it. And i think we are lucky to have it.

"The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides comprehensive, no-fault personal injury cover for all New Zealand residents and visitors to New Zealand."

 

[canuckgrow]

perfect! he says its getting worse cuz the politicians are increasing fees and dropping services....duh? yes, big duh. that's are whole point canuck. and it is going to continue to decline.

as for your army, when Russia was possible going to launch nukes, where did Canada set up their retaliatory weapons? south of your border.

no offense to any servicemen of canada. and .

OMFG......Did you skip like the entire elementary school process?

First off: I never once said it was getting worse. Here is what I did say: "Even though our current band of miscreant politicians have been adding user fees and dropping services for the past 15 years it is still affordable"......I am so pleased your expert opinion was available to me.Secondly:Which conflict are you referring too when you speak of our retaliatory weapons?
I'm really very interested since I am a bit of a history buff and would like to discuss it further.

Thirdly: WoW for not wanting to insult any of our servicemen or women you sure go out of your way to do just that......"i have worked with canadians in norad. very good sharp people. but hardly enough to mount a defense even against a modest oponent without the US"

This is better than comedy central folks ROTFLMAO

Dude if you paid any more than $22.50 American for your education you got ripped huge...Notice how I said American there? that is cause our money is worth more than yours LOL.

Oh and I would like some + Rep from you Jeff f for fixing all of your spelling mistakes before I could quote you in my post.

 

[canuckgrow]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/special-reports/2009/06/canadian-patients-face-long-waits-low-tech-healthcare

this guy is lying too...

So your source is an American newspaper? A Washington DC newspaper at that? Well now I know it just has to be correct. Reporters never spin any news right? besides I already addressed this issue in previous posts if you choose to ignore it I don't think that automatically makes what you type more credible. Can't even say nice try on this one because it wasn't LOL

 

[canuckgrow]

Well how about I throw a huge monkey wrench at my friendly neighbors to the south. You should check out the national healthcare plans in places like France.

You want to compare what health care costs per capita in various countries? Here:
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH


You will find that not only is your system more expensive it is way less efficient.Who wins with your system both pre. and post Obama? The big health Corporations and their shareholders and the insurance companies. So go ahead and keep thinking you got it all figured out.

 

[Rob Roy]

Well how about I throw a huge monkey wrench at my friendly neighbors to the south. You should check out the national healthcare plans in places like France.

You want to compare what health care costs per capita in various countries? Here:
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH


You will find that not only is your system more expensive it is way less efficient.Who wins with your system both pre. and post Obama? The big health Corporations and their shareholders and the insurance companies. So go ahead and keep thinking you got it all figured out.

If efficiency is the goal Canuck, then there should be no government involvement. Involving a third party adds cost to most transactions especially when that third party adds no value, but rides along purely due to it's parasitic nature. It's like the "buddy" we've probably all had that goes to get you a zip and pockets several buds for himself and jacks the price to you...He added no value. Wouldn't it be better/cheaper if the consumer dealt more directly with the service provider rather than adding layers of bureaucracy?

It is noble to want to help people that have a difficult time affording health care, but not so noble to force those who may not want to participate to comply or to make them bear the cost for another they don't have any desire to. How would you overcome that? Would you "permit" those people the ability to not participate or would you make them do something they have no desire to do?

I agree with you that corporations will favor legislation that makes them more money even if the legislation forces people to do things they prefer not to. So wouldn't the answer be to have less regulation and allow more players into the field, permitting prices to drop?

Back to the weed analogy...if your "buddy" above has the only connection in town, you're kind of stuck, but what happens to prices
when more players enter the market to provide services? Prices drop. This is true in any market, black market or otherwise.

Costs for services are more competitive (they drop) when the market is freed, not when it is artificially restricted by being illegal or by limiting free market competition. What will happen to weed prices when it becomes legal and more people can sell it? Prices will drop, your "buddy" just like his government health care administrator parasite counter part will have to find something else to do.

Hope you're not mad, but I touched your avatar again. I swear I heard a moan.

 

[canuckgrow]

If efficiency is the goal Canuck, then there should be no government involvement. Involving a third party adds cost to most transactions especially when that third party adds no value, but rides along purely due to it's parasitic nature. It's like the "buddy" we've probably all had that goes to get you a zip and pockets several buds for himself and jacks the price to you...He added no value. Wouldn't it be better/cheaper if the consumer dealt more directly with the service provider rather than adding layers of bureaucracy?

It is noble to want to help people that have a difficult time affording health care, but not so noble to force those who may not want to participate to comply or to make them bear the cost for another they don't have any desire to. How would you overcome that? Would you "permit" those people the ability to not participate or would you make them do something they have no desire to do?

I agree with you that corporations will favor legislation that makes them more money even if the legislation forces people to do things they prefer not to. So wouldn't the answer be to have less regulation and allow more players into the field, permitting prices to drop?

Back to the weed analogy...if your "buddy" above has the only connection in town, you're kind of stuck, but what happens to prices
when more players enter the market to provide services? Prices drop. This is true in any market, black market or otherwise.

Costs for services are more competitive (they drop) when the market is freed, not when it is artificially restricted by being illegal or by limiting free market competition. What will happen to weed prices when it becomes legal and more people can sell it? Prices will drop, your "buddy" just like his government health care administrator parasite counter part will have to find something else to do.

Hope you're not mad, but I touched your avatar again. I swear I heard a moan.

Guess it boils down to the things we do or don't do and their impact on society as a whole.....So by following your line of thinking........Pay it forward is just lip service then? My way of thinking is that those that could afford it should be happy to pay a little more to help society out as a whole.....Unfortunately that is just not the case in a lot of circumstances......To me the lack of nobility in this whole scenario lies with the folks who say Fuck off i'm not paying 1 thin dime more so "they" can get health care a sentiment heard over and over again whenever the health care debate comes up.....Does that seem American to you? or even human for that matter?

Frankly if they have no desire to help their fellow Americans out in a time of need? What is the country really about?


and feel free to touch my avvy as much as you want dude she is a dirty little Canadian girl by day and even dirtier at night

 

[Mindmelted]

Well lets see,with my insurance it cost me about $100

oh my god now i am bankrupt....lmfao....

What you had done was nothing special there friend.

 

[Rob Roy]

Guess it boils down to the things we do or don't do and their impact on society as a whole.....So by following your line of thinking........Pay it forward is just lip service then? My way of thinking is that those that could afford it should be happy to pay a little more to help society out as a whole.....Unfortunately that is just not the case in a lot of circumstances......To me the lack of nobility in this whole scenario lies with the folks who say Fuck off i'm not paying 1 thin dime more so "they" can get health care a sentiment heard over and over again whenever the health care debate comes up.....Does that seem American to you? or even human for that matter?

Frankly if they have no desire to help their fellow Americans out in a time of need? What is the country really about?


and feel free to touch my avvy as much as you want dude she is a dirty little Canadian girl by day and even dirtier at night

Nothing wrong with pay it forward, it is a commendable thing to do. Forcing a person to share
something they rightfully own against their will is another way of trying to rationalize theft though. If we lead by example in a positive way some will help us, others will opt not to. It's not up to us to decide what somebody will do with their property even if we think they SHOULD perform an act that would satisfy our morality. That opens the door to justifying initiating force as a viable tool to do good. That quickly becomes a dead end of rationalizations. Leading by example is the way to help others, rather than employing somebody else to forcibly reallocate others property.

 

[undertheice]

My way of thinking is that those that could afford it should be happy to pay a little more to help society out as a whole....

by your statements and your general stance it appears you don't believe people willingly do this without the use of force, but that just isn't the case. of course there are plenty of stingy little greedy guts out there, some are rich and some are poor, and they will always be there. there are also an outstanding number of folks that are perfectly willing to give of themselves if given the chance. what any but the most morally bankrupt object to is the elimination of choice from the equation. it is a foolish man who believes he can force his neighbor to be generous and this is precisely the idiocy that is the driving force behind today's liberal agenda. no one will deny that the desired ends are all for the good, but those ends cannot justify the means that are being used. they are the same means, the tactics of force and fear, that we despised fifty years ago, when a much more conservative faction held the reins of power.

we are erasing the virtue of charity by mandating it. all that might be freely given is, more and more, simply being taken. we invent the right to be well fed, something that man has always had to work and fight for. we invent the right to an education, something we must actively participate in if it is to have any meaning at all. we invent the right to medical care, something that must be provided by the hard work of others. we invent the right to a better life for everyone and find it must be taken from someone else, so we just do it. all of these things may be purchased by the fruits of our labors or they may be given as a charitable act, but we have progressed to the point where we feel justified in merely taking them and not worrying about who foots the bill.

my way of thinking is that those who can afford it should be happy to pay a little more to help society, but that forcing them to do so is unethical. it is a sure path to destroying what good there is in mankind by enslaving it and killing its spirit. i've often pointed out that the people of the united states, a nation that has always been among those at the forefront of the individualist ideology, have consistently given a higher percentage of their wealth to charities around the globe than any other nation. up to this point, we have accumulated more wealth and more power than anywhere else and we have kept it all in the hands of the people themselves. the prospect of ending all this, in favor of handing control over to the faceless state, sickens me and raises the ominous specter of totalitarianism. each step we take away from the individualist philosophy toward the centralized control of the hive is a step toward that orwellian nightmare.

 

[canuckgrow]

by your statements and your general stance it appears you don't believe people willingly do this without the use of force, but that just isn't the case. of course there are plenty of stingy little greedy guts out there, some are rich and some are poor, and they will always be there. there are also an outstanding number of folks that are perfectly willing to give of themselves if given the chance. what any but the most morally bankrupt object to is the elimination of choice from the equation. it is a foolish man who believes he can force his neighbor to be generous and this is precisely the idiocy that is the driving force behind today's liberal agenda. no one will deny that the desired ends are all for the good, but those ends cannot justify the means that are being used. they are the same means, the tactics of force and fear, that we despised fifty years ago, when a much more conservative faction held the reins of power.

we are erasing the virtue of charity by mandating it. all that might be freely given is, more and more, simply being taken. we invent the right to be well fed, something that man has always had to work and fight for. we invent the right to an education, something we must actively participate in if it is to have any meaning at all. we invent the right to medical care, something that must be provided by the hard work of others. we invent the right to a better life for everyone and find it must be taken from someone else, so we just do it. all of these things may be purchased by the fruits of our labors or they may be given as a charitable act, but we have progressed to the point where we feel justified in merely taking them and not worrying about who foots the bill.

my way of thinking is that those who can afford it should be happy to pay a little more to help society, but that forcing them to do so is unethical. it is a sure path to destroying what good there is in mankind by enslaving it and killing its spirit. i've often pointed out that the people of the united states, a nation that has always been among those at the forefront of the individualist ideology, have consistently given a higher percentage of their wealth to charities around the globe than any other nation. up to this point, we have accumulated more wealth and more power than anywhere else and we have kept it all in the hands of the people themselves. the prospect of ending all this, in favor of handing control over to the faceless state, sickens me and raises the ominous specter of totalitarianism. each step we take away from the individualist philosophy toward the centralized control of the hive is a step toward that orwellian nightmare.

Do you even read what you type?

Look the problem with American Healthcare is well ummm sorry Americans........Found this article to be very interesting:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/22/2853179.htm

Oh and just to burst your bubble the USA is actually ranked # 5 in the world for charitable giving tied with Switzerland and right behind Canada in the # 3 spot.

 

[Rob Roy]

If a person is told they MUST purchase something, whether they want it or not....do they still own their money?

If a person is jailed for consuming a plant........do they still own their own body?

People that will make another person purchase something use the same rationalization as people that use force to keep you from owning yourself. Shouldn't every peaceful person decide for themselves what will go into their bodies? What they will or or will not purchase ?

Self determination includes ownership of your body AND your justly acquired property.

 

[canuckgrow]

If a person is told they MUST purchase something, whether they want it or not....do they still own their money?

If a person is jailed for consuming a plant........do they still own their own body?

People that will make another person purchase something use the same rationalization as people that use force to keep you from owning yourself. Shouldn't every peaceful person decide for themselves what will go into their bodies? What they will or or will not purchase ?

Self determination includes ownership of your body AND your justly acquired property.

Oh you mean like car insurance, your health insurance, house insurance, cable tv plans with channels you don't want,

Besides would you agree that we need some sort of health care as human beings? So the choice factor is not really a choice is it? So if it isn't a choice and you need it then would it not make sense to make it accessible to every single American citizen? If that makes sense to you then it should also make sense that every one needs to pay for it right? Problem is that some people who are still American citizens can't afford to pay for it whatever reason. And I would argue most people in America do not want to pay for the poors health care whether by taxes or increased rates for less service or however it is done.
That is the meat of it right there isn't it or am I oversimplifying it?

 

[doc111]

Oh you mean like car insurance, your health insurance, house insurance, cable tv plans with channels you don't want,

Besides would you agree that we need some sort of health care as human beings? So the choice factor is not really a choice is it? So if it isn't a choice and you need it then would it not make sense to make it accessible to every single American citizen? If that makes sense to you then it should also make sense that every one needs to pay for it right? Problem is that some people who are still American citizens can't afford to pay for it whatever reason. And I would argue most people in America do not want to pay for the poors health care whether by taxes or increased rates for less service or however it is done.
That is the meat of it right there isn't it or am I oversimplifying it?

 

[canuckgrow]

Wanna fill me in or I can just stare at the poster all day...That'll work for me

 

[undertheice]

Oh and just to burst your bubble the USA is actually ranked # 5 in the world for charitable giving tied with Switzerland and right behind Canada in the # 3 spot.

read again and check again. when you include government sponsored donations we may not be at the top, but the donations of the people themselves outstrip our nearest competitor by almost two to one. this is what is called charity, not the forced contributions of a subservient people. i realize that the typical statist may see no difference between the two, it's a little something called freedom of choice.

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh you mean like car insurance, your health insurance, house insurance, cable tv plans with channels you don't want,

Besides would you agree that we need some sort of health care as human beings? So the choice factor is not really a choice is it? So if it isn't a choice and you need it then would it not make sense to make it accessible to every single American citizen? If that makes sense to you then it should also make sense that every one needs to pay for it right? Problem is that some people who are still American citizens can't afford to pay for it whatever reason. And I would argue most people in America do not want to pay for the poors health care whether by taxes or increased rates for less service or however it is done.
That is the meat of it right there isn't it or am I oversimplifying it?

Forcing a person to buy insurance in other instances isn't a justification to force people to buy it in more instances. You are correct, people are forced to buy other kinds of insurance. You are presenting a "two wrongs make something right " argument, which is known as a rationalization. The slippery slope already exists so we may as well accept it? Hmm.. Why?

Yes I'd agree some peope prefer to get health care and even prefer to have others pay for it. Just as people need food to keep from starving and warm jackets to keep from freezing to death.

Choice factor? It isn't really a "choice" if somebody else decides for you, I'll agree with that if that is your point. So the question remains, are YOU okay with others making choices for you concerning your body and your money? Do you agree that isn't freedom?

Everyone "needs" to pay for it? I'd agree that it might make it easier for Peter, if somebody makes Paul pay for him. Would you agree that violates Paul's freedom of choice though?

I don't think you are oversimplifiying it, I think you are skirting the issue of how you will achieve a "percieved good" through force and whether that is a "solution" that will have dire unintended consequences.

The meat of it is when you remove a persons ability to chose their own destiny, you are not advocating freedom.

Here I'll simpify it...
You own you, I own me. Forcing a peaceful person to do something against their will violates that concept. I can't endorse that.

 

[undertheice]

Oh you mean like car insurance, your health insurance, house insurance, cable tv plans with channels you don't want

how can you equate these things? you choose to drive a car and must prove your responsibility before being allowed that privilege. you are only forced to purchase home owner's insurance if someone else owns the title to your property. it is a guarantee of their investment. no one is forcing you to subscribe to cable television, it is a luxury service and the choices offered are at the discretion of the provider. health insurance, on the other hand, is not about the choices you make, our health is an integral part of our existence. being forced to pay for health insurance is the same as being forced to pay for the air you breathe, just as taxing your income is being forced to pay for maintaining you own existence.

we rationalize that the unity of the state must be supported by such slavery and that may be so, but the necessity of increasing the strength of our bonds by increasing this taxation of our existence does not necessarily follow. the survival of the state and of the society cannot be considered our ultimate goal if individual accomplishment is to be valued at all. the herd and the hive are for unthinking beasts. man is a different sort of animal altogether.

The meat of it is when you remove a persons ability to chose their own destiny, you are not advocating freedom.

of course he's not advocating freedom. he's advocating for the material trappings of equality, just as any other good populist fraud. he's advocating for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, regardless of individual effort. there is logic to what he proposes, but it is the logic of the herd. it is the logic that proceeds from the idea that the individual is powerless on his own and must have the others to advocate for him. it is the self-fulfilling prophecy of the statist.