To anyone for Universal healthcare.

[ironzealot]

check this out

Basically an expose on exactly how shittily healthcare in handled in canada and why we should never want something like that in the united states.

The document and interview people who waited to years for simple surgery, suffered horribly, and even DIED in the process.

and this THE NORM in canada

I think you should all stop being such idiotic hacks and reconsider your idiotic position

[ironzealot]

damn newgrounds, can't edit or even preview your posts. In the second line 'the' should ready they and 'to' should read two

[ironzealot]

lol, yet another example. In the previous post 'ready' should read read

[MightierThanThou]

yeah, I've known that all along.

[Ravariel]

At 3/28/07 12:21 AM, ironzealot wrote: check this out

Basically an expose on exactly how shittily healthcare in handled in canada and why we should never want something like that in the united states.

Because obviously if we had universal healthcare, it would work exactly like Canada's...

[Drakim]

Yeah, God forbid you look at other countries that has universal healthcare, like Norway.

[AapoJoki]

So, it's better to leave them die then than to attempt to do anything to save them? How is having no healthcare better than having low-quality healthcare?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 3/28/07 12:26 AM, ironzealot wrote: lol, yet another example. In the previous post 'ready' should read read

First of all, there is no need to triple-post to correct typographical errors. There's no need to even double post, unless the error is so large as to make reading the post impossible or makes a large difference.

Second of all, you're right. I have never seen a federal government function perform productively. Go wait in line at the Social Security office or the Post Office. See what I mean?

I don't have a problem with people wanting to guarantee health care to the poor. What I do have a problem with is politicians preventing people who are able and willing to pay for their own healthcare from doing so and forcing them into the same decision, giving the government more say so than they have over their own health. If I'm willing to fork over an extra $100,000 to get an advanced operation ASAP, I should be allowed to do so—it's my money and my body.

[ironzealot]

At 3/28/07 05:13 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 3/28/07 12:26 AM, ironzealot wrote: lol, yet another example. In the previous post 'ready' should read read

First of all, there is no need to triple-post to correct typographical errors. There's no need to even double post, unless the error is so large as to make reading the post impossible or makes a large difference.

Second of all, you're right. I have never seen a federal government function perform productively. Go wait in line at the Social Security office or the Post Office. See what I mean?

I don't have a problem with people wanting to guarantee health care to the poor. What I do have a problem with is politicians preventing people who are able and willing to pay for their own healthcare from doing so and forcing them into the same decision, giving the government more say so than they have over their own health. If I'm willing to fork over an extra $100,000 to get an advanced operation ASAP, I should be allowed to do so—it's my money and my body.

that's the heart of the issue isn't it, the heart of most hot button issues these days. Government services are invariably far more costly and of far lower quality than their private sector counterparts, contrast public and private education(and if you think its because private schools have more money to spend your dead wrong, public school districts spend more per pupil than their private counterparts by an enormous margin) The reason for this is that the private sector has an interest in pleasing their customers and keeping costs down, the public sector has every incentive to do the exact opposite.

Why do we continue to hand more and more responsibility to this inept gang of bureaucrats when they demonstrate their incompetence at every opportunity.

If the poor have trouble accessing healthcare then their should be programs in place, or preferably private charities(who gain funds voluntarily and don't extort them at the point of a gun like the govenment) to assist them.

265 million of our 300 million citizens have health insurance and as a result access to the highest quality healthcare in the world. It's the nature of capitalism, the majority prosper and a few do not(though they had the opportunity).

Contrast this to socialism, where no one has economic freedom and everyone suffers. Capitalism seems to have the edge

[Slizor]

that's the heart of the issue isn't it, the heart of most hot button issues these days. Government services are invariably far more costly and of far lower quality than their private sector counterparts, contrast public and private education(and if you think its because private schools have more money to spend your dead wrong, public school districts spend more per pupil than their private counterparts by an enormous margin)

Prove it.

I was happily reading the forums until I came across this claim, which I do feel needs some backing up.

[AapoJoki]

At 3/28/07 07:07 AM, ironzealot wrote: a few do not(though they had the opportunity).

Please tell me how and where every citizen had this "opportunity". I can swear that there are millions of people out there, even in your country, who were born into such poverty that there is no hope for them whatsoever to buy a health insurance. Why are they being punished for something they didn't cause to themselves?

[Elfer]

At 3/28/07 07:07 AM, ironzealot wrote: contrast public and private education(and if you think its because private schools have more money to spend your dead wrong, public school districts spend more per pupil than their private counterparts by an enormous margin) The reason for this is that the private sector has an interest in pleasing their customers and keeping costs down, the public sector has every incentive to do the exact opposite.

Actually, a whole lot of people who come out of private schools are pretty fucking dumb. Although, that's mostly the schools that wave around their really expensive equipment and facilities to lure in suckers.

I'm in a relatively difficult program at my university, and I find that the people who can really do well, and by that I mean the people who are well-adjusted and can balance social and academic activities and still do well in both, are the people who come from the public school system.

However, as for healthcare, I do agree that the system in Canada is crappy and inefficient, but in contrast to the school system, the problem really is a lack of funding, or at least funding getting ot the right places. We need to strip down the entire system and rebuild it to get rid of the bureaucracy, increase efficiency, and put more money towards hiring additional staff and building sorely needed equipment like MRI scanners, or you know, beds.

Oh, but as a side note, something that isn't discussed much is that Canada's healthcare may suck for hospital care, but day-to-day family type healthcare is really quite good, because there's no prohibitive costs involved in going to see your doctor for something that's been bothering you. While I'm sure there are a few hypochondriacs going in for stupid shit, the vast majority of that use is legitimate, and it's really nice to have.

[K-RadPie]

At 3/28/07 05:12 AM, AapoJoki wrote: So, it's better to leave them die then than to attempt to do anything to save them? How is having no healthcare better than having low-quality healthcare?

Because we have a little thing called PRIVATE healthcare which is a hell of a lot different from NO healthcare.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 3/28/07 11:15 AM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 3/28/07 05:12 AM, AapoJoki wrote: So, it's better to leave them die then than to attempt to do anything to save them? How is having no healthcare better than having low-quality healthcare?

Because we have a little thing called PRIVATE healthcare which is a hell of a lot different from NO healthcare.

So when exactly did the US achieve 100% of it's population having Health insurance?

As long as there are people that can not afford Health insurance then the Government should provide Healthcare. And, you know, having Government run hospitals that won't charge dying people when they get rushed in isn't exactly a bad thing.

Is it expensive? Yes. Can the system be streamlined? Of course it can. Is it a good idea? Of course it is. If the population is healthier, then workers are more efficient and produce more Etc.

That's one of the reasons a number of health reforms were passed in Britain during the 19th Century. And as we were a leading world power at the time due to our industrial and economic strength, then there may be something to be said about healthy workers making a strong country. Don't you think?

[SkyCube]

As long as people who can afford it can choose to go private if they want, I see no problem with universal health care.

So you will have to pay a little extra tax to help poorer people get care... boo fucking hoo.

[SEXY-FETUS]

With the american sense of entitlement universal health care is the last thing we need.

[Ravariel]

At 3/28/07 12:38 PM, SkyCube wrote: As long as people who can afford it can choose to go private if they want, I see no problem with universal health care.

So you will have to pay a little extra tax to help poorer people get care... boo fucking hoo.

Exactly. I pay (and so does everyone else) 1.5% of my paycheck (about $6.00 a week) to cover 13% of the population... in order to cover the rest, my total would be about $46 a week (we'll ignore for the moment the fact that the 13% already covered need and use more health care than the rest of us, which would lower the cost significantly, and the very real possibility of a private health insurance tax deduction that would most likely follow the implementation of anything like this)... most people pay more than that per week out of their check for employer-offered health insurance. So not only would I get my own health care covered (if I needed it), I get to cover everyone else's too... sign me up.

And hey, if you want the to-o-the-line health care (or just "better" health care) then by all means pay for your own.

[JakeHero]

My eyes hurt from the amount of idiocy in this thread.

[Eoewe]

It would dampen profits for large corporations and that will not be allowed.

[ironzealot]

At 3/28/07 08:05 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 3/28/07 07:07 AM, ironzealot wrote: a few do not(though they had the opportunity).

Please tell me how and where every citizen had this "opportunity". I can swear that there are millions of people out there, even in your country, who were born into such poverty that there is no hope for them whatsoever to buy a health insurance. Why are they being punished for something they didn't cause to themselves?

I hate that dogmatic little mantra so often regurgitated by socialist types. If some one is born poor they will have to work harder to make it, but to say they had no opportunity to do so is idiotic. Look at all the poor vietnamese and indian immigrants who come here with almost nothing, send their kids to public school only to have those children graduate in the top 5% of their class and receive scholarships to attend ivy league universities.

Or if thats not the case, maybe they will have to attend night classes at a community college while they work during the day for a few years, and then take out loans to finish their degree at a four year university.

If you're born poor in this country, it is more difficult to acheive finacial success, but its very possible and relatively easy compated to alot of other countries. I don't feel I owe anybody anything if they squandered the opportunities this country affords them.

[ironzealot]

to temper my last post, I need to mention that there are individuals with legitimate physicial or mental disabilities that prohibit them from ever succeeding in the free market, and these people should be afforded help in a civilized society.(providing their needs are truly legitimate, and they're not simply leeching off the system like so many on welfare today)

As for the second generation immigrants doing so well in school, this is not because they are any smarter than people who have lived in the country for many generations, its simply because they recognize the tremendous opportunities they have here and they work very hard to take full advantage of them. This realization is sadly lost on most americans today.

[ironzealot]

At 3/28/07 06:35 PM, Eoewe wrote: It would dampen profits for large corporations and that will not be allowed.

those evil corporations!!

They kill JFK, malcolm X, caused hurricane katrina, and orchestrated 9/11

Now they're killing billions of people by denying socialized healthcare, they and the illuminati

[SlithVampir]

At 3/28/07 12:38 PM, SkyCube wrote: As long as people who can afford it can choose to go private if they want, I see no problem with universal health care.

So you will have to pay a little extra tax to help poorer people get care... boo fucking hoo.

NOW you get the issue. No one never proposed locking evreyone into the same coverage, it is a matter of making sure those who need it get coverage. For example, myself. I have no health insurance. Lets say that I hypotheticly (probably mispelled that) I was hit by a car, a plausible situation. My mother would have to sell EVREYTHING to pay for treatment (obviously I can't afford private coverage, as the companies feel the need to charge twice what is fair).

This is what happens evrey day to people that this government refuses to acknowledge. Without universal healthcare, America will never truly reach its full potential. Think about this, do you think FDR faced criticism from people like you when he proposed Social Security (something else our president is trying to destroy); yeah, that worked out terribly.

[RedSkunk]

The topic starter does realize that Canada's healthcare system is ranked consistently better than America's by any number of benchmarks, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and, most significantly, the WHO's World Health Reports (arguably the most extensive / far-reaching research available).

All the while spending less than half as much per capita as Americans.

Just FYI.

[Brick-top]

I know that the UK hasn't got the best healthcare, but it's definatly better than Canada (maybe America but I'm not sure.) I mean you get an option to have private healthcare, there is a wait but it's between hours, to maybe the sevier cases to weeks or months. So even if you don't like the British Univseral health care you can go private. Best of both worlds.

[AapoJoki]

At 3/28/07 10:49 PM, ironzealot wrote:

:(providing their needs are truly legitimate, and they're not simply leeching off the system like so many on welfare today)

This is something that I don't fully understand. Of course, if the "wellfare" system functions in a way that it only offers a small amount of money to the recipient per month and no additional motivator for them to work, I can see that there could be a lot of people who would simply take the money and do nothing to improve their situation. I don't consider a system like to be real caring, nor do I consider it to be a real welfare system.

However, since we're talking about healthcare here, I don't really see many ways how it could be abused. Maybe I'm just naïve or haven't seen the world enough or something. I can only thing of one obvious way: taking advantage of prescripted medication (i.e using them needlessly or distributing them on the streets for profit). Other than that, I have no idea how people could leech off from universal healthcare; you don't go to a heart surgery simply for the fun of consuming public resources.

[Brick-top]

The only downside that the video and information given on the website is that the canadians are stingy with their money. They will not put more money into it that is why their system has a flaw. If they sunk more money into it then people would get better healthcare. I mean private insurence is good for another alternative but Universal is the best. What is better?
Having no insurence meaning you get little to no healthcare which isn't an emergancy, and even if it is they stabilise you they bump you to charity hospitals where the waiting list for an operation would be longer than the Canadians. And lets not forget 2 years (which is a possible 2 years) is better than the 48 million with no insurence and the millions more with poor insurence policies.

Its just like what the website says. Unless you a regualar to treatment in hospitals you really cannot judge the healthcare system. Good thing I had a grandmother and Uncle to do that for me. Both are dead.