In the entire province of Ontario there are 7 MRI's compared to the city of Boston at last count I think they had something like 30. Even though an entire community would buy and MRI system the government would see this as a 2 tier health care and would deny having one community getting better health care over another, even though we would pay for it. They rather have a 1 year long lineup and have people at the end die rather than agreeing to a 2 tier health care. What type of sick demented government do we have here in Canada anyway. The sad thing is that there already IS a two tier health care, one for the rich and famous and one for the poor, if the rich get sick they just buy a plane ticket to the U.S. and get private health care at will. Even every Minister or MP will get Military health care in Canada. Do you remember Bourasa even he went to the U.S. to treat his cancer, knowing full well that he would not dare be treated like every other Canadian. Who suffers the most.... the poor.
Health Care in Canada SUX and here's why
- Thread starter NicColt
- Start date
where are you getting this info from?
i happen to know of at least 2 at sick kids, two at sunnybrook, two at toronto general, 1 in timmins, at least one in london (thats eight), at least one in ottawa, at least one in kingston.......
i will not defend our health care and say that it is perfect, but the fact remains that anyone can get treatment.
timmins went out and raised money in the community for an mri machine...so you are off base that communities cannot raise their own money for one....
sookaa
i happen to know of at least 2 at sick kids, two at sunnybrook, two at toronto general, 1 in timmins, at least one in london (thats eight), at least one in ottawa, at least one in kingston.......
i will not defend our health care and say that it is perfect, but the fact remains that anyone can get treatment.
timmins went out and raised money in the community for an mri machine...so you are off base that communities cannot raise their own money for one....
sookaa
"i happen to know of at least 2 at sick kids, two at sunnybrook, two at toronto general, 1 in timmins, at least one in london (thats eight), at least one in ottawa, at least one in kingston......."
Even if they have them it doesn't mean that they are using them, they don't have money to staff them. and I excluded cheo.
"but the fact remains that anyone can get treatment."
Sure if you wait long enough, but please don't tell me there a 1 tier health care system.
Even if they have them it doesn't mean that they are using them, they don't have money to staff them. and I excluded cheo.
"but the fact remains that anyone can get treatment."
Sure if you wait long enough, but please don't tell me there a 1 tier health care system.
I went to the emergency with my wife she was in very heavy pain in her abdomen or stomack, she could hardly walk and was spitting a small amount of blood. After waiting for about 5 hours the doctor said the she needed an ultrasound so that he can make a more accurate diagnosis. We went to the Ultrasound part an expecting to wait while she get's an untrasound. The guy looks up at us and laugh's saying, and I quote "oh sure your appointment is in 3 months". I told him that this was an emergency and he said with a grin "oh yes this is the emergency list". In other words if your not dead it could wait. What a JOKE. The odds are better for you to get better at home than at the hospital.
....."i excluded cheo"
good for you...your argument isn't very valid then is it?
once again, where do you pull your facts from?
once again, i make no claim to say that we have a perfectly working system, we don't...but try to use facts in the debate on it.
sookaa
good for you...your argument isn't very valid then is it?
once again, where do you pull your facts from?
once again, i make no claim to say that we have a perfectly working system, we don't...but try to use facts in the debate on it.
sookaa
Blame the Liberals!
To be perfectly honest, I'm not necessarily in favor of two-tiered health care (the term), simply because the term itself is meant to be inflammatory. No one refers to our tax system as a four-tiered tax system (or however many rates there are), or our education as a two-tiered education system (public and private)! And if you went up to the average Canadian and said "Do you support two-tiered education?" they would say "no!" Why? Because it is human nature to immediately reject a policy of perceived unfairness.
However, in reality, we have to face the facts. A two-tiered health system would improve health care for both the rich and the poor. If the rich want to pay for their health, why not? Alleviate the strain on the public health system. Allows for better service for the "poor".
Of course, here comes the favorite argument against. "But then all the good doctors will work for the private system leaving garbage for the public system." First of all, that's an insult to anyone who would want to work in the public system for whatever reason. Second, it assumes all doctors are motivated solely by greed, another insult to such esteemed professionals. However, the biggest argument against is this: if the doctor was motivated solely by greed, they'd be working in the United States anyway. If we had a private health system then we wouldn't lose doctors to the States as much as we currently do. In the end, our lack of a private system just means that everyone suffers while the States takes our doctors who were trained by our TAXPAYER-subsidized universities.
I once again revert to the education example. Private schools are legal. Most people would not think they should be outlawed. In Canada, I believe everyone should be entitled to an equal K-12 education, but that doesn't mean private schools should be outlawed. Education is a vital service like health. In my opinion, education is just as vital of a service as health care. Why is it then that everyone is against having both a private and public system for health care, but so ambivalent with respect to education?
The reason is this: the Liberal (and Conservative and NDP) parties are trying to turn this into class warfare (to borrow a term from the American elections). They are trying to make it seem like a colossal struggle when it is really an issue of pragmatism. They are not interested in what's best for Canadians, they are interested in what makes a convincing speech. I'll admit it: it's hard to convince people of the merits of a private and public co-existing health system. However, it doesn't help that our elected government is spending money trashing provinces like Alberta for trying innovative solutions to our acknowledged problems in health care.
And finally, drop the term two-tiered for good. There is no reason to put such a negative spin on the concept of private/public.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not necessarily in favor of two-tiered health care (the term), simply because the term itself is meant to be inflammatory. No one refers to our tax system as a four-tiered tax system (or however many rates there are), or our education as a two-tiered education system (public and private)! And if you went up to the average Canadian and said "Do you support two-tiered education?" they would say "no!" Why? Because it is human nature to immediately reject a policy of perceived unfairness.
However, in reality, we have to face the facts. A two-tiered health system would improve health care for both the rich and the poor. If the rich want to pay for their health, why not? Alleviate the strain on the public health system. Allows for better service for the "poor".
Of course, here comes the favorite argument against. "But then all the good doctors will work for the private system leaving garbage for the public system." First of all, that's an insult to anyone who would want to work in the public system for whatever reason. Second, it assumes all doctors are motivated solely by greed, another insult to such esteemed professionals. However, the biggest argument against is this: if the doctor was motivated solely by greed, they'd be working in the United States anyway. If we had a private health system then we wouldn't lose doctors to the States as much as we currently do. In the end, our lack of a private system just means that everyone suffers while the States takes our doctors who were trained by our TAXPAYER-subsidized universities.
I once again revert to the education example. Private schools are legal. Most people would not think they should be outlawed. In Canada, I believe everyone should be entitled to an equal K-12 education, but that doesn't mean private schools should be outlawed. Education is a vital service like health. In my opinion, education is just as vital of a service as health care. Why is it then that everyone is against having both a private and public system for health care, but so ambivalent with respect to education?
The reason is this: the Liberal (and Conservative and NDP) parties are trying to turn this into class warfare (to borrow a term from the American elections). They are trying to make it seem like a colossal struggle when it is really an issue of pragmatism. They are not interested in what's best for Canadians, they are interested in what makes a convincing speech. I'll admit it: it's hard to convince people of the merits of a private and public co-existing health system. However, it doesn't help that our elected government is spending money trashing provinces like Alberta for trying innovative solutions to our acknowledged problems in health care.
And finally, drop the term two-tiered for good. There is no reason to put such a negative spin on the concept of private/public.
Al Gore wants to make America just like Canada.
A country with a destroyed socialized health care system with the government as the ultimate HMO and without the good beer.
A country with a destroyed socialized health care system with the government as the ultimate HMO and without the good beer.
How about this one. A lady who needed a liver transplant in Vancouver just got matched and was going to get the transplant but at the very last minute (she had her IV in) they had to cancel the operation because the fringin government had no money for her ICU bed. So she gets no transplant & her liver went to Alberta. Now she has to wait for another liver (which will be very hard because she has a rare blood type) and she will probably die waiting for a new one.
All our health system needs is to get the money back that the government took out over the years (both PC & Liberal gov'ts). Give the system the money to buy new equipment (a local hospital used get 11% of its equipment by donation in 1985 now 100% is bought by donation). Some of our hospitals were trying to give our old equipmnet to 3rd world countries but they would not accept it because it was too old (hows that for a kick in the pants). Also hire more nurses (more nurses are retiring or leaving than are being trained).
Cheers,
Aquaman
All our health system needs is to get the money back that the government took out over the years (both PC & Liberal gov'ts). Give the system the money to buy new equipment (a local hospital used get 11% of its equipment by donation in 1985 now 100% is bought by donation). Some of our hospitals were trying to give our old equipmnet to 3rd world countries but they would not accept it because it was too old (hows that for a kick in the pants). Also hire more nurses (more nurses are retiring or leaving than are being trained).
Cheers,
Aquaman
Niccolt
Sorry to hear about your wife. In the future, ask your doctor to refer you to clinics outside of the hospital with ultrasound equipment. I've been sick recently and haven't had to wait more than a few hours for an ultrasound (live in Toronto). And I wouldn't even say I was as sick as your wife. The only thing is that I had to travel five minutes away from the hospital to a private clinic whose only job was to handle ultrasound procedures. I was also in a non-emergency situation where I was to get an ultrasound and had to wait only 2 weeks for an appointment (I could have gotten it earlier but it wouldn't fit into my schedule).
Just tips in general. Never go to a hospital emergency room unless you're scared you're gonna die (In your case with your wife, that situation would scare me enough to go to the emergency room). For non-emergency cases, walk-in clinics have much better waiting times (avg. 15 minutes). I've been to a walk-in clinic 4 times this year alone for myself and my girlfriend, and the longest I had to wait was 45 minutes.
Handle,
The last time I checked, friends from private schools had a heck of a better education than myself...I'd say orders of magnitude better. You don't think this would happen with health care?
A private medical system will improve health care for the rich. There is no trickle down effect. The first things to go in the "free" medical system will be the good doctors and nurses who will quickly snatch up well paying, secure jobs, with less hours (the latter are two reasons I can give you other than greed for motivating them). The second thing to go will be the beds and equipment as the government decides that "we have less people using the "free" system so we don't have to spend money on it".
One of the scariest aspects of a private medical system is the possibility, or rather, certainty that a large American HMO or other company would purchase the Canadian counterparts, effectively removing control of our own health care system from our own.
I'll say this day in and day out. Privatization of crown corporations (or pseudo crown corporations like our health care system) does not work in Canada. The reason being that foreign companies can and do quickly snatch up these companies then turn around and raise prices. Look at the hydro situation in Ontario as an example. There was a solid reason for the existence of government owned corporations like hydro, rail transport, air transport, and hospitals. The purpose was to create a consistent system with a guaranteed level of service throughout Canada. Considering Canada's spread-out population, this made sense. No private company in their right mind would open up a major hospital in certain parts of the country where there are now hospitals. A lot of Canada just doesn't have the population to make these sort of things profitable...which is why the government decided they would step in. You don't expect every venture the government does to turn a profit. You just expect that the venture carries out its intended purpose.
As far as health care goes though, at least in Ontario, we've been taking it up the a$$ from Cretien's cutbacks and from Harris' cutbacks. Cretien decided Ontario was a rich province and wouldn't give us necessary money, and Harris decided that the money was better spent giving taxpayers back $200 and cutting taxes then spending on our hospitals.
I caution everybody from blasting the philosophy behind our health care system. It is not broken and, for that matter, a philosophy in itself cannot be "broken". Health care for all, regardless of whether you are rich or poor is something that is affordable and can produce great results. However, the implementation of it sucks. It needs money bad, and the money is definitely there. A lot of governments in Canada will use the state of the health care system to push their mandate to privatize it. Don't buy their rhetoric. I wouldn't be surprised if their pockets are lined by very wealthy lobbyists who would like to open up shop in Canada.
-GL
Sorry to hear about your wife. In the future, ask your doctor to refer you to clinics outside of the hospital with ultrasound equipment. I've been sick recently and haven't had to wait more than a few hours for an ultrasound (live in Toronto). And I wouldn't even say I was as sick as your wife. The only thing is that I had to travel five minutes away from the hospital to a private clinic whose only job was to handle ultrasound procedures. I was also in a non-emergency situation where I was to get an ultrasound and had to wait only 2 weeks for an appointment (I could have gotten it earlier but it wouldn't fit into my schedule).
Just tips in general. Never go to a hospital emergency room unless you're scared you're gonna die (In your case with your wife, that situation would scare me enough to go to the emergency room). For non-emergency cases, walk-in clinics have much better waiting times (avg. 15 minutes). I've been to a walk-in clinic 4 times this year alone for myself and my girlfriend, and the longest I had to wait was 45 minutes.
Handle,
The last time I checked, friends from private schools had a heck of a better education than myself...I'd say orders of magnitude better. You don't think this would happen with health care?
A private medical system will improve health care for the rich. There is no trickle down effect. The first things to go in the "free" medical system will be the good doctors and nurses who will quickly snatch up well paying, secure jobs, with less hours (the latter are two reasons I can give you other than greed for motivating them). The second thing to go will be the beds and equipment as the government decides that "we have less people using the "free" system so we don't have to spend money on it".
One of the scariest aspects of a private medical system is the possibility, or rather, certainty that a large American HMO or other company would purchase the Canadian counterparts, effectively removing control of our own health care system from our own.
I'll say this day in and day out. Privatization of crown corporations (or pseudo crown corporations like our health care system) does not work in Canada. The reason being that foreign companies can and do quickly snatch up these companies then turn around and raise prices. Look at the hydro situation in Ontario as an example. There was a solid reason for the existence of government owned corporations like hydro, rail transport, air transport, and hospitals. The purpose was to create a consistent system with a guaranteed level of service throughout Canada. Considering Canada's spread-out population, this made sense. No private company in their right mind would open up a major hospital in certain parts of the country where there are now hospitals. A lot of Canada just doesn't have the population to make these sort of things profitable...which is why the government decided they would step in. You don't expect every venture the government does to turn a profit. You just expect that the venture carries out its intended purpose.
As far as health care goes though, at least in Ontario, we've been taking it up the a$$ from Cretien's cutbacks and from Harris' cutbacks. Cretien decided Ontario was a rich province and wouldn't give us necessary money, and Harris decided that the money was better spent giving taxpayers back $200 and cutting taxes then spending on our hospitals.
I caution everybody from blasting the philosophy behind our health care system. It is not broken and, for that matter, a philosophy in itself cannot be "broken". Health care for all, regardless of whether you are rich or poor is something that is affordable and can produce great results. However, the implementation of it sucks. It needs money bad, and the money is definitely there. A lot of governments in Canada will use the state of the health care system to push their mandate to privatize it. Don't buy their rhetoric. I wouldn't be surprised if their pockets are lined by very wealthy lobbyists who would like to open up shop in Canada.
-GL
About the private school vs public school -- I guess our situations might be different, but here in Calgary, I do not believe students in private schools get a better education than people in the public system. What is generally considered to be the best high school in Calgary (no I did not go there so I'm not being biased) is not private--in fact, it is public and is located in central Calgary. When you look at scores on standardized tests, you will find public schools handily beating private schools in many situations. If you look at who is getting the free-ride scholarships from universities, you will find a large proportion of them (at least in Calgary and Edmonton) are coming from public schools. Most of the people I know who win other large scholarships come from the public system too.
I'm not saying the private system is bad, I am saying though that going through the public system was not a detriment to my education. I am quite pleased with the education I have received through our publicly funded system.
But of course, the main point I'm trying to make is this: I don't think that the existence of private schools makes my publicly funded education worse. Let's say that private schools are better than public schools (not that I agree) -- I still don't think that eliminating private schools is the way to improve education. Likewise, I don't think that banning private health care is the solution to making a better public system.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying we should legislate a mandatory private system with no strings attached. I do think however that provinces, maybe even *GASP* the federal government should look at innovative ways of improving our health care system, other than the standard "we promise to put in the money we took out if you elect us". I am vehemently opposed to threatening to fine provinces (ahem... Alberta again) millions of dollars for trying new and innovative ways of improving health care.
I am not saying we should dismantle our public system. I think we should allow, slowly, some private facilities to coexist with the public ones. Choice--isn't that what democracy is all about? Why are we forcing talented doctors and wealthy Canadians to go to the United States to get what they want when we can offer it here?
I'm not saying the private system is bad, I am saying though that going through the public system was not a detriment to my education. I am quite pleased with the education I have received through our publicly funded system.
But of course, the main point I'm trying to make is this: I don't think that the existence of private schools makes my publicly funded education worse. Let's say that private schools are better than public schools (not that I agree) -- I still don't think that eliminating private schools is the way to improve education. Likewise, I don't think that banning private health care is the solution to making a better public system.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying we should legislate a mandatory private system with no strings attached. I do think however that provinces, maybe even *GASP* the federal government should look at innovative ways of improving our health care system, other than the standard "we promise to put in the money we took out if you elect us". I am vehemently opposed to threatening to fine provinces (ahem... Alberta again) millions of dollars for trying new and innovative ways of improving health care.
I am not saying we should dismantle our public system. I think we should allow, slowly, some private facilities to coexist with the public ones. Choice--isn't that what democracy is all about? Why are we forcing talented doctors and wealthy Canadians to go to the United States to get what they want when we can offer it here?
Handle, you live under a rock?
There are LOTS of private medical facilities in Calgary...
Gimble Eye Center
Lasik Eye Centers
The many drop in clinics all over town
Kensington Abortion Clinic
To say that there hasn't been a large private influence in our health care system over the last 10 years is, well, being ignorant.
NicColt: That's some mighty fine extrapolation you're doing there. Blaming our health care "system" when perhaps it was just an idiot worker takes a few leaps in logic..
GL: Please back up your statements about privitization of Crown organizations. Your later statements had nothing to do with the first sentence in that paragraph. You do realize there are many, many laws preventing complete foreign ownership of public companies in Canada, right?
There are LOTS of private medical facilities in Calgary...
Gimble Eye Center
Lasik Eye Centers
The many drop in clinics all over town
Kensington Abortion Clinic
To say that there hasn't been a large private influence in our health care system over the last 10 years is, well, being ignorant.
NicColt: That's some mighty fine extrapolation you're doing there. Blaming our health care "system" when perhaps it was just an idiot worker takes a few leaps in logic..
GL: Please back up your statements about privitization of Crown organizations. Your later statements had nothing to do with the first sentence in that paragraph. You do realize there are many, many laws preventing complete foreign ownership of public companies in Canada, right?
Shazam... by some private facilities, I am referring to facilities offering more than just specialized services such as the very respected Gimbel Eye Centre. I am making reference to allowing medical facilities that would currently get Alberta a scolding from the federal government.
And if the influence of private medical facilities on our health care system is so obvious, why is it that Jean Chretien is demonizing Alberta yet again on the issue of private health care. Obviously it isn't too obvious to the most important political figure in Canada.
And if the influence of private medical facilities on our health care system is so obvious, why is it that Jean Chretien is demonizing Alberta yet again on the issue of private health care. Obviously it isn't too obvious to the most important political figure in Canada.
<< I caution everybody from blasting the philosophy behind our health care system. It is not broken and, for that matter, a philosophy in itself cannot be "broken". Health care for all, regardless of whether you are rich or poor is something that is affordable and can produce great results. However, the implementation of it sucks. It needs money bad, and the money is definitely there. A lot of governments in Canada will use the state of the health care system to push their mandate to privatize it. Don't buy their rhetoric. I wouldn't be surprised if their pockets are lined by very wealthy lobbyists who would like to open up shop in Canada. >>
GL:
It all boils down to money. You either get taxed to death to pay for a socialized system, or you pay the insurance companies for a privatized system. Take your pick. Regardless, somebody's getting rich. It is idealistic to think that socialized health care will ever work. This is typical socialist thinking. But what the socialist fails to recognize, time and again, is that their ideals run counter to reality. Socialism, in any form, just doesn't work. It's not the type of system rational people want to live under. The 20th century alone is replete with examples of failed social experiments.
Have you ever asked yourself why the health care system in The United States is arguably the best in the world? It's because our societal system breeds healthy competition. And competition has the propensity to bring out the best in people. It's literally survival of the fittest. It spurs us on to be creative and independent. The alternative is to be dependent upon a central governing body; which history shows is just flat out dangerous. There is no accountability or sanctions built into a centralized system. Not to mention that creativity atrophies in such a system.
Does the U.S. system have problems? You bet it does! And much of it is because of the greedy bastards in the insurance industry, and the administrations of health care facilities. But I'd much rather deal with that, and know where my money is going, than deal with the greedy bastards in a centralized system who could be spending my tax dollars on Lord knows what.
To address your specific quote that <<a philosophy in itself cannot be "broken">>, I counter with, "Yes it can". It's broken from my frame of reference. It's broken from the frame of reference of reality. In a Utopian society? Sure. But we don't live in a Utopian society. That's the reality. Should we attempt to create a Utopian society? No. It goes against human nature as human nature exists now. A thousand years from now? Who knows, but I doubt it.
Also, as far as your quote, <<Health care for all, regardless of whether you are rich or poor is something that is affordable and can produce great results.>>, is concerned, please site where in the world this is being realized on a scale of quality that the U.S. provides. I have spoken with people from Italy, England, Romania, Ukraine, China, Iraq, Iran, Algeria . . . my occupation places me in contact with many foreigners, about this very subject. Every single one of them that came from a socialized health care system tells me how piss-poor it is when compared to the U.S. system. Coincidence? I don't think so.
US = greedy insurance companies, Canada = greedy socialized healthcare. Is there much difference? What every system needs is balance. Yin and Yang 
<< It all boils down to money. You either get taxed to death to pay for a socialized system, or you pay the insurance companies for a privatized system. Take your pick. Regardless, somebody's getting rich. It is idealistic to think that socialized health care will ever work. This is typical socialist thinking. But what the socialist fails to recognize, time and again, is that their ideals run counter to reality. Socialism, in any form, just doesn't work. It's not the type of system rational people want to live under. The 20th century alone is replete with examples of failed social experiments. >>
In your own opinion, correct?
<< Have you ever asked yourself why the health care system in The United States is arguably the best in the world? It's because our societal system breeds healthy competition. And competition has the propensity to bring out the best in people. It's literally survival of the fittest. It spurs us on to be creative and independent. The alternative is to be dependent upon a central governing body; which history shows is just flat out dangerous. There is no accountability or sanctions built into a centralized system. Not to mention that creativity atrophies in such a system. >>
Non-sequitor. Health care is literally about taking care of the least fittest. If you were "fit", why the hell would you need health care?
There's lots of accountability in a central system. It's called democracy. The problem is that people in general can't handle democracy.
Of course, what I find hilarious about your comments is that you pretty well contradict everything you say by admitting that your private system is also full of greedy incompetents as well. So which one's better?
Handle: There are no private "general" hospitals, if that's what you mean.
<< And if the influence of private medical facilities on our health care system is so obvious, why is it that Jean Chretien is demonizing Alberta yet again on the issue of private health care. Obviously it isn't too obvious to the most important political figure in Canada. >>
Since when does politics reflect reality? Chretien says anything he can to garner points. He'd say that everyone in Alberta are inbreds from Mars if that got him more seats in Ontario.
<< Non-sequitor. Health care is literally about taking care of the least fittest. If you were "fit", why the hell would you need health care? >>
Shazam,
Was that complete misinterpretation deliberate?
Russ, NCNE
Sigh... I was going to make it a habit of never responding to Russ's drivel ever again, but here goes:
Feisters was rambling about how US SOCIETY was "survival of the fittest". Not about US health care. In fact, his first statement had nothing to do with the rest of his paragraph. If he had written something like "health care should be managed privately because US society believes that is how we should take care of our citizens" then I wouldn't have responded to his paragraph at all.
Bottom line is he didn't, so his statement could be taken a few different ways.
Anyhow, Feisters should realize that the US also has quite a large socialist support system, even in medical care.
Feisters was rambling about how US SOCIETY was "survival of the fittest". Not about US health care. In fact, his first statement had nothing to do with the rest of his paragraph. If he had written something like "health care should be managed privately because US society believes that is how we should take care of our citizens" then I wouldn't have responded to his paragraph at all.
Bottom line is he didn't, so his statement could be taken a few different ways.
Anyhow, Feisters should realize that the US also has quite a large socialist support system, even in medical care.
Nic, I'm gonig to have to disagree with you. I still think that while our health care system isn't perfect, it's still pretty good, and will get better as the governments put more money back into it.
And trust me, a 2-tiered system is NOT better than what we have now. There was a huge debate over this here in Alberta when the PCs introduced Bill 11, and I've done a lot of looking into it, it would only make things worse.
And trust me, a 2-tiered system is NOT better than what we have now. There was a huge debate over this here in Alberta when the PCs introduced Bill 11, and I've done a lot of looking into it, it would only make things worse.
Nice try, Shazam. Why don't you just admit that you don't have the mental acuity necessary to detect the meaning of complicated concepts. Come on, be a man, it won't hurt. Nobody will think any less of you then they already do.
Russ, NCNE
Russ, NCNE
Russ, obviously my take on this subject delved a little too far into those arcane concepts of liberty, freedom and independence. Also, I should learn to choose my words more carefully. I guess "survival of the fittest" was taken literally as applied to this subject. Some people just don't get it. Let's hope the results on Tuesday help turn around the silliness that's pervaded this country for the last eight years.
Shazam, the concept of socialized medicine can not be adequately addressed in several paragraphs on an internet forum. Let alone the entire concept of socialism. My point was that centralized health care is just one more step towards socialism. The U.S. indeed has way too many socialized federal programs and they cause big problems. If you know anything at all about the U.S. Constitution, it's that the Federal government shouldn't be involved in this issue at all! That responsibility falls upon the individual States. However, the liberals of this country don't interpret it that way. They think that Big Brother will take care of everything. Well, you know, maybe I don't want to be "taken care of" in that way. I'll make my own decisions, thank you, and deal with the consequences should I make the wrong decision. It's called personal responsibility.
Shazam, the concept of socialized medicine can not be adequately addressed in several paragraphs on an internet forum. Let alone the entire concept of socialism. My point was that centralized health care is just one more step towards socialism. The U.S. indeed has way too many socialized federal programs and they cause big problems. If you know anything at all about the U.S. Constitution, it's that the Federal government shouldn't be involved in this issue at all! That responsibility falls upon the individual States. However, the liberals of this country don't interpret it that way. They think that Big Brother will take care of everything. Well, you know, maybe I don't want to be "taken care of" in that way. I'll make my own decisions, thank you, and deal with the consequences should I make the wrong decision. It's called personal responsibility.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter