Canada vs US (healthcare)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you pay for a military you don't use, you pay for subsidies for industries you don't work in, you pay for wars nobody wants.

but heaven forbid you pay that someone else gets to live.

the thing you must understand is that your taxes doesn't buy stuff for you. it buys stuff for everyone else. did you pay someone to build the road you use on your way to ...[text shortened]... aying one or two more dollars a year so that someone could live. my heart bloody breaks for you.

The idea that the government can provide benefits at no cost is complete fiction. If we cover more people it will simply cost more money.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how is what you said in any way contradicted by my post?

if you have the money, you get the surgery earlier.
if you don't have the money, you get it later. in canada. in the US you get it never.

it is funny that every argument comes back to "i can afford medical care, screw the other guy".
it is sad that you people still don't get it. universal healthcare doesn't prevent you from getting private healthcare if you can afford it.

Of course often if you wait to get surgery you end up dead. But you seem to view that as a plus because you could then tax and redistribute that persons assets and give them to the group you deem worthy.

Originally posted by quackquack
The idea that the government can provide benefits at no cost is complete fiction.

Yeah, about as fictional as the people claiming that "the government can provide benefits at no cost."

Originally posted by quackquack
The idea that the government can provide benefits at no cost is complete fiction. If we cover more people it will simply cost more money.

Well if you pay more in the US system it very possibly could simply cost more money, since the proportion of your with-profit health services lost to bureaucracy and overheads is staggering. If on the other hand one assumed (for the moment) that covering more people would provide more people with health services, improve their health prospects, alleviate the poverty and often bankruptcy associated with poor health in the US, and consequently enhance the productivity of the population then it would not simple cost more money; it would cost more money and also achieve many benefits which in turn would include avoiding alternative costs and achieving raised revenues through improved productivity.

So the real question has to be - would investing more money in better health cover produce economic gains that balance or even outweigh the initial, direct costs? In most countries, the answer is that health spending repays itself many times over and is arguably the single most effective investment by which any government can enhance the economic prospects of its country. Properly accounted for, it might even cost less money.

People who can see only cost and are blind to benefits are economically illiterate. A business that minimised costs regardless of the impact on productivity and revenues would quickly die.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well if you pay more in the US system it very possibly could simply cost more money, since the proportion of your with-profit health services lost to bureaucracy and overheads is staggering. If on the other hand one assumed (for the moment) that covering more people would provide more people with health services, improve their health prospects, alleviate th ...[text shortened]... ss that minimised costs regardless of the impact on productivity and revenues would quickly die.

I'm not blind to the continual costs of expanding entitlement programs. It adds a cost to everything that our society produces which will cause certain things to be less profitable and therefore not be undertaken.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Let's discuss how many people will die and suffer waiting for access to a doctor? It is unacceptable for people to pay more and then be asked to get worse care. It is time to stop worry about those who aren't paying and instead focus on the care that those who actually pay their bill get.

Originally posted by quackquack
The idea that the government can provide benefits at no cost is complete fiction. If we cover more people it will simply cost more money.

it's not complete fiction, but it does require something incredibly difficult to do: take money out of the most expensive military in the world and use it for education and healthcare.


but that's beside the point. i mentioned saving people's lives and you immediately asked how much.

well, let's play this game. i am asking you now.

how much are you willing to pay more in taxes so that some people live?

Originally posted by quackquack
I'm not blind to the continual costs of expanding entitlement programs. It adds a cost to everything that our society produces which will cause certain things to be less profitable and therefore not be undertaken.

Nonsense. You only see cost and fail to see benefits, which is irrational. Henry Ford complained that American manufacturers had to compete at a serious cost disadvantage compared to British rivals because of the direct cost of health insurance in the US compared with the NHS in Britain.

Originally posted by quackquack
Of course often if you wait to get surgery you end up dead. But you seem to view that as a plus because you could then tax and redistribute that persons assets and give them to the group you deem worthy.

when you have a problem with your car, you fix it. you don't throw it away.


"Of course often if you wait to get surgery you end up dead."
hmm let's see, waiting to move up to the top of the waiting list might kill you. what happens when there isn't a list to wait on? what happens when you need a surgery, you don't have insurance? will you magically get the money for that operation in a year?

how long would it take you to save the 40000 needed for a hip replacement?(it costs 7000 in spain). how long does it take a canadian to move up that list you are so eager to smack me over the head with? .
how long would it take you to save the 800 000 (that's 8 times a hundred thousand dollars) for a heart transplant?

do you have the gall to say you can raise that money in less time than would take a canadian to climb the dreaded waiting list?

Originally posted by quackquack
Let's discuss how many people will die and suffer waiting for access to a doctor? It is unacceptable for people to pay more and then be asked to get worse care. It is time to stop worry about those who aren't paying and instead focus on the care that those who actually pay their bill get.

"It is time to stop worry about those who aren't paying"
those are people you are talking about, you colossal douchebag

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your knowledge of history and law are, as usual, pathetic. Maybe this will help:

From the 1500s until the 1880s, corporations were considered the artificial creations of their owners and the state legislatures that authorized them. Because they were artificial legal entities, created only and exclusively by the states and referred to in the law as “ar ...[text shortened]... /www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america

That is an opinion.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Deaths will occur, regardless of the system of care, and the nature of insurance. Today, more people are insured in America than before Obama Care, but many have much less comprehensive coverage, and many still die for lack of treatment, or because they take drugs approved by FDA, which maim or kill them.

Try watching early morning television, and see all the legal teams trolling for people harmed by various approved drugs.