OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
I'm not fond of the idea of paying healthcare and medication costs for the lazy people in the USA which just don't want to work or earn money decently.

If you don't have a moral problem with not providing health care to everyone, and hence allowing them to suffer and die from preventable causes, then there's not much I could ever say to convince you otherwise.

[Huzurdaddi]

There's also the fact that national healthcare systems such as the Canadian one provide the same services for 57% of the cost.

I guess you have never tried both services personally. They are not at all comparable. Canadian health care sucks.

*IF* you can afford US health care it is far superior. Period.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
If you don't have a moral problem with not providing health care to everyone, and hence allowing them to suffer and die from preventable causes, then there's not much I could ever say to convince you otherwise.

That's not what I said... I will write with a different explanation.
Providing complete healthcare for all citizens will give more reasons for lazy people not to work and people doing illegal actions to continue.

As far as any moral problems... John Kerry is unapologetically pro-abortion. But as a Catholic, he is required to be personally opposed to the idea.

[ July 26, 2004, 19:52: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Providing complete healthcare for all citizens will give more reasons for lazy people not to work and people doing illegal actions to continue.

Sort of. Most people who choose to work aren't doing it for healthcare. They're doing it for the Plasma TV or the new car or, uh, food.

Creating a system to prevent the lowest levels of society from literaly dying in the gutter from lack of health insurance is IMO not likely to increase unemployment.

I'm not big on Federal Welfare programs et. al. myself, but I'd like to know that if I ever find myself on the bottom rung that I could still get an appendectomy free of charge.

[ July 26, 2004, 19:51: Message edited by: Demosthenes ]

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Demosthenes:
I'm not big on Federal Welfare programs et. al. myself, but I'd like to know that if I ever find myself on the bottom rung that I could still get an appendectomy free of charge.

Sounds nice from the offer... but take a look at the taxes for countries which do provide this service.
Another side effect would be hospitals and doctors offices even more busy then now. No longer will you be waiting an hour... expect three hours.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
I guess you have never tried both services personally. They are not at all comparable. Canadian health care sucks.

No, it really doesn't "suck". If you'd look at the most basic of statistics, you'd see that our mortality statistics are comparable or better than that of the U.S.

*IF* you can afford US health care it is far superior. Period.

That's the problem. You can't simply ignore the people who can't afford it and then state that the system is superior. If you want your sample to be at all indicative of the actual state, then you must include even those people that can't afford proper healthcare.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Sounds nice from the offer... but take a look at the taxes for countries which do provide this service.

This is beside the point. The overall expenditure on health care per capita comes from the population of a country, regardless of whether it is collected through taxes or directly from the people.

Another side effect would be hospitals and doctors offices even more busy then now. No longer will you be waiting an hour... expect three hours.

This is little more than FUD. Even without making an appointment, and while walking in to a very busy University medical centre, I have rarely waited even an hour to see a Dr., and certainly never anywhere close to three hours.