If we adopted Canada's national health care system, where would sick Canadians go?

[9sublime]

Because in today's world with the contemorary views on the role of government, a nationalized healthcare would include massive tax hikes. And to me, the removal of choice (so long as it does not harm anyone) and taking more money out of my pocket equals a decrease in personal freedom.

9sublime, this comes down to the fundamental, core disagreement between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, traditionally, believe in individual liberty, self-responsiblity, and voluntary charity in the Jeffersonian model whereas liberals tend to buy into the Marxist "for the greater good" philosophy where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave. Personally, I just don't have that much faith in government bureaucracy that I am anxious to put them in charge of my health. I believe government is the problem. You think it is the solution.

I am obviously not a true liberal then. I value personal freedoms and self responsiblity, but at the same time want people to be given their human rights. I want a less intrusive and all powerful government, but a country still needs to care for its poorest citizens if its going to arrest them and jail them for crimes etc.

Whats wrong with national healthcare but people also have the option to go private if they want? As I've said, divert the billions used on bombs every year making other people injured and sick, and instead look after your own. Then you wont be any more out of pocket than you were before.

If you want to go private you can, if anything it gives people more choice in life and some people dont even have a choice, they just cant get healthcare.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I am obviously not a true liberal then. I value personal freedoms and self responsiblity, but at the same time want people to be given their human rights. I want a less intrusive and all powerful government, but a country still needs to care for its poorest citizens if its going to arrest them and jail them for crimes etc.

9sub, my view of the federal government is that it has a responsibility to protect its citizens and maintain essential infrastructure. That's it.

Prisons would fall under this, national healthcare would not.

Whats wrong with national healthcare but people also have the option to go private if they want?

Because then you have people paying for something that they will not use. It's the same problem I have with education and Social Security and which is why I favor some sort of consumption tax such as the Fair Tax.

As I've said, divert the billions used on bombs every year making other people injured and sick, and instead look after your own. Then you wont be any more out of pocket than you were before.

The problem with this is that I believe that funding the military is an essential role of government and would fall under the category of "looking after your own".

If you want to go private you can, if anything it gives people more choice in life and some people dont even have a choice, they just cant get healthcare.

The solution here would be to get the government bureacuracy and its amazing amount of red tape out of healthcare and to move Medicaid back into the market. If Medicaid was voucherized and the working poor and small businesses were given a very large tax credit, it would be easier for everyone to get insured which I belive should be the goal here.

As I've said before, the government does very few things well. Putting the government in control of your medical care is height of stupidity.

 

[Vitiate]

9sub, my view of the federal government is that it has a responsibility to protect its citizens and maintain essential infrastructure. That's it.

Prisons would fall under this, national healthcare would not.

I often find myself against national healthcare, however this is one area where I disagree and would probably make myself a hypocrite. Healthcare of all citizens would ensure that many are able to be fit hence leading to a stronger military force if the time arose where everyone was to serve. Thus the maintenance of all individuals should be a responsibility of the government to ensure that they can create a productive and efficient force of citizens. This inevitably would fall under your premise of protection of citizens and essential infrastructure.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I often find myself against national healthcare, however this is one area where I disagree and would probably make myself a hypocrite. Healthcare of all citizens would ensure that many are able to be fit hence leading to a stronger military force if the time arose where everyone was to serve. Thus the maintenance of all individuals should be a responsibility of the government to ensure that they can create a productive and efficient force of citizens. This inevitably would fall under your premise of protection of citizens and essential infrastructure.

The problem here is that such a system doesn't really affect the fitness of our citizens. We need to refocus healthcare on the individual and take steps towards prevention instead of treatment.

Secondly, your point about the military is really unnecessary. We live in a day and age where our military has enough technology and weapons that we don't need to rely on a massive amount of troops (except of course for police action).

 

[PLC1]

I often find myself against national healthcare, however this is one area where I disagree and would probably make myself a hypocrite. Healthcare of all citizens would ensure that many are able to be fit hence leading to a stronger military force if the time arose where everyone was to serve. Thus the maintenance of all individuals should be a responsibility of the government to ensure that they can create a productive and efficient force of citizens. This inevitably would fall under your premise of protection of citizens and essential infrastructure.

If the US were spending 7% of its GDP on health care, like France, or even 10%, like Canada, then we would be more competitive, and thus more powerful. There would be more to spend on other things. As it is, we're spending over 15%, far more than any other industrialized nation, and are thus not as competitive as we could be. There is more to national strength than the military.

 

[9sublime]

I still can't really see the logic of wanting the government to ensure the wellbeing of its citizens without being responsible for healthcare for at least the poorest of the nation.

 

[vyo476]

9sub, my view of the federal government is that it has a responsibility to protect its citizens and maintain essential infrastructure. That's it.

Prisons would fall under this, national healthcare would not.

You know, it's ironic. We talk about how the government is supposed to protect us...well, protect us from who? Protect us from what?

Take a look at the list of the top fifteen causes of death in the United States today. On that list, you'll see accidents at number five, suicide at number eleven, and homicide at number fourteen (accounting for just 0.7% of the deaths in the United States). "All other causes" is number fifteen and encompasses 17.4%.

All the rest are health-related causes. Heart disease is number one, at 28.5%. Cancer is number two, at 22.8%. Those two alone account for over half the deaths in the United States today.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad the government is doing what it can to protect me from murderers. Still, if the purpose of the government is really to "protect" it's citizens, I think they probably ought to be looking into protecting us from disease, as well, since health issues are far more virulent killers than other people.

 

[invest07]

The human death rate is 100%.

The rich, the poor, Liberals, Conservatives, Chinese, Spanish, Muslims, Jews. It doesn't matter. The ultimate death rate is 100% for every living organism on this planet. Nobody gets out alive.

The aging rate is also 100% for every living organism on this planet.
Most humans die from old age or complications arising from old age.

What I don't see is how universal heath care does us any good. The same number are going to die, regardless of who pays the doctors. There are better ways to get everyone insured than forcing everyone to take the same government crap.

One thing that would make a good start toward insuring the uninsured is to eliminate the cost to our health system from the 12 million illegals. A liberal think tank estimated that if the amount illegals cost our heath system could be diverted toward insurance, about 1/3 of out uninsured could be insured. This study was done in 2003 and my guess is the percentage today is more like half.

Seal the borders and enforce our employment laws. Then provide our unisured with medical coverage from this savings. Get rid of illegals and half of our unisured can be insured.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I still can't really see the logic of wanting the government to ensure the wellbeing of its citizens without being responsible for healthcare for at least the poorest of the nation.

9sublime, you have a point here but I am arguing that the federal government should not be the one who legislates this. If various states would like to experiment with healthcare policies, then I am all for that because if they fail it doesn't screw over all 50 states for decades to come.

 

[9sublime]

I find myself agreeing with you more and more USMC.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Rare identical quadruplets born to Canadian mom in Montana

Those were Karen Jepp's odds of giving birth to identical quadruplets, and the mother from Calgary, Alberta, delivered — in Great Falls, Mont.

Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia were born within five minutes of each other Sunday afternoon at 31 weeks, at Benefis Healthcare.

Why Great Falls? As the Toronto Globe & Mail explains, Jepp and her husband, J.P., were sent across the border because no neonatal intensive care unit in Canada had enough beds for them. She was two-centimeters dilated and having contractions when airlifted 300 miles.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...dentical-.html

 

[9sublime]

Great, they didnt have enough beds. How about every person in the US who simply cant afford to go to any hospital and get treatment. That doesn't make the news because its too commonplace. This story is of interest because its not the norm.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Great, they didnt have enough beds. How about every person in the US who simply cant afford to go to any hospital and get treatment.

But you can go to Cuba and they'll treat you immediately, right?

That doesn't make the news because its too commonplace. This story is of interest because its not the norm.

Actually, these stories are coming out in the dozens now ever since Moore's "documentary".

 

[9sublime]

But you can go to Cuba and they'll treat you immediately, right?

Yeah, I heard a lot of Africa is pretty bad for healthcare too. Your point?

Actually, these stories are coming out in the dozens now ever since Moore's "documentary".

Dozens? Sorry, but its still news compared to the poor people who get turned away and die every day.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah, I heard a lot of Africa is pretty bad for healthcare too. Your point?

I was poking fun at Michael Moore.

Dozens? Sorry, but its still news compared to the poor people who get turned away and die every day.

Canada's system is a mess and I have yet to be convinced that we should model our national healthcare system after theres.