It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canadian doctor makes anti-Obamacare senator look like a buffoon

page: 10
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Well it's not about parties to us citizens. It's about real- life needs and costs. It may be about party politics to the politicians, so I stand corrected.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Leonidas


I have a couple of questions, if that's ok:

1. Are you mad because the ACA is a disaster, or because it even exists?

Mad that not only does it exist, but how it was passed and that is was forced down our throats.


Leonidas
2. A nation's military exists, at least in part, to protect it's citizens. Military expenditures are paid for by taxes, so how is that stealing from you to care for other people? Aren't they similar principles?


So, a standing army is not in the Constitution during times of peace.
Also, the Federal Govt is responsible for protecting in this manner.
Taking from me to give to others, in the form of welfare or what have you, to persons or companies, is theft and not the job of the Govt.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

macman
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Since when does empathy equate to taking from me to give to others?


What is the point of empathy - or sympathy or compasion - if it is not coupled with action?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Who said I was happy???

The taxes are to be used for operating the Govt. Not for giving to others.

The tax system needs to be revamped and first put back to fund the Govt so it can operate. Not so it can provide welfare to people or companies.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thov420
 


The forced part was regarding the Govt forcing hospitals to treat anyone, regardless if they can pay or not.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Shutting down the VA would probably do better then how they operate now.

But......taking care of veterans is part of the military agreement and work was performed.

But, it isn't within the confines of the Constitution.....or is it..



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

JohnnyCanuck

NavyDoc
You feel that your healthcare is available to all but you've already seen the limitations. Great if you have a hangnail, really bad if you need an MRI or a new hip or have cancer or something new. The drugs and technology that your system uses, our system developes. You don't want socialized medicine in the US because then you stop the sourch of most of the world's innovation and your system would suffer from it as well. You need to keep one bastion of free market, competitive medical technology out there to keep that from being stifled by the morass of socialism. Governments don't innovate. Evil greedy "capitalists" innovate.
Doc, I know you're no dummy, so I suggest you really look into this. Do it from the point of "Why are Canadians so much happier with their health care than Americans?"

And you might want to check out some of the research and innovation coming out of our university and teaching hospitals before you say that government doesn't innovate.

Or not, and keep following that party line of yours.


Not a party line--experience from working in/with systems and providers from around the world. I don't quote "party line" and that is a bit of a silly thing to say.

Why are you happy? Because it's easier to get primary care without much seen directly from your pocket.




Of almost 3,000 articles published in biomedical research in 2009, 1,169, or 40%, came from the United States. As the line graph below demonstrates (that’s the number of publications on the Y axis, and the year of publication on the X axis), the output of every other single country in the world is dwarfed by what America produces. The closest contender is Great Britain, which comes in at about 300 articles. (Per the comments below, I’m waiting for more explanation of these numbers.)

www.forbes.com... rper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/
A single country, the US, provided the most research papers in one year and this was ten times that of the next largest contributor. In the graph from the link provided, Canada posted about 175.




The U.S. market value exceeded $110 billion in 2012, representing about 38 percent of the total medical technologies industry. U.S. exports of medical technologies in key product categories identified by the Department of Commerce (DOC) were valued at approximately $44.2 billion in 2012, a 7.2 percent increase from the previous year. With new and innovative technologies coming to market, the U.S. medical technologies industry is highly competitive and well-positioned for future growth.

U.S. medical device companies are highly regarded globally for their innovations and high technology products. Investment in medical device research and development more than doubled during the 1990s, and research and development investment in the domestic sector remains more than twice the average for all U.S. manufacturers overall. The United States also holds a competitive advantage in several industries that the medical technology industry relies, including microelectronics, telecommunications, instrumentation, biotechnology, and software development.

The medical device sector continues to benefit from a new generation of materials, manufacturing processes, and technology developed in the United States, such as nanotechnology and micro-electro-mechanical systems.



The Economic Impact of the U.S. Advanced
Medical Technology Industry www.chi.org... stry_at_a_glance/BattelleFinalAdvaMedEconomicImpactReportMarch2012.pdf

The fact of the matter is that our "greedy" system provides you with the latest and greatest and since your system does not have to develop new technology, drugs, and techniques, you automatically get a lower cost advantage.

Why were there zero cases of thalidomide birth defects in the US and thousands in Canada? Because our stringent FDA approval rules that keep medications very expensive here and your looser requirements that make drugs available earlier there caused us to find out about these dangers before it was approved for use there. Cheaper comes with some drawbacks.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


So forced empathy is okay with you. Sounds very very genuine that you or others care about people.

Empathy from the person is great. It is their freedom to either do or not do.

Govt empathy is forced onto the person, and what about the portion that the Govt gets after they take to give?

The Govt is not there to provide empathy, or sympathy.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Leonidas

macman
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Since when does empathy equate to taking from me to give to others?


What is the point of empathy - or sympathy or compasion - if it is not coupled with action?


Because if by "action" I give of myself to another, that is empathy and mercy. If by "action" you mean using he coercive power of government to do something you wouldn't do yourself, its theft. If I give a guy a dollar, I am being charitable. If I take YOUR dollar to give to the same guy, that's not charity.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

macman

Leonidas


I have a couple of questions, if that's ok:

1. Are you mad because the ACA is a disaster, or because it even exists?

Mad that not only does it exist, but how it was passed and that is was forced down our throats.




Leonidas
2. A nation's military exists, at least in part, to protect it's citizens. Military expenditures are paid for by taxes, so how is that stealing from you to care for other people? Aren't they similar principles?


So, a standing army is not in the Constitution during times of peace.
Also, the Federal Govt is responsible for protecting in this manner.
Taking from me to give to others, in the form of welfare or what have you, to persons or companies, is theft and not the job of the Govt.




- I don't know the details of how it passed, but how can a democratically elected government put something into law without the support of the majority of representatives agreeing to it? It certainly seems like you have a legitimate concern if this system was put in place without the votes in Congress and the Senate to support it. I would be pissed off too.

- I am still not clear on why it is okay to fund the Defense budget with tax dollars, but not healthcare. The Defense budget pays for men and materiel for the benefit of everybody. Healthcare is for the benefit of everybody too.

edit on 17-3-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Leonidas

macman
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Since when does empathy equate to taking from me to give to others?


What is the point of empathy - or sympathy or compasion - if it is not coupled with action?


Because if by "action" I give of myself to another, that is empathy and mercy. If by "action" you mean using he coercive power of government to do something you wouldn't do yourself, its theft. If I give a guy a dollar, I am being charitable. If I take YOUR dollar to give to the same guy, that's not charity.


Since you cannot be everywhere to couple your ACTION with your EMPATHY why not do it with your tax dollars?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by thov420
 


The forced part was regarding the Govt forcing hospitals to treat anyone, regardless if they can pay or not.



I was called pedantic once here and I had a convo with a mod because I felt mistreated. I think that adjective applies here. My question is what law "forces" hospitals to treat anyone and everyone? I thought that might be the Hippocratic Oath but you clearly stated treating people has nothing to do with billing people for treatment. So while repetitive, I believe it behooves me to ask again, what US law forces hospitals to treat life threatening injuries?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
As a Newfoundlander, I have to say that I lost quite a lot of respect for former Premier Danny Williams when he opted to have his heart surgery done in Florida rather than in one of many world-class Canadian hospitals. But, it's worth noting that Mr. Williams is an independantly wealthy man and spends much of his year in Florida to begin with.

It's not as if on a whim he decided that Canadian healthcare wasn't good enough for him, he has a home in Florida and no doubted decided that recouperating in the Florida sun beats recouperating during a Canadian winter.

My mother (well, many members of my family) have a disorder that causes sometimes cancerous and sometimes benign tumors to grow on the thyroid, kidney, bladder, and sometime the brain (my brother has several small brain tumors from this condition). A few years ago, her family doctor (who she visits for free) discovered during an ultrasound (also no charge) that there were masses on one of her kidneys, and that kidney was failing.

She was scheduled for an operation in a city a six hour drive from her home in one month. Wait times suck, but it is what it is. She wasn't at risk of losing her live - her other kidney was operating normally, but she was in near-constant intense pain.

She and my step-father drove to St. Johns (capital of Newfoundland), and their travel expenses were reimbursed after they arrived back home.

The wait sucked. But it was only a month, and after having the offending kidney removed she's been healthier than she had been for years previously.

Our Canadian healthcare system is not perfect. However, my understanding is that if such a circumstance occurred to an American, especially one on a fixed income like my mother, they would be either financially ruined or dead.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by Leonidas
 


So forced empathy is okay with you. Sounds very very genuine that you or others care about people.

Empathy from the person is great. It is their freedom to either do or not do.

Govt empathy is forced onto the person, and what about the portion that the Govt gets after they take to give?

The Govt is not there to provide empathy, or sympathy.


First off, I completely agree with you that the Government. ANY government is inefficient. They are usually bloated bureaucracies run by people I wouldn't hire to work for my company. Wasted tax dollars makes me insane.

But the "government" IS "us". "The Government" IS the people. The idiot I sent to the capital(s) to represent my interests is acting on my behalf. He IS me, by proxy. The reality that most politicians are idiots is a different discussion.

*I* am funding the Healthcare system with my tax dollars. Other than the waste and ineffiency, the healthcare system is one of the budget items that I have no problem with.

I dont mind paying taxes. I mind taxes being wasted.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Who said I was happy???

The taxes are to be used for operating the Govt. Not for giving to others.

The tax system needs to be revamped and first put back to fund the Govt so it can operate. Not so it can provide welfare to people or companies.



"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people." -John Adams 1776

Don't worry. I can see you are not happy.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by thov420
 


How about common human decency?

I genuinely fail to understand why the fact that every citizen of a free nation has a right to free and assessable healthcare is such a hotbotton issue among Americans.

Should our civilization survive another hundred years, I think that our decendants will be looking back at threads like this one in shame.
edit on 3/17/2014 by Monger because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Durn right good buddy! The gubbment is there to provide HOT LEAD DOWN RANGE AT MUSLIMS! And to write tax loopholes into legislation big enough to guide your average American through.

RA RA RA RA! Government dollars should be spent to kill poor people, not to prevent them from dying!



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 


Politicians have ingrained backwards values in a lot of people. They popularized many newspeak words like, 'hand outs', 'entitled', 'free stuff' and 'lazy'...now a big part of the population thinks that the government wants to steal their flat-screens and give them to poor people.

This twisted agenda now has created many selfish, paranoid people that lack empathy for their fellow man. Scary stuff!



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Monger
reply to post by thov420
 


How about common human decency?

I genuinely fail to understand why the fact that every citizen of a free nation has a right to free and assessable healthcare is such a hotbotton issue among Americans.

Should our civilization survive another hundred years, I think that our decendants will be looking back at threads like this one in shame.
edit on 3/17/2014 by Monger because: (no reason given)


I think you and I are struggling with the same question here.

Why DON'T they want to contribute to the well-being of fellow citizens?

You and I know our system is far from perfect. The fact that I get get better access to better healthcare than you because I am from a "Have" province is not supposed to happen. But we both know that it does. That said, I have no problem what-so-ever that my provinces Oil wealth is supposed to benefit the whole country, especially health care. Tommy Douglas was a nut, but thankfully he was a Canadian nut.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Leonidas

NavyDoc

Leonidas

macman
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 


Since when does empathy equate to taking from me to give to others?


What is the point of empathy - or sympathy or compasion - if it is not coupled with action?


Because if by "action" I give of myself to another, that is empathy and mercy. If by "action" you mean using he coercive power of government to do something you wouldn't do yourself, its theft. If I give a guy a dollar, I am being charitable. If I take YOUR dollar to give to the same guy, that's not charity.


Since you cannot be everywhere to couple your ACTION with your EMPATHY why not do it with your tax dollars?


Because I feel it immoral to use someone else's money to fund my empathy.




top topics



 
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join