Canadian doctor makes anti-Obamacare senator look like a buffoon

reply to post by Leonidas


Well, that is great for you guys. It is wonderful that people must carry the weight of others, as mandated by your Govt.

In the US, people are tired of the Govt stealing from them, only to give to others in a way to buy votes to stay in power.

reply to post by Serdgiam

All of it can be solved by going back to how the country was constructed. The individual is responsible to take care of themselves. Tax dollars are collected on a small amount, and used to actually fund the Govt. Not to have the Govt take from some to give to others.

People need to stop looking to Govt to take care of them.

reply to post by macman


That way of american colonization and pioneering is a system of the past. If you want to go back to that type of personal responsibility, start where it began. Go homestead, dig a well for water, use lanterns for light, out house for a bathroom, trails for a road, and smoke signals for communication, and if you break a leg or get sick TOUGH. See how many americans will follow you back to that.

MOMof3


That way of american colonization and pioneering is a system of the past.

Ahhh, a Progressive using Progress as their arguing point.

MOMof3
If you want to go back to that type of personal responsibility, start where it began. Go homestead, dig a well for water, use lanterns for light, out house for a bathroom, trails for a road, and smoke signals for communication, and if you break a leg or get sick TOUGH.

So, by wanting people to be responsible for their actions, I must therefore go back in technology as well?
Wait, let me help you. The next statement will probably be "Well, you just want no Govt at all". Or, "So, Madmax style world then". Or some other BS that you want to pitch.

Nah, I say let's push for the Govt to provide more. Because after all, it is compassionate to give someone a home, clothes, food, car, gas, TV, Cellphone, child care, video games, beer, nikes and so on.

We can't discriminate against someone "needing" nikes. I mean how are they supposed to walk to work without them.
And what about those that need to have some form of entertainment, because going to the movies is way to expensive. So, we got to get them a TV and video games. I mean, video games keep gang bangers off the street so they don't steal.

What you offer is basically someone trying to lead their life using their heart, instead of their brain. You feel good that people get "free healthcare", and your heart bleeds for it. Yet, when your brain kicks in saying "You know what, not only can we not afford this, it breeds dependency for that person for me to provide them with healthcare", you ignore it and allow your bleeding heart to take control. And why shouldn't you. It is money from those "evil rich people".

But, such is life I guess. You and others like compassion, so long as it is with other peoples money and it is the Govt providing it to people.

MOMof3
See how many americans will follow you back to that.

There are many people moving towards the whole idea of being tired with working, only to have 1/4 of what they earn be stolen from them.

macman
reply to post by Leonidas

 

Well, that is great for you guys. It is wonderful that people must carry the weight of others, as mandated by your Govt.

In the US, people are tired of the Govt stealing from them, only to give to others in a way to buy votes to stay in power.

The point is that you speak for yourself. Not Americans.

I will trust the word of several American citizens that experience both systems over wild speculation and mythology.

You speak for you.

macman

MOMof3


That way of american colonization and pioneering is a system of the past.

Ahhh, a Progressive using Progress as their arguing point.

MOMof3
If you want to go back to that type of personal responsibility, start where it began. Go homestead, dig a well for water, use lanterns for light, out house for a bathroom, trails for a road, and smoke signals for communication, and if you break a leg or get sick TOUGH.

So, by wanting people to be responsible for their actions, I must therefore go back in technology as well?
Wait, let me help you. The next statement will probably be "Well, you just want no Govt at all". Or, "So, Madmax style world then". Or some other BS that you want to pitch.

Nah, I say let's push for the Govt to provide more. Because after all, it is compassionate to give someone a home, clothes, food, car, gas, TV, Cellphone, child care, video games, beer, nikes and so on.

We can't discriminate against someone "needing" nikes. I mean how are they supposed to walk to work without them.
And what about those that need to have some form of entertainment, because going to the movies is way to expensive. So, we got to get them a TV and video games. I mean, video games keep gang bangers off the street so they don't steal.

What you offer is basically someone trying to lead their life using their heart, instead of their brain. You feel good that people get "free healthcare", and your heart bleeds for it. Yet, when your brain kicks in saying "You know what, not only can we not afford this, it breeds dependency for that person for me to provide them with healthcare", you ignore it and allow your bleeding heart to take control. And why shouldn't you. It is money from those "evil rich people".

But, such is life I guess. You and others like compassion, so long as it is with other peoples money and it is the Govt providing it to people.

MOMof3
See how many americans will follow you back to that.

There are many people moving towards the whole idea of being tired with working, only to have 1/4 of what they earn be stolen from them.

edit on 27-3-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)

Dude, you keep straying OT....this is about Healthcare, not Welfare. You are just clouding the issue. No nikes, no video games, no cigs, etc. Healthcare, that we other countries posting here, are trying to explain. We aren't Mandated by our Gov to to this, we gave the Mandate to our Gov to do so. Can you see the diff.....we wanted, voted and passed this type of legislation. We want a portion of our tax dollars to go straight to healthcare. A health society is a productive one. I don't have kids, yet I am happy to pay for education for the same reasoning. Tax dollars are needed in a modern civ, it's what the Body Politic Mandates it to be spent towards that is the diff.

The irony here is, before Obamacare( no #'s here yet for it), Canada spent less / person for full healthcare (and GDP %), than the US does per person with the people required to purchase additional private insurance.

Now, that being said. It's obvious you are feeling attacked. I don't think that is the intent of the posters here. They are simply trying to show you a better alternative that works for THEM and their cultures. I understand your frustration, I believe the US has a higher # of "taker's" due to it's current, consumer, culture and the Gov bureaucracy levels are staggering proven by the fact above. The insurance companies have the scam covered on all bases. That attitude / system has to change for cost saving national healthcare to work, which probably would require some type of revolution. Where do you want your taxes to go? I haven't researched Obamacare enough to have a solid opinion yet, it looks like it maybe abit better for some? and probably costing the same or more for the tax payer. IMHO your best chance would have been a single payer system and tweak it as it goes. Cut out the insurance companies and more regulation ( yes regulate!) malpractice lawsuits to lower costs for family doctors.

Again, I don't think the other posters are attacking you, but more so, anxious with zeal to tell you about alternatives that DO work in other cultures. To them and myself, Healthcare is not Welfare and not even remotely a partisan issue. It really is a right of a tax paying citizen in a western society in 2014.

Connector

macman

MOMof3


That way of american colonization and pioneering is a system of the past.

Ahhh, a Progressive using Progress as their arguing point.

MOMof3
If you want to go back to that type of personal responsibility, start where it began. Go homestead, dig a well for water, use lanterns for light, out house for a bathroom, trails for a road, and smoke signals for communication, and if you break a leg or get sick TOUGH.

So, by wanting people to be responsible for their actions, I must therefore go back in technology as well?
Wait, let me help you. The next statement will probably be "Well, you just want no Govt at all". Or, "So, Madmax style world then". Or some other BS that you want to pitch.

Nah, I say let's push for the Govt to provide more. Because after all, it is compassionate to give someone a home, clothes, food, car, gas, TV, Cellphone, child care, video games, beer, nikes and so on.

We can't discriminate against someone "needing" nikes. I mean how are they supposed to walk to work without them.
And what about those that need to have some form of entertainment, because going to the movies is way to expensive. So, we got to get them a TV and video games. I mean, video games keep gang bangers off the street so they don't steal.

What you offer is basically someone trying to lead their life using their heart, instead of their brain. You feel good that people get "free healthcare", and your heart bleeds for it. Yet, when your brain kicks in saying "You know what, not only can we not afford this, it breeds dependency for that person for me to provide them with healthcare", you ignore it and allow your bleeding heart to take control. And why shouldn't you. It is money from those "evil rich people".

But, such is life I guess. You and others like compassion, so long as it is with other peoples money and it is the Govt providing it to people.

MOMof3
See how many americans will follow you back to that.

There are many people moving towards the whole idea of being tired with working, only to have 1/4 of what they earn be stolen from them.

edit on 27-3-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)

Dude, you keep straying OT....this is about Healthcare, not Welfare. You are just clouding the issue. No nikes, no video games, no cigs, etc. Healthcare, that we other countries posting here, are trying to explain. We aren't Mandated by our Gov to to this, we gave the Mandate to our Gov to do so. Can you see the diff.....we wanted, voted and passed this type of legislation. We want a portion of our tax dollars to go straight to healthcare. A health society is a productive one. I don't have kids, yet I am happy to pay for education for the same reasoning. Tax dollars are needed in a modern civ, it's what the Body Politic Mandates it to be spent towards that is the diff.

The irony here is, before Obamacare( no #'s here yet for it), Canada spent less / person for full healthcare (and GDP %), than the US does per person with the people required to purchase additional private insurance.

Now, that being said. It's obvious you are feeling attacked. I don't think that is the intent of the posters here. They are simply trying to show you a better alternative that works for THEM and their cultures. I understand your frustration, I believe the US has a higher # of "taker's" due to it's current, consumer, culture and the Gov bureaucracy levels are staggering proven by the fact above. The insurance companies have the scam covered on all bases. That attitude / system has to change for cost saving national healthcare to work, which probably would require some type of revolution. Where do you want your taxes to go? I haven't researched Obamacare enough to have a solid opinion yet, it looks like it maybe abit better for some? and probably costing the same or more for the tax payer. IMHO your best chance would have been a single payer system and tweak it as it goes. Cut out the insurance companies and more regulation ( yes regulate!) malpractice lawsuits to lower costs for family doctors.

Again, I don't think the other posters are attacking you, but more so, anxious with zeal to tell you about alternatives that DO work in other cultures. To them and myself, Healthcare is not Welfare and not even remotely a partisan issue. It really is a right of a tax paying citizen in a western society in 2014.

well put

macman
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

All of it can be solved by going back to how the country was constructed. The individual is responsible to take care of themselves. Tax dollars are collected on a small amount, and used to actually fund the Govt.

Well, the individual IS responsible for some things, the government is responsible for some as well (that individuals prosper from).

Do you feel that things like sewage, water, roadways, etc should be maintained by individuals rather than government? These are collective infrastructure needs that are vital to a strong nation. What you are talking about is actually closer to anarchy than any other form of government. Something I can actually get behind a bit, if people were capable of taking personal responsibility (I am a large advocate of personal sovereignty).

You say "fund the Govt." but what exactly does that mean? What are they actually funded to do, what is their purpose? And, in your mind, what dictates which collective needs are part of this?

reply to post by Leonidas


So, I speak only for myself within the realm of being tired of paying taxes to fund others life's??

Yeah, okay then.

The Constitution kind of speaks for this as well.

reply to post by Connector


Welfare and Free Healthcare walk hand in hand.

The issues is the same.

Money stolen from people as taxes, the Govt using said funds to give services to others.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Water, Sewage, roads and National defense are all within the confines of what the Govt is supposed to do and what they are outlined to do.

macman
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Water, Sewage, roads and National defense are all within the confines of what the Govt is supposed to do and what they are outlined to do.

Excellent!

Now, what qualifies those things to be "what the government is supposed to do?" What is your interpretation on why those things are what they are "supposed" to do?

You say healthcare isnt included, which is fair enough. Where was this specifically addressed by the founding fathers?

reply to post by Serdgiam


Well, are we talking about State Govt, Federal Govt or Local Govt?

Of all of those things, National Defense is what is defined within the Constitution as to what the Federal Govt is to provide. It also outlines what the Federal Govt is allowed to do, no more then what is stated.

State and local is defined by the specific documents, so long as it does not restrict what is stated in the Constitution or BoR.

macman
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Well, are we talking about State Govt, Federal Govt or Local Govt?

Thats a good question. One that I dont feel is asked often enough. Ideally, they all work together, but we know how that goes... For example, roads in some areas need repair more than in others. If we were to approach such a thing in a federal sense, it would get extremely complicated and inefficient.

Of all of those things, National Defense is what is defined within the Constitution as to what the Federal Govt is to provide. It also outlines what the Federal Govt is allowed to do, no more then what is stated.

State and local is defined by the specific documents, so long as it does not restrict what is stated in the Constitution or BoR.

Is a healthy nation more capable of defending itself?

Do you believe in having a standing army?

reply to post by Serdgiam


Health care was not outlined on the Federal Level. If States want to implement it, the outlining Docs don't disallow it.

No to the Standing Army/Military as it clear is addressed with the founding Docs.

macman
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Health care was not outlined on the Federal Level. If States want to implement it, the outlining Docs don't disallow it.

I am not sure that, at that point in history, something like "healthcare" was even a blip on the radar to be considered. Now, plenty of people use this type of argument (erroneously) when trying to dismantle the BoR or Constitution, but I think it has to at least be considered when we speak about how to correctly apply the things they *didnt* mention that have become relevant in modern times. People use this type of argument frequently when dismissing what is actually written, frequently with the 2nd amendment, but items like the Puckle Gun put that to bed quite quickly (Im sure you are aware of this).

Unlike roads, however, healthcare is something that is significantly more universal. Ideally, it is something that would be most effective and efficient if applied at the federal level. However, the federal level is about as far from "ideal, effective, and efficient" as it can possibly get. So, its a catch-22 when even discussing the topic, when we have a government that has effectively sold the People out.

The only way they say it is to be done is to raise taxes (essentially in the form of fines for non-compliance). However, it could be done just as easily by making the government invest the tax money back into the nation. Sadly, this does not happen with quite a bit of our money. So, before we get to the "how," we have to discuss the "why."

With that in mind, in an ideal setting, do you feel that investing into healthcare is a good decision for a nation? Do you feel the current state of our healthcare system is the pinnacle of what we can do, or could it be improved upon?

No to the Standing Army/Military as it clear is addressed with the founding Docs.

Im happy to see that didnt trip you up

reply to post by Serdgiam


I will have to put this off until next week, as I want to give a full answer but work will not allow the time required for me to retort.

Serdgiam


I am not sure that, at that point in history, something like "healthcare" was even a blip on the radar to be considered. Now, plenty of people use this type of argument (erroneously) when trying to dismantle the BoR or Constitution, but I think it has to at least be considered when we speak about how to correctly apply the things they *didnt* mention that have become relevant in modern times.

That is the thing. The Constitution and BoR clearly outline what the Fed Govt is allowed to do. No more no less.
What you offer is the idea that they are living documents.
In fact they are not, as there are specific outlined procedures to change them.
If they were living, there would be no need for a way to change them, as it would just ebb and flow with the times.

Serdgiam
People use this type of argument frequently when dismissing what is actually written, frequently with the 2nd amendment, but items like the Puckle Gun put that to bed quite quickly (Im sure you are aware of this).

Both documents are very easy to read.
The only way a person misinterprets them is if they intentionally do so.

Serdgiam
Unlike roads, however, healthcare is something that is significantly more universal. Ideally, it is something that would be most effective and efficient if applied at the federal level. However, the federal level is about as far from "ideal, effective, and efficient" as it can possibly get. So, its a catch-22 when even discussing the topic, when we have a government that has effectively sold the People out.

Hence the reason why the founders limited the Fed Govt greatly. They new the only way the People would keep Govt in check, was if it was as close and local to the people as possible.

Serdgiam
The only way they say it is to be done is to raise taxes (essentially in the form of fines for non-compliance). However, it could be done just as easily by making the government invest the tax money back into the nation. Sadly, this does not happen with quite a bit of our money. So, before we get to the "how," we have to discuss the "why."

Really??? Did you just try slight of hand here on the web with me?
Taxes are bad, but "investing" in the nation is good??
That is one in the same. And both are done with other people's money.

Serdgiam
With that in mind, in an ideal setting, do you feel that investing into healthcare is a good decision for a nation?

No. Simply put. When the wildlife are fed at parks, they become dependent on those feeding them.
Same goes for people. Provide them with things that are their ultimate responsibility, and they become dependent upon that to survive.
Additionally, the money has to come from somewhere. It is first taken from someone.

Serdgiam
Do you feel the current state of our healthcare system is the pinnacle of what we can do, or could it be improved upon?

It has become bastardized into what we have today.
A operation of a company offering "INSURANCE" for medical treatment (Not medical treatment itself), a Govt reaching in to both pockets for its take, Hospitals forced to treat people regardless if they can pay for treatment, Govt paying (barely paying) for some treatments, and prices adjusted because that is what the mentioned actions have done for the market.

macman
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Water, Sewage, roads and National defense are all within the confines of what the Govt is supposed to do and what they are outlined to do.

Where in the constitution does it mention water and sewage? Why should my taxes pay for people that are too cheap to drill a water well or put in a septic tank.

reply to post by buster2010


State and Local.

Not on a Federal Level.