originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Let's play a simple game...you can peruse any of the links in this
Google search that you would like to, and in return, you can provide proof to your claim/insinuation that big pharma (whom I
will rarely ever defend) is dramatically raising bills simply based on the premise of "because they can."
That's not how debating, or discussing in this manner works. If you have a claim, provide evidence for it directly. If you don't have time to do so,
don't enter the conversation. I'm not going to go out of my way to sift through information that you have already found. Simply post that information
directly.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Well, I never claimed that it was free--no healthcare is free. Taxes, which are from one's income, pay for socialized services--that is not free,
either. When my private insurance coverage pays 100% of something, my first though it now, "Wow, that was free!;' my first thought is, "Wow, I'm glad
that all of these premiums that I'm paying are actually doing something."
Comparably, yes, it is free. When a person can save 10's of thousands of dollars, or hundreds of thousands by paying taxes that they would be paying
anyway...
10% income tax, that's what I pay. I notice you still haven't specified what you pay. Someone else did, from the states, they said 12.5%. So not only
does that person pay more for taxes than I do, but they don't get a universal healthcare system that pays for the majority of medical issues.
On top of that, Canada doesn't even have the best designed universal healthcare systems out of all the other first world countries that do. Many of
them get more benefits, like paid prescription.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Where did you get an arbitrary $1,000 amount? Is there significance tied to that number?
No, there isn't a significance for it. I figured that, on an average wage, $1,000 for a medical bill is still very substantial. Especially considering
when other countries wouldn't have to pay anything for the same service.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
"Should cost" is a subjective opinion that I refuse to give in this matter, because it all depends on so many variables that it's impossible to give a
"should-cost" amount, and anyone who is willing to give you some arbitrary number is guaranteed to be talking out of their ass basing their answer on
nothing but hopes, dreams, and ideology.
I was looking for your opinion... that's why I asked.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Again, it never costs "nothing at all," so I would stop using that incorrect phrasing--it's misleading at best, and an intentional lie at worst to
promote an ideological viewpoint.
Actually, it can.
My wife is aboriginal. She doesn't have to pay for anything at all, including all the things that I have to pay for for myself that aren't covered
under Canada's universal healthcare system, AND my private insurance. On top of that, if she works on the reserve, she doesn't have to pay income
tax.
Besides that, however. We have an issue where a member from the states pays 2.5% more taxes than I do, I don't know what GST you guys have down there,
and I'm sure that changes per state, but I also only pay 5% for goods here too (although I don't believe that tax goes towards our healthcare
system.
You keep making this same argument over and over again as if you can't simply admit this system is superior to the US' current situation regarding
healthcare. I'm aware I have to pay taxes, I get it. I've already stated that many times. Why do you keep bringing it up?
As for the rest of your post, someone else has already addressed the issue.
edit on 6/6/17 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)