Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 90 of 90

Thread: Oh, no. Health Care passes. Glad I'm Primal. page 9

  1. #81
    PrimalJ's Avatar
    PrimalJ Guest

    1

    Shop Now


    Lizzie,


    Agreed. This egocentric approach to a "social contract" makes my stomach turn. I'm all about taking care of my own health, and at the same time allow for a system that takes care of the general population. The fact that this bothers people boggles my mind.


    J


  2. #82
    fbw's Avatar
    fbw
    fbw is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3

    1



    The conventional wisdom permeating most assumptions about health insurance and health care in this thread boggle the mind. Such as just for starters the idea that catastrophic insurance for cancer doesn't exist and cannot be purchased.


    or the notion that 'everyone needs insurance' but simultaneously 'it sucks that insurance doesn't cover everything regardless of expense!'


    canada has a lot of restrictions on things like raw milk. canada also has differently structured tax burdens, that vary by province. canada also doesn't have the nutrient deficiencies in its population that we do in america (thanks, agriculture subsidies from the government!)


    and of course, canada has pretty different ethnic demographics to america. plus it is waaaay smaller. it is easier to arrange a medical infrastructure when you can draw a line 100 miles out in a couple of regions and hit most of your population. can't say the same for america.


    health insurance isn't health care. i had fabulous experiences getting health care without insurance and without huge bills and without getting bankrupted. many people i know in america also had these experiences.


    are our anecdotes less valuable than those that rave about how great the nhs is or how AWESOME getting care in ontario was for someone?


  3. #83
    PrimalJ's Avatar
    PrimalJ Guest

    1



    fbw,


    I don't disagree with anything you're saying. And I would never imply that Canada has it "right". Also, as you pointed out, there's a difference between mandatory insurance and universal health care. We're not "forced" to buy insurance in Canada. If you make money, you pay taxes, and that in turn pays for insurance. Most very poor families end up paying very little if any taxes, but still get health care when in need.


    I'd rather live in a world that lends a helping hand than to horde it all for myself. But that's just me, and in the end, a personal choice.


    J


  4. #84
    stop_hammertime's Avatar
    stop_hammertime Guest

    1



    It is weird arguing a pro and anti universal health care plan all at once.


    @AmyMac703- Ill bite, what do cigarette taxes have to do with anything?


  5. #85
    gini's Avatar
    gini is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    365

    1



    I guess I don't see what the big deal is. I live in Massachusetts - if you're a resident here, you must have medical coverage - so our lives here either stay the same or improve, or hell, get taxed slightly higher. I already get taxed for emergency services I have yet to use and schools I have yet to send my unborn children to. But when I need to use them, I certainly hope they're there. The Charles River is sort of far away from my apartment to lug water to if it starts to burn down. I also really don't feel like homeschooling my kids once their of age. I feel the same way about healthcare - I have yet to need a government plan, but when I do, I hope it's there. In the meantime, my coverage with my company stays the same.


    What I would like to see is bans on big pharma advertising drugs. Excuse me, why do you need to advertise a "possible" medical condition and its drug solution? I'm not depressed, but you have me know thinking I need another antidepressant on top of the first one you convinced me to take.


  6. #86
    AmyMac703's Avatar
    AmyMac703 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Northern Idaho
    Posts
    461

    1



    More taxes on things that make people sick = more money for the government to spend on helping sick people.

    Subduction leads to orogeny

    My blog that I don't update as often as I should: http://primalclimber.blogspot.com/

  7. #87
    fbw's Avatar
    fbw
    fbw is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3

    1



    see, there you go with the CW, primalj. it's all a binary for you-- either must be heavily socialised, or one is 'hoarding it all for oneself'. because clearly there is no other way to go.


    local hospitals where i live provide care for the poor out of their own free choice. they don't have to wait until some government insurance card is flashed. they just helpfully provide specialist care to the poor because they want to.


    there's a lot of ways to help the poor, and paying the salaries of government officials and insurance company employees is hardly the only or best way to do that.


    america has government-funded health insurance for the poor already. it just doesn't pay any money, so doctors tend to not take it. there's no plan to fix that, just increase the rolls so that people can proudly say the poor are 'covered'. as they watch doctor after doctor refuse them. great solution.


    i wish this forum had threading, it is pretty hard to follow discussion when it gets this long.


  8. #88
    verdilak's Avatar
    verdilak is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeastern Missouri
    Posts
    82

    1



    To those who are saying that they should not be forced because they don't get sick/injured.... Why the hell should I pay car insurance? I dont get into accidents, so there is no need for me to pay, I don't even get pulled over, so the cops would not even know that i am uninsured. But it is something that I have to do in case shit happens. To those who hate having to pay for insurance for their health, do you pay your car insurance, and if so, why? If you do, then you are going against your argument completely.

    Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."--Ferris Bueller, 1986
    Check me out @ my blog: Retrospective Caveman
    I set up a Facebook Group for all those who are eating and living Paleo/Primal

  9. #89
    Lizzie125's Avatar
    Lizzie125 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, Tennessee
    Posts
    67

    1



    I am not denying that Americans don't have good healthcare--but not ALL Americans. Sure there are lots of stories of great health care in the US--but they are restricted and a lot of people are left out; or are left bankrupt; or are dropped precisely at the point at which they need it: this is where the problem lies, and this is what the bill ostensibly addresses.


    In the US, unlike the other systems anecdotally referred to here, a great many individuials are excluded or have crappy care, even after they have paid into it. In countries where HC is mandated for everyone, your personal economic situation, which may be beyond your control, does not mean that you might go without.


    More people are going to have access, and more people, regardless of class or economic status are able to take care of their health, get operations they need, and so forth.


    The reason why so many Cdns and Brits end up providing anecdotes is because these systems have been bashed propogandistically and used as negative examples....and the only response sometimes is to provide an eye-witness account to counter all the crap that gets spread around by interested parties.

    And just because it is anecdotal does not automatically invalidate it.


    The "I got mine" attitude in the US is a huge part of the problem. There is also this horror that the undeserving, ill-fed, poor are going to be ruining for the rest of us (the presumably "hard-working" middle and upper classes who, you know, got where we have by sheer self reliance...etc. etc.). Accessible, affordable healthcare in other countries seems far less contingent on excluding so many.


    I do agree, however, that the size of this country does make universal healthcare extremely tricky. That doesn't mean that decent healthcare should not be available at an affordable cost to everyone, and that some people should just be shut out because of cost. The cost is ridiculous, and highly variable.


    Also, I must confess that this bill is far, far from ideal: it is a watered down compromise. As long as profit based insurance companies are the for profit middlemen, the system is going to be a problem. Mandatory insurance is really not a great solution.


  10. #90
    Greg B's Avatar
    Greg B is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    The current bill will in no way improve the situation we have in the USA.


    I hope to see it overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of mandatory purchase of health insurance.


Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •