| [Ellieke] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:50:34 AM | |
|
That's heavy !!! here in Belgium we can't smoke inside any public place or restaurant and they want to forbid it in a cafe aswell but that law isn't aproved yet. We do pay a lot of taxes on smokes but aparently it doesn't stop people from smoking. We can't buy smokes under the age of 18, but if somebody else buys them and you smoke them nobody will panic.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:37 AM)| |  | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:43:03 AM | |
|
Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?
As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:37 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:55 AM | |
|
hard work is not cool
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:58:23 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | | I believe that at one time in my grandfathers' and fathers' generation, that the social safety net was set in put in place to act as just that. A safety net. It was like an insurance policy, and available for emergencies. Nowadays it seems that each and every social safety net is exploited for the convenience of it's very nature. To pay for people to make one baby after another. To sap the child-care fund unfairly. And yes, it is not the governemnts position to invest in your children. If you cannot afford 2 or 3, then don't make 2 or 3. Stop at 1. And lastly, to take the lazy slouches that live at home while they could be out working. Instead, take that financial cushion, and either retrain those who've lost their jobs. Or, invest in sending that person across the country where work may be available. If you want work, then work can be found. It matters not it is a step down. Have some pride and be thankful that you can provide without social welfare dependence. Because that dependant lifestyle can cause a social death long before the physical one becomes a reality. In the end, the socialy safety net is being abused and misused. Why do our governments continue to act powerless regarding these vary matters? It truly was not intended for what it was initially meant for. A helping hand in desperate times. And these are NOT desperate times. There is opportunity everywhere you look around you. But people are unambitious and lazy today. Instant gratification takes away your ambition. Whatever happend to good old fashioned hard work? a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:14:37 AM | |
|
if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes. dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost. mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time.
here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car. so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends. 19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over. while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke. ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:52:08 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:57:59 AM | |
|
No.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:34:35 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | at least they are now trying to get people help to get off the demon weed. thats some progress, no?
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:53:51 AM | |
|
Well, heres what I think... It should all be covered by insurance. Sex change, beauty operations, and the dentist.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:45:41 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. now apparently its a human rights issue. the realy stupid thing is the govt wants to eliminate funding for new applicants. but the transgender groups say thats discriminatory so the govt has to provide them funding to chalenge the proposed law in court. so we will pay 15 million in court costs and lawyers on both sides to chalenge a law that would save us 900k a year???
costs like you wrote are prohibitive. I dont see issue with a reasonable cost, here it was $44 per month single, $88 family (does not include drugs) that if you made less than 20K single, or 30 K family was waived.
seems like a good idea to have some separate payment rather than straight tax revenue (not a way to take more, just to show that health care costs to reduce people going to ER for a bandaid)
but health care should be a right.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:52:08 AM | |
|
Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous.
And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible.
Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:42:22 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:46:08 AM | |
|
Well, speaking from experience, taking care of your teeth does not neccesarily protect you from trouble. I always took care of my teeth, and I have one root canal and about half a dozen fillings.
In any case, as I said, some prevention can be done. Regular checkups, blood tests, whatever... But, you can still be the most healthy person in the world, and get hurt. You may have a car crash, there can be an earthquake, you can get cancer just from living in a city, and inhaling the exhaust fumes. Like I said, it would be a total mess, and that kind of a system may even cost more than the one we have now. Someone would have to evaluate those risks. A lot of people would have to be employed, and payed to keep the cost dow. A wonderfull paradox.
Now, if you get hurt for doing something really irresponisble, I would agree that you have to pay for at least some treatment yourself. But the guilt has to be clearly established and proven.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:39:26 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | if you climb mountains you pay more, if you drink, smoke, eat lots of fatty foods.... should people who get traped on a mountain and need a hugely expensive rescue pay for it? now, to track that sort of thing in advance. probably mess is right.
health care can diagnose problems before they become significant, so that treatment is easier. like taking care of your teath rather than geting one infected and needing a root canal, or surgery.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, then it would be a matter of determining your risk level, which may change constantly. Changing jobs, moving, getting married or divorced, having kids... Loads of things would change it. We would end up with a complete mess.
As for prevention, there is only so much that can be done. Sure, you can get shots against diseases. But thats about as much as healthcare can do, I guess. No doctor can prevent your leg from breaking.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:58:23 AM | |
|
| I believe that at one time in my grandfathers' and fathers' generation, that the social safety net was set in put in place to act as just that. A safety net. It was like an insurance policy, and available for emergencies. Nowadays it seems that each and every social safety net is exploited for the convenience of it's very nature. To pay for people to make one baby after another. To sap the child-care fund unfairly. And yes, it is not the governemnts position to invest in your children. If you cannot afford 2 or 3, then don't make 2 or 3. Stop at 1. And lastly, to take the lazy slouches that live at home while they could be out working. Instead, take that financial cushion, and either retrain those who've lost their jobs. Or, invest in sending that person across the country where work may be available. If you want work, then work can be found. It matters not it is a step down. Have some pride and be thankful that you can provide without social welfare dependence. Because that dependant lifestyle can cause a social death long before the physical one becomes a reality. In the end, the socialy safety net is being abused and misused. Why do our governments continue to act powerless regarding these vary matters? It truly was not intended for what it was initially meant for. A helping hand in desperate times. And these are NOT desperate times. There is opportunity everywhere you look around you. But people are unambitious and lazy today. Instant gratification takes away your ambition. Whatever happend to good old fashioned hard work? a. Hammerstein |
|
| [spapad] Monday, May 18, 2009 10:03:20 PM | |
|
It's hard for me to see that amount of my pay go to healthcare, but the only reassurance I have is that if I go to the doctor, my copay is 10.00, a specialist is 20.00 and a visit to the ER will only run me 75.00. But So many times things the doctors office called about and the insurance said they would cover turns into a battle royal with the insurance company. They all of a sudden say they didn't codone that! Most of the time it turns out to be that the office has billed under the wrong code, but it's stressfull when you go in for a procedure and find that your insurance does not want to pay for what they said they would pay for! Cost my good friend 600.00 dollars on a breast reduction surgery, that's 600.00 she never expected. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:45:41 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
yep. now apparently its a human rights issue. the realy stupid thing is the govt wants to eliminate funding for new applicants. but the transgender groups say thats discriminatory so the govt has to provide them funding to chalenge the proposed law in court. so we will pay 15 million in court costs and lawyers on both sides to chalenge a law that would save us 900k a year???
costs like you wrote are prohibitive. I dont see issue with a reasonable cost, here it was $44 per month single, $88 family (does not include drugs) that if you made less than 20K single, or 30 K family was waived.
seems like a good idea to have some separate payment rather than straight tax revenue (not a way to take more, just to show that health care costs to reduce people going to ER for a bandaid)
but health care should be a right.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:12:04 PM |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 9:45:41 PM | |
|
yep. now apparently its a human rights issue. the realy stupid thing is the govt wants to eliminate funding for new applicants. but the transgender groups say thats discriminatory so the govt has to provide them funding to chalenge the proposed law in court. so we will pay 15 million in court costs and lawyers on both sides to chalenge a law that would save us 900k a year???
costs like you wrote are prohibitive. I dont see issue with a reasonable cost, here it was $44 per month single, $88 family (does not include drugs) that if you made less than 20K single, or 30 K family was waived.
seems like a good idea to have some separate payment rather than straight tax revenue (not a way to take more, just to show that health care costs to reduce people going to ER for a bandaid)
but health care should be a right.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, May 18, 2009 9:31:24 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, May 18, 2009 9:31:24 PM | |
|
Now that's insanity. You can get a sex change, but not your teeth cleaned? That makes sense, only to transexuals! I have great healthcare as long as I have a job, if I loose my job, I loose my healthcare. I could never afford what it cost's out of pocket. It cost me 200.00 a month just for me! My daughter is covered by her father, if I had to cover us both it would be 250.00 per pay check. Not something I could ever afford. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:37:41 PM |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:47:49 PM | |
|
I agree. the only question is where does the right end and the privilege begin? Here our healthcare covers sex change opperations. is that a right? yet dental care is not covered, so something that everyone needs like teeth cleaning and xrays you pay for.
think how productive a society you could have if all the people were in fit state to work?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, May 18, 2009 2:50:47 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:39:26 PM | |
|
if you climb mountains you pay more, if you drink, smoke, eat lots of fatty foods.... should people who get traped on a mountain and need a hugely expensive rescue pay for it? now, to track that sort of thing in advance. probably mess is right.
health care can diagnose problems before they become significant, so that treatment is easier. like taking care of your teath rather than geting one infected and needing a root canal, or surgery.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 3:20:40 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, then it would be a matter of determining your risk level, which may change constantly. Changing jobs, moving, getting married or divorced, having kids... Loads of things would change it. We would end up with a complete mess.
As for prevention, there is only so much that can be done. Sure, you can get shots against diseases. But thats about as much as healthcare can do, I guess. No doctor can prevent your leg from breaking.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 7:34:35 PM | |
|
at least they are now trying to get people help to get off the demon weed. thats some progress, no?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Monday, May 18, 2009 4:42:22 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Monday, May 18, 2009 4:42:22 PM | |
|
Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge. Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes.
I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all?
Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM |
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 3:20:40 PM | |
|
Well, then it would be a matter of determining your risk level, which may change constantly. Changing jobs, moving, getting married or divorced, having kids... Loads of things would change it. We would end up with a complete mess.
As for prevention, there is only so much that can be done. Sure, you can get shots against diseases. But thats about as much as healthcare can do, I guess. No doctor can prevent your leg from breaking.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 1:18:40 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, May 18, 2009 3:17:52 PM | |
|
Absolutely. And if I get a bit broader, why stop at healthcare? Why dont we say that physical protection is not a right, and do away with police and courts? We would end up with a conclusion that anything organised by people is a waste of something, and go to the survival of the fittest. And that would be a waste of a couple of millenias worth of civilisation.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, May 18, 2009 2:50:47 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, May 18, 2009 2:50:47 PM | |
|
Oh , and one other thing; WHY is it that some say healthcare is NOT a right??? I mean, what person in their right mind would NOT think that every citizen of a country should be healthy and/or have the right to treatment?? Why on earth would anyone want even one person in the population to be sick or denied care?? Is it money? Seriously? Considering the waste of money that occurs daily one should think that the health of the population would be paramount. Afterall, we spend BILLIONS "protecting" the population with a military! Would it not be counter-productive and a complete WASTE of money to be paying for protection of a sick population?????
My "tax" dollars build better and more effective weapons to kill enemies that would (theoretically) harm our citizens. Doesn't sickness fall under the definition of "harm"????
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, May 18, 2009 1:18:40 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, May 18, 2009 1:18:40 PM | |
|
with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:30:54 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does. |
|
|
|
|
|
