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 |
|
