"There are charities that service the poor, there are food stamp programs and places where people can get food and clothing for their families if they can't afford to purchase them. Surely you're not suggesting that these people be denied these things because they haven't earned them or paid for them."
Not at all. If those programs can garner enough support, then I say let them continue handing out freebies.
Your analogy is wrong: if you chose to not donate to a homeless shelter, then the worst thing that would happen is that mild, guilty feeling we all get when we see a bum on the street.
If, however, I chose to not "donate" to government health care, I get a polite letter in the mail telling me that I *have* to donate. Or I lose everything I've worked hard to get - liens on property, garnishments on wages, civil suits... the works.
"The politicians that get elected--at least up here--are generally those who promise to do more with the health care dollars coming in--more research, hire more doctors, nurses, etc."
Nurses, doctors and researchers all have to be paid... more people = more money needed. More money needed = more involuntary donations needed.
"Not everyone in Canada can afford that higher technology and while opening more MRIs and CTs is often wished, it may not be economically feasible for certain areas of the country."
Whoa there... so, Canadians are being denied health care based on... how much money the area makes? Huh... why does that sound famaliar? So, instead of basing business decisions on how much the customer is willing to pay, the government is making a broad decision to not even give the customer the *option* to pay?
I know we Americans aren't as enlightened as you Canadians, British, Swiss, or (accursed) French, but, at least we give our people the *chance* to get treatment...
"As for the smaller cities, if there can be proven there is a need for it (for example many of the patients are coming from a certain postal code) perhaps other facilities can start installing these things."
Again... whoa. 1) I thought Health Care was a basic, unalienable right! But... now the need for Health Care has to be proven? I thought the government just handed out health care... now there has to be an actual need? And, it has to be economically viable? Just think of all the people who go to their local hospital and get turned away because they don't have the machine to do the test.
...now, if only there was a news camera rolling when it happened, Canadian health care might not seem as warm and fuzzy as it does.
If you can't afford [fill in the blank], then either go without or work harder to get it. It is not the responsibility of those to have to provide *for free* for those who don't. It's the responsibility of those who don't have to gain what they want.
That's a program I'd vote for any day. Work = rewards. No work = no rewards. Choose wisely.
Comment Reply
"There are charities that service the poor, there are food stamp programs and places where people can get food and clothing for their families if they can't afford to purchase them. Surely you're not suggesting that these people be denied these things because they haven't earned them or paid for them."
Not at all. If those programs can garner enough support, then I say let them continue handing out freebies.
Your analogy is wrong: if you chose to not donate to a homeless shelter, then the worst thing that would happen is that mild, guilty feeling we all get when we see a bum on the street.
If, however, I chose to not "donate" to government health care, I get a polite letter in the mail telling me that I *have* to donate. Or I lose everything I've worked hard to get - liens on property, garnishments on wages, civil suits... the works.
"The politicians that get elected--at least up here--are generally those who promise to do more with the health care dollars coming in--more research, hire more doctors, nurses, etc."
Nurses, doctors and researchers all have to be paid... more people = more money needed. More money needed = more involuntary donations needed.
"Not everyone in Canada can afford that higher technology and while opening more MRIs and CTs is often wished, it may not be economically feasible for certain areas of the country."
Whoa there... so, Canadians are being denied health care based on... how much money the area makes? Huh... why does that sound famaliar? So, instead of basing business decisions on how much the customer is willing to pay, the government is making a broad decision to not even give the customer the *option* to pay?
I know we Americans aren't as enlightened as you Canadians, British, Swiss, or (accursed) French, but, at least we give our people the *chance* to get treatment...
"As for the smaller cities, if there can be proven there is a need for it (for example many of the patients are coming from a certain postal code) perhaps other facilities can start installing these things."
Again... whoa. 1) I thought Health Care was a basic, unalienable right! But... now the need for Health Care has to be proven? I thought the government just handed out health care... now there has to be an actual need? And, it has to be economically viable? Just think of all the people who go to their local hospital and get turned away because they don't have the machine to do the test.
...now, if only there was a news camera rolling when it happened, Canadian health care might not seem as warm and fuzzy as it does.
If you can't afford [fill in the blank], then either go without or work harder to get it. It is not the responsibility of those to have to provide *for free* for those who don't. It's the responsibility of those who don't have to gain what they want.
That's a program I'd vote for any day. Work = rewards. No work = no rewards. Choose wisely.
Marc J.
August 23, 2009 - 3:12amThis Comment
Reply