[sasquatch2]

RUEZ

Quote:

He does show some appalling conditions and raises some important questions. Why are Americans afraid of universal health care?

Make no mistake if Moore was thorough he could show some appalling conditions in Canada's Health Care. This local hospital here has a bad rep for septcimia especially staph infections and ER wait-times.

Americans are reflexively anti-socialist....and universal health care smacks of socialism/communism......it's not just the Michael Moores who haven't clued in that the Cold War is over.

[EmperorLiam]

STOP QUOTING SO BLOODY MUCH CRAP, ITS UNNECESSARY!

Moore lies on PURPOSE, thats all you need to know. His average french family WASN'T average at all, they were relatively rich.

The list goes on and on, the guy makes his decision about what the truth is before he even investigates, and hes a big whiny baby, he actually accused Steve Jobs of trying to silence his film by releasing the iPhone on the same day!

Listen, Alberta has closed hospitals like nuts, despite our growing population, many doctors are not accepting new patients and the number of total doctors is decreasing. Hospitals here have entire wings closed because of lack of funds. The reality is, it takes way too long to get diagnosis's, and way too long to get surgery, CANADA WIDE. This is not the case in the US, the difference is, that we get more bang for our buck in Canada than they do in the US. This doesn't mean either system is better than the other, both have their pros and cons.

What Canada needs to do, is start making lung cancer and other medical problems that are their own fault be uncovered by health care, why should I have to pay for Mr.3-packs-a-day to leach off the system? The taxes on cigarettes do not come anywhere close to compensating for their drain on the system. Things like hip replacement and other non-vital surgeries need to be privatized. I'm a huge critic of heart transplants, we waste all this money on fat fucks to get knew hearts, and most of them die soon after anyhow, the only benefit is that the surgery does get cheaper over the long term... they also are too picky with the hearts they choose to use, young people are dying because of a 3% more likely chance they'll live if they receive a 5 year younger heart. (numbers are rough, been a long time since I debated about this, but you get my point).

[RUEZ]

sasquatch2 wrote:

RUEZ

Quote:

He does show some appalling conditions and raises some important questions. Why are Americans afraid of universal health care?

Make no mistake if Moore was thorough he could show some appalling conditions in Canada's Health Care. This local hospital here has a bad rep for septcimia especially staph infections and ER wait-times.

Americans are reflexively anti-socialist....and universal health care smacks of socialism/communism......it's not just the Michael Moores who haven't clued in that the Cold War is over.

He could have showed problems with Canada, but the problems were created by the government not the system. The government took money out of the system. They created a shortage of Doctors. This anti-socialism is just an excuse and not a good one. Nobody is buying that any more.

[Midnyte]

lily wrote:

midnyte wrote:

That was your body and your experience. Judging everyone's condition based on your own is not a good idea.

Exaactly.

But isn't that what you were doing?

I did. Where.

[Interrobang]

I believe Malcolm Gladwell wrote a nice expose on the health care problems here in America in the New Yorker. It was called "The Moral Hazard Myth" (sorry I can't link it, still too new).

[JJ]

I don't believe "arguing from anecdote" is a very useful tactic. For one, it's impossible to verify the claims another person is making about their personal life, and secondly it tends to suck a lot of the air out of the debate because no one wants to get into the whole "you're a liar, no you are!" thing, and that's really the only way to argue against unverifiable claims.

It's also the problem with Michael Moore's movies, which rely so heavily on this style of argument. He just shows us some random people and we're supposed to take them as "typical." And then other random people talk about matters they understand to be true, and because they're our only resource in the film, we have to take their word for it. That's pretty much what the entire bits about other countries boil down to:

MOORE: Is your healthcare system good?
FOREIGNER: Yes it is.
MOORE: The healthcare system is good.

Whether the conclusion is right or wrong, his methods are just sloppy and deceptive. He obviously seeks out "evidence" AFTER the conclusion has already been drawn, and I hate how this is now what we are now told to believe constitutes a "documentary."

[YetiWorld]

Quote:

What Canada needs to do, is start making lung cancer and other medical problems that are their own fault be uncovered by health care, why should I have to pay for Mr.3-packs-a-day to leach off the system? The taxes on cigarettes do not come anywhere close to compensating for their drain on the system. Things like hip replacement and other non-vital surgeries need to be privatized. I'm a huge critic of heart transplants, we waste all this money on fat fucks to get knew hearts, and most of them die soon after anyhow, the only benefit is that the surgery does get cheaper over the long term... they also are too picky with the hearts they choose to use, young people are dying because of a 3% more likely chance they'll live if they receive a 5 year younger heart. (numbers are rough, been a long time since I debated about this, but you get my point).

These things are always said by people that have never suffered anything severe. Nor people close to their hearts.

What you propose, in short, that healthcare should only be available for healthy people.

Yup, that makes sense

[EmperorLiam]

YetiWorld, did you even READ what I posted?

"medical problems that are their own fault "

Tobbaco smokers lungs, alcoholics liver damage, clogged arteries of fat people, coacaine/opium/meth/heroine drug abuse these are all peoples OWN fault. Insurance companies adjust peoples coverage on these things, why can't the health care system? Why not take advantage of something the private system does and apply it to the socialized system?

Why should I pay for peoples knowingly bad choices?

[YetiWorld]

Quote:

"medical problems that are their own fault "

driving through a red light and get an accident
falling of a ladder while painting your house
not being carefull crossing the street and getting hit by a car
falling out of a tree

Where do you draw the line?

BTW sport is healthy, right?
Loads of people end up in hospital (ER) for injuries related to sport.
That costs the community lots of money....hospital care, sickleave etc.

So again: where do you draw the line?

[EmperorLiam]

You fully understood the spirit of my comment. Technically, medical only refers to non-surgery, oh but you missed that didn't you!

Here, if I have to spell it out for you:

Any negative health condition which resulted from a conscious act or neglect, will not be covered by public funds.

The opposite would be equally true, and easier to list. Injuries resulting from OTHERS actions/inaction, non-adults (and mentally handicapped), acts of nature (wind, avalanche, fire etc), pregnancy, natural cancers/tumors, genetic/birth afflictions, common afflictions and all diseases/infections.

Notice I left out AGE related illnesses, if people want to live unnaturally long, they can foot the bill. All disease/infections should be covered because the public benefits from their treatment.

Physical injuries are peoples own responsibility, but people usually never mean to hurt themselves, so depending on how cheap the tax payers are, would this be covered or not. I'd prefer it was, even for old people that fall down and need a new hip.

"In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion"
"contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes" (I was wrong that taxes didn't cover the health care costs)
"to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes."
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdi ... 1/c_e.html

"The total cost of caring for people with health problems caused by cigarette smoking -- counting all sources of medical payments -- is about $72.7 billion per year"
"11.8 percent of all medical expenditures in the U.S. in 1993"
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan ... oking.html

[sasquatch2]

EmperorLiam

Quote:

Notice I left out AGE related illnesses, if people want to live unnaturally long, they can foot the bill.

Charming!

[Blue_Nose]

EmperorLiam wrote:

conscious act or neglect

You'll be hard pressed to define that in regards to health in a meaningful way - you haven't done so yet.

Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, so does that mean a smoker consciously developed lung cancer? Hardly - not everyone has the same reaction to smoke, not to mention that there are plenty of other ways to get lung cancer - who is going to decide if the cancer stems from smoking, genetics, or other environmental causes?

What if someone lives with a smoker and they get cancer - are they negligent for consciously living in a harmful environment?

Similarly, a person driving willfully takes on the risks inherent to driving - are they not consciously engaging in an activity with a known risk of death, whether the accident is their "fault" or not?

Any health issue that isn't completely genetic can probably be prevented if the appropriate measures are taken - in that regard, there's no obvious line which divides warranted health risks from unwarranted health risks.

That being said, we successfully draw that line in our legal system, with "reasonable person standard" - it may be that "health laws" are the only solution to "fixing" socialized healthcare, but it's definately the only way to implement your idea of conscious and/or negligent health issues. It certainly appears to be going in that direction with smoking bans, etc, but I can't see that being an improvement to what we have now.

[YetiWorld]

Quote:

Here, if I have to spell it out for you

Gosh, you are too kind for this world

Quote:

Any negative health condition which resulted from a conscious act or neglect, will not be covered by public funds

So: for the sake of argument: healthcare for an anorexic patient will not be covered by public funds.

I find this whole argument too stupid for words.
My, and your, community are based on the fact that we pay for eachother. Based on the principle that if many shoulders carry the load, the burden will become lighter.

Healthcare, childcare, old age pensions, care in the broadest way. For everybody.
Yes: this costs a lot.
No: it doesn't seem always fair.

But I wonder how you'll do when you'd have to start paying for everything yourself.

[Psudo]

YetiWorld wrote:

But I wonder how you'll do when you'd have to start paying for everything yourself.

I do happily pay for myself. I, for one, prefer the option not to have to pay for health care when I'm not sick, as historical precedent suggests I will never get the majority portion of such money back. If I want to donate to charity, I prefer it be a voluntary donation. What of those few like me? Is my will rightly obliterated by the state on this matter?

[RUEZ]

Psudo wrote:

YetiWorld wrote:

But I wonder how you'll do when you'd have to start paying for everything yourself.

I do happily pay for myself. I, for one, prefer the option not to have to pay for health care when I'm not sick,

You don't pay for health insurance?