Canada's System sucks for you, but it is good enough for me

[alprazoslam]

What hypocrisy?

He knows he lost an argument when he attack a dude getting a hernia surgery. He’s not using Canada’s funds to pay for it so it doesn’t even have anything to do with Canada’s healthcare system. I’d go there too if I needed a hernia repair and could afford it

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[alprazoslam]

But you are dragging a large sum from my paycheck that I don’t want to pay

It’s ok it’s other people’s money. The liberal solution to everything

 

[Ducttape]

and, if you don't want the government to seize your money, move to Sweden.

oh snap.

I mean United Kingdom.

no...

France... Ireland... Germany...


oh oh... you can move to Canada, or better yet, Mexico!!!

List of Countries by Personal Income Tax Rate

 

[lonelobo]

If you want Canada’s healthcare move to Canada. Easy solution

Head back to your cave

 

[alprazoslam]

Head back to your cave

My cave has less taxes and more freedom than your cave We also don’t snoop on other people’s medical problems

 

[SSdoc33]

Wait a second, you just said yesterday that if people want better care than the govt provided crappy care, they can pay for it.

You guys keep beating around the bush here, splitting hairs and making contradictory statements.

Should rich people be able to buy better healthcare with their money or not? Yes/no?

in an ideal system, no they shouldnt be able to buy "better" health care. you shouldnt live or die depending on how much money you have. that being said, in virtually every system in every country, more money buys better access and quality. so, i will admit that until and if we make major changes and progress, the rich will continue to afford better health care

 

[SSdoc33]

Excellent review of "how we got here."

How Government Killed the Medical Profession

“Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”

Atlas Shrugged

i know there is a Godwin's law -- when an internet discussion devolves into Hitler/nazis, but there should also be a law when a discussion meanders into quoting Ayn Rand

 

[Ducttape]

did you know that Ayn Rand is actually short for Alisha Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, born and raised in Russia, before emigrating to the US...

and yes, she was for a period of time an illegal immigrant in the US.

just saying...

 

[drusso]

@Ducttape

i know there is a Godwin's law -- when an internet discussion devolves into Hitler/nazis, but there should also be a law when a discussion meanders into quoting Ayn Rand

I was member of the Ayn Rand Society in High School and started the first High School Chapter in the U.S...I recommend the following if you have children:

https://tuttletwins.com/product/the-tuttle-twins-and-the-search-for-atlas/

What happens when hard-working people quit?

In a world filled with consumers, what happens if the producers give up and leave? And how can people better practice personal responsibility and not have a sense of entitlement about the things they think they deserve?

Ethan and Emily Tuttle tackle these questions in their latest adventure, this time as clowns in the visiting circus. Incorporating ideas from Ayn Rand’s hit novel Atlas Shrugged, this book shows how things begin falling apart when socialism creeps in. Join the clown twins as they try to figure out where Atlas went—and more importantly, why he left.

 

[Ferrismonk]

If healthcare is a "right", then Rand Paul's comment is correct. A "right" is something that is innate to the person, something that is "endowed by their Creator." It is not a service provided by someone else.

What Bernie and friends really mean, but it isn't that good of a good soundbite, is that "it is in the societal good for us to tax the American people to ensure everyone has basic healthcare".

 

[hyperalgesia]

in an ideal system, no they shouldnt be able to buy "better" health care. you shouldnt live or die depending on how much money you have. that being said, in virtually every system in every country, more money buys better access and quality. so, i will admit that until and if we make major changes and progress, the rich will continue to afford better health care

"Progress" toward changing human nature? And you say libertarians are dreamers...

 

[SSdoc33]

@Ducttape

I was member of the Ayn Rand Society in High School and started the first High School Chapter in the U.S...I recommend the following if you have children:

https://tuttletwins.com/product/the-tuttle-twins-and-the-search-for-atlas/

What happens when hard-working people quit?

In a world filled with consumers, what happens if the producers give up and leave? And how can people better practice personal responsibility and not have a sense of entitlement about the things they think they deserve?

Ethan and Emily Tuttle tackle these questions in their latest adventure, this time as clowns in the visiting circus. Incorporating ideas from Ayn Rand’s hit novel Atlas Shrugged, this book shows how things begin falling apart when socialism creeps in. Join the clown twins as they try to figure out where Atlas went—and more importantly, why he left.

That's pretty aggresive. I can barely keep my kid interested in Captain Underpants

 

[DODOCSS]

Commies

 

[Ducttape]

continuing on the hypocrisy theme...

for you libertarians...

how do you justify seizing land from lawful landowners in order to build this border wall of trumps? (at least Ron Paul does not believe in border wall, unlike his son)

 

[hyperalgesia]

The border wall is being requested by the US Border Patrol because they think it's necessary to secure the border. This is not Trump's idea.

An estimated 200k people/year come across the border illegally, give or take. So yes, I do support eminent domain in cases of national security like this.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Outside estimates are less rosy. In a 2013 report, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that Border Patrol’s success rate was in the 40 percent to 55 percent range. The Institute for Defense Analyses, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that works solely for U.S. government agencies, estimates that about 200,000 people made it across in 2015

 

[Doctodd]

if they build the wall and leave the private landower's land without a wall, and thousands of illegals start crossing through his private land, i think the landowner will see the light, or build the wall himself.

 

[Doctodd]

Excellent review of "how we got here."

How Government Killed the Medical Profession

“Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”

Atlas Shrugged

until the Govt pays for med school, it wont be truly socialized

 

[deleted480308]

continuing on the hypocrisy theme...

for you libertarians...

how do you justify seizing land from lawful landowners in order to build this border wall of trumps? (at least Ron Paul does not believe in border wall, unlike his son)

eminent domain is by no means my favorite thing but if anything made sense as a justification it would be national security. And despite the fact that they are paid for the land (and if they don't like the price the govt actually pays for their lawyers to sue the govt) I'd also be ok with the notion of completely voluntary purchases. If the guy on the border doesn't want to sell you move one property owner inland and offer to put the wall on theirs.

 

[Ducttape]

The border wall is being requested by the US Border Patrol because they think it's necessary to secure the border. This is not Trump's idea.

An estimated 200k people/year come across the border illegally, give or take. So yes, I do support eminent domain in cases of national security like this.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Outside estimates are less rosy. In a 2013 report, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that Border Patrol’s success rate was in the 40 percent to 55 percent range. The Institute for Defense Analyses, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that works solely for U.S. government agencies, estimates that about 200,000 people made it across in 2015

thats not necessarily true. some reports say border agents have not asked for a wall, some said they have.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

and i sense a fallacy on who requested the wall. US Border Patrol did not. https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/03/22/report-border-patrol-agents-rarely-requested-wall/


you can go back and research what border security said before the trump administration said. i can tell you, in 2015 and 2016, there were no requests asking for a wall.

in fact: Statement by Secretary Johnson on Southwest Border Security

Border security alone cannot overcome the powerful push factors of poverty and violence that exist in Central America. Walls alone cannot prevent illegal migration. Ultimately, the solution is long-term investment in Central America to address the underlying push factors in the region.

also: U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Total Lowest in a Decade
so there are fewer illegal immigrants coming over now, without any new addition to the current fence. why the emergency?

and most illegal immigrants are those who have lived in the US for > 10 years. 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
(fact #5)

eminent domain is by no means my favorite thing but if anything made sense as a justification it would be national security. And despite the fact that they are paid for the land (and if they don't like the price the govt actually pays for their lawyers to sue the govt) I'd also be ok with the notion of completely voluntary purchases. If the guy on the border doesn't want to sell you move one property owner inland and offer to put the wall on theirs.

if you build it around their property, you are essentially cutting them off from the US, arent you? that gives these people no options but to sell.
but, in other words, its fine from your libertarian standpoint to essentially force landowners to sell their property for the wall...


if it is about national security, and you are worried about national security, then think of your taxes as being taken from you and spent primarily for national security. in exchange, the govt will "take away" national security from my taxes and use it for healthcare.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I just remembered this is the exact situation we had a few years ago with the last shutdown.
Just substitute Obama for Trump, Obamacare for the wall, Harry Reid for McConnell, etc.

 

[SSdoc33]

I just remembered this is the exact situation we had a few years ago with the last shutdown.
Just substitute Obama for Trump, Obamacare for the wall, Harry Reid for McConnell, etc.

Couldn't be more different

 

[deleted480308]

thats not necessarily true. some reports say border agents have not asked for a wall, some said they have.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)
Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

and i sense a fallacy on who requested the wall. US Border Patrol did not. https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/03/22/report-border-patrol-agents-rarely-requested-wall/


you can go back and research what border security said before the trump administration said. i can tell you, in 2015 and 2016, there were no requests asking for a wall.

in fact: Statement by Secretary Johnson on Southwest Border Security


also: U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Total Lowest in a Decade
so there are fewer illegal immigrants coming over now, without any new addition to the current fence. why the emergency?

and most illegal immigrants are those who have lived in the US for > 10 years. 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
(fact #5)



if you build it around their property, you are essentially cutting them off from the US, arent you? that gives these people no options but to sell.
but, in other words, its fine from your libertarian standpoint to essentially force landowners to sell their property for the wall...


if it is about national security, and you are worried about national security, then think of your taxes as being taken from you and spent primarily for national security. in exchange, the govt will "take away" national security from my taxes and use it for healthcare.

Except that health care for the general populace is not a legitimate function of the federal govt

 

[drusso]

This is what "Medicare for All" really looks like...

Opinion | Why Infants May Be More Likely to Die in America Than Cuba

"All this is possible because Cuba overflows with doctors — it has three times as many per capita as the United States — and pays them very little. A new doctor earns $45 a month, and a very experienced one $80."

Support organizations that put patients and doctors first:

HOME - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

National Board of Physicians and Surgeons - Board Certification

 

[hyperalgesia]

Couldn't be more different

I'm just talking about the tactic. House proposes bills without Ocare funding, Harry refuses to bring every bill up in the senate to protect Obama politically. Govt shuts down. Republicans claim Obama is holding govt hostage to support unpopular centerpiece of administration. Yeah, totally different...

 

[Ducttape]

I just remembered this is the exact situation we had a few years ago with the last shutdown.
Just substitute Obama for Trump, Obamacare for the wall, Harry Reid for McConnell, etc.

completely different. particularly because there was a much bigger issue involved - the debt ceiling and necessity of raising it.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/did-...wn-the-government-to-force-obamacare-in-2013/

also please show where Reid blocked senate votes on compromise bills. the republicans did not submit compromise bills on Obamacare - until they just caved and Reid allowed a vote at that time.

completely different.



sad part of this shutdown is that Trump owned both houses of congress and still it happened...

sb247 - so life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not part of the government? does health care include, um, life?

drusso - and to you -one implication to me of your post is that it is more important that doctors get good pay than it is to save infant lives....

 

[hyperalgesia]

sb247 - so life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not part of the government? does health care include, um, life?

Health care is a service provided by others. That's why it can never be a "right".

The framers listed the "unalienable rights" as those things that we are naturally born with, granted to us by our creator. The point being that they are already owned by you and the govt can't take them away (in the US).

A right is never something granted to you or provided to you by someone else.

It is constantly unbelievable that people buy into the cheap magic trick when politicians float the idea of health care as a right.

If you want the govt to sponsor it or provide it, fine. But calling it a right looks silly to many people and undermines your cause.

 

[Ducttape]

Fair enough.

2 points though...

1. The US is essentially the only major developed country that has chosen the platform that universal health card is not appropriate. Why have other developed countries decided differently?

2. If health care is not a right, then why must you and I pay to cover the costs of those who choose not to contribute to financing the cost of health care in the US?

We are already subsiding the costs of those who cannot and those who refuse to pay, because inevitably they show up in ERs and urgent cares, almost always sicker and more costly than if they had basic primary care available.

 

[deleted480308]

completely different. particularly because there was a much bigger issue involved - the debt ceiling and necessity of raising it.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/did-...wn-the-government-to-force-obamacare-in-2013/

also please show where Reid blocked senate votes on compromise bills. the republicans did not submit compromise bills on Obamacare - until they just caved and Reid allowed a vote at that time.

completely different.



sad part of this shutdown is that Trump owned both houses of congress and still it happened...

sb247 - so life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not part of the government? does health care include, um, life?

drusso - and to you -one implication to me of your post is that it is more important that doctors get good pay than it is to save infant lives....

If you use the “tag” feature I will get a notification that you asked me something

To answer your question it’s about positive and negative rights. I don’t have a natural right to demand people do things for me (positive right) but I have a natural right to demand that there are things people don’t do to me.

I.e. I have no natural right to demand that someone sustain my life with dialysis I don’t pay for but I do have a right to demand someone not stab me to death because they want my wallet

The reason our govt makes you and I pay for others despite the natural rights as discussed above is because govt is not currently functioning properly and has partially abandoned rights in exchange for “whatever the most people want”

 

[Ferrismonk]

1. The US is essentially the only major developed country that has chosen the platform that universal health card is not appropriate. Why have other developed countries decided differently?

We all teach our kids, if your friend jumped off a bridge, would you? Just because someone else does something, doesn't make it correct.

We are also one of the few who actually have a free press. Actually have freedom of speech. America is better.

 

[Ducttape]

better than any of the top 50 highly developed countries in the world??? that is being exceptional... exceptionally egocentric that is.

The U.S. is the Only Very Highly Developed Country Without Universal HealthCare - Fact or Myth?

the list of highly developed countries (who also have some form of universal healthcare) includes: 1 Norway 2 Australia 2 Switzerland 4 Germany 5 Denmark 5 Singapore 7 Netherlands 8 Ireland 9 Iceland 10 Canada 11 United States 12 Hong Kong 13 New Zealand 14 Sweden 15 Liechtenstein 16 United Kingdom 17 Japan 18 South Korea 19 Israel 20 Luxembourg 21 France 22 Belgium 23 Finland 24 Austria 25 Slovenia 26 Italy 27 Spain 28 Czech Republic 29 Greece 30 Brunei 30 Estonia 32 Andorra 33 Cyprus 33 Malta 33 Qatar 36 Poland 37 Lithuania 38 Chile 39 Saudi Arabia 40 Slovakia 41 Portugal 42 United Arab Emirates 43 Hungary 44 Latvia 45 Argentina 45 Croatia 47 Bahrain 48 Montenegro 49 Russia 50 Romania 51 Kuwait.

(fwiw, I believe there is free press and freedom of speech in 20 of the top 25 on that list...)

If you use the “tag” feature I will get a notification that you asked me something

To answer your question it’s about positive and negative rights. I don’t have a natural right to demand people do things for me (positive right) but I have a natural right to demand that there are things people don’t do to me.

I.e. I have no natural right to demand that someone sustain my life with dialysis I don’t pay for but I do have a right to demand someone not stab me to death because they want my wallet

The reason our govt makes you and I pay for others despite the natural rights as discussed above is because govt is not currently functioning properly and has partially abandoned rights in exchange for “whatever the most people want”

would argue that your definition of rights is far too restrictive and limited. rights by themselves cross over, and may shift from different perspectives.

in addition:

Positive rights, negative rights and health care. - PubMed - NCBI

J Med Ethics. 2010 Dec;36(12):838-41. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.036210. Epub 2010 Oct 8.
Positive rights, negative rights and health care.
Bradley A1.
Author information
1
University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
In the current debate about healthcare reform in the USA, advocates for government-ensured universal coverage assume that health care is a right. Although this position is politically popular, it is sometimes challenged by a restricted view of rights popular with libertarians and individualists. The restricted view of rights only accepts 'negative' rights as legitimate rights. Negative rights, the argument goes, place no obligations on you to provide goods to other people and thus respect your right to keep the fruits of your labour. A classic enumeration of negative rights includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Positive rights, by contrast, obligate you either to provide goods to others, or pay taxes that are used for redistributive purposes. Health care falls into the category of positive rights since its provision by the government requires taxation and therefore redistribution. Therefore, the libertarian or individualist might argue that health care cannot be a true right. This paper rejects the distinction between positive and negative rights. In fact, the protection of both positive and negative rights can place obligations on others. Furthermore, because of its role in helping protect equality of opportunity, health care can be tied to the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is, therefore, good reason to believe that health care is a human right and that universal access should be guaranteed. The practical application, by governments and non-governmental organisations, of several of the arguments presented in this paper is also discussed.

 

[deleted480308]

would argue that your definition of rights is far too restrictive and limited. rights by themselves cross over, and may shift from different perspectives.

in addition:

Positive rights, negative rights and health care. - PubMed - NCBI

I've read it and found the arguments to incorrect. I don't have a natural right to demand health care for free

 

[hyperalgesia]

1. The US is essentially the only major developed country that has chosen the platform that universal health card is not appropriate. Why have other developed countries decided differently?

We haven't decided that. We continue to try various models here with mixed to poor results.

 

[Ducttape]

But none of the models are for universal healthcare... (fwiw, my concept of universal healthcare would probably not be an over-encompassing one but one limited to primary care and treatment for life threatening conditions such as trauma)

I've read it and found the arguments to incorrect. I don't have a natural right to demand health care for free

as I disagree with the precept of Objectivism as too simplistic and morally bereft of a philosophy. cie la vie.

 

[lonelobo]

eminent domain is by no means my favorite thing but if anything made sense as a justification it would be national security. And despite the fact that they are paid for the land (and if they don't like the price the govt actually pays for their lawyers to sue the govt) I'd also be ok with the notion of completely voluntary purchases. If the guy on the border doesn't want to sell you move one property owner inland and offer to put the wall on theirs.

What a f'cking Joke....national security threat

 

[hyperalgesia]

What a f'cking Joke....national security threat

I think the bigger picture is that "securing the border" is a politically necessary first step to immigration reform. Giving Trump a win here might be worth it if democrats truly want to address the big issue.

 

[Ducttape]

no offense, but that makes little sense.

reform immigration and there is no need for an expensive "wall" that majority of policy experts say wont help at all.

in addition, illegal immigration is going down by itself with no wall going in, even before Trump came to power.


why waste money on an issue that might not even exist?

unless you have bamboozled a certain gullible population into believing your rhetoric, and dont have the "guts" to back down. (see Ann Coulter)

 

[deleted480308]

no offense, but that makes little sense.

reform immigration and there is no need for an expensive "wall" that majority of policy experts say wont help at all.

in addition, illegal immigration is going down by itself with no wall going in, even before Trump came to power.


why waste money on an issue that might not even exist?

unless you have bamboozled a certain gullible population into believing your rhetoric, and dont have the "guts" to back down. (see Ann Coulter)

There will always be people and stuff trying to get across the border that we don’t want coming across, a better citizenship path reduces but doesn’t eliminate that

 

[hyperalgesia]

reform immigration and there is no need for an expensive "wall" that majority of policy experts say wont help at all.

It's been tried. Republicans will never support amnesty as long as the border is not secure. And to many, that means a wall.

 

[deleted480308]

It's been tried. Republicans will never support amnesty as long as the border is not secure. And to many, that means a wall.

And they shouldn’t

 

[Doctodd]

didnt CNN's Jim Acosta already prove walls work? And walls keep other things out too, like zombies. Gotta love the left's talking points getting regurgitated here....walls dont work, there is no national security threat, the crisis is manufactured, etc.

Is it too late for common sense from the left? Cuz their credibility sucks.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Do we really need "experts" to tell us that walls work?

 

[Doctodd]

Do we really need "experts" to tell us that walls work?

that would be what i meant by common sense

 

[hyperalgesia]

that would be what i meant by common sense

I have to say though some people are much better off not trying to use their common sense.

 

[Ferrismonk]

better than any of the top 50 highly developed countries in the world??? that is being exceptional... exceptionally egocentric that is.

The U.S. is the Only Very Highly Developed Country Without Universal HealthCare - Fact or Myth?

(fwiw, I believe there is free press and freedom of speech in 20 of the top 25 on that list...)


would argue that your definition of rights is far too restrictive and limited. rights by themselves cross over, and may shift from different perspectives.

in addition:

Positive rights, negative rights and health care. - PubMed - NCBI

I would argue that the majority of those countries do NOT have free speech as it is known in the US. You can be jailed in Germany for displaying a Nazi flag. You can be jailed in the UK for handing out anti-Gay leaflets or posting racist comments on Twitter. In Canada you can be jailed for posting bible passages in your private business. That's not free speech.

 

[SSdoc33]

I would argue that the majority of those countries do NOT have free speech as it is known in the US. You can be jailed in Germany for displaying a Nazi flag. You can be jailed in the UK for handing out anti-Gay leaflets or posting racist comments on Twitter. In Canada you can be jailed for posting bible passages in your private business. That's not free speech.

idiotic comment

there are obviously limits to free speech to protect the public. you cant publish a manual on how to build an atomic bomb.

there is something wrong with your argument when you are trying to argue FOR hitler, FOR homphobia, and FOR racism.

 

[SSdoc33]

Do we really need "experts" to tell us that walls work?

let me guess, we dont need "experts" to tell us that climate change is real, either? maybe we dont need pilots. or engineer. or neurosurgeons.

funny how one can read an article or 2 on foxnews and then think they know everything.

we have have a word for this type of thinking: ignorance

 

[hyperalgesia]

let me guess, we dont need "experts" to tell us that climate change is real, either? maybe we dont need pilots. or engineer. or neurosurgeons.

funny how one can read an article or 2 on foxnews and then think they know everything.

we have have a word for this type of thinking: ignorance

Your target is the many people who stubbornly refuse to accept expert opinion when they mistakenly think they know better. But it's blinding you. Actually I think it's DJT again, the human version of catnip.

We have a lot of barriers/fences/wall already on the border that was constructed with bipartisan consensus. If "walls don't work", why? Should we tear it down?

 

[Ferrismonk]

idiotic comment

there are obviously limits to free speech to protect the public. you cant publish a manual on how to build an atomic bomb.

there is something wrong with your argument when you are trying to argue FOR hitler, FOR homphobia, and FOR racism.

The whole point of having a free press and freedom of speech is to protect those who want to publish or speak about things that are NOT popular. The reason we have the 1st amendment at all is because the founding fathers were unhappy with the British suppression of unpopular and dangerous-to-the-public comments of the people in the colonies.

I also think it is "idiotic" that you cannot distinguish between the content of someone's speech and the necessity to preserve their right to say so.

 

[SSdoc33]

Your target is the many people who stubbornly refuse to accept expert opinion when they mistakenly think they know better. But it's blinding you. Actually I think it's DJT again, the human version of catnip.

We have a lot of barriers/fences/wall already on the border that was constructed with bipartisan consensus. If "walls don't work", why? Should we tear it down?

a fence at tijuana makes sense. thermal scanners, strategic deployment of technology, etc makes sense. fences/walls at specific locations makes sense, too. 2000 miles of a wall is laughably stupid

 

[SSdoc33]

The whole point of having a free press and freedom of speech is to protect those who want to publish or speak about things that are NOT popular. The reason we have the 1st amendment at all is because the founding fathers were unhappy with the British suppression of unpopular and dangerous-to-the-public comments of the people in the colonies.

I also think it is "idiotic" that you cannot distinguish between the content of someone's speech and the necessity to preserve their right to say so.

"free speech" is essential. i agree. foxnews should not be shut-down, even though many would say its content is propaganda. however, there are and need to be limits for the public good