free health care

[el Chi]

How can you argue it? You have the ultimate gov't contol over the health system, while we highly lack it.

Clarify, please. It sounds like you're saying your government has no control over the hospital system in the US, but this isn't true.
And the UK government does not have complete control over the NHS - it is a seperate body, funded by the government and monitored by another body independant of those two.
One of the more obvious drawbacks of such a system is the amount of red tape that goes into stopping people taking advantage of the system.

 

[seinfeldrules]

you make it sound sinister. As someone who's witnessed the healthcare system work for my family I can attest that it is a good reliable system that protects everyone equally. And I'm not just talking a trip to the emergency room to stitch up a little "booboo"; major life saving surgery and medical intervention on various members of my family on a regular basis for the last 5 years ..We definately got back all the money we've paid over in the years in taxes.

Sure it has it's faults but it's better than paying for insurance or worse yet, having to forego healthcare because you cant afford it. Why do you think so many americans want a european or canadian style of healthcare ..because it gives you peace of mind ...it's called a social security blanket. When you're old and your health is fading you'll be glad you dont have to worry about whether you'll be able to afford life saving medical intervention

How is it sinister? I wrote a sentence, I cannot see how you can take from a few words what I 'really' think. Thats the thing that always pissed me off in English class.

Why do you think so many americans want a european or canadian style of healthcare

Health care really isnt that big of a deal to me in the overall scheme of things, but I really dont want to be paying a large portion of my pay check to the gov't. I prefer to spend my money how I want, not how the gov't wants. That is why I am all for getting rid of our Social Security system. It wont be able to pay me back even a small fraction of what I put into it. With that money going into my own retirement plan I would be much better off later in life.

 

[CptStern]

you're in your early 20's you dont need healthcare now ...wait till you're seventy. You WILL need it, and so will your family

 

[el Chi]

Health care really isnt that big of a deal to me in the overall scheme of things, but I really dont want to be paying a large portion of my pay check to the gov't. I prefer to spend my money how I want, not how the gov't wants.
That is why I am all for getting rid of our Social Security system. It wont be able to pay me back even a small fraction of what I put into it. With that money going into my own retirement plan I would be much better off later in life.

At present your government is using rather large portions of your pay-cheque - apparently about $4000 - to fund their war in Iraq, rather than to help its own people. You'll forgive me if I find that somewhat disconcerting.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your attitude towards Social Security seems, well, downright selfish. There are people in your country who are living in one of the richest countries on the face of the Earth, yet they live in practically third world conditions. There is no way that is defensable, and Social Security - at least in theory - goes to tryting to help these people. Think of it from their perspective. It always sickens me to the core of my being when I see corporate bosses earning millions of dollars a year, amassing fortunes one could never spend in a lifetime whilst others go poor, hungry, ill and destitute. And don't just fob me off with the "Well, the world's a tough place" excuse, because that simply does not excuse the abolition of a helping hand to those in need.

 

[^Ben]

How much is health insurance for Americans anyway?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your attitude towards Social Security seems, well, downright selfish. There are people in your country who are living in one of the richest countries on the face of the Earth, yet they live in practically third world conditions. There is no way that is defensable, and Social Security - at least in theory - goes to tryting to help these people.

If welfare got them to 70, then it will get them to 100. Why do I need to pay for both?

And many of the so called poor people in America are living with basic cable and microwaves. Of course there are people in places like West Virginia that live in horrid conditions, but it is unlikely they receive or use social security.

 

[el Chi]

If welfare got them to 70, then it will get them to 100. Why do I need to pay for both?

And many of the so called poor people in America are living with basic cable and microwaves. Of course there are people in places like West Virginia that live in horrid conditions, but it is unlikely they receive or use social security.

What? You're saying that you shouldn't pay more money to help other human beings live? That first statement is a bit hazy, but what it essentially sounds like you're saying is that whatever resoundingly meagre amount of aid they may receive from the government, if it can get them to 70, then they can put up with the same tragic amount for the next 30 frail years of their life? Are you actually saying this?

I've seen hundreds of people in tiny crowded shacks in Bombay who have TVs, but that doesn't alieviate the squalor that surrounds them.
And if people don't receive Social Security, then surely they deserve it all the more, rather than you pulling whatever amount (let's face it, it would be relatively small) is taken from you so that their lives might be improved just that little bit?

These are your fellow Americans, and I'm surprised someone as consistantly patriotically biased as yourself could turn a blind eye to them.

 

[seinfeldrules]

What? You're saying that you shouldn't pay more money to help other human beings live? That first statement is a bit hazy, but what it essentially sounds like you're saying is that whatever resoundingly meagre amount of aid they may receive from the government, if it can get them to 70, then they can put up with the same tragic amount for the next 30 frail years of their life? Are you actually saying this?

I'm saying why do they need both Social Security and Welfare? I see the purpose of Social Security as a retirement fund that you trust the gov't with. An assurance that you will have the money you put in when you retire. I see the purpose of welfare as providing help to the needed, be it elderly or middle age.

And if people don't receive Social Security, then surely they deserve it all the more, rather than you pulling whatever amount

I think it is because they literally live in the middle of nowhere and have no need for money.

In conclusion, I have no problem with welfare, but I do feel it needs vast improvement in America. There are far too many examples of people taking blatant advantage of the taxpayer's hard earned money, while doing none of their own.

 

[el Chi]

I think it is because they literally live in the middle of nowhere and have no need for money.

Well now, that makes no sense on all kinds of levels...

In conclusion, I have no problem with welfare, but I do feel it needs vast improvement in America. There are far too many examples of people taking blatant advantage of the taxpayer's hard earned money, while doing none of their own.

Fair play. I think most welfare systems could do with some improvement. There'll always be people willing to take advantage of such a system, but then there'll always be more people who genuinely need and deserve it.

 

[falconwind]

At one time, Canada's welfare system and health care system was among the best in the world, up until recently, IIRC. But since then it's gotten quite bad. All our doctors leave to work privately in the US where they get paid tons of money. That's really where the whole problem lies, a shortage in doctors and beds.

About the only thing we have going for us still, is that it's still government funded, you can still have essential treatment without cost, and drugs are still cheap.

My appendix burst four months ago, and I had to go to the hospital. I must have used up three or four doses of morphine, and about four or five doses of anti-nausea medication. Spent a week and a half in the hospital, ate five meals, and they had gotten a specialist to perform the surgery.

Total cost for medication, accommodation, and surgery: $0 :cheese: