Medical costs in Canada are also reduced by taking away your right to recover lost wages in case an injury was caused by someone else, in many cases. If your back is injured by someone, and sore for a year, and you can't install shingles at your normal speed, and only do half the number of roofs you normally do... too bad, your loss. This applies to doctors and malpractice.
Canada Health Insurance
- Thread starter Jerryb
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Ah ..UL in action.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Medical costs in Canada are also reduced by taking away your right to recover lost wages in case an injury was caused by someone else, in many cases. If your back is injured by someone, and sore for a year, and you can't install shingles at your normal speed, and only do half the number of roofs you normally do... too bad, your loss. This applies to doctors and malpractice.
Really? I see more and more US style lawyer ads on TV to sue for personal injuries atleast.
Medical costs in Canada are also reduced by taking away your right to recover lost wages in case an injury was caused by someone else, in many cases. If your back is injured by someone, and sore for a year, and you can't install shingles at your normal speed, and only do half the number of roofs you normally do... too bad, your loss. This applies to doctors and malpractice.
Really? I see more and more US style lawyer ads on TV to sue for personal injuries atleast.
In Nebraska at least, they won't let you just sit there and collect welfare checks, Medicaid benefits, ect. They require you to apply for jobs, schooling, workforce development, ect. They do everything they can to get you a job.
Here at least, the days of sitting around having the gov't pay for everything is gone.
Here at least, the days of sitting around having the gov't pay for everything is gone.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
There are unintended side effects to those types of action too. The loafers know how to seamlessly thread the system. It's the honest people who are hurt in the remedies.
They put a 2 year limit on welfare after your last pregnancy. All it meant was having a kid every two years until the organs gave out. Under the child support structure, it was far cheaper to be named the father, pay the decreasing amount of mandated support for the mother and children, then it was to raise them as a married couple with family. He could work and live cheaply. She could live on the public dole with a fraction of his resources contributing.
They put a 2 year limit on welfare after your last pregnancy. All it meant was having a kid every two years until the organs gave out. Under the child support structure, it was far cheaper to be named the father, pay the decreasing amount of mandated support for the mother and children, then it was to raise them as a married couple with family. He could work and live cheaply. She could live on the public dole with a fraction of his resources contributing.
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
It's always just been there, like fire departments, schools and police, and it's never cost me a dime.
Who pays for it then?
Oh, good gravy, man! No one - *no one* is dumb enough to believe that this is free, and that medical professionals are paid from, and medical facilities sustained by, a magic fairy money tree. NO ONE. Come on, fellas: I meant - and you KNOW I meant - it didn't cost me a dime *out of my pocket at the time of my medical incident(s)*. Meaning that I needed not to concern myself over insurance or money when I became ill or injured.
Honestly, I would love to see some un-bias-buggered numbers that balance quality-of-care with cost; comparing the bloated, inefficient system here with the profit-driven model there. Surprises may abound.
Americans always seem to concern yourselves over money first; and secondly, you all seem to want to make certain that the minimal amount of your own accumulated wealth goes to help anyone else. Wealth wealth wealth. Me me me. This, of course, is your choice, and that choice comes with immense rewards and equally deep consequences.
Also, you folks seem to be missing the point really, really badly. Medical care as a social service is NOT about efficiency or negative rights. It is about providing a service that, as a society, is deemed required to call ourselves a civilized society. We don't deny folks police protection, nor fire departments; and the treatment of illness and injury, in the opinions of most people (at least outside the U.S.) is just one of those things that should not be an "if" for folks. I am a dyed-in-wool Libertarian, and am as anti-government as any of you; and make most of you who consider yourselves suspicious of government look like Castro. I don't like, respect or trust government, but treating the sick and suffering is a matter of humanity.
To thicken the plot just a bit - and I do not know if this has yet been brought up in this thread - Our system here is primed for abuse; both malicious, fraudulent abuse and the kind of casual, taken-for-granted abuse that involves folks using the system when it is obviously not warranted.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
It's always just been there, like fire departments, schools and police, and it's never cost me a dime.
Who pays for it then?
Oh, good gravy, man! No one - *no one* is dumb enough to believe that this is free, and that medical professionals are paid from, and medical facilities sustained by, a magic fairy money tree. NO ONE. Come on, fellas: I meant - and you KNOW I meant - it didn't cost me a dime *out of my pocket at the time of my medical incident(s)*. Meaning that I needed not to concern myself over insurance or money when I became ill or injured.
Honestly, I would love to see some un-bias-buggered numbers that balance quality-of-care with cost; comparing the bloated, inefficient system here with the profit-driven model there. Surprises may abound.
Americans always seem to concern yourselves over money first; and secondly, you all seem to want to make certain that the minimal amount of your own accumulated wealth goes to help anyone else. Wealth wealth wealth. Me me me. This, of course, is your choice, and that choice comes with immense rewards and equally deep consequences.
Also, you folks seem to be missing the point really, really badly. Medical care as a social service is NOT about efficiency or negative rights. It is about providing a service that, as a society, is deemed required to call ourselves a civilized society. We don't deny folks police protection, nor fire departments; and the treatment of illness and injury, in the opinions of most people (at least outside the U.S.) is just one of those things that should not be an "if" for folks. I am a dyed-in-wool Libertarian, and am as anti-government as any of you; and make most of you who consider yourselves suspicious of government look like Castro. I don't like, respect or trust government, but treating the sick and suffering is a matter of humanity.
To thicken the plot just a bit - and I do not know if this has yet been brought up in this thread - Our system here is primed for abuse; both malicious, fraudulent abuse and the kind of casual, taken-for-granted abuse that involves folks using the system when it is obviously not warranted.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Oh, good gravy, man! No one - *no one* is dumb enough to believe that this is free, and that medical professionals are paid from, and medical facilities sustained by, a magic fairy money tree. NO ONE.
I could name one poster here who wrote and seemingly thought exactly that and argued the point as well.
The rest of your stuff......why is it and where does it say the government needs to provide health care? Why always the gov???
Oh, good gravy, man! No one - *no one* is dumb enough to believe that this is free, and that medical professionals are paid from, and medical facilities sustained by, a magic fairy money tree. NO ONE.
I could name one poster here who wrote and seemingly thought exactly that and argued the point as well.
The rest of your stuff......why is it and where does it say the government needs to provide health care? Why always the gov???
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
uc50ic4more: You can rest your case
Well, isn't the whole point of governments to provide or manage basic services for the good of the public?
It would be interesting to talk to people from the 1800's about healthcare? I assume it worked Ok if you had the money, but not so good if you didn't.
Do you want people with dying children and no money knocking on your door with the barrel of their 12 gauge asking for some "help"? Guns and ammo are cheap atleast...
I know I don't want to live in a country like that, sounds to me like providing some basic healthcare is good job for the government.
I can't really see how a for profit business would be able to provide basic healthcare for everyone without the ability to collect taxes...
It would be interesting to talk to people from the 1800's about healthcare? I assume it worked Ok if you had the money, but not so good if you didn't.
Do you want people with dying children and no money knocking on your door with the barrel of their 12 gauge asking for some "help"? Guns and ammo are cheap atleast...
I know I don't want to live in a country like that, sounds to me like providing some basic healthcare is good job for the government.
I can't really see how a for profit business would be able to provide basic healthcare for everyone without the ability to collect taxes...
Last edited:
You mean you do not have a magic fairy money tree in Canada? I believe the folks in DC think we do.
It sounds like your health plan is run pretty well, but I can almost assure you that the good old boys and gals in DC will totally mess it up.
It sounds like your health plan is run pretty well, but I can almost assure you that the good old boys and gals in DC will totally mess it up.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Oh, good gravy, man! No one - *no one* is dumb enough to believe that this is free, and that medical professionals are paid from, and medical facilities sustained by, a magic fairy money tree. NO ONE.
I could name one poster here who wrote and seemingly thought exactly that and argued the point as well.
I am scanning as closely as I can the other posts so far in this thread, and I'm not finding anything that says that a gov't run health care system is free, and the money appears automagically. I've got a screaming 6 week old and a bored 20 month old commanding my attention at the moment, and reading is surprisingly difficult, but if you are correct, and someone DID say that, then let me humbly amend my post to read:
"ALMOST no one is that dumb."
Either way, it is naive and a few french fries short of a Happy Meal to think that anything supplied by the gov't is "free", or even run efficiently.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
The rest of your stuff......why is it and where does it say the government needs to provide health care? Why always the gov???
I don't know; I guess it's because the whole raison d'etre of a democratically elected gov't is to act as an administrative entity for programs serving the public interest.
Me, personally? I'd like to see the health care industry run by the health care industry rather than corporate interests or the gov't. My Utopian whimsy aside, I think a two-tired system whereby simple, basic services are provided for everyone, augmented by a private, free market system providing elective and non-essential care is best. It both honours freedom of choice while balancing the burden of a "public good", and alleviates overload from (Canada's) stretched-to-the-max-and-then-some public system.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Oh, good gravy, man! No one - *no one* is dumb enough to believe that this is free, and that medical professionals are paid from, and medical facilities sustained by, a magic fairy money tree. NO ONE.
I could name one poster here who wrote and seemingly thought exactly that and argued the point as well.
I am scanning as closely as I can the other posts so far in this thread, and I'm not finding anything that says that a gov't run health care system is free, and the money appears automagically. I've got a screaming 6 week old and a bored 20 month old commanding my attention at the moment, and reading is surprisingly difficult, but if you are correct, and someone DID say that, then let me humbly amend my post to read:
"ALMOST no one is that dumb."
Either way, it is naive and a few french fries short of a Happy Meal to think that anything supplied by the gov't is "free", or even run efficiently.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
The rest of your stuff......why is it and where does it say the government needs to provide health care? Why always the gov???
I don't know; I guess it's because the whole raison d'etre of a democratically elected gov't is to act as an administrative entity for programs serving the public interest.
Me, personally? I'd like to see the health care industry run by the health care industry rather than corporate interests or the gov't. My Utopian whimsy aside, I think a two-tired system whereby simple, basic services are provided for everyone, augmented by a private, free market system providing elective and non-essential care is best. It both honours freedom of choice while balancing the burden of a "public good", and alleviates overload from (Canada's) stretched-to-the-max-and-then-some public system.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
uc50ic4more: You can rest your case
Gary, I'm not following you, there - Is your post a pat on the head and a "There, there, shut the [censored] up." or a "No guff, you're preaching to the converted."? That silly shrugging emoticon throws me: I never know what it's supposed to imply when you append an emoticon making a questioning, shrugging-like-he-don't-know gesture onto the end of a statement.
uc50ic4more: You can rest your case
Gary, I'm not following you, there - Is your post a pat on the head and a "There, there, shut the [censored] up." or a "No guff, you're preaching to the converted."? That silly shrugging emoticon throws me: I never know what it's supposed to imply when you append an emoticon making a questioning, shrugging-like-he-don't-know gesture onto the end of a statement.
UC - it was in another thread.
Our system isn't a public company that has to pay out to it's stock holders each quarter with greedy CEO's and upper management that wants to keep its bonuses and fat pay-cheques so they don't have to squeeze the the little guy and cancel their insurance or deny claims so as to keep themselves and the stock holders happy.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
uc50ic4more: You can rest your case
Gary, I'm not following you, there - Is your post a pat on the head and a "There, there, shut the [censored] up." or a "No guff, you're preaching to the converted."? That silly shrugging emoticon throws me: I never know what it's supposed to imply when you append an emoticon making a questioning, shrugging-like-he-don't-know gesture onto the end of a statement.
Well, it wasn't
I tend to see it as a, in this situation anyway, "Vwell
, there you have it".
You articulated quite well many sensible views ..that were immediately followed by the very things you depicted as being the true root of the problems.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
uc50ic4more: You can rest your case
Gary, I'm not following you, there - Is your post a pat on the head and a "There, there, shut the [censored] up." or a "No guff, you're preaching to the converted."? That silly shrugging emoticon throws me: I never know what it's supposed to imply when you append an emoticon making a questioning, shrugging-like-he-don't-know gesture onto the end of a statement.
Well, it wasn't
You articulated quite well many sensible views ..that were immediately followed by the very things you depicted as being the true root of the problems.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
UC - it was in another thread.
Pablo -
Either way, I *do understand* that people, after gov't has forcibly placed itself in a legislated monopoly position of what was once a business model, tend to think of it as "free". People needn't worry about it anymore, which is mostly good; but the flip side of that coin is that people stop caring about how things are run, which is mostly bad.
Reminding folks that gov't administered programs and services are a direct cost to us, and that they still require oversight and accountability, and that it is us who need to demand it is vitally important. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I know that most Americans have a deep-seeded (and well-founded) aversion to gov't run anything; and are suspicious of those who say (often arrogantly and smugly) "Well, MY government provides us with such-and-such a service for free", as though needing the nanny state to hold your hand was something to brag about.
UC - it was in another thread.
Pablo -
Either way, I *do understand* that people, after gov't has forcibly placed itself in a legislated monopoly position of what was once a business model, tend to think of it as "free". People needn't worry about it anymore, which is mostly good; but the flip side of that coin is that people stop caring about how things are run, which is mostly bad.
Reminding folks that gov't administered programs and services are a direct cost to us, and that they still require oversight and accountability, and that it is us who need to demand it is vitally important. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I know that most Americans have a deep-seeded (and well-founded) aversion to gov't run anything; and are suspicious of those who say (often arrogantly and smugly) "Well, MY government provides us with such-and-such a service for free", as though needing the nanny state to hold your hand was something to brag about.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I tend to see it as a, in this situation anyway, "Vwell
, there you have it".
Gotcha.
I tend to see it as a, in this situation anyway, "Vwell
Gotcha.
The Canadians are stuck with their system whether they like it or not.Good or bad. Nothing they can do about it. Might as well 'feel good' about the free loaders.
I'm the first to agree the Canadian system is not perfect, there are problems.
We have a shortage of Doctors and other skilled staff, especially in remote, undesirable, areas (If you worked hard to become a Doctor would you want to live in Yellowknife?)
The system is over taxed. I would like to see a very minimum user fee ($10) to help prevent some lonely seniors using the Doctors office as a social gathering place.
We have Nurse practitioners, but I think we need more. Many procedures do not need a Doctors attention. How about a graduated care practitioner scheme from Orderly to Specialist?
We have (in our province) moved in this direction already
What I do like is; If I do have a serious problem, I will get the help I NEED, regardless of cost, and it won't ruin me financially. This frees up a lot of my of my income for other things.
Sure I pay for these things through Taxes, but the bigger the pool the more things tend to even out.
Plus, I have a say (via my vote) if I think the system need to change.
I live close to the U.S. border, I've spent a lot of time in the U.S. I have friends that work in the U.S.
Give me the Canadian heath system (even as it is) any-day.
Michael Moore is over the top, ALL his Documentary/Films are.
He goes overboard to get the Buzz going (which is good for MM)
He plays with statistics, he has a bias, He bends the truth.
But underneath it all, he does raise some very good questions, in a popular format, that (it appears) need to be asked.
We have a shortage of Doctors and other skilled staff, especially in remote, undesirable, areas (If you worked hard to become a Doctor would you want to live in Yellowknife?)
The system is over taxed. I would like to see a very minimum user fee ($10) to help prevent some lonely seniors using the Doctors office as a social gathering place.
We have Nurse practitioners, but I think we need more. Many procedures do not need a Doctors attention. How about a graduated care practitioner scheme from Orderly to Specialist?
We have (in our province) moved in this direction already
What I do like is; If I do have a serious problem, I will get the help I NEED, regardless of cost, and it won't ruin me financially. This frees up a lot of my of my income for other things.
Sure I pay for these things through Taxes, but the bigger the pool the more things tend to even out.
Plus, I have a say (via my vote) if I think the system need to change.
I live close to the U.S. border, I've spent a lot of time in the U.S. I have friends that work in the U.S.
Give me the Canadian heath system (even as it is) any-day.
Michael Moore is over the top, ALL his Documentary/Films are.
He goes overboard to get the Buzz going (which is good for MM)
He plays with statistics, he has a bias, He bends the truth.
But underneath it all, he does raise some very good questions, in a popular format, that (it appears) need to be asked.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
The Canadians are stuck with their system whether they like it or not.Good or bad. Nothing they can do about it. Might as well 'feel good' about the free loaders.
We aren't stuck with anything... We can vote certain political parties in place (PC's) and allow them to change it to a privatized system like they have been wanting to do for years... Don't know about you, but our system must be doing something right if Canadians keep voting against privatizing it? I mean 33 Million Canadians and there isn't an overwhelming majority that doesn't want it? Hmmm... Let me think about that one.
The Canadians are stuck with their system whether they like it or not.Good or bad. Nothing they can do about it. Might as well 'feel good' about the free loaders.
We aren't stuck with anything... We can vote certain political parties in place (PC's) and allow them to change it to a privatized system like they have been wanting to do for years... Don't know about you, but our system must be doing something right if Canadians keep voting against privatizing it? I mean 33 Million Canadians and there isn't an overwhelming majority that doesn't want it? Hmmm... Let me think about that one.
- Status
