Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie"
From Conservapedia
(reply, fix link) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:I'll add that I think you should apply to be a Canadian citizen, I'm not kidding and it's relatively simple. Enter their healthcare system. If treatment means life, you have no options then go there. However, can you afford to wait in line with all the other Canadians suffering the same ailments, sometimes years? They will draw your name from a lottery and give you a shout-out "you won" visit to see the doc, because that is how "healthcare for all" works.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:37, 16 January 2010 (EST) | :I'll add that I think you should apply to be a Canadian citizen, I'm not kidding and it's relatively simple. Enter their healthcare system. If treatment means life, you have no options then go there. However, can you afford to wait in line with all the other Canadians suffering the same ailments, sometimes years? They will draw your name from a lottery and give you a shout-out "you won" visit to see the doc, because that is how "healthcare for all" works.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:37, 16 January 2010 (EST) | ||
::Even if the rather extreme view you gave was true, Kwasi92 would still have a better chance of getting treatment in Canada than in the US. There is no lottery; there's a queue, and if at any point your ailment becomes near-immediately life threatening they will treat it anyway (I'm no expert on Canada's system; I'm assuming it's similar to Britain's). The DoI gives "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights, and I don't understand how so many people feel comfortable with a system that allows all three to be infringed upon; the first is obvious, the second by forcing people into debt to pay for high healthcare bills, and the third by not allowing people with life-altering illnesses treatment unless they can pay for it. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 15:01, 16 January 2010 (EST) | ::Even if the rather extreme view you gave was true, Kwasi92 would still have a better chance of getting treatment in Canada than in the US. There is no lottery; there's a queue, and if at any point your ailment becomes near-immediately life threatening they will treat it anyway (I'm no expert on Canada's system; I'm assuming it's similar to Britain's). The DoI gives "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights, and I don't understand how so many people feel comfortable with a system that allows all three to be infringed upon; the first is obvious, the second by forcing people into debt to pay for high healthcare bills, and the third by not allowing people with life-altering illnesses treatment unless they can pay for it. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 15:01, 16 January 2010 (EST) | ||
| − | :::Well, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I find your points...let's say... vague. Not a "lottery" it's really just a queue? What is a word for wait inline with others? The following link says otherwise [http:// | + | :::Well, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I find your points...let's say... vague. Not a "lottery" it's really just a queue? What is a word for wait inline with others? The following link says otherwise [http://www.timelymedical.ca/waitlist.htm] Who makes this decision ''" any point your ailment becomes near-immediately life threatening" ''? The American healthcare system is SUPERIOR on so many different levels when compared to socialized medicine.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:20, 16 January 2010 (EST) |
::::Your link doesn't work, so I'll try again later. As I said, I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian system, but I highly doubt they use a lottery; I'm going by the British system, where your place in the queue decides when you get treatment. A doctor decides whether your problem has become immediately life-threatening, or you can call 999 and get an ambulance; it's not as if your appendix ruptures or your arm falls off and you have to wait two weeks for treatment; you will be rushed to hospital and operated on immediately. You don't go before a 'death panel' before or after which asks you how productive your life has been or tests your political loyalty <s>or asks whether you can pay</s>. I'll admit American healthcare is better, but that's because they can go about their business without regard to cost; they choose who to treat, confident in the knowledge that the bottom line doesn't matter, because the patient will pay; those that can't go out on their ear (unless, I'm hoping, it's a true emergency). American healthcare is probably better - for those who can get it. The system, however, I consider worse, for those who can't afford it don't get it. Socialized healthcare is probably worse, because a) they don't have a limitless amount of money to spend and b) they treat EVERYONE, so they have to treat more people, but still, I consider the socialized system the better of the two, because everyone receives treatment. My preference, however, is for a system like Britain's; private healthcare for those who want and can afford it, and that takes pressure off the socialized system which treats everyone else (and treats them well, however many scare stories about people waking up with three arms you hear). [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 15:49, 16 January 2010 (EST) | ::::Your link doesn't work, so I'll try again later. As I said, I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian system, but I highly doubt they use a lottery; I'm going by the British system, where your place in the queue decides when you get treatment. A doctor decides whether your problem has become immediately life-threatening, or you can call 999 and get an ambulance; it's not as if your appendix ruptures or your arm falls off and you have to wait two weeks for treatment; you will be rushed to hospital and operated on immediately. You don't go before a 'death panel' before or after which asks you how productive your life has been or tests your political loyalty <s>or asks whether you can pay</s>. I'll admit American healthcare is better, but that's because they can go about their business without regard to cost; they choose who to treat, confident in the knowledge that the bottom line doesn't matter, because the patient will pay; those that can't go out on their ear (unless, I'm hoping, it's a true emergency). American healthcare is probably better - for those who can get it. The system, however, I consider worse, for those who can't afford it don't get it. Socialized healthcare is probably worse, because a) they don't have a limitless amount of money to spend and b) they treat EVERYONE, so they have to treat more people, but still, I consider the socialized system the better of the two, because everyone receives treatment. My preference, however, is for a system like Britain's; private healthcare for those who want and can afford it, and that takes pressure off the socialized system which treats everyone else (and treats them well, however many scare stories about people waking up with three arms you hear). [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 15:49, 16 January 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | :::::Charlie, socialized healthcare doesn't mean 'free' health care. What it means is productive members of society are forced in to paying more taxes, and also in to funding such 'treatments' as abortion. [[User:DwayneD|DwayneD]] 16:24, 16 January 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::::Thanks for pointing out the link-error. I have one link [http://www.timelymedical.ca/waitlist.html] and one video [http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/09/the-lindsay-mccreith-story-the-horror-of-socialized-medicine/] of the story deleted. Just remember CharlieT, superior in many ways adds much significance to the debate. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:32, 16 January 2010 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:32, January 16, 2010
I'm sorry, I am NOT trolling. I just need to say, as someone without health insurance, whatever the number is, and whatever the political ideology, the idea that if I was in a country with socialized medicine then I could be treated for my ailments, that is a serious issue. Being screwed because I'm "too poor", is that not elitism? Kwasi92 12:29, 16 January 2010 (EST)
- I know your situation, one whereby healthcare costs are out of your financial ability and the utopia of "affordable healthcare for everyone" is what sounds good. It's too good to be true, it really is coming from these particular politicians (whatever the political ideology). Our all too compassionate country has set up program after program to help the less fortunate with taxpayer money. Non-profit companies of a free market system, Americans have donated more than any other country in the world. Hurting generations to come will look back and say "Economic suicide", sharp tongues , and broken promises. Don't trust big government, defend the oath! --Jpatt 13:22, 16 January 2010 (EST)
- I'll add that I think you should apply to be a Canadian citizen, I'm not kidding and it's relatively simple. Enter their healthcare system. If treatment means life, you have no options then go there. However, can you afford to wait in line with all the other Canadians suffering the same ailments, sometimes years? They will draw your name from a lottery and give you a shout-out "you won" visit to see the doc, because that is how "healthcare for all" works.--Jpatt 13:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
- Even if the rather extreme view you gave was true, Kwasi92 would still have a better chance of getting treatment in Canada than in the US. There is no lottery; there's a queue, and if at any point your ailment becomes near-immediately life threatening they will treat it anyway (I'm no expert on Canada's system; I'm assuming it's similar to Britain's). The DoI gives "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights, and I don't understand how so many people feel comfortable with a system that allows all three to be infringed upon; the first is obvious, the second by forcing people into debt to pay for high healthcare bills, and the third by not allowing people with life-altering illnesses treatment unless they can pay for it. CharlieT 15:01, 16 January 2010 (EST)
- Well, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I find your points...let's say... vague. Not a "lottery" it's really just a queue? What is a word for wait inline with others? The following link says otherwise [1] Who makes this decision " any point your ailment becomes near-immediately life threatening" ? The American healthcare system is SUPERIOR on so many different levels when compared to socialized medicine.--Jpatt 15:20, 16 January 2010 (EST)
- Your link doesn't work, so I'll try again later. As I said, I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian system, but I highly doubt they use a lottery; I'm going by the British system, where your place in the queue decides when you get treatment. A doctor decides whether your problem has become immediately life-threatening, or you can call 999 and get an ambulance; it's not as if your appendix ruptures or your arm falls off and you have to wait two weeks for treatment; you will be rushed to hospital and operated on immediately. You don't go before a 'death panel' before or after which asks you how productive your life has been or tests your political loyalty
or asks whether you can pay. I'll admit American healthcare is better, but that's because they can go about their business without regard to cost; they choose who to treat, confident in the knowledge that the bottom line doesn't matter, because the patient will pay; those that can't go out on their ear (unless, I'm hoping, it's a true emergency). American healthcare is probably better - for those who can get it. The system, however, I consider worse, for those who can't afford it don't get it. Socialized healthcare is probably worse, because a) they don't have a limitless amount of money to spend and b) they treat EVERYONE, so they have to treat more people, but still, I consider the socialized system the better of the two, because everyone receives treatment. My preference, however, is for a system like Britain's; private healthcare for those who want and can afford it, and that takes pressure off the socialized system which treats everyone else (and treats them well, however many scare stories about people waking up with three arms you hear). CharlieT 15:49, 16 January 2010 (EST)- Charlie, socialized healthcare doesn't mean 'free' health care. What it means is productive members of society are forced in to paying more taxes, and also in to funding such 'treatments' as abortion. DwayneD 16:24, 16 January 2010 (EST)
- Your link doesn't work, so I'll try again later. As I said, I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian system, but I highly doubt they use a lottery; I'm going by the British system, where your place in the queue decides when you get treatment. A doctor decides whether your problem has become immediately life-threatening, or you can call 999 and get an ambulance; it's not as if your appendix ruptures or your arm falls off and you have to wait two weeks for treatment; you will be rushed to hospital and operated on immediately. You don't go before a 'death panel' before or after which asks you how productive your life has been or tests your political loyalty
- Well, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I find your points...let's say... vague. Not a "lottery" it's really just a queue? What is a word for wait inline with others? The following link says otherwise [1] Who makes this decision " any point your ailment becomes near-immediately life threatening" ? The American healthcare system is SUPERIOR on so many different levels when compared to socialized medicine.--Jpatt 15:20, 16 January 2010 (EST)
- Even if the rather extreme view you gave was true, Kwasi92 would still have a better chance of getting treatment in Canada than in the US. There is no lottery; there's a queue, and if at any point your ailment becomes near-immediately life threatening they will treat it anyway (I'm no expert on Canada's system; I'm assuming it's similar to Britain's). The DoI gives "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights, and I don't understand how so many people feel comfortable with a system that allows all three to be infringed upon; the first is obvious, the second by forcing people into debt to pay for high healthcare bills, and the third by not allowing people with life-altering illnesses treatment unless they can pay for it. CharlieT 15:01, 16 January 2010 (EST)
