|
Should a just goverment provide health care for its citizens. (pg. 3)
|
| spdandpwr |
| in san francisco california there will be a health care system available to those who aren't covered...the only stipulation being that those who are covered by the city can only use their coverage in the city...i am quite sure there is more too it however my point is that if san francisco can implement health care to 80,000+ citizens then how come the united states can't... |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by spdandpwr
in san francisco california there will be a health care system available to those who aren't covered...the only stipulation being that those who are covered by the city can only use their coverage in the city...i am quite sure there is more too it however my point is that if san francisco can implement health care to 80,000+ citizens then how come the united states can't... |
Did you forget a "0" in that figure, because SF's population seems a smidge low? |
|
|
| spdandpwr |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Did you forget a "0" in that figure, because SF's population seems a smidge low? |
as of right now that is the number of people, according to the mayor, who are uninsured. I forgot to mention that only the uninsured will be covered, as of now. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
True but this also comes with a caveat.
If you need something done IMMEDIATELY and have the cash, then a lot go to the States where the equipment is more readily available.
A good example is the movie, "The Barbarian Invasions" where a dying father is taken care of by his well off estranged son.
He wants to use 'the system' but he risks being on a waiting list and begrudgely accepts his son's help by paying for whatever needs to be done right away.
So while Universal Health Care is important, trying to put everyone in the same circle in the name of 'fairness' isn't well....fair.
There was a lot of flak when the subject of a two teired health system was suggested here in Canada, but in reality, it's already happening anyways. (You'll find a lot of articles on Google about this).
Those with the funds will go to private businesses anyways so what's the problem? If they can do it then more power to them.
Why should they be shackled just because they have more money?
Another arguement is exactly who gets the health care.
IMHO it should be someone who has at least lived in the Canada for at least a year and actually calls Canada home.
None of this "Canada being the land of convenience", bouncing between here and their "Homeland", using/exploiting the system when they don't pay enough back in by the way of taxes.
It's not fair for the rest of us (native Canadians) who have been paying into it for years. |
the new photo healthcards came about after inquiries found that americans were comming across the border and using someones ohip card to get free treatments. but i agree you need permanent resident status in order to get free healthcare here. none of this move to canada for 6 months for cancer treatment then off back to your home country. |
|
|
| Temperate |
My cousin lived in italy (GUIDO!).
he had cancer and he was on a waiting list to be treated.
But their state-run health care sucks so much that he died before he was ever treated.
6 years on a waiting list. that's wrong... that is another reason I hate italy (Beside the obious [corruption]) |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
My cousin lived in italy (GUIDO!).
he had cancer and he was on a waiting list to be treated.
But their state-run health care sucks so much that he died before he was ever treated.
6 years on a waiting list. that's wrong... that is another reason I hate italy (Beside the obious [corruption]) |
I'm sorry to hear that.
That is why state-run health care equals a big no no. It can't possibly work efficient enough to treat the people who need to be treated. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
I'm sorry to hear that.
That is why state-run health care equals a big no no. It can't possibly work efficient enough to treat the people who need to be treated. |
neither does a system where people sell their house to pay for treatment. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
neither does a system where people sell their house to pay for treatment. |
Than it just sounds to me that people couldn't afford a house to begin with. |
|
|
| eROs.au |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Than it just sounds to me that people couldn't afford a house to begin with. |
Not really. Do you have the slightest clue how much treatment costs for a cancer patient? Often times more than a house :rolleyes: |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by eROs.au
Not really. Do you have the slightest clue how much treatment costs for a cancer patient? Often times more than a house :rolleyes: |
Yes, it does cost a lot. But I believe he was referring to how much health insurance costs here in the US. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Than it just sounds to me that people couldn't afford a house to begin with. |
Depends on what needs to be done; I've heard some stories about bills being VERY high down there in the States...:nervous: |
|
|
|
|
