Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;367548]Everybody has the right not to be killed. But living [U]healthy[/U] is a privelege, not a right. I don't see that shit in the Constitution. Nobody has the right to live a healthy life, that's the part that YOU have to make happen.

And that includes making sure you graduate from high school and get a job that has a modicum of health insurance benefits.[/QUOTE]

The sky is falling! I actually agree with something Schneed said! :doh:

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;367627]Perhaps it's just the hippy in me but I just think it's sad in this day and age where we could easily support those that are less fortunate with basic healthcare that we turn our backs on them and have this attitude of "You don't deserve it because you didn't earn it".
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it's the yuppie in me, but I feel it's sad that a person (myself) that came from a very poor background should have to pay for others to have special privilages without working hard to earn them. I work hard to be where I am in life, and I am the ONLY person on either side of my family with a Master's degree. They all told me not to bother, but I didn't listen. So why I am I punished having to pay for other people's benefits? No one in the world can convince me that someone is a product of their upbringing. It can be done to get away from bad influences. I am living proof.
So what's next? Food? Electricity? A car? Gas? Lottery tickets (cause they all deserve the right to be lucky too right?). Because I worked hard to make more money than 75% of the country, I should be forced to help those (for the most part) that don't want to help themselves? Don't be fooled, the majority of people that can't or don't afford healthcare are in their scenario because of their own actions.
Even a burger flipper at McDonalds is offered health insurance. You say it's turning your back on them...they already have their hand out and in effect turned their backs on us when they decided not to make themselves a valuable member of society.
WHy is it we insist on not holding others accountable for their lives?

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=Mattyk72;367752]Again, it would be nice if it were always that easy.[/quote]

But who said it was supposed to be easy?

Work and deserve it, earn it to own it.

Dude, come on, how hard is it to get a job answering phones for a living at some big company's call center? You'd get access to PPOs, HMOs, or HSAs.

40 million in the US don't have health insurance. A big chunk of them are the high school dropouts that live below the poverty line. Another chunk own their own business, but don't manage their cash flow well enough to pay for health insurance, and consequently live above their means. And yet another chunk are just flat out irresponsible with their money, and ring up scads of credit card debt and turn around and insist they can't hack the cost of health insurance.

I like the guys who work in manufacturing or something, making a real modest salary, and are smart enough about their money to pony up for the healthcare coverage, even though it crunches their wallets. They'd probably love a national healthcare system, and you know what, I'd love it if they had one. Because they deserve it. Unfortunately, most of the 40 million with out it, they don't deserve it.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=Schneed10;367889]But who said it was supposed to be easy?

Work and deserve it, earn it to own it.

Dude, come on, [B]how hard is it to get a job answering phones for a living at some big company's call center[/B]? You'd get access to PPOs, HMOs, or HSAs.

40 million in the US don't have health insurance. A big chunk of them are the high school dropouts that live below the poverty line. Another chunk own their own business, but don't manage their cash flow well enough to pay for health insurance, and consequently live above their means. And yet another chunk are just flat out irresponsible with their money, and ring up scads of credit card debt and turn around and insist they can't hack the cost of health insurance.

[B]I like the guys who work in manufacturing[/B] or something, making a real modest salary, and are smart enough about their money to pony up for the healthcare coverage, even though it crunches their wallets.[B] They'd[/B] [B]probably love a national healthcare system,[/B] and you know what, I'd love it if they had one. Because they deserve it. Unfortunately, most of the 40 million with out it, they don't deserve it.[/quote]
i am one of those guys you are referring to, and yes i would love it. the other part i have high lighted, its really not that hard at all to get the job. the hard part is trying to juggle kids around a work schedule. the united states went from family owned business', that knew all about the employees and their families. to big corporate entities, mostly owned and operated by multi millionaires. who don't give a rats ass about me or my family. in the grand scheme of things, when an insurance company can dictate to anyone in the medical field what the costs should be, something is seriously wrong with that system

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=dmek25;367937]i am one of those guys you are referring to, and yes i would love it. the other part i have high lighted, its really not that hard at all to get the job. the hard part is trying to juggle kids around a work schedule. the united states went from family owned business', that knew all about the employees and their families. to big corporate entities, mostly owned and operated by multi millionaires. who don't give a rats ass about me or my family. in the grand scheme of things, when an insurance company can dictate to anyone in the medical field what the costs should be, something is seriously wrong with that system[/quote]

I know managed care organizations get a bad rap, and the story you'll hear in the news about how they just about kill someone because of their policies definitely is scary. But I'm here to tell you, from a hospital's standpoint (in case you didn't know I work in the finance office at a health system), that if the HMOs weren't trying to dictate cost management to us, none of our administrators would put pressure on the physicians and nursing staff to get the patient out of the hospital. Patients would sit and sit and sit in hospital beds, costing insurance companies even more money, which would just end up getting passed onto you and everyone else in the form of even higher premiums. Not to mention more beds would be taken up, and in some parts of the country (like Philadelphia) hospitals are already at capacity. Then we'd have people needing a bed in a hospital with no beds available.

The healthcare issue is real easy for people to just say "we need a change." But nobody can come up with a good solution. The reason for that is the problems are ridiculously complicated. It's not nearly as easy as saying "we need a change" or "our system is broken."

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=jsarno;367818]Perhaps it's the yuppie in me, but I feel it's sad that a person (myself) that came from a very poor background should have to pay for others to have special privilages without working hard to earn them. I work hard to be where I am in life, and I am the ONLY person on either side of my family with a Master's degree. They all told me not to bother, but I didn't listen. So why I am I punished having to pay for other people's benefits? No one in the world can convince me that someone is a product of their upbringing. It can be done to get away from bad influences. I am living proof.
So what's next? Food? Electricity? A car? Gas? Lottery tickets (cause they all deserve the right to be lucky too right?). Because I worked hard to make more money than 75% of the country, I should be forced to help those (for the most part) that don't want to help themselves? Don't be fooled, the majority of people that can't or don't afford healthcare are in their scenario because of their own actions.
Even a burger flipper at McDonalds is offered health insurance. You say it's turning your back on them...they already have their hand out and in effect turned their backs on us when they decided not to make themselves a valuable member of society.
WHy is it we insist on not holding others accountable for their lives?[/quote]

You love the slippery slope argument huh? One thing doesn't always have to lead to another.

I'm not saying we should support every bum and slacker out there. I just think we could be providing a bit more when it comes to social services and healthcare. Not every person out there in need is a deadbeat looking to suck off the system.

As for people at McDonald's having healthcare, I'd be willing to be the coverage is pretty shitty and not cheap.

I'm kinda surprised that someone coming from a poor background would have such a selfish outlook. No, you shouldn't be forced to help the less fortunate. But it's sad that it seems you don't want to help, and instead look down on such people.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

first - have medical people making medical decisions. no carriers involved at all
second- medical people have to be accountable. period. if you operate on my right leg, when the problem is in my left leg, you screwed up.
third- capping medical malpractice insurance, and no dropping doctors if they are sued.
fourth- if i get my gall bladder out, it costs the same no matter where i go. procedures have to be standardized, so the work load balances out. in theory favoring one hospital over another, strictly by cost, would disappear
this isnt the entire answer, but at least its a starting point

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

I'm with Matty here. for every deadbeat out there looking for a handout, there are plenty of people that actually need the help. i don't mind helping. i come from the other side, and know what its like not to have. and its really what us Americans do best, we help when someone is down. i can more then guarantee you that once the dust settles in Iraq, the united states will be there to help rebuild. lets start at home, first

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=dmek25;367988]I'm with Matty here. for every deadbeat out there looking for a handout, there are plenty of people that actually need the help. i don't mind helping. i come from the other side, and know what its like not to have. and its really what us Americans do best, we help when someone is down. i can more then guarantee you that once the dust settles in Iraq, the united states will be there to help rebuild. lets start at home, first[/quote]
I'm with you for every deadbeat out there looking for a hand out there's plenty more deadbeats looking for hand outs.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer;366130]Now no system is perfect. It is important to take the good from many systems and make it an american system. I am fine with allowing people to choose private healthcare with some sort of tax break.

The problem is, health care is something that a government should supply to its people. As hard it is to achieve, in my mind it is as simple as that. We don't worry about paying the fire department and the police. This is part of our safety and it should be covered.

Taxes may be higher but this is a basic service that a government should be providing. It seems all major industrialized countries, except for america, have been able to understand that[/QUOTE]

I agree completely. IMO, government's top priorities should be education and health care.

I also think that we pay enough taxes to cover these expenses, but the government misuses that money. Most changes in government behavior is a chance to increase taxes, and I believe the government will always exploit those opportunities. They'll never give money back once they've got their hands on it, and they are always looking for more (IMO).

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

Funny how our country was founded on limited government and strong states rights. The Federal government was formed in such a way as to govern interactions amongst states and to provide national defense. We don't look at the Federal government like that anymore I guess.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/opinion/23herbert.html?ref=opinion"]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/opinion/23herbert.html?ref=opinion[/URL]

There are a million of these stories, but this is an article about two people who are struggling right now that I thought was affecting. If anyone here has the gall to criticize this family's work ethic then you can really go to hell as far as I am concerned.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=djnemo65;368341][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/opinion/23herbert.html?ref=opinion[/URL]

There are a million of these stories, but this is an article about two people who are struggling right now that I thought was affecting. If anyone here has the gall to criticize this family's work ethic then you can really go to hell as far as I am concerned.[/quote]

Sad story on many levels.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

Healthcare is a mess--not just in this country, whatever the truth of that email was.

Is it a right? I'm always worried about putting things this way (there's been a real proliferation of so-called rights), but it does seem to me that we as a society do not want people dying on the streets, old people (and young ones) choosing between food and vital medicines, etc. That just strikes me as something you don't want, if you can find a way to avoid it. The Herbert column linked above is an example of this sort of thing.

So, accepting that there's a responsibility of some sort for us as a nation, what do we do? Here, I think it's in part an economic question: how do you most efficiently bring care to those who need it, to avoid the stuff we want to avoid? And there, things get tricky. Healthcare, as I understand it, does not work in the same way other industries do. If you add a shoemaker to a town with a few shoemakers, the cost of shoes will drop. If you add a doctor, the cost of service goes up--one becomes a specialist. Plus, there is the very difficult conflict between what doctors want to do (and what patients need) and limitations on budgets and resources. Doctors may say of a patient "this guy needs a transplant" but it may cost too much if everyone who needs one gets one. What do you do then? Answer: Rationing. Canada does it. But so do we: we ration out services to those who can pay. (For what it's worth, we pay on the back-end, as people as a last resort go to public emergency rooms, after a preventable condition becomes serious.) Somethings gotta give.

It's a very tough situation--there's no obvious answer. Most economists would say you need a single-payer system, in some fashion, to pool the money, spread the costs, and subsidize those who need it. But why would the rich opt in? So it's got to be "socialized" in some sense. One factor that is moving things in this direction (MAYBE) is the need for American business to avoid the massive health-care costs of their pensions. but maybe they'll just dump everyone--go bankrupt and drop the retired workers. That, of course, might cause a rebellion of sorts, and push the single-payer approach through.

Two big interests are opposed to change: one, obviously, the insurance companies, who right now are raking it in--so much of those costs are "administrative" as well--nothing to do with care. The other is doctors: do they really want to be paid like the schlubs in England and Canada on National Health? No way--they need those big bucks to flow to pay for the life-style they've come to expect (and to cover liability insurance--another issue). The insurance and doctor's lobbies are very powerful in Congress--you don't get re-elected without their money, often. See how they smacked down Hilary last time! (They had some help from the republicans, no doubt!)

Hilary is out front on this issue--she has a plan of some sort, and that's better than most who just talk the talk. But that makes her a target--you'll hear lots of "socialized medicine" talk this election, aimed at her. Check who paid for the add--probably someone called "Americans for Health" or something,which is a PAC for the insurers and lawyers. (Maybe they wrote that Canada email? ;) )

I hope that some decent debate does come of it, but Hillary is such a lightning rod that it may get lost in the mudslinging. One way or another, somethings gotta give.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

Wow--that was long. Sorry! Procrastinating again from work. :Smoker:

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=JWsleep;368379]Wow--that was long. Sorry! Procrastinating again from work. :Smoker:[/quote]

Don't apologize, JDub, nice post. Pretty solid analysis.

I do disagree with one point. Health insurers aren't really raking it in. Their margins are not big when compared to companies in other industries. Their administrative expenses are necessary to handle all the red tape that comes with the healthcare industry. Medical charts, billing, deciphering medical coding, managing reimbursement rates, case management; these jobs are all absolutely necessary just to work through the system.

Medicine's complicated. It does take a lot of brains to work through it all.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=JWsleep;368378]Healthcare is a mess--not just in this country, whatever the truth of that email was.

Is it a right? I'm always worried about putting things this way (there's been a real proliferation of so-called rights), but it does seem to me that we as a society do not want people dying on the streets, old people (and young ones) choosing between food and vital medicines, etc. That just strikes me as something you don't want, if you can find a way to avoid it. The Herbert column linked above is an example of this sort of thing.

So, accepting that there's a responsibility of some sort for us as a nation, what do we do? Here, I think it's in part an economic question: how do you most efficiently bring care to those who need it, to avoid the stuff we want to avoid? And there, things get tricky. Healthcare, as I understand it, does not work in the same way other industries do. If you add a shoemaker to a town with a few shoemakers, the cost of shoes will drop. If you add a doctor, the cost of service goes up--one becomes a specialist. Plus, there is the very difficult conflict between what doctors want to do (and what patients need) and limitations on budgets and resources. Doctors may say of a patient "this guy needs a transplant" but it may cost too much if everyone who needs one gets one. What do you do then? Answer: Rationing. Canada does it. But so do we: we ration out services to those who can pay. (For what it's worth, we pay on the back-end, as people as a last resort go to public emergency rooms, after a preventable condition becomes serious.) Somethings gotta give.

It's a very tough situation--there's no obvious answer. Most economists would say you need a single-payer system, in some fashion, to pool the money, spread the costs, and subsidize those who need it. But why would the rich opt in? So it's got to be "socialized" in some sense. One factor that is moving things in this direction (MAYBE) is the need for American business to avoid the massive health-care costs of their pensions. but maybe they'll just dump everyone--go bankrupt and drop the retired workers. That, of course, might cause a rebellion of sorts, and push the single-payer approach through.

Two big interests are opposed to change: one, obviously, the insurance companies, who right now are raking it in--so much of those costs are "administrative" as well--nothing to do with care. The other is doctors: do they really want to be paid like the schlubs in England and Canada on National Health? No way--they need those big bucks to flow to pay for the life-style they've come to expect (and to cover liability insurance--another issue). The insurance and doctor's lobbies are very powerful in Congress--you don't get re-elected without their money, often. See how they smacked down Hilary last time! (They had some help from the republicans, no doubt!)

Hilary is out front on this issue--she has a plan of some sort, and that's better than most who just talk the talk. But that makes her a target--you'll hear lots of "socialized medicine" talk this election, aimed at her. Check who paid for the add--probably someone called "Americans for Health" or something,which is a PAC for the insurers and lawyers. (Maybe they wrote that Canada email? ;) )

I hope that some decent debate does come of it, but Hillary is such a lightning rod that it may get lost in the mudslinging. One way or another, somethings gotta give.[/quote]
Part of your respons is a reasons that allot of people have a concern with a single payer plan. You stated that doctors don't want to get payed like the schluds in England & Canada. So you want schlubs cutting you open because thats what we will have when the brightest go into other professions to make more money. I know several doctors and they make very good money but they work harder than anyone I know. You also stated that Hillary is at the front of the issue but you do not even know what kind of plan she has. I would think if you thought she was on the issue then you would know what her plan was.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

I agree with you both, Schneed and Firstdown--these are serious problems that moving to single-payer system would create. On the administrative issues, however, there is some savings to be made by somehow streamlining billing and such into a single, standard format, as opposed to many competing formats. But you then often lose information--like in the English system, at least as it's sometimes represented.

As for Docs wanting lots of money--given the enormous amount of schooling, the incredible need for their services, and the importance of what they do, they should be well-compensated, no doubt. And in places where they are not, you get doctor shortages--a real worry. So it's gonna cost to keep our quality up. We need to find a balance, and (this is part of the problem), we are going to need to RAISE TAXES to pay for this sort of thing. No free lunch. I'm for taxing the top-teir and cutting things like corporate tax breaks and subsidies (especially on farming--that's just a payout to ADM and other HUGE argi-businesses, not mom and pop farmers, if there are any left!). But that is political trouble.

I agree: Medicine is complicated, and not just for doctors!

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=JWsleep;368500]I agree with you both, Schneed and Firstdown--these are serious problems that moving to single-payer system would create. On the administrative issues, however, there is some savings to be made by somehow streamlining billing and such into a single, standard format, as opposed to many competing formats. But you then often lose information--like in the English system, at least as it's sometimes represented.

As for Docs wanting lots of money--given the enormous amount of schooling, the incredible need for their services, and the importance of what they do, they should be well-compensated, no doubt. And in places where they are not, you get doctor shortages--a real worry. So it's gonna cost to keep our quality up. We need to find a balance, and (this is part of the problem), we are going to need to RAISE TAXES to pay for this sort of thing. No free lunch. I'm for taxing the top-teir and cutting things like corporate tax breaks and subsidies (especially on farming--that's just a payout to ADM and other HUGE argi-businesses, not mom and pop farmers, if there are any left!). But that is political trouble.

I agree: Medicine is complicated, and not just for doctors![/quote]
Why not steam line the current system for a start. I currently pay over $700 a month for a family of four so its not like I'm not paying for my share for ins. If I thought the goverment could provide a better product for around the same cost I'd be all for it but if we look at the goverments past there's no chance of that. I am allready stuck paying for social security (which has major problems) and medicare which has the same problems so why would I want to compound the issue with more of the same. Maybe if the goverment could fix these two programs which are running way above projected cost then maybe I would entertain health ins.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;368500]We need to find a balance, and (this is part of the problem), we are going to need to RAISE TAXES to pay for this sort of thing. No free lunch. I'm for taxing the top-teir and cutting things like corporate tax breaks and subsidies (especially on farming--that's just a payout to ADM and other HUGE argi-businesses, not mom and pop farmers, if there are any left!). But that is political trouble.[/QUOTE]

I agree with much of your analysis. Where I take issue is with raising taxes.

For sure I believe that something like this should be paid with taxes but our government already takes a ridiculous amount of our money for so many things that they run very poorly. I'd love to see the taxes I ALREADY pay be used for this.

The answer is not always raising taxes. When are we going to straighten up as a country and tell our politicians to spend our money more wisely rather than just taking more to pay for things that need to be paid for?

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=FRPLG;368517]I agree with much of your analysis. Where I take issue is with raising taxes.

For sure I believe that something like this should be paid with taxes but our government already takes a ridiculous amount of our money for so many things that they run very poorly. I'd love to see the taxes I ALREADY pay be used for this.

The answer is not always raising taxes. When are we going to straighten up as a country and tell our politicians to spend our money more wisely rather than just taking more to pay for things that need to be paid for?[/quote]


YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!
USgovt=FAT, FAT......................the water RAT

FRPLG for President

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=FRPLG;368517]I agree with much of your analysis. Where I take issue is with raising taxes.

For sure I believe that something like this should be paid with taxes but our government already takes a ridiculous amount of our money for so many things that they run very poorly. I'd love to see the taxes I ALREADY pay be used for this.

The answer is not always raising taxes. When are we going to straighten up as a country and tell our politicians to spend our money more wisely rather than just taking more to pay for things that need to be paid for?[/quote]
First this would be the biggest program that the goverment ever took over and taxes would go up atleast as much is now being spent on health ins now. Then the next year taxes would go up some more because its not enough then more & more & more. 50% tax rates for anyone making over 45,000.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;367718]That doesn't answer the fundamental question. Why is healthcare a right?

I've never heard someone come up with a logical answer. The only response is emotional in nature; something along the lines of because in this day in age, we just should. It's just wrong not to.

If that's the way people feel, let me ask you this: is it fair for us Americans to provide universal healthcare, in which some of you may be the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy or surgical care, while people in Africa are starving to death? Isn't food a more immediate need than healthcare? Without food, you die in weeks. Why are we more deserving of healthcare than they're deserving of food? Because we're Americans??

No. None of it is a right. It's all a privelege. It's a privelege to live in the United States of America, where you have ample [B][U]opportunity[/U][/B] to earn enough money to put a roof over your head, give you clean drinking water, pay for your food, and pay for your healthcare. Do it your damn self, and stop whining about having it tough.

:rant:[/QUOTE]

Amen to that.

My line of work (street cop) obviously dictates that I interact with a number of poor people, ranging from the homeless, people in government subsidized housing (projects) to just your run-of-the-mill poor people living in trailers or run down houses.

The interesting thing that I've noticed, to an almost overwhelming degree, is that alot of this poverty is quite honestly a choice. How do I know it's a choice? The sheer number of big screen TVs, satellite dishes and other expensive toys that you find in the projects, in low-income neigborhoods, etc. Some of the shittiest houses I've been in have huge flat screen TVs, and the number of DirecTV and DISH Network dishes hanging on the side of tax-payer subsidized housing it's just apalling.

I don't make much money as a cop, and consequently I rent an apartment and I don't even have cable TV. I made the choice to pay my bills, pay my taxes and support my wife and daughter rather than let some other hard working tax payer pick up the slack or go into debt so I can afford a luxury item.

Now I'm not arguing that 100% of the poor choose to be that way, absolutely not. I'm certain that there are people who because of circumstance simply can't get on their feet. I will say that in my experience those people are VERY few and far between.

In my interaction with the homeless I always ask them two questions: 1) Do you have a job? 2) Why not? The answer to the first is, obviously, always "no." The answer to the second is quite often "I don't want to work." They'll flat out tell you most of the time that they just don't want to work. The others will claim it's a disability of some sort.

Bringing this back to healthcare, I personally have a really hard time coughing up more of my hard earned dollars to fund healthcare for people who choose to sit on their ass and watch TV all day long while someone else pays for their needs.

I'm all for helping those who are willing to do a bit for themselves. I think a lot of people, with probably very good intentions, want universal, tax-payer funded healthcare because they're out of touch with the world. I have personally walked the projects, walked the shithole neighborhoods, talked to these people on a daily basis. I suppose all of this can be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but I put a lot more stock in my personal experiences than pure conjecture from an ivory tower. I honestly think sometimes that the people proposing half this stuff must hop in their nice car every day, drive to the office and probably don't have a clue as to what actually goes on out on the street. I don't begrudge that comfortable lifestyle one bit, but let's not pretend that they have any real feel for how most poor people really are. It's not bad intentions, just ignorance.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;368517]I agree with much of your analysis. Where I take issue is with raising taxes.

For sure I believe that something like this should be paid with taxes but our government already takes a ridiculous amount of our money for so many things that they run very poorly. I'd love to see the taxes I ALREADY pay be used for this.

The answer is not always raising taxes. When are we going to straighten up as a country and tell our politicians to spend our money more wisely rather than just taking more to pay for things that need to be paid for?[/QUOTE]

Yeah--no doubt there's tons of pork in the budget already--it's frightening to think about. I'm all for using that, but it would require congress to do something they do not usually do--take money from their pet re-election projects and use it for something for everyone.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=mheisig;368608]Amen to that.

My line of work (street cop) obviously dictates that I interact with a number of poor people, ranging from the homeless, people in government subsidized housing (projects) to just your run-of-the-mill poor people living in trailers or run down houses.

The interesting thing that I've noticed, to an almost overwhelming degree, is that alot of this poverty is quite honestly a choice. How do I know it's a choice? The sheer number of big screen TVs, satellite dishes and other expensive toys that you find in the projects, in low-income neigborhoods, etc. Some of the shittiest houses I've been in have huge flat screen TVs, and the number of DirecTV and DISH Network dishes hanging on the side of tax-payer subsidized housing it's just apalling.

I don't make much money as a cop, and consequently I rent an apartment and I don't even have cable TV. I made the choice to pay my bills, pay my taxes and support my wife and daughter rather than let some other hard working tax payer pick up the slack or go into debt so I can afford a luxury item.

Now I'm not arguing that 100% of the poor choose to be that way, absolutely not. I'm certain that there are people who because of circumstance simply can't get on their feet. I will say that in my experience those people are VERY few and far between.

In my interaction with the homeless I always ask them two questions: 1) Do you have a job? 2) Why not? The answer to the first is, obviously, always "no." The answer to the second is quite often "I don't want to work." They'll flat out tell you most of the time that they just don't want to work. The others will claim it's a disability of some sort.

Bringing this back to healthcare, I personally have a really hard time coughing up more of my hard earned dollars to fund healthcare for people who choose to sit on their ass and watch TV all day long while someone else pays for their needs.

I'm all for helping those who are willing to do a bit for themselves. I think a lot of people, with probably very good intentions, want universal, tax-payer funded healthcare because they're out of touch with the world. I have personally walked the projects, walked the shithole neighborhoods, talked to these people on a daily basis. I suppose all of this can be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but I put a lot more stock in my personal experiences than pure conjecture from an ivory tower. I honestly think sometimes that the people proposing half this stuff must hop in their nice car every day, drive to the office and probably don't have a clue as to what actually goes on out on the street. I don't begrudge that comfortable lifestyle one bit, but let's not pretend that they have any real feel for how most poor people really are. It's not bad intentions, just ignorance.[/QUOTE]

It's true for some, no doubt--I lived in NYC for 20 years, so I've seen lots of crap there too. But not everyone is like this, and it's not their kids' fault that their parents are doing this--so I think we need to find a way to insure them.

Also, don't think you don't pay for this stuff already--when those people you speak of do get sick, they go the emergency rooms of big, public hospitals. You know who pays for that? We do. One thing to do is find a way to get some preventative medicine going, so people don't wind up in the system when they're already sick and it costs a ton more. Because, as I said, we're already paying for it.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;368613]It's true for some, no doubt--I lived in NYC for 20 years, so I've seen lots of crap there too. But not everyone is like this, and it's not their kids' fault that their parents are doing this--so I think we need to find a way to insure them.

Also, don't think you don't pay for this stuff already--when those people you speak of do get sick, they go the emergency rooms of big, public hospitals. You know who pays for that? We do. One thing to do is find a way to get some preventative medicine going, so people don't wind up in the system when they're already sick and it costs a ton more. Because, as I said, we're already paying for it.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I know we already pay for it bigtime. We pay for every lousy drunk I put in jail too. I guess it's the price of "law and order."

The kids are a really sad aspect of this entire thing - breaks my heart some days when I have to see them. It seems like by the age of about 12-14 most of them already don't give a crap and are just fine following in their parent's footsteps. They also are almost beyond intervention or help at that age - not without exception, but I'd argue as a general rule.

The worst part of all of this is watching so many of these screwed up druggies, homeless, poor, whatever the class may be - and they're all having kids. Watching some uneducated, illiterate, strunk out crackhead carrying around a baby is about the worst sight you'll see.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=mheisig;368608]Amen to that.

My line of work (street cop) obviously dictates that I interact with a number of poor people, ranging from the homeless, people in government subsidized housing (projects) to just your run-of-the-mill poor people living in trailers or run down houses.

The interesting thing that I've noticed, to an almost overwhelming degree, is that alot of this poverty is quite honestly a choice. How do I know it's a choice? The sheer number of big screen TVs, satellite dishes and other expensive toys that you find in the projects, in low-income neigborhoods, etc. Some of the shittiest houses I've been in have huge flat screen TVs, and the number of DirecTV and DISH Network dishes hanging on the side of tax-payer subsidized housing it's just apalling.

I don't make much money as a cop, and consequently I rent an apartment and I don't even have cable TV. I made the choice to pay my bills, pay my taxes and support my wife and daughter rather than let some other hard working tax payer pick up the slack or go into debt so I can afford a luxury item.

Now I'm not arguing that 100% of the poor choose to be that way, absolutely not. I'm certain that there are people who because of circumstance simply can't get on their feet. I will say that in my experience those people are VERY few and far between.

In my interaction with the homeless I always ask them two questions: 1) Do you have a job? 2) Why not? The answer to the first is, obviously, always "no." The answer to the second is quite often "I don't want to work." They'll flat out tell you most of the time that they just don't want to work. The others will claim it's a disability of some sort.

Bringing this back to healthcare, I personally have a really hard time coughing up more of my hard earned dollars to fund healthcare for people who choose to sit on their ass and watch TV all day long while someone else pays for their needs.

I'm all for helping those who are willing to do a bit for themselves. I think a lot of people, with probably very good intentions, want universal, tax-payer funded healthcare because they're out of touch with the world. I have personally walked the projects, walked the shithole neighborhoods, talked to these people on a daily basis. I suppose all of this can be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but I put a lot more stock in my personal experiences than pure conjecture from an ivory tower. I honestly think sometimes that the people proposing half this stuff must hop in their nice car every day, drive to the office and probably don't have a clue as to what actually goes on out on the street. I don't begrudge that comfortable lifestyle one bit, but let's not pretend that they have any real feel for how most poor people really are. It's not bad intentions, just ignorance.[/QUOTE]

You are conflating the destitute with the uninsured which is a big mistake. The fact that some irresponsible poor people waste money on luxury items has nothing to do with the failures of health care in this country.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65;368652]You are conflating the destitute with the uninsured which is a big mistake. The fact that some irresponsible poor people waste money on luxury items has nothing to do with the failures of health care in this country.[/QUOTE]

I'm not mixing the two - a substantial number of the uninsured ARE destitute. I simply said that in my experience, MANY of the poor people waste money on luxury items.

If you're too poor to afford health insurance but you can manage to get a $2500 TV and $100/month for satellite TV, something seems awry. It's not the cause of the "failed" health insurance, but it's one hell of an argument against socialized medicine for the poor, funded by the tax payers.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

A couple of relevant points:

1.)

One of my teachers once told me, "everything any person does is their first choice." This means that people do what they want to do, and they never settle for less.

Take for example the homeless: they are homeless because they are jobless, and they are jobless because they want to be (assuming there are jobs to be had). So, if there are jobs to be had, and somebody is jobless, it's because they'd rather deal with the consequences of being jobless, than deal with the consequences of having a job. They prefer the stress of not having a job over the stress of having one. Therefore, being jobless is their first choice. I think this applies to almost every decision anybody makes.

2.)

I took an Ethics class in college, and I had to give a presentation about Human Rights. I had prepared well, and I was ready to talk about rights which all humans are entitled to. During my presentation I became aware that many people disagreed about what rights are universal and inalienable. So, I threw my presentation out the window and decided to just make a list with the class of universal inalienable rights. Sadly, nobody could agree on a SINGLE one! The class decided there are no Human Rights. They couldn't even agree that the right to live should be universal and inalienable! They kept saying that a murderer doesn't deserve to live, so therefore life itself is not inalienable. It was a sad day for me, because I realized how little people respect other humans. I seriously wanted to cry. I was so disappointed.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=GhettoDogAllStars;368690]A couple of relevant points:

2.)

I took an Ethics class in college, and I had to give a presentation about Human Rights. I had prepared well, and I was ready to talk about rights which all humans are entitled to. During my presentation I became aware that many people disagreed about what rights are universal and inalienable. So, I threw my presentation out the window and decided to just make a list with the class of universal inalienable rights. Sadly, nobody could agree on a SINGLE one! The class decided there are no Human Rights. They couldn't even agree that the right to live should be universal and inalienable! They kept saying that a murderer doesn't deserve to live, so therefore life itself is not inalienable. It was a sad day for me, because I realized how little people respect other humans. I seriously wanted to cry. I was so disappointed.[/QUOTE]

I agree that it's hard to agree on the rights people have, and how to justify those rights. But even if there are rights, you can forfeit your rights in some situations. A murderer, by their choice, forfeits their rights. That may not entail the death penalty--that's a question of appropriate punishment--but it might. With rights come responsibilities. If you don't fulfill those responsibilities, you can lose your rights.

About which rights are basic--as the Declaration of Independence says, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That works for me. From there it's a matter of debate, though I'm partial to much of the Bill of Rights. But there's no easy answers in these things--don't get discouraged!

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

A billionaire is a person who has more than one billion US dollars. But in order to be on the American business and financial magazine Forbes' annual list of the world's billionaires, a billionaire not only has to make a billion dollars but also maintain it.

Over time, the number of billionaires in the world has been steadily increasing. In the United States, this number had increased from a couple to a couple hundred in just twenty years or so. Worldwide, this number had increased by a couple hundred in just a few years. There are billionaires from approximately 47 countries in the world. [B]Now, the United States has the most number of billionaires[/B], followed by Asia, Europe, and Latin America. These billionaires are usually people, or tycoons, from big businesses and industries such as technology, steel, gas, retail, and finance like Microsoft's William Gates who has held 1st place in Forbes' annual list of the world's billionaires 11 years in a row. Some people inherit a large fortune from their family like the Waltons from the death of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart.

[B]In 2005, the 691 billionaires in the world is approximately 0.00001% of the world population[/B]. The total net worth of these 691 billionaires is $2.2 trillion, which increased from last year's $300 billion, and is approximately [B]21% of the United States' GDP.[/B] In the future, this trend of increasing numbers of billionaires and increasing wealth of these billionaires will continue through advanced technology and communications.

Michelle Lee -- 2005

[URL="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleLee.shtml"]Number of Billionaires[/URL]


Fucked up when you think about it. less than 1 percent of the population has most of the money. More than they will ever need in 10 life times.

It is cool to make something of yourself and be rich, don't get me wrong. But damn, how much is enough? When do you reach out to your fellow man and pitch in when he is struggling? Starvation and Health care issues could be entirely eliminated if the less than 1% would part ways with a portion of their Kingdom for the greater good. It was the way of the Aristocrat to believe that he was entitled to his wealth, but he had a responsibility to man kind as a rich man (Great power=Great responsibility). That responsibility flew out the window a century ago. They cannot take it with them, but they can sure as hell change the world and live on forever.

I once observed a rations drop in a 3rd world country where all of the able bodied men rushed in and gathered more of the food than they needed. Meanwhile, they prevented the women and children from getting anywhere near the food until they (the men) had grabbed more than they can use. Once the women and children were able to gather their own rations there was not nearly enough left, but there would have been if it wasn't for the greed of the men. This was the behavior of animals, I thought that our superior intelligence was supposed to separate us from them, but apparently it does not when overwhelmed with greed.

Once again this is not a shot at all of the rich, nor do I think that it is a bad thing to be rich. I also do not think that we should adopt socialism. I am saying that to have an abundance is good, but to have too much deprives the majority.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=mheisig;368656]I'm not mixing the two - a substantial number of the uninsured ARE destitute. I simply said that in my experience, MANY of the poor people waste money on luxury items.

If you're too poor to afford health insurance but you can manage to get a $2500 TV and $100/month for satellite TV, something seems awry. It's not the cause of the "failed" health insurance, but it's one hell of an argument against socialized medicine for the poor, funded by the tax payers.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but what's your argument? That because some people are irresponsible we should maintain the current system? That makes no sense. What about the people who do everything right and don't qualify for insurance, or choose to invest in their kid's education instead, or whatever. Read the article I posted for one possible example. I agree with you that there are some people who probably don't deserve help, but I fail to see the cogency of that relative to this discussion.

Come on, are you are actually saying that because you saw some big screen TV's on your cop beat we shouldn't change our current healthcare system? I'm not saying there aren't interesting arguments to be made for maintaining the status quo, but that's definitely not one of them.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

angryssg, great post. it makes you wonder what the super rich really do with their money. i kind of had the same thoughts about Katrina. with people like Oprah, and Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, and bill gates. a group of these extremely wealthy people could have done a whole lot of good in the gulf region, as far as rebuilding. is it their responsibility? no, but if you have , lets say 100 million, how much does it really hurt to part ways with about 5 million?

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=angryssg;368694]A billionaire is a person who has more than one billion US dollars. But in order to be on the American business and financial magazine Forbes' annual list of the world's billionaires, a billionaire not only has to make a billion dollars but also maintain it.

Over time, the number of billionaires in the world has been steadily increasing. In the United States, this number had increased from a couple to a couple hundred in just twenty years or so. Worldwide, this number had increased by a couple hundred in just a few years. There are billionaires from approximately 47 countries in the world. [B]Now, the United States has the most number of billionaires[/B], followed by Asia, Europe, and Latin America. These billionaires are usually people, or tycoons, from big businesses and industries such as technology, steel, gas, retail, and finance like Microsoft's William Gates who has held 1st place in Forbes' annual list of the world's billionaires 11 years in a row. Some people inherit a large fortune from their family like the Waltons from the death of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart.

[B]In 2005, the 691 billionaires in the world is approximately 0.00001% of the world population[/B]. The total net worth of these 691 billionaires is $2.2 trillion, which increased from last year's $300 billion, and is approximately [B]21% of the United States' GDP.[/B] In the future, this trend of increasing numbers of billionaires and increasing wealth of these billionaires will continue through advanced technology and communications.

Michelle Lee -- 2005

[URL="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleLee.shtml"]Number of Billionaires[/URL]


Fucked up when you think about it. less than 1 percent of the population has most of the money. More than they will ever need in 10 life times.

It is cool to make something of yourself and be rich, don't get me wrong. But damn, how much is enough? When do you reach out to your fellow man and pitch in when he is struggling? Starvation and Health care issues could be entirely eliminated if the less than 1% would part ways with a portion of their Kingdom for the greater good. It was the way of the Aristocrat to believe that he was entitled to his wealth, but he had a responsibility to man kind as a rich man (Great power=Great responsibility). That responsibility flew out the window a century ago. They cannot take it with them, but they can sure as hell change the world and live on forever.

I once observed a rations drop in a 3rd world country where all of the able bodied men rushed in and gathered more of the food than they needed. Meanwhile, they prevented the women and children from getting anywhere near the food until they (the men) had grabbed more than they can use. Once the women and children were able to gather their own rations there was not nearly enough left, but there would have been if it wasn't for the greed of the men. This was the behavior of animals, I thought that our superior intelligence was supposed to separate us from them, but apparently it does not when overwhelmed with greed.

Once again this is not a shot at all of the rich, nor do I think that it is a bad thing to be rich. I also do not think that we should adopt socialism. I am saying that to have an abundance is good, but to have too much deprives the majority.[/quote]
Also to enclude in this is all the people these billionaries provide jobs, health care, money they donate, etc... just to post this as they take their money and stick it in a safe and say screw the world is crazy. How much money has Bill Gates given away over the years? Millions and millions which is only possible because of the wealth he has made over the years. These very wealthy people allready pay like 45 to 50% of the taxes raised in the US.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep;368692]I agree that it's hard to agree on the rights people have, and how to justify those rights. But even if there are rights, you can forfeit your rights in some situations. A murderer, by their choice, forfeits their rights. That may not entail the death penalty--that's a question of appropriate punishment--but it might. With rights come responsibilities. If you don't fulfill those responsibilities, you can lose your rights.

About which rights are basic--as the Declaration of Independence says, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That works for me. From there it's a matter of debate, though I'm partial to much of the Bill of Rights. But there's no easy answers in these things--don't get discouraged![/QUOTE]

Yes, I know exactly what you're saying. That's all well and good for Constitutional Rights. However, Human Rights cannot be forfeited. By definition, they are inalienable, meaning they are not granted to you by another and cannot be taken (or given) away.

I'm sure we could get people to agree on Human Rights, if they think they can take them away for good reasons. What's difficult is getting people to agree on rights which can NEVER be taken away -- for any reason whatsoever.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;367979]You love the slippery slope argument huh? One thing doesn't always have to lead to another.[/quote]

9 times out of 10 I would say it does lead to another.

[quote]As for people at McDonald's having healthcare, I'd be willing to be the coverage is pretty shitty and not cheap. [/quote]

I'd be willing to bet the opposite. They have more employees than 99% of the country, they would get a great break from insurance companies.

[quote]I'm kinda surprised that someone coming from a poor background would have such a selfish outlook. No, you shouldn't be forced to help the less fortunate. But it's sad that it seems you don't want to help, and instead look down on such people.[/QUOTE]

You are confusing what I am saying for not helping, that's flat out not true. In fact I have mentioned on several threads where I give my money...the key there is that it's MY CHOICE. It's my money, it should be my choice.
Also, the only people I "look down on" are those that have no intentions of making any efforts in life. They would rather people take care of them, then get off their ass and try. I don't apologize for that either.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=firstdown;368732]Also to enclude in this is all the people these billionaries provide jobs, health care, money they donate, etc... just to post this as they take their money and stick it in a safe and say screw the world is crazy. How much money has Bill Gates given away over the years? Millions and millions which is only possible because of the wealth he has made over the years. These very wealthy people allready pay like 45 to 50% of the taxes raised in the US.[/quote]


They provide jobs to continue making more money and because the daily tasks within their corporations are too large for them to handle themselves.

They provide health care because it is a Federal Law to provide benefits to full time employees.

They donate just enough money to be a beneficial tax write off.

Bill Gates is the most noble of these gentlemen because yes he has used alot of money for good, donating billions to charity over the years, but in the end he is still a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE. It is easy for me to donate $6,000.00 when I am bringing in 60k after taxes and I have half a years salary saved. These guys are in a much better position than that.

What can 1 person do with 3 billion dollars that they cannot do with 2 or even 1? I know that it is a rhetorical question, but think about it. How much money is too much money for one person? Once again, I am not saying it is a crime to be rich, but how rich is too rich. At what limit does one have too much money and power over the rest of man?

Yes, they do pay up to 50% of their yearly income in taxes, but that doesn't affect the money they already have. However I am glad that you brought that up because that is exactly why I posted this here. With all of that money collected in taxes why are we still complaining about poor heath care, poor education, homless people, and hungry children. Because the government is misusing money that is collected. That has created a need for more money to correct these problems that always seem to get overlooked. Yet politicians will always talk the talk about fixing a problem until they are elected. Once they are elected, they forget about their promises or they are in someone elses pocket. Either way the issues remain and no one ever does any thing about it. The truth is once you have the power and ability to make a difference, you do not care anymore. You do not care because you get consumed with your own greed. Hey, what do you care as long as the problems don't affect you right?

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=mheisig;368608]Amen to that.

My line of work (street cop) obviously dictates that I interact with a number of poor people, ranging from the homeless, people in government subsidized housing (projects) to just your run-of-the-mill poor people living in trailers or run down houses.

The interesting thing that I've noticed, to an almost overwhelming degree, is that alot of this poverty is quite honestly a choice. How do I know it's a choice? The sheer number of big screen TVs, satellite dishes and other expensive toys that you find in the projects, in low-income neigborhoods, etc. Some of the shittiest houses I've been in have huge flat screen TVs, and the number of DirecTV and DISH Network dishes hanging on the side of tax-payer subsidized housing it's just apalling.

I don't make much money as a cop, and consequently I rent an apartment and I don't even have cable TV. I made the choice to pay my bills, pay my taxes and support my wife and daughter rather than let some other hard working tax payer pick up the slack or go into debt so I can afford a luxury item.

Now I'm not arguing that 100% of the poor choose to be that way, absolutely not. I'm certain that there are people who because of circumstance simply can't get on their feet. I will say that in my experience those people are VERY few and far between.

In my interaction with the homeless I always ask them two questions: 1) Do you have a job? 2) Why not? The answer to the first is, obviously, always "no." The answer to the second is quite often "I don't want to work." They'll flat out tell you most of the time that they just don't want to work. The others will claim it's a disability of some sort.

Bringing this back to healthcare, I personally have a really hard time coughing up more of my hard earned dollars to fund healthcare for people who choose to sit on their ass and watch TV all day long while someone else pays for their needs.

I'm all for helping those who are willing to do a bit for themselves. I think a lot of people, with probably very good intentions, want universal, tax-payer funded healthcare because they're out of touch with the world. I have personally walked the projects, walked the shithole neighborhoods, talked to these people on a daily basis. I suppose all of this can be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but I put a lot more stock in my personal experiences than pure conjecture from an ivory tower. I honestly think sometimes that the people proposing half this stuff must hop in their nice car every day, drive to the office and probably don't have a clue as to what actually goes on out on the street. I don't begrudge that comfortable lifestyle one bit, but let's not pretend that they have any real feel for how most poor people really are. It's not bad intentions, just ignorance.[/quote]

This is a tremendous post, you're absolutely right about the poor. I work in North Philadelphia, the poorest section of the city. As I drive through the neighborhoods, I'm always struck by the number of sattellite dishes attached to the sides of these deplorable houses.

I see the same people come to our hospital's emergency room to treat the sniffles, because the sniffles have gotten worse, because they didn't go to see a Primary Care Physician in the first place, because they "couldn't afford the doctor's visit." Really, but you can afford $60 a month for cable TV? Get rid of your DirecTV, then I'll listen to your plight.

That said, all kids should be covered. In PA, a kid from any family making less than $40K is covered by the state. That's a pretty high threshold, and covers a ton of poor and lower-middle-class kids alike.

As for human rights, I'm in the camp that believes very, VERY little is an inalienable right. You have to earn your way in this world. If people have all these "rights", you're going to have a bunch who decide to kick back and rely on the rest of us to carry the load for them. The more inalienable human rights you believe there are, the closer you're coming to a socialist society.

- You have the right not to be killed, injured, or threatened by somebody.
- You have all the rights listed in the Constitution. Last I checked, that did not include:

- You do not have the right to healthcare, unless you pay your share.
- You do not have the right to housing, unless you pay for it.
- You do not have the right to food or water, unless you hunt it, find it, or pay for it.

The only reason we have programs like Medicaid, welfare, government housing, isn't because we as a country feel those things are a right. Otherwise, those things would be listed in amendments to the Constitution. Those programs are in place to prevent crime. More people on the streets means they're more likely to resort to dealing drugs, stealing, robbing banks, etc. Those programs are just a cost of doing business in today's world. Inevitably, there are going to be pieces of shit in society. They haven't earned anything, but you give them a house in the projects to reduce the likelihood of them whoring themselves out on the street or dealing drugs.

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=jsarno;369020]I'd be willing to bet the opposite. They have more employees than 99% of the country, they would get a great break from insurance companies.[/quote]

The number of employees has no bearing on the level of health insurance companies offer their employees. Just look at Wal-Mart who are notorious for shafting their employees when it comes to health plan benefits.

Believe me, places that mainly employee low wage workers like McDonald's and Wal-Mart offer quite limited healthcare plans to their employees, and often they have to pay quite a bit for the coverage.

And interesting enough, I found this article:

[url=http://oh.aft.org/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=e4fd3ca8-38e7-4e8f-9080-9a7242b7623c]Ohio Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO - OFT Update (OFT's Electronic Newsletter) 3.1.06[/url]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]A new report from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services shows Ohio taxpayers spent millions last year providing Medicaid to 104,652 employees and family members of Ohio’s biggest companies, according to the [I]Dispatch[/I]. Wal-Mart and McDonald’s each had more than 10,000 employees and dependents receiving benefits from Medicaid, the health insurance program that is funded by the state and federal tax dollars. The [I]Dispatch[/I] reported that Wal-Mart workers got an estimated $27.7 million in Medicaid; McDonald’s employees received about $25.8 million.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]The top five companies with the most workers and family members receiving tax-funded Medicaid services were Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Yum! Brands (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver's, A&W), Wendy's and Bob Evans.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[FONT=Arial][B]To relieve the drain on Ohio taxpayers caused when companies fail to provide adequate health care coverage to their employees,[/B] state Sen. Robert Hagan (D-Youngstown) in January introduced a bill to require a minimum level of corporate responsibility for workers’ health care. The Fair Share Health Care bill mimics a Maryland law requiring companies with more than 1,000 employees in the state to pay 8 percent of their payroll toward health benefits for employees.[/FONT]

Re: Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...
 

[quote=angryssg;369052]They provide jobs to continue making more money and because the daily tasks within their corporations are too large for them to handle themselves.

They provide health care because it is a Federal Law to provide benefits to full time employees.

They donate just enough money to be a beneficial tax write off.

Bill Gates is the most noble of these gentlemen because yes he has used alot of money for good, donating billions to charity over the years, but in the end he is still a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE. It is easy for me to donate $6,000.00 when I am bringing in 60k after taxes and I have half a years salary saved. These guys are in a much better position than that.

What can 1 person do with 3 billion dollars that they cannot do with 2 or even 1? I know that it is a rhetorical question, but think about it. How much money is too much money for one person? Once again, I am not saying it is a crime to be rich, but how rich is too rich. At what limit does one have too much money and power over the rest of man?

Yes, they do pay up to 50% of their yearly income in taxes, but that doesn't affect the money they already have. However I am glad that you brought that up because that is exactly why I posted this here. With all of that money collected in taxes why are we still complaining about poor heath care, poor education, homless people, and hungry children. Because the government is misusing money that is collected. That has created a need for more money to correct these problems that always seem to get overlooked. Yet politicians will always talk the talk about fixing a problem until they are elected. Once they are elected, they forget about their promises or they are in someone elses pocket. Either way the issues remain and no one ever does any thing about it. The truth is once you have the power and ability to make a difference, you do not care anymore. You do not care because you get consumed with your own greed. Hey, what do you care as long as the problems don't affect you right?[/quote]
First off can you post the law that states that an empolyer has to provide benefits to employees. No because there is no such law. The reason we have the problems is because the goverment cannot fix problems with money. They have tried and tried but money does not solve the problems. Not everyone is complaining about health care. The federal goverment needs to get out of education and give back the money to the states so the local comunities can run education. Homeless are homeless because they do not want to work. OK, most homeless are homeless by their own actions and a small % have had some bad luck. We allready provide breakfest and lunch to school children, we have food stamps, and local churches and organizations have food banks and food lines. If you are hungry in the US its your fault and/or your parents fault.