Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mheisig

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.

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.

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:

Ohio Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO - OFT Update (OFT's Electronic Newsletter) 3.1.06

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 Dispatch. 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 Dispatch reported that Wal-Mart workers got an estimated $27.7 million in Medicaid; McDonald’s employees received about $25.8 million.

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.

To relieve the drain on Ohio taxpayers caused when companies fail to provide adequate health care coverage to their employees, 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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by angryssg

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?

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.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of Europe if this happens.

The government would take all of our money and we'd be WORSE off health-wise than before they began emptying our pockets for "healthcare".

Allowing the government to run this would be a disaster.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Buster

Welcome to the United Socialist States of Europe if this happens.

The government would take all of our money and we'd be WORSE off health-wise than before they began emptying our pockets for "healthcare".

Allowing the government to run this would be a disaster.

100% correct and it seems that the people who complain the most about how goverment runs push this the most. Don't make much sense and when you ask them to point out any federal gov. programe that is working and is efficent they never have an answer.

[Redskin]

I take this like people wanting the government to pay for all higher up education, a little rediculous. Health care is not the save all, there is no way to make the system perfect. The best way to do it is to make enough money to afford a health care or make a government health care for poorer families, not somethin we all have to buy into. More taxes wont make anyone happy.

[dmek25]

you guys make me laugh. i guess if you are poor, you aren't allowed to watch T.V.? what exactly does it mean if someone has a satellite dish? if they had cable, would you feel the same way? in alot of places, direct T.V. is cheaper then comcast, so maybe its a cheaper alternative, so they can still watch. when i lived under the poverty line, the one luxury we afforded ourselves was a nicer T.V. does that make me a bad person. while the haves enjoy nicer clothes, vacations, and generally better educations, according to you guys, the have nots need to give up anything extra. just to pay for something like health-care?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

you guys make me laugh. i guess if you are poor, you aren't allowed to watch T.V.? what exactly does it mean if someone has a satellite dish? if they had cable, would you feel the same way? in alot of places, direct T.V. is cheaper then comcast, so maybe its a cheaper alternative, so they can still watch. when i lived under the poverty line, the one luxury we afforded ourselves was a nicer T.V. does that make me a bad person. while the haves enjoy nicer clothes, vacations, and generally better educations, according to you guys, the have nots need to give up anything extra. just to pay for something like health-care?

Yes, that's generally how it should work. You should pay for your needs first: shelter, food, water, heat, clothes, and healthcare. If you have any money leftover, then you can spend it on luxury items like sattellite or cable TV. If you don't have any money leftover, then you don't subscribe to cable or sattellite TV. That simple.

That's called living within your means and keeping your priorities straight.

If you get cable or sattellite, and then turn around and go without health insurance, then you're an idiot, and are only contributing to our nation's healthcare problems.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

I will never argue about Wal Mart...they are the worst at making everything as low cost to themselves as possible to have their products at the lowest prices possible for consumers. They do not take care of their employees.

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.

Here is a site that talks about the coverage McDonalds employees get. It's very good coverage.
Health and Protection

Fact still remains, people have the ability to get the insurance, if they choose not to, that's their own fault and should not be my responsibility to take of it for them.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yes, that's generally how it should work. You should pay for your needs first: shelter, food, water, heat, clothes, and healthcare. If you have any money leftover, then you can spend it on luxury items like sattellite or cable TV. If you don't have any money leftover, then you don't subscribe to cable or sattellite TV. That simple.

That's called living within your means and keeping your priorities straight.

If you get cable or sattellite, and then turn around and go without health insurance, then you're an idiot, and are only contributing to our nation's healthcare problems.

Alright I'm getting scared now. We have been on the same page for a while now.

[dmek25]

people that cannot afford health care live a life of hope. the hope that nothing happens to them or a family member. to a hard working family that just cant make it, to begrudge them something that might be able to give them a little pleasure in an otherwise sucky life is ridiculous

[Redskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

people that cannot afford health care live a life of hope. the hope that nothing happens to them or a family member. to a hard working family that just cant make it, to begrudge them something that might be able to give them a little pleasure in an otherwise sucky life is ridiculous

To say you cant live without TV is rediculous

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

people that cannot afford health care live a life of hope. the hope that nothing happens to them or a family member. to a hard working family that just cant make it, to begrudge them something that might be able to give them a little pleasure in an otherwise sucky life is ridiculous

You're kidding me right? TV is so important that it trumps healthcare? How about that family that can't afford healthcare SAVING the money so they can get healthcare sooner rather than relying on others to pay up for them for longer.