|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 3, 2004 15:20:14 GMT -5
Unhappy Democrats Need to Wait to Get Into Canada Wed Nov 3, 2004 01:16 PM ET By David Ljunggren OTTAWA (Reuters) - Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after President Bush won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet. Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed up with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to stand in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a year. "You just can't come into Canada and say 'I'm going to stay here'. In other words, there has to be an application. There has to be a reason why the person is coming to Canada," said immigration ministry spokeswoman Maria Iadinardi. There are anywhere from 600,000 to a million Americans living in Canada, a country that leans more to the left than the United States and has traditionally favored the Democrats over the Republicans. But recent statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work in Canada, which has a creaking publicly funded healthcare system and relatively high levels of personal taxation. Government officials, real estate brokers and Democrat activists said that while some Americans might talk about a move to Canada rather than living with a new Bush administration, they did not expect a mass influx. "It's one thing to say 'I'm leaving for Canada' and quite another to actually find a job here and wonder about where you're going to live and where the children are going to go to school," said one government official. Roger King of the Toronto-based Democrats Abroad group said he had heard nothing to back up talk of a possible exodus of party members. "I imagine most committed Democrats will want to stay in the United States and continue being politically active there," he told Reuters. Americans seeking to immigrate can apply to become permanent citizens of Canada, a process that often takes a year. Becoming a full citizen takes a further three years. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which in all cases requires a work permit. This takes from four to six months to come through. Official statistics show the number of U.S. workers entering Canada dropped to 15,789 in 2002 from 21,627 in 2000. Early indicators on Wednesday showed little sign of this changing. A spokesman for Canada's foreign affairs ministry said there had been no increase in the number of hits on the Washington embassy's immigration Web site, while housing brokers said they doubted they would see a surge in U.S. business. "Canada's always open and welcoming to Americans who want to relocate here, but we don't think it would be a trend or movement," said Gino Romanese of Royal Lepage Residential Real Estate Services in Toronto. Those wishing to move to Canada could always take a risk and claim refugee status -- the path chosen earlier this year by two U.S. deserters who opposed the war in Iraq. "Anybody who enters Canada who claims refugee status will be provided with a work permit ... it doesn't matter what country they're from," Iadinardi said. Refugee cases are handled by special boards, which can take months to decide whether to admit applicants. The rulings can be appealed and opposition politicians complain some people ordered deported have been in Canada for 10 years or more. www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 3, 2004 17:12:47 GMT -5
LOL!
SEE YA, EH!
Robb ;D
|
|
Brenda
Senior Member
Posts: 652
|
Post by Brenda on Nov 3, 2004 17:18:11 GMT -5
We still have not gotten rid of Alec Baldwin yet and he made that threat 4 years ago!!
I dont understand these hollow threats folks make about leaving-- but by all means please go right ahead-- lol
|
|
Cindi
Senior Member
Posts: 311
|
Post by Cindi on Nov 4, 2004 0:26:40 GMT -5
I am thankful to be an American. I actually have what you call dual citizenship. My Mom is Canadian, my Dad is American. I have lived in the USA since I was a small child and can't think of a better place for me to spend my life. I love going over to visit relatives in Canada, but I have never wanted to choose my Canadian citizenship over my American. I am proud to live in my USA, through the good and the bad. She is what so many look for - she represents freedom of speech, the right to worship as you wish, the right to vote, the ability to work in any field you wish to, and the right to have a life filled with love and happiness and whatever you wish and can make for yourself. I have a wonderful American husband, a great career, a home, and the rights and freedoms many in other parts of the world can only hope for. I love my USA , and thank God for allowing the freedoms I enjoy.
Peace, be happy.
Cindi
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 7:10:26 GMT -5
I am thankful to be an American. I actually have what you call dual citizenship. My Mom is Canadian, my Dad is American. I have lived in the USA since I was a small child and can't think of a better place for me to spend my life. I love going over to visit relatives in Canada, but I have never wanted to choose my Canadian citizenship over my American. I am proud to live in my USA, through the good and the bad. She is what so many look for - she represents freedom of speech, the right to worship as you wish, the right to vote, the ability to work in any field you wish to, and the right to have a life filled with love and happiness and whatever you wish and can make for yourself. I have a wonderful American husband, a great career, a home, and the rights and freedoms many in other parts of the world can only hope for. I love my USA , and thank God for allowing the freedoms I enjoy. Peace, be happy. Cindi I think we all love the country we were born and raised in, and are proud of it to some extent. For the sole reason that it's *our* country! ;D The freedoms you have in the US can be found in many other countries (incl. Canada!), in many cases to greater extents. I sometimes wonder if Americans keep comparing themselves to the 3rd world or something. The US is a great country. But I think it's a pity so many people in the US fall through the cracks and don't enjoy the chances of the 'American Dream'. Healthcare and higher education should be in available for everybody. There is a huge gap between rich and poor, some really live in what seems to 3rd world conditions to me. I think a western wealthy country should really scratch it's head for that. And don't dismiss it with 'they're all lazy' lol
|
|
|
Post by happy on Nov 4, 2004 9:14:43 GMT -5
I am also very proud and thankful to be an American. I don't deny other countries have nice programs etc. etc. Bertine, my condolences to you over the Kerry loss. I know you were a die hard! Yes, it would be wonderful to have a national healthcare system. However, do we really want government telling us what Dr. we can see and what we are allowed to have done? I don't know what the answer is, but I really question a government run medical system. I look at the systems they DO run and the red tape we go thru and think....nahhh....let's not give them healthcare too. Some are, truely unfortunate. Many COULD improve their livestyles. Also, I don't believe you have to be wealthy to be happy. I bet Americans happiest people are NOT the wealthiest...take me for example! Rich in love and blessings.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 12:32:57 GMT -5
It is...
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Nov 4, 2004 12:44:10 GMT -5
It is... In many countries but unfortunately not in the US. That is like saying the internet is available to everyone. Just because it is there does not mean all can take advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 13:02:57 GMT -5
In many countries but unfortunately not in the US. That is like saying the internet is available to everyone. Just because it is there does not mean all can take advantage of it. OH OH OH I SEE...What you're talking about is all these things being FREE... The Internet IS available to everyone... However it is not FREE.. Healthcare IS available to everyone... However it is not FREE.. Higher education IS available to everyone... However it is not FREE.. I didn't know we were talking about handouts and giving crap away rather then things that are available to everyone... My mistake...
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 4, 2004 13:04:56 GMT -5
Yes, the same could be said about unborn babies... just because they could soon be born doesn't mean that someone isn't going to first stab them and suck them out before they see the light of day. The truth is that health insurance and education are not and never were inteneded to be entitlements. The founders believed that the real entitlements were: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which for some includes education and heath insurance, but for others doesn't). How ironic that the same folks who deny the entitlement of life for the unborn, then complain about the lack of entitlement for things like education and health insurance. Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 4, 2004 14:06:12 GMT -5
OH OH OH I SEE...What you're talking about is all these things being FREE... The Internet IS available to everyone... However it is not FREE.. Healthcare IS available to everyone... However it is not FREE.. Higher education IS available to everyone... However it is not FREE.. I didn't know we were talking about handouts and giving crap away rather then things that are available to everyone... My mistake... Unfortunately, healthcare and higher education costs are both becoming astronomically high, and increasingly hard for even the middle class to afford. It's hard for the lower class to afford much of anything other than a bad apartment and crappy public transportation to their dead-end, low-paying job. Without a good job, they can't get much money for an education. You ever try going to school and working to support yourself at the same time? Tack on some kids, who are sick and need medical attention. It all adds up to multiple full time occupations at once (school, job, children), all requiring a lot of money expenditures, with far too little money input to come halfway close to balancing it all. Even going to school less than full time (traditionally 12 credits=full time) is still an incredibly hard feat when faced with working, and many times children to raise. Yes, the potential of healtcare and education is available to everybody, but unfortunately for many people, that's as close as they will get to either thing. andy
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 14:09:45 GMT -5
Unfortunately, healthcare and higher education costs are both becoming astronomically high, and increasingly hard for even the middle class to afford. It's hard for the lower class to afford much of anything other than a bad apartment and crappy public transportation to their dead-end, low-paying job. Without a good job, they can't get much money for an education. You ever try going to school and working to support yourself at the same time? Tack on some kids, who are sick and need medical attention. It all adds up to multiple full time occupations at once (school, job, children), all requiring a lot of money expenditures, with far too little money input to come halfway close to balancing it all. Even going to school less than full time (traditionally 12 credits=full time) is still an incredibly hard feat when faced with working, and many times children to raise. Yes... Life is hard... for some people they don't quite understand that...
|
|
hinds not logged in
Guest
|
Post by hinds not logged in on Nov 4, 2004 14:22:10 GMT -5
I am quite happy with my life, and I certainly am NOT rich. I never had any hand outs either. Life is what you make of it. You work hard, you will get results.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Nov 4, 2004 14:54:05 GMT -5
I am quite happy with my life, and I certainly am NOT rich. I never had any hand outs either. Life is what you make of it. You work hard, you will get results. Me too, Hinds. We pay our medical, I'm paying for college. We live on one income and it is tight, but I'm a Mom and wife first. It is well worth it. No hand outs, but lots of hugs.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 17:04:36 GMT -5
No one says healthcare and higher education should be free handouts, but it should be at least affordable for everyone. And it's not always true that as long as you work hard, you'll have a comfortable life. There are many in the US who do work hard, sometimes with 2 or 3 jobs, and still struggle to make ends meet. And not being able to afford healthcare when you need it and costs are enormous, that's not gonna make you happy really. I was surprised that pres. Bush said in the debates that many would be envious of the US social security and healthcare. I think many in the US would be envious when they see how these are in Scandanavia, Holland and other European countries, Australia etc. Interesting note, the AARP, an American organisation for seniors, recently did a study of 16 industrialized nations and made a chart to see how these nations scored on quality of life issues for seniors and society in general. USA was 13th. Guess who was nr. 1? The Netherlands It's not paradise, but it's pretty good. Here's a fragment of the article on healthcare. The complete article can be found at www.aarpmagazine.org/lifestyle/Articles/a2004-09-22-mag-global.html/page=1 [...]
Although the U.S. has a far larger per capita income than the Netherlands—$26,448 a year versus $17,080—it scores poorly in two other comparisons: First, all Dutch citizens have government insurance for medical conditions and nursing-home care; 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all. Second, prescription drugs are available to all Dutch citizens, with few if any copayments; Americans get drugs in many different ways and those without insurance pay top dollar. Even when Medicare drug coverage begins in 2006, most enrollees will still face substantial out-of-pocket costs.
How do the Dutch do it? How do their euros stretch further than our dollars? The key factor is lower costs. Although medicine isn't completely socialized—physicians and pharmacists, for example, aren't state employees—the government regulates almost all health expenses. That helps explain why, in the view of Professor Gerard F. Anderson of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "in the U.S. we pay a lot more than anybody else for pretty much the same stuff." In analyzing health systems in the Netherlands and other industrialized nations, Anderson found that drugs, hospitals, and physicians' services were from 30 to 50 percent more expensive in the U.S., "and their health status is as good or better than ours."
Another factor is attitude. A strong feeling of "social solidarity," as Anderson sees it, makes Europeans inclined to be generous to older people, more willing to support them. "Their attitude is, we're in this together and sooner or later we're going to become older and we'll need some help," he says. "The U.S. attitude is, we're all rugged individualists and we're going to take care of ourselves, not others."
[...]
The Dutch are accustomed to paying minuscule copayments for expensive treatment.
Dutch health insurance took care of teacher Van Essen when he needed a heart pacemaker. "He never saw a bill," his wife, Bep, recalls. Neither did civil servant Korst, who remembers that there were no charges when his wife, Trees, had cancer surgery followed by 32 chemotherapy treatments. "The whole country paid," he says, referring to the state-regulated insurance. In the U.S., those 32 treatments alone could have cost $30,000 or more, depending on the type and number of drugs used. Medicare might cover 80 percent, but the patient still could owe thousands.
Compare Trees's experience with that of Harold Powers, 79, and his wife, Ozelle, 82, retired educators in Tennessee. Powers paid about $200 of the bill for his bypass heart surgery because Medicare picked up 80 percent of the tab and his private Medigap insurance (which costs extra) paid most of the rest. But, in addition, he and Ozelle spend about $3,000 a year for medicines, and Medicare won't cover any of that until 2006. Van Essen, on the other hand, pays nothing for the medicine he takes to prevent migraines. In 2003, however, the Dutch health ministry proposed that everyone make a copayment of $1.75 for each prescription—but backed down when the people protested.
There is also a government limit on the amount a hospital may bill an insurance company for a pacemaker—Van Essen's was $5,750, plus the expense of the procedure. In the U.S., a pacemaker can cost as much as a car—$15,000 to $20,000, just for the device. The whole procedure can zoom up to $50,000. In the Netherlands, government pressure on hospitals, doctors, and manufacturers helps to keep costs down.
[...]
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 17:27:18 GMT -5
Only if they were socialist! But guess what… we're not socialist…
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 4, 2004 22:54:50 GMT -5
Over the past year and a half I have noticed in people around me that it sure is easy to say "Life's hard. So what?" when life is going well for you. I especially see that in my parents. They've had stable, permanent, relatively well-paying jobs for the past 30 years. And for the past 7 years, they've had no kids left at home to feed, clothe, etc. No kids left on their car insurance, health insurance. Their house and car are completely paid off. My dad can retire any time now with an awesome retirement package with benefits. (Although he will continue working for several years still). They have been getting tax refunds for several years (after setting aside extra money for estimated taxes). Yet, they seem to have an extremely hard time realizing that my wife and I are having a hard time paying back a personal loan, which came from money which they had forgotten about, weren't touching and did not have any real plans for. It was "ok" for them to loan us that money because it wasn't money out of their pocket. I don't know anything about the monetary stability and people's personal lives here on these boards, so I'm not necessarily accusing anybody here. Just commenting since it is a very close, important issue to me and it came up. andy
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 4, 2004 23:21:08 GMT -5
I would love to see a basic national health care system where people can get the basic, routine health care. An example is the health care services at the Univ. I go to... www.uhs.wisc.edu/home.jsp?cat_id=22 University Health Services (UHS) provides basic health services. What they offer: www.uhs.wisc.edu/docs/chart_uhs_services.pdf. It is paid through a portion of student fees (total fees equal roughly $300/student/semester). Much of the basic stuff which would normally cost people well over a hundred dollars we get paid for in our fees. The student fees we pay would be equal to taxes. I personally would have no problem paying just a tad more in taxes if I were to get such a valuable service. If I were not going to school I would not have any affordable access to any kind of health care. Well, besides band-aids and the such. I believe that many other Americans would also be glad to pay just a bit more in taxes if it meant they could get the basic health care for their children. If such a health care system were implemented by the government, it would ease a burden on health insurance companies, and I believe that health insurance would become more affordable. I do not believe I am dreaming. Be very clear that I am not suggesting full health care coverage at government expense. I am suggesting the basic, routine health care. Surgeries and other major procedures would not be covered by the government. But, with health insurance being more affordable, employers wouldn't balk so much at providing health insurance, and people would more able to afford getting health insurance out of their own pocket. This is not a radically crazy solution, but a rather feasible solution. andy
|
|
|
Post by ForeverFree on Nov 25, 2004 10:04:14 GMT -5
Only if they were socialist! But guess what… we're not socialist… So when someone is so sick they can't even go to the doctor because they can't afford it, or can't afford the insurance, and they get even sicker, you just look at them and say, "guess what… we're not socialist…"? Thank you, Canada, for medicare.
|
|
|
Post by K on Nov 25, 2004 18:39:10 GMT -5
Canadians pay higher taxes. Free healthcare and the bureacratic mess following it isn't worth it. America has a good health care system. Some people just think other people should feed, clothe and shelter them. Andy, when you grow older you will have more money.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 27, 2004 14:21:36 GMT -5
I work with a Canadian who says that the Canadian health care system is very good, equal that of the U.S. I guess I'd rather trust what Canadians have to say about it than Americans. Is there anybody else here from Canada who can give their opinions about the Canadian health care? Yes, I'm hoping so. Until then, I barely have enough money to pay for rent, food, bills, electricity -- the things I have to pay for in order to live and not have collection agencies knocking on the door. My wife and I are basically screwed in the event of any medical emergency. I'm not complaining that I'm not swimming in cash, like the Scrooge duck from Donald Duck comics. At this point in life I'd like to have a little more money to go camping more than once or twice a year for a weekend. I'd like to go camping for a week. I'd like to help out with nature conservation and preservation programs. But, for now I'm living with the money I have and trying to see the best in the situation. However, I do see a major flaw in the way our government seemingly does not care about people who are poor, without any education further than high school, and without any real way to improve their lives. andy
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 27, 2004 14:33:34 GMT -5
ForeverFree, I noticed when I clicked on your name that you are from Canada. From your post, you seem to be in favor of the Canadian health care system. How true is this? What are your opinions and experiences with the system? andy
|
|
|
Post by ForeverFree on Dec 2, 2004 0:34:31 GMT -5
ForeverFree, I noticed when I clicked on your name that you are from Canada. From your post, you seem to be in favor of the Canadian health care system. How true is this? What are your opinions and experiences with the system? andy Yes, I am Canadian. I am also very much in favour of the Canadian health care system. In 1947, Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas (regarded as the founder of Canada’s health care system), established the first provincial public health care system, insuring hospital care for its population. As North America's first socialist government, Douglas and his party promoted a Canada-wide Medicare program, which was established across the country in 1967. When we go to a doctor in Canada, we do not have to pay. Whether it's a check-up or an outpatient service, it is all provided for. Any prescription that is given by the doctor, however, is at your own expense, unless covered under the provincial health care plan. When we have to stay in the hospital in Canada, we do not have to pay. We do have to pay for extra services such as a private room, telephone and tv, but the stay, the food, the operation, the medication and the labour costs of the doctor and hospital staff are all provided. Sure, the taxes may be higher, but we would rather pay those taxes now, a little at a time, than be footed a doctor bill that we can't even dream of paying. Those taxes are our insurance to good health. The lighter side... "What is a Canadian?" "An American with health care and no gun."
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 2, 2004 8:00:18 GMT -5
Living near the border of Canada, we see and hear strories of Canadians crossing the border to obtain advanced treatments that just can't wait.
I personally do not feel right about a system that forces others to pay for my health care needs. Health care is not a right.
We are considering joining a Christian medical sharing program such as Samaritan or Medishare. I like these plans as they are voluntary. Our church assembly has covered the medical expenses of the needy in the past and I see this as the place of a church body. Why do we always turn to government to solve our problems? Is it because we have disfuntional families and churches? Lets get our focus back to the institutions of church and family that ought to be handling these issues and stop looking for government handouts.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 2, 2004 8:14:30 GMT -5
What is an American? One who has the oppourtunity and responsability to get a job and make his way in life.
What is a Slave? One who has a guaranteed job and heathcare provided by the master of the plantation (or state).
As Alan Keyes has said "Don't talk to me about job security and free health care (after all, you have to keep your slaves heathly in order to produce)... my ancestors had all of that... I would rather be free"
Sadly, most people in the world unknowingly prefer slavery because it bring security, than freedom which brings responsability. Are we Americans becoming lovers of security over freedom?
Robb (a gun totin, freedom lovin American) ;D
|
|
|
Post by ForeverFree on Dec 7, 2004 15:15:36 GMT -5
Why do we always turn to government to solve our problems? Is it because we have disfuntional families and churches? Lets get our focus back to the institutions of church and family that ought to be handling these issues and stop looking for government handouts. Why do we always turn to religion to solve our problems? The only health care that the church should be concerned with is a healthy soul. The lives of a country's citizens are the responsibility of government, which represents ALL citizens, not like a church which focuses only on members. Let's keep health care as the focus of the government, and keep religion in it's place. Health care is NOT a handout, it is a responsibilty of a country's citizen's towards each other. In Canada, it IS a right, and one that we are proud of. A healthy, safe-living, free-loving Canadian.
|
|
|
Post by More stuff on Dec 14, 2004 16:12:15 GMT -5
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1262228/postsStories you won't see about the uninsured By Craig J. Cantoni October 29, 2004 (Note: The names have been changed in the following, but the individuals are real-life people known by the author.) Pete Gasperin is one of the 40 million Americans without medical insurance. A twenty-something, he declined to enroll in his employer's plan. Why? So he could make payments on his new $35,000 Chevy Tahoe SUV, which has chrome wheels costing an additional $5,000. There are many Americans like Gasperin who drive expensive cars but do without medical insurance, but you wouldn't know it from the media coverage of the uninsured and the rising cost of medical insurance and health care. Curiously, there are scores of headlines about the country having a health care crisis, but none about the country having a car care crisis, although the average household spends about twice as much on cars than on health care. Mary Shannon, a 25-year-old single woman, works as a nanny and does not have medical insurance. If the media did a story on her, she would be portrayed as a victim of a low-wage economy and unaffordable medical insurance. The story would not report that she spends $700 per year on a cell phone she doesn't need; $600 on cable TV and high-speed Internet she can live without; $1,200 on drinks costing $3.50 apiece at clubs she frequents almost every night; an extra $1,150 for sexy clothes to wear at the clubs; $1,350 more on food than necessary, due to eating out more often than eating at home; $900 extra for car insurance, due to having a bad driving record; and $1,600 on cigarettes and lottery tickets. Her total spending on these items is $7,500 per year, not counting her credit card interest payments, or about 40 percent more than the per-capita health care spending in the United States. Shannon doesn't use her considerable free time at work during the day and at home in the evening to pursue a college or technical degree. She admits that she loves to spend money. Hardly a day goes by without her employer getting calls from collection agencies trying to hunt her down. Shannon is now considering getting breast implants. If Shannon invested $7,500 per year in the stock market for 30 years and got an average return on her investment of seven percent, she would have a nest egg of $758,000 by the age of 55. Instead, like many Americans, she is counting on the government (a k a other people) coming to her rescue when she is older. Shannon might come to her senses before it is too late if the media were to tell the whole story about people who find themselves at the age of 55 without medical insurance, a job or savings. One of them is 55-year-old Clyde Breemer, who lost his job as a purchasing manager two months ago and dropped his medical insurance when he had to start paying the portion of the premium that had been picked up by his employer. Clyde and his wife Denise bought a more expensive home three years ago, when the last of their three children left home to begin a career. Their new mortgage payment is $12,000 more per year than the payment on their former house, and the mortgage will not be paid off until Clyde is 82 years old. Clyde and Denise have savings of only $50,000, almost all of it in his 401(k) plan. Throughout their marriage, they have bought new cars every two years, taken expensive vacations, taken many weekend trips to Las Vegas to see shows and gamble, held season tickets for the local professional baseball team, and, as they admit, always liked to have a good time. But if the media did a story on Clyde and Denise, nothing would be said about the personal choices that they have made throughout their lives. Instead, the story would focus on their current financial predicament without telling how they dug a financial hole for themselves over the last 30 years. And true to the media's formula, the story wouldn't explain that health insurance and health care are more expensive and less available than they would otherwise be for Clyde and Denise, for one simple reason: The government dealt a mortal blow to a fledgling consumer market in health insurance 62 years ago in 1942, when misguided wartime wage and price controls resulted in employees becoming dependent on their employers for medical insurance. Then, 23 years later in 1965, the government delivered the coup de grace to a consumer market when it enacted Medicare. Now, 80 percent of Americans obtain their health insurance through a third party, either from an employer or the government, and thus have little financial incentive or freedom to control costs. Worse, the third-party payment system has spawned an entitlement mentality that crosses all socioeconomic classes. Americans whine more about a $25 co-payment for an office visit with their physician than they do about paying $25 for gas, $30 for an oil change, $8 for a car wash and $300 for a brake job. They snivel more about paying their share of medical insurance premiums than they do about paying their car insurance premiums and car payments. And, falling for government, media and public school propaganda, they complain about the rising cost of health care but not about the rising cost of government, which costs the average household more than four times as much as the cost of health care. And heaven forbid if Americans were asked to make economic tradeoffs in order to buy medical insurance. After all, they are entitled to cars with leather seats, keyless door locks, power windows, automatic transmissions, 250-horsepower engines and expensive sound systems. They are entitled to homes with three bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, family rooms, air-conditioning, dishwashers, garages, walk-in closets, cable television and big-screen TVs. They are entitled to drop thousands of dollars at sporting events, casinos and restaurants. And if they are too busy with their own lives to supervise their children, they are entitled to "free" tutors, smaller classes, after-school programs, preschool programs, and Taj Mahal public schools. Their unwillingness to make economic tradeoffs and live frugal lives stems from their belief that the government will provide for them in old age, a belief that is predicated on another belief: that it is moral, ethical, just and fair for those who haven't lived frugal lives and saved nest eggs to take the nest eggs of those who have lived frugal lives. They are aided and abetted in their selfishness, materialism, greed and immorality by mainstream reporters, who never tell the whole story about people like Peter Gasperin, Mary Shannon, and Clyde and Denise Breemer. _________ Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (www.haalt.org). He can be reached at haalt1@aol.com.
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Dec 14, 2004 16:33:48 GMT -5
I personally do not feel right about a system that forces others to pay for my health care needs. Health care is not a right. Robb Ah you say this with such confidence. Clearly you are not sick. The difficult thing is when you are working, uninsured, and sick. You don't make enough money for the expensive treatment you need, and you will die without it. I recently lost my husband to this scenario. It is all well and good to say healthcare is not a "right" until the healthcare you (or your husband, or your children) need is beyond your means.
|
|