|
Post by ForeverFree on Dec 15, 2004 1:30:56 GMT -5
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. My condolences to you Meg. What you said above is the point I am trying to say. Canadian health care rocks! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 15, 2004 8:19:00 GMT -5
I am sorry to hear about your husband. I cannot imagine the pain that you must bear. Please forgive me if my reply seems insensative to your situation. That is certainly not my intent... Please do not assume that my ethics or beliefs would change based upon my circumstances. My faith and trust is not in government or a heath care system and my belief system does not change based upon my health condition or that of my family. I have no right to any other persons earnings, regardless of my health condition. I do however, have every confidence that God would provide for our needs through our families and church. We have seen this outpouring of support and resources in the life of a premature baby whose medical costs of over 250,000 dollars where covered by the families and local churches without the help of any government money. This is Christian love in action and I praise God for it. The government on the other hand only weakens individuals abilities to help in these situations with oppresively high taxes.
PS My family and I are currently uninsured by choice.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 15, 2004 10:16:31 GMT -5
Robb, Yet, you seem to think it is OK to use other people's earnings. You approve of this in your example of the church giving other people's earnings to help with the premature baby. That is, of course, unless the church is able to fabricate money by miracles, thereby not using anybody's earnings. Ok, bad joke. andy
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Dec 15, 2004 10:21:32 GMT -5
And health insurance itself is just an act of pooling everyone's premiums for use by the few.
I wonder what you mean by "uninsured by choice". I hope everyone is taking their vitamins.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 15, 2004 12:03:56 GMT -5
Yes, money given to churches (and even insurance companies) is done on a voluntary basis. Try choosing to not pay your taxes this year, then see how compassionate your government really is. Yes, I will accept gifts, but a "gift" that is stolen really isn't the same thing is it?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 15, 2004 12:07:02 GMT -5
It means that we choose to be uninsured. You are pro-choice, right? Maybe the government should monitor our vitamin intake. Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 15, 2004 12:45:39 GMT -5
Yes, money given to churches (and even insurance companies) is done on a voluntary basis. Try choosing to not pay your taxes this year, then see how compassionate your government really is. Yes, I will accept gifts, but a "gift" that is stolen really isn't the same thing is it? Robb If you take away the taxes for health care so that people won't get it, I can bet that they will be willing to pay taxes for health care again to obtain it. Quite voluntary, I'm sure. Ask the Canadians if they would rather not pay "health care taxes" and in turn not receieve health care. Taxes do not mean "forced" on someone. I am quite willing to pay taxes in return for services. andy
|
|
|
Post by Not a right on Dec 15, 2004 16:40:39 GMT -5
I agree with you Robb, health care is not a right, IMO it is a purchased service like legal services etc. People may choose whether or not they wish to buy those services and if they do choose to buy they also have the option to choose how, by cash, cheques, visa, mc, discover, third party ins, in some cases bartering, sliding scale, they also have the right to refuse care as they have the right to consent for care.
In the US there are many ways to finance healthcare, the problem is many folks have skewed priorities. They do not place much value on health and are usually quite comfortable to have someone else take responsibility for them.
With the cafeteria type healthcare market these days one can just about build their own healthcare plan and decide what types of coverage they wish to have.
"And health insurance itself is just an act of pooling everyone's premiums for use by the few." This is true, however the premiums are voluntarily paid, not government forced.
All health systems ration care including the Canadian system. Why? bottom line there are limited resources to meet the demand for healthcare. The patients are triaged and placed in a cue.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 15, 2004 16:45:19 GMT -5
I do not doubt that many people (especially in Canada) think that the government is the answer to their problems. I do not. I value freedom and responsability over security and dependence.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Really on Dec 15, 2004 21:41:42 GMT -5
I agree with you Robb, health care is not a right, IMO it is a purchased service like legal services etc. This means in many cases life is not a right either. When an infant in intensive care consumes all of the health benefits a family has should the child be put out?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 16, 2004 6:52:57 GMT -5
While I understand the point you are attempting to make, it is insulting to suggest that limits on intervention are the same thing as killing the unborn (right to life). If you follow this illogic far enough, you too would be forced to conclude that the Canadian system is morally wrong because it does not give every person, every possible means, at every possible time. There are always limits of knowledge, competency, technology, money, human resourses, etc, etc. These limits are not the same as the willful act of stopping an innocent life.
Robb
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Dec 17, 2004 11:30:18 GMT -5
Again, Robb, I need to point out that neither you nor yours are sick. The point of our friend "Really" was in relation to a baby in intensive care, not a fetus. What happens when help is available, but the innocent in question does not have the resources to pay for it? Are you in favor of letting the baby die, or do you think there is some ethereal money pile somewhere for situations such as these?
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 17, 2004 12:12:25 GMT -5
One simple way to get around not relying on the government to help with health care is to lower to cost of health care. It is sad when we put a cost on people's lives, saying that people cannot get routine health care because they are poor. Paying taxes in return for health care is not any kind of handout or easy answer to the problem. It is an additional strain on people's budgets. However, with something as precious as (at least basic) health care, I doubt you will hear many people complaining about paying the extra money in taxes. Especially since it would be something that the people could see and use relatively soon after enacted. andy
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Dec 17, 2004 12:15:34 GMT -5
Andy, We're such Commies! Dawn
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 17, 2004 13:05:52 GMT -5
Can't you hear me Andy? Didn't you hear the American poeple who overwhelmingly rejected Hillary Clintons national health care proposal in the 90's?
Such liberal arrogance which assumes to know what other people need or want.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 17, 2004 13:36:03 GMT -5
Andy, We're such Commies! Dawn Yes, the idea of looking out for someone else's welfare is disgusting! andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 17, 2004 13:40:35 GMT -5
More like looking for someone else's wallet...
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Reality on Dec 18, 2004 19:44:44 GMT -5
More like looking for someone else's wallet... Robb Unless you are paying for all of your family's health care costs, you are depending on someone elses' (church members?) wallet to pay what you can't afford.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 19, 2004 6:31:34 GMT -5
I think we have already dicussed the difference between free will gifts, voluntary insurance and forced wealth redistribution via the govt.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 19, 2004 16:50:52 GMT -5
I think we have already dicussed the difference between free will gifts, voluntary insurance and forced wealth redistribution via the govt. Robb Yes, the gospel according to Robb. Unquestionable, undeniable, infallible. andy
|
|
|
Post by Reality on Dec 19, 2004 17:48:42 GMT -5
I think we have already dicussed the difference between free will gifts, voluntary insurance and forced wealth redistribution via the govt. Robb Do you resent being forced to pay taxes in spite of the fact that you benefit from how they are distributed?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 22, 2004 21:43:42 GMT -5
Yes. I am opposed to the concept regardless of how it affects me. Would you change your mind about stealing just because you benifited from it?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 23, 2004 15:44:26 GMT -5
Yes. I am opposed to the concept regardless of how it affects me. Would you change your mind about stealing just because you benifited from it? Robb Are you opposed to paying every kind of tax? Or just one covering health care? If not every tax, which taxes? andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 24, 2004 4:57:20 GMT -5
No, I support taxes for such things as national defense. I oppose any tax with the purpose of wealth redistribution.
Robb
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Dec 29, 2004 11:43:44 GMT -5
No, I support taxes for such things as national defense. I oppose any tax with the purpose of wealth redistribution. Robb Robb, I have to say that when push comes to shove I agree with you on this one. Who'd of thunk, huh? Even though I have suffered a recent loss, it does not mean that others were responsible for preventing that. I would say it about anyone else, and I admit it freely, embreace it even, about myself; I am responsible for my own life, my own actions. But there's just one problem, one thing that would keep me up at night if there were no welfare system at all (which is what we are talking about, right?). The kids. What about children? Should they suffer for their parents' irresponsibility? Don't they deserve a chance to grow up safe and fed and schooled regardless of what mistakes their parents make? And how do we provide for the kids without providing for their parents? How do we stop people from having kids in order to get welfare without becoming fascist? Dawn
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Jan 1, 2005 11:53:05 GMT -5
Hey Robb, Are you opposed to sending billions in tsunami aid? Dawn
|
|
|
Post by More like it on Jan 3, 2005 1:49:17 GMT -5
"However, with something as precious as (at least basic) health care,"
The question is do people really thnk of basic healthcare as "precious"? hmm how do we act when we cherish something?? I would think those who do would care for their health.
How often do individuals measure there "precious" health against things like their daily cigarette habit, cars, hairdos, etc.?
It is most annoying to have to deal with people who would rather pay $350 for a cadillac rather than $100/mo on health insurance premiums and then have the nerve to want healthcare providers to absorb their service "bad debt."
""The point of our friend "Really" was in relation to a baby in intensive care, not a fetus. What happens when help is available, but the innocent in question does not have the resources to pay for it? Are you in favor of letting the baby die,""
Depends on what is meant by "resources" I would suspect that term is limited to money, but there are several ways to "pay" for services especially in hardship situations. But most people here don't want to hear about them they just want the services provided at someone else's expense.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jan 3, 2005 9:22:36 GMT -5
Parents are responsible for children and we should hold them accountable, not the govt. I am not sure how to answer as to what people "deserve", although I wish we could at least agree when it comes to the unborn that they derserve life. I would argue that children are best in families where the father considers himself worse than an unbeliever if he does not provide for his own. This is the Christian ethic, combined with the local church and extended family that leads to stability. The govt on the other hand (with all good intentions) acts to lessen the importance of these institutions, by effectively becoming the father, church and extended family for the children. We then wonder why fathers, churches and extended families are not doing their jobs. Thats the point... we shouldn't provide for the parents... that is not the role of the govt. Robb
|
|