Attn: All Canadians

[heyrabbit]

The US system is more moral? Healthcare should be available to everyone. Choosing between going to the doctor because I have a chest pain and paying my mortgage is not something I like to do. I don't know how you can sit there and say the US system is more moral. Yeah, it's more moral to the individuals who can afford it. The same way US taxes are more moral to the wealthy and give them bigger tax cuts.

Everyone ought to have health care...at whose expense? What's immoral about you being forced to pay my dental bill? And you know exactly why it's immoral because you would consider my request for money as absolutely laughable. Why, then, is acceptable in a larger and more indiscriminate format?

 

It's not a system that will benefit everyone, but I never said it was. i.e. gun ownership is moral but shooting people is immoral. Poverty is an economic issue, not an ethical one.

[matrix]

I guess I'm more generous then you. And, there was never a point in my argument that I said there wasn't any flaws in Canada's system, I just think it's a better one. I never had a problem with some of my taxes going towards healthcare when I lived in Canada. The amount of taxes I paid for healthcare were far less then what I currently pay for healthcare for my wife and I only. To me it makes more sense to have a general health system for everyone then for only the few who can afford it. And, if you want to look at it another way, you can go to any doctor you want and get the same service. I can only go to a select few doctors because my insurance will cover it. If I choose another doctor that's fine, but I'll pay out the ass for it.

[heyrabbit]

I guess I'm more generous then you. And, there was never a point in my argument that I said there wasn't any flaws in Canada's system, I just think it's a better one. I never had a problem with some of my taxes going towards healthcare when I lived in Canada. The amount of taxes I paid for healthcare were far less then what I currently pay for healthcare for my wife and I only. To me it makes more sense to have a general health system for everyone then for only the few who can afford it. And, if you want to look at it another way, you can go to any doctor you want and get the same service. I can only go to a select few doctors because my insurance will cover it. If I choose another doctor that's fine, but I'll pay out the ass for it.

Yeah, but the reason why nobody can afford it is not because someone else isn't paying for it, it's because the U.S. economy sucks. I think it makes sense to have an economic system that gives everyone the right and ability to earn their own health.

 

On what moral grounds do you refuse to pay my dental bill? Why is it only generous to give to people you've never heard of, in amounts you have no control over?

[matrix]

I'd pay your dental bill just like you would pay mine within the Canadian Universal Health Care. You make it sound like your the only freakin' Canadian paying for Universal Health Care.

 

How much do you even pay for your health care? I can guarantee the amount you pay in taxes for health care is considerably less then what I pay in health care to cover only two people. Tell you what, you come live down here for awhile, contribute to your so called 'better health system' and then tell me what you think. And, it doesn't have anything to do with the US economy. It's the insurance companies. They are not federally regulated so they can offer health insurance for any dollar amount they choose. They can also raise it whenever they choose. Since they can charge people what ever they want, they usually do.

 

And, you keep talking about moral. I guess it's more moral to take from the guy who can afford it, and then let the poor fool who can't, let him die. Yeah, that's real fuckin' moral.

[ToadMan]

It strikes me that the grass is always greener.

 

Further to that, please stop citing none sensical examples http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/services-not-covered, and http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/200...soinsbk4_e.html. FYI dental isn't covered in my province. I pay for additional coverage which covers costs such as vision, dental, prescription drugs not given in a hospital, and specialty health practitioners.

 

Socialized health care isn't a free ride. It provides basic care to all people, nothing more. This means that if you are in a car accident, you will be treated; if you cut off your finger at work, you will be treated. It doesn't mean that everybody is going to see and physio for any ache or pain on the government ticket.

 

So you can argue about 'moral' all you want. Fact is, I tend to believe it is immoral to deny basic care to anybody (rich, poor, yellow, or green). That is all socialized health care is about. If you want to present anymore ranting about what people are getting that you are paying for, which isn't basic care, then you better be willing to back it up with some kind of reputable citable source. And if you do think that only the wealthy deserve guaranteed basic care, then you should take a long hard look at yourself.

[matrix]

Well put.

[heyrabbit]

I'd pay your dental bill just like you would pay mine within the Canadian Universal Health Care.  You make it sound like your the only freakin' Canadian paying for Universal Health Care.

 

How much do you even pay for your health care?  I can guarantee the amount you pay in taxes for health care is considerably less then what I pay in health care to cover only two people.  Tell you what, you come live down here for awhile, contribute to your so called 'better health system' and then tell me what you think.  And, it doesn't have anything to do with the US economy.  It's the insurance companies.  They are not federally regulated so they can offer health insurance for any dollar amount they choose.  They can also raise it whenever they choose.  Since they can charge people what ever they want, they usually do. 

 

And, you keep talking about moral.  I guess it's more moral to take from the guy who can afford it, and then let the poor fool who can't, let him die.  Yeah, that's real fuckin' moral.

Rights are a moral concept. If you think everyone has the right to basic care, you do so because of your morality. That's why I keep talking about it -- we're all talking about it.

 

So you can argue about 'moral' all you want. Fact is, I tend to believe it is immoral to deny basic care to anybody (rich, poor, yellow, or green)

 

See? You ridiculed me for talking about morals, and then give me your estimate of what is moral in the very next sentence.

 

 

It's not relevant whether or not dental is covered in your province, or mine, or in the States. I simply asked Matrix to pay my dental bill, irrespective of policy. And I'll ask you too, Toad. I'm asking you to pay my dental bill.

 

If you want to present anymore ranting about what people are getting that you are paying for, which isn't basic care, then you better be willing to back it up with some kind of reputable citable source.

 

Are you kidding me? Here

Edited September 21, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ToadMan]

And at this point your argument lost all power.

 

1) I wasn't directly responding to you, nor did I at any point ridicule your use of the word moral

2) My rebuke to 'dental' is that it is irrelevant to the real issue that socialized health care is meant for

3) Third in an academic sense dictionary definitions are not valid citations. But to respond, I'm not interesting in what you are paying, I'm interested in you backing up the idea that your money is being used for something you don't agree with. That being that you must either prove that socialized health care is paying something you don't agree with, or admit that you don't agree with providing basic care to all people.

[matrix]

Rights are a moral concept. If you think everyone has the right to basic care, you do so because of your morality. That's why I keep talking about it -- we're all talking about it.

You apparently have no morals, so it would be useless to continue on this disagreement.

[heyrabbit]

And at this point your argument lost all power.

 

1) I wasn't directly responding to you, nor did I at any point ridicule your use of the word moral

2) My rebuke to 'dental' is that it is irrelevant to the real issue that socialized health care is meant for

3) Third in an academic sense dictionary definitions are not valid citations.  But to respond, I'm not interesting in what you are paying, I'm interested in you backing up the idea that your money is being used for something you don't agree with.  That being that you must either prove that socialized health care is paying something you don't agree with, or admit that you don't agree with providing basic care to all people.

Oh, so you were responding to the other guy talking about morals

 

If you take every word out of an argument, it tends to lose its validity, in an academic sense. I find that the majority of the time people disagree symbolically and semantically, not principally. i.e. if we disagree on the meaning of a word, we're not arguing against each other,we're arguing a false understanding of what the other person's argument is, which is what has happened. Words are complicated concepts in an of themselves, representing a wide range of abstractions. The dictionary is not only a great great tool for defining words, it's the only tool!

 

You misunderstand the concept of taxes. That's why I posted that.

 

Of course my argument will lose all power, to whoever misses the point. I haven't even clearly laid out an argument, only asked a question to which, not surprisingly, you've both repeatedly ignored. You're trying to discredit what you've assumed I'm arguing in favor of. Since when does a matter of personal opinion require a citation? I wasn't trying to prove anything to you, as if the dictionary would be a valid citation for my subjective opinion. I only require my approval, and I haven't even told you what I think yet.

 

As a matter of fact, I don't approve of "free" emergency service for everyone. Really, how is it clear that I have no morals?

 

Also, please answer the question.

Edited September 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

People really need to stop thinking of money the government takes in taxes as "their money." There are some things that should be owned by the collective (and some things that should not be owned at all).

[heyrabbit]

Communism is a disgusting evil doctrine. You can't have the right to the product of anyone's effort without owning that person. You don't own my life, and you don't have the right to enslave me!

Edited September 22, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Lauren]

communism eh? i thought this thread was about universal health care in canada.

[matrix]

As a matter of fact, I don't approve of "free" emergency service for everyone.  Really, how is it clear that I have no morals? 

 

Also, please answer the question.

 

definitions provided by www.freeonlinedictionary.com

-just in case you weren't fully aware of the actually definitions.

mor

[Seanathon]

....nm....

Edited September 23, 2007 by Seanathon

[ToadMan]

In preparing to post this I have completely reviewed your input to this thread, and realized that in some respects I have misinterpreted you. I do however think we differ on the same grounds.

 

Oh, so you were responding to the other guy talking about morals

 

If you would care to review the post you were responding to, you will notice that I didn't use the work 'moral' until my statement 'I believe it is immoral'. Hence my rebuke to the fact you immediately accused me of it.

 

If you take every word out of an argument, it tends to lose its validity, in an academic sense. I find that the majority of the time people disagree symbolically and semantically, not principally. i.e. if we disagree on the meaning of a word, we're not arguing against each other,we're arguing a false understanding of what the other person's argument is, which is what has happened. Words are complicated concepts in an of themselves, representing a wide range of abstractions. The dictionary is not only a great great tool for defining words, it's the only tool!

 

You misunderstand the concept of taxes. That's why I posted that.

 

I'm glad that we can agree that the dictionary is the only tool for defining words. However in this case, the dictionary definition is congruent with my understanding of the concept. I believe you are trying to make the point that taxation shouldn't include funding of social programs. But those social programs are provided as services of the government, and are therefor (by definition) part of taxation.

 

Of course my argument will lose all power, to whoever misses the point. I haven't even clearly laid out an argument, only asked a question to which, not surprisingly, you've both repeatedly ignored. You're trying to discredit what you've assumed I'm arguing in favor of. Since when does a matter of personal opinion require a citation? I wasn't trying to prove anything to you, as if the dictionary would be a valid citation for my subjective opinion. I only require my approval, and I haven't even told you what I think yet.

 

As a matter of fact, I don't approve of "free" emergency service for everyone.  Really, how is it clear that I have no morals? 

 

Also, please answer the question.

 

So as promised.

 

yeah but what's "it"? "it" is everyone else's health care. everyone pays for everyone else's health care... What are the chances that someone receives medical treatment proportionate to the amount they pay in taxes? it's a ridiculous questoin.

 

The U.S. system is more moral, but with a bullshit economy, nobody can afford to live.

 

I unfortunately cannot find any numbers to answer this question. I would assert that given the cost of any major surgery in the US is on the order of $2-$3 thousand dollars (http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk9/factbk9e.htm), and you will most likely need one of these surgeries in your life, then yes there is proportionality. Now it is not equal, but Americans pay taxes too, so all it has to be is proportional to the amount of your takes which are used to fund socialized health care. I can however see your point, which is (if I am correct) "Why should I pay into a fund I might not use, but somebody else might use a lot. Why don't we all just pay for our own bills." To which I can only offer, that such a system would leave people without care.

 

 

Everyone ought to have health care...at whose expense? What's immoral about you being forced to pay my dental bill? And you know exactly why it's immoral because you would consider my request for money as absolutely laughable. Why, then, is acceptable in a larger and more indiscriminate format?

 

I would like to apologize here, I had misinterpreted your example. I still don't agree on the basis that I don't think there is a strong parallel between a larger collection of money for basic care, vs you asking someone to take on the costs of what would be considered extended care.

 

On what moral grounds do you refuse to pay my dental bill? Why is it only generous to give to people you've never heard of, in amounts you have no control over?

 

I think the response here would be linked to my previous. The grounds being that I won't pay for something that is elective, where as in the case of socialized health care, I am only paying for basic care. The assertion is that I care enough that everybody should get care, but not so much that everybody should get a free ride. Invariably socialized health care helps everybody equally, they don't ask for your income tax return before they tell you your bill.

 

I'm not going to take time to re-read this monster, but I hope that I've been clear. I also hope that I've managed to tap into your view point, and that we are now addressing each other on a level of intelligence. My apologies again for not taking the time to clearly understand you earlier.

[heyrabbit]

definitions provided by www.freeonlinedictionary.com

-just in case you weren't fully aware of the actually definitions.

 

 

 

Judging from 2. and 3. there, not granting one the basic need of healthcare, and with in that, the basic need of life itself, that would be considered unjust. Therefore, by being unjust in granting one the basic need of health and life, you are being immoral. Hence, having no morals.

 

 

 

 

 

And, further, to answer your question, which I already have...but, within the Canadian Universal System, I am paying for your dental bill, just as you are paying for mine. Obviously, you aren't paying the whole thing, just a portion of it. Now, as ToadMan has already pointed out, dental coverage is generally not a part of the Universal coverage. It is usually covered by private parties. So, if you're going to continue arguing that point, use something that is covered, such as healthcare...which is the main idea behind this whole thread.

Those definitions aren't the greatest, but they aren't the worst. The definition says, "concerned with the judgement of what is good". Simply saying that healthcare is good doesn't tell me what "good" is. That's as much assumption and judgement, unless and until you define your morality. You can't just say that morality is what is good, because what is good is moral. That leaves us asking, good -- by what standard?

 

morality is an ethical code of values a pesron uses to guide his actions.

 

You want me to judge the healthcare system by the same standard of morality that lead it down the drain in the first place? You're complaining that I'm immoral, but the status of healthcare today is the manifestation of your moral ideals; it's your moral ideals brought into reality, not mine.

 

 

"Why should I pay into a fund I might not use, but somebody else might use a lot. Why don't we all just pay for our own bills." To which I can only offer, that such a system would leave people without care.

 

Such a system would leave people without care, in your current system of government. But it's precisely becuase of our system of government that so many people are without care.

 

It's my fault for not fully explaining my position. Because I have so much conviction in my position, and becuase my position is so eccentric by todays standards, I sometimes forget that people don't hold to be true that which I consider to be obvious and apparent.

 

 

I fundamentally opposed to involuntary taxation, which is basically all taxes. It's a clear violation of my initial right, and the source of all rights, my right to live. If you take away man's ability to engage in self-sustaining action, if you take away the product of his effort, you're abrogating his freedom, thus abrogating his life. Whether we're in a jungle or in Saskatchewan, or Toronto, or California, man has to be free to act on his own volition, to live. Freedom of mind relies on freedom of physicality, and vice versa. In order for man to be free, and to live, he must be free to use his mind. The first principle of logic is A is A, man is man. In order for man to be man, he must must be free to do that which agrees with his nature, to think.

 

I fully appreciate that taxes are an undisputable restriction of freedom and restriction of life. . I do not think that man is a sacrificial animal who exists to live for other men. It's fundamentally against our nature because it's against our minds. Man is a rational being. We're not a strong species, or a fast species, we're a smart species. That's why the anti-mind is the anti-life.

 

Since our lives depend on our freedom of mind, and our freedom of mind relies on our freedom of action, and our freedom of action relies on a free economy, what happens when we don't live in a free economy?

 

The wealth of our nation is commensurate to our personal freedoms. Our governments are based partly on an altruist's morality ( a false morality). So you see that it's the altruist's morality brought into reality. If you think the redistribution of wealth is necessary, look at what happens when you increase it. Would you trade your lives in Canada or the U.S. for a life in Cuba, or China?

 

I don't think anyone has a moral right to emergency service. That doesn't mean I think everyone deserves to die, because I believe in a political system that would give everyone the ability to earn their own lives. I don't want to be a slave to every man who abuses his body and requires surgery. I don't want to be a slave to every child born by another human being. I don't want to be a slave to every idiot who gets into a car crash. The right to live at someone else's expense is fundamentally against man's nature, it's unhealthy for society, and it's immoral.

 

Now, that doesn't mean that anyone unable to earn his own wealth should die. I fully accept voluntary taxation as a means of helping those aren't able to take care of themselves.

 

Don't assume that a society based on personal would result in more death. I know the opposite to be true. More people would be more wealthy, and more people would be better off. That's what it means to be moral.

 

 

The "dental" portion of my question wasn't imperative to the point I was making. You don't want to pay it because it's elective? What about the guy who elects to overdose on drugs and requires emergency care? What about the guy who elects to drink all his life, then requires surgery on his liver?

 

You can substitute "dental bill" for anything. I'm trying to emphasize the importance of property rights.

 

Buy gas for my car. On what grounds do you refuse to me your money?

[Azalroth]

communism eh? i thought this thread was about universal health care in canada.

Everything seems to lead to Communism

[Lauren]

fuckin' reds.

[matrix]

Simply put, I believe that Universal Care is much better then anything the US offers. This is where we must agree to disagree heyrabbit, because we simply aren't going to start changing our ideas.

 

But, on the fact of morality. My believe is that everyone should be given the right to life, and with that, by default, they should be given the right to healthcare. Again, we can argue this all we want, but that's not going to change my opinion, just the same way it won't change yours.

[ToadMan]

Well what a ball of wax.

 

Did you know that Canadians had not guaranteed rights until 1982? all rights where merely extended by the state and could be revoked at anytime.

 

I would love to have a debate about 'Right to entitlement' and other such topics, but this is hardly the place ;)

[Bizud]

Communism is a disgusting evil doctrine. You can't have the right to the product of anyone's effort without owning that person. You don't own my life, and you don't have the right to enslave me!

Capitalism is a disgusting evil doctrine. You can't have the right to the product of anyone's effort (like your employees) without owning that person, and land wasn't created by anyone's efforts. You don't own these things and you don't have the right enslave people!

 

Did you know that Canadians had not guaranteed rights until 1982? all rights where merely extended by the state and could be revoked at anytime.

 

This is technically still the case, since all rights in the Charter are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Edited September 24, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

Simply put, I believe that Universal Care is much better then anything the US offers. This is where we must agree to disagree heyrabbit, because we simply aren't going to start changing our ideas.

 

But, on the fact of morality. My believe is that everyone should be given the right to life, and with that, by default, they should be given the right to healthcare. Again, we can argue this all we want, but that's not going to change my opinion, just the same way it won't change yours.

My current view on morality is only weeks old. nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time. I'm constantly changing my ideas and learning, and I respect and value anyone who proves me wrong.

 

I don't expect everyone to argue as much as me, but I can't allow you to misrepresent the Right to Life. The Right to Life does not mean "The right to be alive", as that would fundamentally negate your Right to Life. If you don't have the freedom to choose to kill yourself, you're life has already been taken from you.

 

Capitalism is a disgusting evil doctrine. You can't have the right to the product of anyone's effort (like your employees) without owning that person, and land wasn't created by anyone's efforts. You don't own these things and you don't have the right enslave people!

 

(?!) Alright, I think you're just trying to irk me, but I'll humor you anyway.

 

You can't be an armchair philosopher man. You're superficial (and completely false) understanding of capitalism does not constitute Capitalism. These terms have very specific meanings, and you don't know what they are, look it up. Capitalism is in favor of complete freedom of mind and body.

In a communist society, you are literally considered the physical property of the state! This isn't even debatable., it's common knowledge. And you are a staunch advocate of slavery.

 

Do you know what the free market is?

Employment is just trade on a more established and complicated level. It's a voluntary exchange of value for value and it requires the consent and approval of both parties.

 

Basically what you're proposing is an abolishment of free trade. Do you know what this would entail? Suppose I offer to mow my neighbours lawn, and he/she agrees to pay me $5 . Upon accepting the conditions of my employment, I now decide that I want a BILLION dollars. What right does my neighbour have to enslave me? This is asburd, but it's the system you're proposing. trade cannot be both voluntary and involuntary.

 

You've understood this since you were in elementary school. You might have offered to trade your muffin for someone else's cookie. If they refuse to trade, you can't "trade" them anyway. that's theft

Edited September 24, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

redistribution of wealth /= slavery ;)

Edited September 24, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

Roll your eyes if you want. but let it be known that that is the extent of your argument ;)