What do you believe is socially wrong with these Nations? [Merged]

Originally posted by Starhawk
So to sum that up you want to have your cake and eat it too.

You either have to pay for heath care through insurance costs and out of your own pocket when the insurance companies try to weasel out of their end. Or you can pay taxes which in the end are much less of an expense and more manageable over the course of your life and help everyone.

The classic conservative model is that everyone should be able to pull themselves up on their own with as little help as possible, in today's world however that is simply unrealistic. And those people who can't do not deserve any less quality of health care or social services then the wealthier classes.

Taxes in the end help everyone, and it always amazes me that the ones who can most easily afford to pay them are always the ones complaining about them.

no, now you are making the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy

Why does it have to be either a public or private system, I am talking about a compleatly revised look on healthcare, in fact I even compared favorably my ideal to the British system, I would also extend that to the scandenavin and canadian systems, though I think they could all use with some high end research focus and opening up of private clinics to allow the economy to invest its own dollars in research and technology.

EDIT: and to assume that I am either against taxation or that I can easily afford to pay for things is egregious. I am a university student, if you aren't one go ask how much money they have for taxes.

And as a point of reference, classical conservatism would say that it is out of the governments authority to place restrictions on the sale of health care, classical liberal ideology would say that individuals have the right to sell their abilities to those who they wish free of government involvement.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, now you are making the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy

Why does it have to be either a public or private system, I am talking about a compleatly revised look on health care, in fact I even compared favorably my ideal to the British system, I would also extend that to the scandenavin and canadian systems, though I think they could all use with some high end research focus and opening up of private clinics to allow the economy to invest its own dollars in research and technology.

Again with the politicians response.

So how would you pay for health care? And insure that everyone in society is covered equally?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Again with the politicians response.

So how would you pay for health care? And insure that everyone in society is covered equally?

something moderatly two tier

government subsidization of treatment for those unable to afford it

free and walk/emergency services covered by the state

really, you don't seem to be getting what I am saying.

I love the fact that public healthcare give all people the same access to health service. That I have said since before the threads were merged.

I am against the restriction of the high cost side of things. For instance, if I owned a private MRI machine and was qualified to run it, it would be illegal for me to provide that care to people, even if they were willing to pay for it in order to free up the public system.

Again, in my understanding of the British system they have done this to a moderate degree of success.

I don't see where you get the audacity to make such broad sweeping accusations with regard to my beliefs even when I have consistantly said things to the opposite.

Seeing an issue as complex is not a politicians answer, neither is pointing out the logical fallicies in your arguments. In fact, dismissing argumentative logic is another logical fallacy, but who is counting?

Originally posted by inimalist
something moderatly two tier

government subsidization of treatment for those unable to afford it

free and walk/emergency services covered by the state

really, you don't seem to be getting what I am saying.

I love the fact that public healthcare give all people the same access to health service. That I have said since before the threads were merged.

I am against the restriction of the high cost side of things. For instance, if I owned a private MRI machine and was qualified to run it, it would be illegal for me to provide that care to people, even if they were willing to pay for it in order to free up the public system.

Again, in my understanding of the British system they have done this to a moderate degree of success.

I don't see where you get the audacity to make such broad sweeping accusations with regard to my beliefs even when I have consistantly said things to the opposite.

Seeing an issue as complex is not a politicians answer, neither is pointing out the logical fallicies in your arguments. In fact, dismissing argumentative logic is another logical fallacy, but who is counting?

So how would you pay for public health care? And the high cost end of thigs should also be made available to everyone. Using your MRI example, in canada if you were licensed and qualified to run that machine you are fully allowed to give care to people.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So how would you pay for public health care? And the high cost end of thigs should also be made available to everyone. Using your MRI example, in canada if you were licensed and qualified to run that machine you are fully allowed to give care to people.

ummm, if you are asking me to be more specific than two tier that is proposterous. Neither of us are economists familiar with the costs or expected income of hospitals, let alone how to properly estimate what changes would lead to what outcomes. Why is saying "something like the British" unacceptable here?

No, I do not believe that the highest end and highest cost form of health care necessarily needs to be available to people on government dollars. If you break your leg and need an ambulance fine, go to the emergency ward and get it casted up, get some physio, whatever. If you want specialists, massive X rays, top notch professional trainers and whatever else, that should be on your own tab.

Like, again, I don't think you realize what I am saying. The top end stuff I am talking about is the stuff that is almost entirely unavailable in public systems, it is the stuff the people of Canada cannot currently get in Canada because of the law. If I have 2000 dollars to spend on a 13 hour physical at a private clinic, that is my perogative, it does not mean that all people deserve that. They do however deserve what would be an adequate physical, which we do currently provide, it takes about 1-2 hours and requires some bloodwork that in a public system takes a few days.

And finally no, if I had an MRI I wouldn't just be allowed to use it on people. I would need to be a clinic run by the state with government emplyoees. I would not be able to charge people for it, nor would I be able to offer it to anyone who is not in the list for a public MRI. This is an overstepping of government regulation. Providing healthcare for people should not come at the expense of my ability to sell my care to people.

Originally posted by inimalist
ummm, if you are asking me to be more specific than two tier that is proposterous. Neither of us are economists familiar with the costs or expected income of hospitals, let alone how to properly estimate what changes would lead to what outcomes. Why is saying "something like the British" unacceptable here?

No, I do not believe that the highest end and highest cost form of health care necessarily needs to be available to people on government dollars. If you break your leg and need an ambulance fine, go to the emergency ward and get it casted up, get some physio, whatever. If you want specialists, massive X rays, top notch professional trainers and whatever else, that should be on your own tab.

Like, again, I don't think you realize what I am saying. The top end stuff I am talking about is the stuff that is almost entirely unavailable in public systems, it is the stuff the people of Canada cannot currently get in Canada because of the law. If I have 2000 dollars to spend on a 13 hour physical at a private clinic, that is my perogative, it does not mean that all people deserve that. They do however deserve what would be an adequate physical, which we do currently provide, it takes about 1-2 hours and requires some bloodwork that in a public system takes a few days.

And finally no, if I had an MRI I wouldn't just be allowed to use it on people. I would need to be a clinic run by the state with government emplyoees. I would not be able to charge people for it, nor would I be able to offer it to anyone who is not in the list for a public MRI. This is an overstepping of government regulation. Providing healthcare for people should not come at the expense of my ability to sell my care to people.

Again with politicians response (what I mean by that is a convoluted response that tries to skirt the real issues), Yes all people DO deserve the same health care whether they can pay or not. Those that are more wealthy do not deserve better care. Your basically saying that the amount of money you have should determine how healthy you get to be. What if getting better care and faster test results is the difference between life and death? Or the difference between a fully recovery and lasting effects or an injury or illness?

And as far as Canadian law, I know far better then you what our legal system allows. There is actually private offices in my city for x-rays and clinical tests that also provides free testing through referral of patients. And it is not a government office.

The issue your skirting around is that health care has to be paid for either by your own money through insurance companies or your own wallet, or by taxes, which over the course of your life in almost every case cost less.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Again with politicians response (what I mean by that is a convoluted response that tries to skirt the real issues), Yes all people DO deserve the same health care whether they can pay or not. Those that are more wealthy do not deserve better care. Your basically saying that the amount of money you have should determine how healthy you get to be. What if getting better care and faster test results is the difference between life and death? Or the difference between a fully recovery and lasting effects or an injury or illness?

yes, I am saying that the ammount of money you have should open up access to benefits as it does in all other sectors. You seem to be assuming that I am advocating a loss of care for those who cannot afford other care. I am saying that I don't want people to loose any quality of care at any level, but in fact that those who can afford it are able to get superior care.

Again, this is at the heart of all political philosophy. The role of government in society is not a closed question as you seem to assume it is.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And as far as Canadian law, I know far better then you what our legal system allows. There is actually private offices in my city for x-rays and clinical tests that also provides free testing through referral of patients. And it is not a government office.

Why would you know Canadian law better than I?

and ya, that X ray clinic is pretty much the exact representation of what I am talking about. Go look up the post I made referencing the Public/Private partnership issues.

Stop making arguments for me, they arent what I believe and it is intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The issue your skirting around is that health care has to be paid for either by your own money through insurance companies or your own wallet, or by taxes, which over the course of your life in almost every case cost less.

I am skirting no issues. I am fine with state funded medical insurance (which we have in canada) and I am fine with paying for it in taxes. I am also fine with people being able to pay for things they need or want.

I am talking about a reallocation of these funds.

When did I say "nobody should pay for healthcare"

This is becoming childish

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I am saying that the ammount of money you have should open up access to benefits as it does in all other sectors. You seem to be assuming that I am advocating a loss of care for those who cannot afford other care. I am saying that I don't want people to loose any quality of care at any level, but in fact that those who can afford it are able to get superior care.

Again, this is at the heart of all political philosophy. The role of government in society is not a closed question as you seem to assume it is.

Why would you know Canadian law better than I?

and ya, that X ray clinic is pretty much the exact representation of what I am talking about. Go look up the post I made referencing the Public/Private partnership issues.

I am skirting no issues. I am fine with state funded medical insurance (which we have in Canada) and I am fine with paying for it in taxes. I am also fine with people being able to pay for things they need or want.

I am talking about a reallocation of these funds.

When did I say "nobody should pay for healthcare"

This is becoming childish

See now that is a better response.

I am studying law in Canada at the moment, that is why I should know better then you what the law allows.

No, being wealthier should NOT mean you get superior care. If there is a better level of health care then it should be open to everyone.

I agree that if a person wants a bigger house or a better car then they have to pay for that themselves. But when it comes to health care, everyone should be entitled to the best care out there.

Originally posted by Starhawk

No, being wealthier should NOT mean you get superior care. If there is a better level of health care then it should be open to everyone.

this is my main point

the high end, high cost, new tech, research based stuff just isn't there without an economic base for it. Tax dollars just cannot compete with the private industry in this matter.

by saying everyone must have the same care, yes, you boost up the bottom but you also box in the top, there is no possible way that the Canadian government can offer everyone the quality of care that they would recieve at the Mayo clinic and also aquire nobel prizes in research while making sure the care is available to all people. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? We would be paying 90% of our salaries into taxes so that all people with hypocondriasis can get battery tested on your and my dollar.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is my main point

the high end, high cost, new tech, research based stuff just isn't there without an economic base for it. Tax dollars just cannot compete with the private industry in this matter.

by saying everyone must have the same care, yes, you boost up the bottom but you also box in the top, there is no possible way that the Canadian government can offer everyone the quality of care that they would recieve at the Mayo clinic and also aquire nobel prizes in research while making sure the care is available to all people. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? We would be paying 90% of our salaries into taxes so that all people with hypocondriasis can get battery tested on your and my dollar.

90%, I don't think so, I would like to see some proof of that amount.

And believe me talk to anyone at a Doctors office or at a hospital, they aren't hypochondriacs.

The main point is, you believe that people with more money deserve faster test results and a better quality of care. I do not think how much money you have should determine how healthy you get to be.

As I said in many cases the speed of test results or quality of care can mean the difference between life and death and a clear and complete recovery as opposed to lasting effects of an injury or illness.

Originally posted by Starhawk
90%, I don't think so, I would like to see some proof of that amount.

preposterous, that ammount is unknowable let alone proveable.

I was using poetic liscense, you do it often as well

Originally posted by Starhawk
And believe me talk to anyone at a Doctors office or at a hospital, they aren't hypochondriacs.

umm, its pretty consistantly reported that the majority of emergency room and doctor's office visits are unnecessary. This is because people, when they feel bad, go to the doctor. In the public system it is ok that they do this, because then the doctor can give them medicine or assure them that nothing is wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the human body is remarkably resiliant, and even without doctor's visits, we would naturally recover from what the majority of doctor's and ER visits are for.

However, even for these unnecessary visits, there is always MORE that can be done. If you go for an unnecessary physical at a private clinic they can charge you more and do far more compleatly unnecessary tests. This is compleatly unpractical in a public system, given that the doctor's know that these people will get better, and are largely reassuring them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The main point is, you believe that people with more money deserve faster test results and a better quality of care. I do not think how much money you have should determine how healthy you get to be.

Good point Comrade

Originally posted by Starhawk
As I said in many cases the speed of test results or quality of care can mean the difference between life and death and a clear and complete recovery as opposed to lasting effects of an injury or illness.

yes. I would argue that a public/private system would in fact decrease wait times and increase the general standard of care for more people. The X ray shop in your city is proof of this.

However, I think I'm done on this. You appear to be arguing from cognitive dissonance rather than even tryng to comprehend my point. See my past remarks on the problems with ideology in this debate.

Originally posted by inimalist
preposterous, that ammount is unknowable let alone proveable.

I was using poetic liscense, you do it often as well

now comes the part where he'll insist that the burden is on you to prove its not 90%

The fact that big business controls everything

Originally posted by inimalist
preposterous, that ammount is unknowable let alone proveable.

umm, its pretty consistantly reported that the majority of emergency room and doctor's office visits are unnecessary. This is because people, when they feel bad, go to the doctor. In the public system it is ok that they do this, because then the doctor can give them medicine or assure them that nothing is wrong.

Good point Comrade

yes. I would argue that a public/private system would in fact decrease wait times and increase the general standard of care for more people. The X ray shop in your city is proof of this.

Okay Fascist, (Thats about as appropriate as you calling me 'Comrade'😉

No, the majority are NOT hypochondriacs, support that with some proof. Because I have had to wait in an emergency room a few times over the years and what I see is extremely sick or injured people. And Emergency rooms at least in Ontario, screen patients as they come in to determine the level of severity in their cases.

And for an example of why testing and better care can make the difference. I went into my doctor's office about 2 years back, and he made a diagnosis without proper testing and it was incorrect and he followed about half a year of ineffective care because the root diagnosis was wrong. Then I switched doctors to a more thorough one who did do the adequate testing. And I would rather have a doctor do a test that turns out to be unnecessary then not do one and have a patient not get the care they need.

My main point is that people with more money do not deserve superior health care. That is saying one person's needs are worth less based on how much money they have.

Originally posted by Starhawk
My main point is that people with more money do not deserve superior health care. That is saying one person's needs are worth less based on how much money they have.

No, they don't deserve better treatment, but they get it. Even in a country with socialized healthcare.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, they don't deserve better treatment, but they get it. Even in a country with socialized healthcare.

That doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by Starhawk
That doesn't make it right.

I didn't say it did. But that's a matter of fact.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A lot of the things being correct though.

What is your problem with people criticizing you country. If they have a point?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Excuse me, I have as much right to post my opinion on here as you do.

And I was asked to criticize it, perhaps you should read the title of the thread again.

Originally posted by Devil King
I didn't say it did. But that's a matter of fact.

And that can and should change.