How Many Canadians Come to USA for Healthcare

namely number one would probably be the number of drug/pharmaceutical stuff you guys have legally in us that we don't allow in canada. and our higher grade food...
 
id like to point out that you are correct that we have pretty long waits sometimes, however not as bad as some media outlets portray, and even though we do have longer wait times we still enjoy a longer average life expectancy and better overall health, which is to say that longer wait times in this case is inconsequential in the majority of cases.
 
we also have the south, which is like a different country all together, a much higher percentage of blacks (blacks have a significantly lower life expectancy) and drugs/pharmaceutical is more personal choice. and as for higher grade of food, thats also not health care related.
 
for the most part, sure people know the examples I gave aren't "good" for them, but that doesn't mean they know how bad they are.

with that you have to take addiction into account. When someone is addicted their autonomy becomes compromised and therefore it isn't a 100% free choice.

If you are constantly bombarded with advertisements and misinformation about the dangers of smoking or fast food, make an ill-advised choice to try something and become addicted; you can't say that at that point the individual is really freely choosing to be unhealthy. The initial choice has some culpability belonging to the irresponsible marketer or spreader of disinformation. The subsequent choices are biased by addiction.

Saying you don't want to pay for the consequences of someone else's choices is not a valid response, you do that now; unless you're saying you don't want health insurance for anyone which is pretty much a non starter.

 
i'm talking about shit they put in your food... or drugs you can get prescriptions for. there's a lot of things that are legal and fda approved in the us, that can have harmful consequences, that we can't have, get prescriptions for, or have in our foods in canada. jeez. read some time.

anyways. whatever.
 
its still 110% your choice to start smoking, or doing drugs or whatever. and that addiction is a result of a choice you made. and you still cant put that responsibility on anyone else.
even after you become addicted, you still choose to pick up that cigarette, shit my mom was a smoker for almost 15 years, if you asked her if she had a choice every time she picked up a cigarette, she would most definitely say yes.
I absolutely hate drugs, and i dont drink, but im all for allowing people to make their own dumb choices. you just cant put their decisions on anyone else.

 
what are the requirements of free choice?

-autonomy

-knowledge

you have to act entirely independent from outside sources

and you have to know what you're dealing with

if someone has a gun to your head and tells you to do something; it's not a "free choice" and you wouldn't hold them as accountable as the person who simply does the same thing without the gun to the head

if someone is offered a choice between a and b and they have no idea that a = pulling the trigger and b = letting the hostage free you likewise don't hold them accountable if they say a.

do you disagree with this?
 
not that you're particularly interested in seeing any sort of success in this thread

but a relevant news story

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/government-recovers-4-billion-from-health-care-fraud-cases/19814214/

The government recovered a staggering $4 billion in fiscal 2010 that was stolen from federal health care programs, the U.S. departments of Justice and Health and Human Services announced Monday -- the highest annual amount ever.

...

Drug Companies Were Major Offenders

...

"In recent years, pharmaceutical fraud cases have constituted a significant part of the Civil Division's efforts,"

...

For example, just three cases against Allergan (AGN), Novartis (NVS), and AstraZeneca (AZN) in 2010 resulted in civil recoveries of $225 million, $237.5 million, and $520 million, respectively. (There were also criminal components to the Allergan and Novartis settlements, of $375 million and $185 million, bringing the total penalties paid to $600 million and $422.5 million, respectively.) In all, more than half of the health care fraud money recovered came from drug companies.

 
its not that i really disagree anything, i just have a mixed attitude about it. having a gun to your head and being told to do something, your still free to make a choice, just one might end up with death...
 
why take death as a freedom?

option 1. something against your will

option 2. you no longer exist

unless you've already decided that 1 is something you'd die for before being put in the circumstance neither option is something you're free to make.

but if you're at 99% agreement here, then it's a matter of degrees of difference between life and death situations and the every day decisions we make that effect our health.
 
but why is neither option something you're free to make? not saying i agree or disagree, im just not sure what exactly your trying to say.

 
sorry mate, but there's such a thing as a dumb question.

just because you have an option doesn't make it a free choice

choosing 1. is to do something against your will (not free)

choosing 2. is to deprive you of your life and absolute freedom

you might have a preference for 1 or 2 but if you had the free choice not to do
 
you might have a preference for 1 or 2, but if you had the free choice not to do either you wouldn't.

 
In other news our president had a State of the Union Address that was more jabbering away about nothing. One sentence it's we need to invest in alternate clean fuels and the very next thing he says is we need to cut spending....

Well Mr. President I am not a economist here but doesn't investing mean spending money.... which we technically don't have right now? Am confused.
 
ok well yes id have to agree with you. it definitely depends on the situation but for the most part yes doing something against your will or depriving yourself of life is not free choice.
 
No, fuck you as he brought up the healthcare thing in his speech. Making mention that he doesn't want to revisit it after he said he would veto all bills with earmarks in it (and the healthcare bill had something like 1 for almost every 2 pages in it).
 
good thing you can always call the wambulance.

but you're just deliberately derailing a thread for the sake of derailing a thread. go back to your haters ball of a thread on the SOTUA and ask there.
 
SOTUA? WTF is that?

And it holds stock in this thread. The US passed a healthcare bill without any of the politicians even reading the fucking thing.

And fuck you Nuggets for that massive repost image.

Do you hate the US P-Face? All the threads you have recently started have been bashing it constantly.
 
People know what they are consuming, whether it is bad or not. It is their decision alone to make such a choice. No one else should have to pay for the negative and consequential decisions that humans make. It is the freedom of choice. To say that every "first world country" has socialized medicine does not help your argument. I do not want the United States to be like every first world country. "They do it so we should do it too" is just like saying "Billy jumped off of the bridge, so should I." Whether or not someone does something that is bad for them, the government has no right to get involved in such interactions.
Second, I know that Canadians can receive health care in the United States. As you will see when you check what you previously wrote, you stated that Canadians can receive "Medicare" in other countries. Medicare is certainly not the same as health care. Your own quote: "With so few Canadians leaving Canada to receive medicare...." I understood what you said, but you need more clarity in your writing.

Finally, you clearly do not understand authoritarianism, statism or the free market. Socialized medicine is the essence of statism where they fund this massive health care system with the taxes of the wealthiest 2% in the nation. Where else would they get the money? The government does not have any legitimate income! How can you disagree that this type of system punishes the most productive citizens of this country as they pay for the health care of thousands of individuals while they don't receive anything in return?
I also don't think you understand the definition of authoritarianism (wikipedia): "Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy." You say that to be authoritarian, a government must make a profit on some venture. This is clearly not the case. To be authoritarian, one must simply not care to respect the wishes of the public. This is exemplified through the ridiculous taxation that they impose on the rich to fund their "public service projects" like health care. With the majority behind them, (those 50+% who do not pay income tax) the government can do whatever they want to the rich.
My opinion is clearly not a regurgitated one. On the contrary, your opinion sounds much more regurgitated than mine. You do not state any facts and base your opinions on "statist" theory. Look it up; statism fits you perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top