bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Which decision are you referring to? The only one that I know of applies only to Quebec, but as a result of it, you can now buy wait time insurance across the country. I don't see a problem with this at all, and I hope that at some time in the near future, the insurance will be completely useless (it already is for most things in most provinces) We can cut to the chase now....with the obvious conclusion being drawn about the original CHA and role for private insurance and health care providers in general. Reality is chipping away at TommyCare. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Mr.Canada Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 (edited) Which is why we need to develop a two tier system before it's too late. All these freeloaders and no one paying cannot go on forever. Edited December 15, 2008 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Reality is chipping away at TommyCare. Some people would say the same things about America or capitalism given current situations. That would be because they are focusing on negatives and missing the positives that far outweigh those negatives. Why should I (or anyone else for that matter) give your musings any more consideration that I would giver theirs? Quote
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 All these freeloaders and no one paying cannot go on forever. With all due respect, what the h*** are you talking about? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Some people would say the same things about America or capitalism given current situations. That would be because they are focusing on negatives and missing the positives that far outweigh those negatives. Why should I (or anyone else for that matter) give your musings any more consideration that I would giver theirs? You should do exactly as you please....just as I have done here. I don't have the burden of protecting the "nearly perfect" health care system that isn't so perfect after all. Health care is not a right...not even in Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Health care is not a right...not even in Canada. Oh but it is. Things just don't always go as planned. Just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean that its bad. Just because things don't always go right doesn't mean that we should give up. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Oh but it is. Things just don't always go as planned.Just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean that its bad. Just because things don't always go right doesn't mean that we should give up. It's not bad but it is broken and needs to be fixed. A two tier system would go a long way to start that process. We have to do something, doing nothing will not fix the problem. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Oh but it is. Things just don't always go as planned. No....your zeal is not supported by reality. Health care is not a right in Canada. Can't be if you think about the implications of such a notion. Just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean that its bad. Just because things don't always go right doesn't mean that we should give up. Who said it was bad? It is what it is. The false assumption is related above. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 It's not bad but it is broken and needs to be fixed. A two tier system would go a long way to start that process. We don't know that. Such an idea should be studied, I agree, but I want to know all of the facts before I go changing the system. I realize that two tier works in other places, but that doesn't assure that it would work here....and I don't want it in the way that you propose. You make the public system sound like it would be some kind of glorified system. We have to do something, doing nothing will not fix the problem. I'm not proposing doing nothing. Things are being done all of the time. Some work, some don't. Quote
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 (edited) No....your zeal is not supported by reality. Health care is not a right in Canada. Can't be if you think about the implications of such a notion. How is it not a right? The system in almost every case will do what is needed for the patient. If that's not a right, I don't know what is. In your country you have a right to life, in this one too......think about that for a minute. Edited December 15, 2008 by Smallc Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 (edited) How is it not a right? The system in almost every case will do what is needed for the patient. If that's not a right, I don't know what is. Check the Charter of Rights Section 7. The government may limit such things "consistent with the principles of fundamental justice". In your country you have a right to life, in this one too......think about that for a minute. False...there is no such right enumerated in the US Constitution. Perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Edited December 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Check the Charter of Rights Section 7. The government may limit such things "consistent with the principles of fundamental justice". Yes, and all rights are subject to the limitations of section 1. It doesn't mean they aren't rights. False...there is no such right enumerated in the US Constitution. Perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Whatever, my point was, we can't completely guarantee any right. Not life, property, or freedom of expression. It doesn't stop us from trying. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Yes, and all rights are subject to the limitations of section 1. It doesn't mean they aren't rights. A point for another thread, but clearly health care is not a right. The ramifications of such a thought would bankrupt the provinces in no time flat. Not to mention the impact on health care providers, services vendors, and immigration. Whatever, my point was, we can't completely guarantee any right. Not life, property, or freedom of expression. It doesn't stop us from trying. A fine notion, but I prefer the metrics of reality. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LesterDC Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Check the Charter of Rights Section 7. The government may limit such things "consistent with the principles of fundamental justice". Where does it say that it is not a right ? Quote
LesterDC Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 A fine notion, but I prefer the metrics of reality. Well, mend your reality a little bit.. Aim higher Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Where does it say that it is not a right ? IIRC, the Chaoulli case adjudicated both the Canadian and Quebec Charter as indifferent to such an inalienable right, preferring to sidestep the issue in favor of access to private health insurance to achieve "life, liberty, and security of the person". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Well, mend your reality a little bit.. Aim higher No can do....I leave the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus to you. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LesterDC Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 No can do....I leave the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus to you. Haha. Like Santa Claus is as impossible as the right to life.. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Haha. Like Santa Claus is as impossible as the right to life.. Reality is the right to....ummm.....abortions. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Reality is the right to....ummm.....abortions. Those are allowed because a fetus is not considered to be a life by the state. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Those are allowed because a fetus is not considered to be a life by the state. Perfect.....the irony is lost on you. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Perfect.....the irony is lost on you. Apparently it is....or it may just be that the point you were making was, well, pointless. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Apparently it is....or it may just be that the point you were making was, well, pointless. "...not considered to be a life by the state" What do you think that means...and not just for fetuses? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 "...not considered to be a life by the state"What do you think that means...and not just for fetuses? Since that only applies to fetuses......it means nothing beyond what I said. So your point really was pointless. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 (edited) Since that only applies to fetuses......it means nothing beyond what I said. So your point really was pointless. Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected. Apparently, aspirations for the better only apply in certain cases, the very subject of this thread. Edited December 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.