cybercoma Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Why don't we just privatize healthcare then? Everyone pays for what the use. If we make unhealthy choices that result in obesity and poor health, you're punished by having to pay more. If you decide to take part in sports and activities that are dangerous and result in hospital visits, you pay more. Having the government collect the money and spend it in the right places after paying themselves and the bureaucrats is like giving a compulsive gambler $100,000 to hold in trust. Quote
Renegade Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Why don't we just privatize healthcare then? Everyone pays for what the use. If we make unhealthy choices that result in obesity and poor health, you're punished by having to pay more. If you decide to take part in sports and activities that are dangerous and result in hospital visits, you pay more. Yes, that's one option, however some of the benefits of a single payor system is that costs are controlled. If we can still do that we may have the right mix of choice and efficiency. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
BubberMiley Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Why don't we just privatize healthcare then? Wasn't that Geoffrey's whole point when he started this thread? And it only took you six pages to get there. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
cybercoma Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Why don't we just privatize healthcare then? Wasn't that Geoffrey's whole point when he started this thread? And it only took you six pages to get there. Probably, I never read the original post. Privatized health care is stupid though...let's dig up all the old threads on the public vs private vs two-tiered healthcare debate. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted October 21, 2006 Report Posted October 21, 2006 Privatized health care is stupid though...let's dig up all the old threads on the public vs private vs two-tiered healthcare debate.Why bother??!!?? It exists in Canada already, it is not new (except in the eyes of raging socialists who believe money grows on trees) and you can not take it away. Have you ever heard of people taking prescription medications??? They did not get them filled for free. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
geoffrey Posted October 22, 2006 Author Report Posted October 22, 2006 It's already two tier anyways. Those that are stuck in Canada's second rate piss poor health system, and those that can fly south. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
betsy Posted October 22, 2006 Report Posted October 22, 2006 It's already two tier anyways. Those that are stuck in Canada's second rate piss poor health system, and those that can fly south. True. Quote
BubberMiley Posted October 22, 2006 Report Posted October 22, 2006 It's already two tier anyways. Those that are stuck in Canada's second rate piss poor health system, and those that can fly south. Then why didn't you just say that from the start? You should be more honest and up-front when you have an opinion, and not create some fake argument that unfit people who are dying of heart attacks at 60 are somehow immorally costing you more money than fit people who are dying at 100. Because it's totally untrue. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
geoffrey Posted October 25, 2006 Author Report Posted October 25, 2006 It's already two tier anyways. Those that are stuck in Canada's second rate piss poor health system, and those that can fly south. Then why didn't you just say that from the start? You should be more honest and up-front when you have an opinion, and not create some fake argument that unfit people who are dying of heart attacks at 60 are somehow immorally costing you more money than fit people who are dying at 100. Because it's totally untrue. No, it's not untrue. If everyone took care of themselves, we'd have less health care expenses. If your going to have a ridiculous system, let's take one aspect of the sillyness out of it. I'm so much less of a risk to the system then a 55 year old stressed out smoker that eats 3 Big Mac's a day, why do we pay the same insurance (essientially what our dollars are)? How about the guy that's had 3 heart attacks and hasn't changed a bit. My father had a heart attack a few months back, and at his recovery class there was another cardiac patient gentleman that wanted to delay his personal training sessions because Stampede week was coming up and he'd be too drunk to participate. Why must I pay the same insurance as a ultra-health conscious person as both my father who is only now improving his lifestyle and this hooligan that despite costing the system thousands continues his behavoir? I expect that the government should tax junk food... tax laziness if it were possible. Or the reverse, give me a massive health tax credit for my investment and effort in decreasing my risk to the system. Get in enough car accidents or enough reckless speeding tickets your going to pay more into the insurance system. The same should apply to health care. Be reckless with your health and you should pay more. Or just have private insurance where the companies would do this to protect themselves. The government won't protect itself (or essientially our money). We already do when it comes to prescription drugs, elective services... even dental and eye care. Health care isn't equal or free already, let's stop pretending and make a system that works. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
BubberMiley Posted October 26, 2006 Report Posted October 26, 2006 You haven't explained how someone who dies young of a heart attack is a burden to the system. I think people who live active lifestyles are more likely to be around for a long time, which is what is going to cost money. They are also more likely to suffer injuries and require expensive treatment. Skiers often spend months in the hospital in traction, and runners require knee replacement surgery. Fat people just sit at home eating cheetos till their hearts explode. Once again, you're seeking new ways to feel self-righteous, but this one doesn't wash. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
geoffrey Posted October 27, 2006 Author Report Posted October 27, 2006 You haven't explained how someone who dies young of a heart attack is a burden to the system. I think people who live active lifestyles are more likely to be around for a long time, which is what is going to cost money. They are also more likely to suffer injuries and require expensive treatment. Skiers often spend months in the hospital in traction, and runners require knee replacement surgery. Fat people just sit at home eating cheetos till their hearts explode. Once again, you're seeking new ways to feel self-righteous, but this one doesn't wash. You honestly think active people are more of an issue than fat people to our health care system? 50+% of our population is overweight... less than 1% are such hardcore runners that they'll need knee replacements. In reality, fat people are a much larger concern, no pun intended. What are we doing banning smoking and suing the companies for health care costs!! We should be paying them according to your formula, to kill people sooner. Too bad you don't consider the billions in lost incomes, welfare for surviving family members, ect. ect.. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
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.