Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Scrutinizes Canada's Healthcar

[Guest American Woman]

There is no right to healthcare.....not in Canada...not in the USA either. International law means nothing for such matters.

That's your opinion. No more, no less. The government in Islamic countries think women don't have the right to be treated equally. That doesn't mean they don't have the right.

You can come up with your 'arguments' til the cows come home, but the fact remains that people do have a right to healthcare, which is why the U.S., which unfortunatetly sometimes lags behind, is the only western industrialized nation not to provide it, while having the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy rate.

We will get it, hopefully sooner rather than later. But of course that won't help all the lives lost in the meantime.

[Guest American Woman]

Get your own proof...

Excuse me, but *I* have to get my own proof of YOUR statement? I think your statement is false. I don't think there is any proof, and your lack of providing proof says as much.

[bush_cheney2004]

Excuse me, but *I* have to get my own proof of YOUR statement? I think your statement is false. I don't think there is any proof, and your lack of providing proof says as much.

And I think you are making things up as you go along. When challenged by the realities of historical documents, legislation, universal healthcare, historical mortality, abortion rights, life, and death, your position withers to the very weak foundation of being only your personal opinion. "Normal" vs. "abnormal" lifespans is a very subjective claim, and certainly one can't propose that all such lives throughout history had the "right" to medical intervention.

There is no federal right to healthcare....no right to police protection, or highways, or education either. There may be legislation to fund such things, but these are not inalienable rights with a basis in the US Constitution (including amendments).

There is no right to healthcare.

[Guest American Woman]

And I think you are making things up as you go along. When challenged by the realities of historical documents, legislation, universal healthcare, historical mortality, abortion rights, life, and death, your position withers to the very weak foundation of being only your personal opinion. "Normal" vs. "abnormal" lifespans is a very subjective claim, and certainly one can't propose that all such lives throughout history had the "right" to medical intervention.

There is no federal right to healthcare....no right to police protection, or highways, or education either. There may be legislation to fund such things, but these are not inalienable rights with a basis in the US Constitution (including amendments).

There is no right to healthcare.

I've given proof of my claims, with links to back up my statements. Your accusation that I am making things up as I go along is not true. You made a statement, I asked for proof, you said to get my own proof of your statement; you then accuse ME of making stuff up because YOU can't provide proof of your statement.

[Renegade]

I'm "dwelling" on it because you don't seem to get it. It's NOT necessary for "enough people" to agree on a law/amendment in order for it to take place. I cited the Civil Rights Act as an example. I've said that minorities rights are to be protected by law even if the majority doesn't agree.

You were talking about "enough people" and then it became (after a snide remark by jbg) 'enough congressional support' and then 'enough people directly or indirectly through their representatives' and I'm saying again that enough people (as in citizens) don't have to agree; that laws/amendments can be made, and have been made, even without "enough people" (and that is NOT the same as "enough Congressional support") agreeing.

For the upteenth time. I AGREE!!!. I REALIZE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS SUPPORT. THERE IS THAT CLEAR? THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID IT REQUIRE ENOUGH PEOPLE'S SUPPORT. THERE, CAN WE GET PAST IT NOW????

So yes. Sometimes Senators and Representatives do act independently of the people because they are not only accountable to the people, they are accountable to the DofI and the Constitution.

Frankly I don't understand your use of the word "accountable" then. I'm not really clear how an elected representative an be accountable to a document. It is only the people who can elect , refuse to elect or impeach an individual. I agree that the politician does have to agree to uphold the Constitution of the US. But any changes to that constitution do require support from th majority of the elected representatives.

Johnson quoting the DoI when pushing the Civil Rights Act through is indeed proof that he WAS using its principles as a source. If you think giving an example like that isn't proof that the DofI isn't merely an historic document with no basis in making today's laws, I guess there is no way of proving it in your mind. As for whether or not it's a "source of law in general," I never said it was! And I've made that perfectly clear; I've said in some instances it is.

Fine, I agree with that. The key word is HE. It doesn't mean all senators use the document any more than it means all senators use the bible as their source of political philsophy. Indeed a senator can use the Koran as his source of politica philosophy. You only prove that for some individuals the source of their principles is the DoI. That just about gives it the same weighting as the source of poliical philosophy as other documents used for that purpose.

I live here. I've studied history here. And the DofI most definitely IS still a crucial part of our foundation, our principles; and it continues to be.

Show me where I said it wasn't. I simply said that any rights in it carry no legal weight until such time as they are enshrined in the constitution.

First of all, we're not talking about Canada. Canada doesn't list "life" as an "inalienable right" so I don't expect medical care to be thought of as such.

I quote Canada because I am more familiar with their rulings.

Secondly, I've already stated that this is not a matter for the courts; it's a matter for Congress. Of course the courts aren't going to uphold something that isn't a law, but as I've stated more than once now (giving examples of the women's vote and the Civil Rights Act), just because something isn't a law doesn't mean the people don't have the right. Again, I repeat, just because Islamic countries don't have a law stating women have to be treated equally doesn't mean women in those countries don't have the right to be treated equally. I would hate you see anyone argue that they don't have the right to be treated as decently as men just because it's not a law.

Again when you refer to a "right" you are referring to a "moral right". As you agree that Congress has passed no law giving anyone such legal right.

I'm saying that "life" requires medical care. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see your proof, because I'm thinking we'd both agree that when someone is critically ill, they need medical care in order to sustain life. And I can prove that by the fact that too many Americans without health care DIE every year. I can also repeat that the U.S. is the only western nation without universal care and it has the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy.

You are putting your own interpretation to what the "right to life" means. I understand your interpretation. I disagree with it. What I asked is if there was any concensus that intrepretation was correct. Your repeating your opinion over and over does nothing to add credibilty to your interpretation.

Yes in many instances "life" requires medical care. In my intepretation, the "right to life" means no one should be able to impede your access to medical care. Note that I said "access", it doesn't mean care shoud be provided for you. As an example, the right to free speech doesn't mean that the government has to pay for billboards or air time for you to spout your vews. It simply means they cannot forbid your access.

You avoided answering my question, so for the third time, do you think the right to life should be interpreted as the right to government provided free food, and free housing?

[bush_cheney2004]

I've given proof of my claims, with links to back up my statements. Your accusation that I am making things up as I go along is not true. You made a statement, I asked for proof, you said to get my own proof of your statement; you then accuse ME of making stuff up because YOU can't provide proof of your statement.

You have provided nothing of the sort. Inventing a claim that medical care is required to guarantee life for all throughout history does not impart the burden of proof on me. Any reasonable person can logically understand that life can be lived without the "right" to medical care, and such has been the case for thousands of years. From any high school debate team we would also hear that many lives are ended despite access to the finest medical care in human history. Your position is a logical disaster.

There is no right to healthcare.

[Guest American Woman]

You have provided nothing of the sort. Inventing a claim that medical care is required to guarantee life for all throughout history does not impart the burden of proof on me. Any reasonable person can logically understand that life can be lived without the "right" to medical care, and such has been the case for thousands of years. From any high school debate team we would also hear that many lives are ended despite access to the finest medical care in human history. Your position is a logical disaster.

There is no right to healthcare.

Do you have healthcare? Have you gone without healthcare all your life? Would you be willing to let your children go without healthcare? If not, why not?-- since it's not a necessity for life and you all could live perfectly normal lives without it, just like you claim billions of people have done in the past and are evidently continuing to do today.

I never "invented a claim" that medical care is required to guarentee life ("throughout history" is something you brought up, not me); it's a fact. The proof is people have died because they couldn't get it; more proof is our higher infant mortality rate and our lower life expentancy rate.

Those are the facts; and unless you can come up with counter-points that disprove those facts (with sources), there's nothing more to say.

Edited September 2, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Those are the facts; and unless you can come up with counter-points that disprove those facts (with sources), there's nothing more to say.

No, those are your opinions stemming from a desire to fabricate rights out of nothing. Another member has logically challenged your reasoning wrt "free" food and housing (i.e. government rights). If your life is dependent on a government right to health care, then you may not live as long as someone else who knows better. Since I know better, I purchase health care insurance from a group underwriter, but even this is no guarantee of a long life. A lot of my fellow citizens have also figured this out.

Infant mortality is a laughable discussion considering vigorous support of "abortion" (access) rights.

Healthcare is not a right.

[Pliny]

You avoided answering my question, so for the third time, do you think the right to life should be interpreted as the right to government provided free food, and free housing?

I would like to hear your answer to this AW!

[jbg]

The American government is the only government in the world that recognizes those inalienable rights in their Constitution. It does not mean it owes you something. It means, we'll make sure you are not oppressed by other people or governments and can get on with life, libery and the pursuit of happiness.

The idea that because you exist the government should owe you something, and because it lives off the avails of others, it must acquire what you feel it owes you from someone else, is in my view rather bizarre and leaning a bit towards tyranny.

Pliny, I appreciate your philo-Americanism. I certainly love my country (link) as well. But these rights are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (someone help me, what is the equivalent Canadian document), not in the Constitution. The Constitution and amendments guarantee in relatively absolute terms that Congress (and later the States) had no ability or power to infringe on rights of free speech, religion, peaceably assembly and/or to establish a religion. Other rights are to assistance of counsel, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The Constitution does not guarantee life, liberty and/or the pursuit of happiness.

[Pliny]

Pliny, I appreciate your philo-Americanism. I certainly love my country (link) as well. But these rights are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (someone help me, what is the equivalent Canadian document), not in the Constitution. The Constitution and amendments guarantee in relatively absolute terms that Congress (and later the States) had no ability or power to infringe on rights of free speech, religion, peaceably assembly and/or to establish a religion. Other rights are to assistance of counsel, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The Constitution does not guarantee life, liberty and/or the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you for pointing that out to me. Quite sloppy of me, I apologize. I don't think there is an equivalent document in Canada. There are the Articles of Confederation, which comes closest, and the British North America act.

[jennie]

oops

Edited September 3, 2007 by jennie

[Guest American Woman]

No, those are your opinions stemming from a desire to fabricate rights out of nothing. Another member has logically challenged your reasoning wrt "free" food and housing (i.e. government rights). If your life is dependent on a government right to health care, then you may not live as long as someone else who knows better. Since I know better, I purchase health care insurance from a group underwriter, but even this is no guarantee of a long life. A lot of my fellow citizens have also figured this out.

Infant mortality is a laughable discussion considering vigorous support of "abortion" (access) rights.

Healthcare is not a right.

No. They are NOT my "opinions." They are not "nothing." They are facts.

FACT: Americans die because they have no health coverage. Link

FACT: The U.S. has the second highest infant mortality rate in the developed world. Link

FACT: The U.S. has one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the developed world. Link

"Researchers said several factors have contributed to the United States falling behind other industrialized nations.

A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care... "

So don't be accusing me again of stating opinions when I am stating facts, or of a desire to fabricate rights out of nothing.

[Guest American Woman]

You avoided answering my question, so for the third time, do you think the right to life should be interpreted as the right to government provided free food, and free housing?

I would like to hear your answer to this AW!

As I've already told Renegade, this issue has been covered in this thread already. I see no need to repeat what's already been very well said, but here is the lilnk in hopes that it will put this issue to rest.

Unfortunately, this statement "In the end, in any civilized country, health care is not going to be denied to any individual who's life depends on it" is not true regarding the United States. Every year Americans die because they do not have health coverage.

Edited September 3, 2007 by American Woman

[Renegade]

As I've already told Renegade, this issue has been covered in this thread already. I see no need to repeat what's already been very well said, but here is the lilnk in hopes that it will put this issue to rest.

Unfortunately, this statement "In the end, in any civilized country, health care is not going to be denied to any individual who's life depends on it" is not true regarding the United States. Every year Americans die because they do not have health coverage.

Here is the quote your link pointed to:

A lot of rights/amendments have been added to the constitution; rights that weren't originally "included or guarenteed" in the original, but were added based on the concept of all men being created euqally, with the idea that we are guarenteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One cannot have life or happiness if they need healthcare that they can't get.

Sorry but I really don't see how that answers the question I asked. If I did I wouldn't have asked it. Maybe you can do us the courtesy of answering the question directly.

Also since you ignored the challenge to show that there is any consensus in the interperetaion of the DoI that a "right to life" = "right to free medical care", I'm going to assume you have no such evidence and it is nothing more than your opinion.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Renegade

[margrace]

Until your news media becomes independant again and you do have some independant ones you cannot win this argument. The companies that control health care in your country appear to have a lock hold on the government using the media to scare people with false stories.

I listend the other night to one of your American freedom fighters, Pat, they called him. He is a civil rights lawyer I believe and his last name is possibley starte with Papal, I didn't write it down. He was in Toronto warning people not to lose control of the independant media.

The arguments on here are just plain nasty. We have them too. Its my money and you can die before I help you. That is the bottom line.

[Guest American Woman]

Here is the quote your link pointed to:

Sorry but I really don't see how that answers the question I asked. If I did I wouldn't have asked it. Maybe you can do us the courtesy of answering the question directly.

Also since you ignored the challenge to show that there is any consensus in the interperetaion of the DoI that a "right to life" = "right to free medical care", I'm going to assume you have no such evidence and it is nothing more than your opinion.

The link works just fine on my computer. Takes me to right to this post:

The trouble with applying that argument to health care, is that, unlike food and clothing, our individual need for health care is not related to our income.

In the case of food, the more money you have, the more expensive food you can buy (or have someone else make). In the case of clothing, the more money you make, the "better" the brands you can buy. You may earn less than the poverty line in income, but can still afford the basics of food and clothing.

However, in the case of the individually born expense of health care, it doesn't matter how much or how little money you make, you can be afflicted with a very expensive medical condition. If you are poor, and health care expenses are personally born, you have two choices, suffer, or go bankrupt if allowed, with bills you cannot pay. Unlike food and clothing, which you can get by with on cheap brands or basic food shopping, you get sick, your health care costs are high. No way around it.

In the end, in any civilized country, health care is not going to be denied to any individual who's life depends on it, even if they can't afford insurance or hospital bills. Someone has to pay for it. We can all share that cost equally (in proportion to our income) through taxation, or we can allow either individuals health or financial status to be crippled. Or both. Public health care is a better alternative.

If anyone else is getting a different post, the one Renegade claims I linked to, I'd like to know.

As for the right to life equaling the right to healthcare, I've posted enough facts, with sources, to back up the necessity of health care to life.

[Renegade]

The link works just fine on my computer. Takes me to right to this post:

If anyone else is getting a different post, the one Renegade claims I linked to, I'd like to know.

My mistake. I assumed you were pointing to your response not that of another poster.

Can I then asume your response is in complete agreement with the other poster?

As for the right to life equaling the right to healthcare, I've posted enough facts, with sources, to back up the necessity of health care to life.

Really? where? Posting mortality rates, etc, doesn't at all relate to the interpretation of a document. I'm not sure how you can logically conclude it does.

[Guest American Woman]

My mistake. I assumed you were pointing to your response not that of another poster.

Can I then asume your response is in complete agreement with the other poster?

Really? where? Posting mortality rates, etc, doesn't at all relate to the interpretation of a document. I'm not sure how you can logically conclude it does.

Is it your "mistake" or an outright lie? Because I plan on finding out if outright lies are allowed on this board. I don't care to have my time wasted with such nonsense.

[Renegade]

Is it your "mistake" or an outright lie? Because I plan on finding out if outright lies are allowed on this board. I don't care to have my time wasted with such nonsense.

Huh? So when you make an error and admit it, it is an honest mistake, when I do so immediately following my post , it is an outright lie? If you wnat to report my "lie" please do so. I would welcome a ruling by the moderator.

I see when you are cornered in your logic you resort to a poor excuse of "I don't care to have my time wasted "

Edited September 3, 2007 by Renegade

[Guest American Woman]

Until your news media becomes independant again and you do have some independant ones you cannot win this argument. The companies that control health care in your country appear to have a lock hold on the government using the media to scare people with false stories.

I listend the other night to one of your American freedom fighters, Pat, they called him. He is a civil rights lawyer I believe and his last name is possibley starte with Papal, I didn't write it down. He was in Toronto warning people not to lose control of the independant media.

The arguments on here are just plain nasty. We have them too. Its my money and you can die before I help you. That is the bottom line.

Sadly, this is true. I hate having to face where my country is at these days. Those of us who look beyond the mainstream media, beyond our own needs, realize there's so much wrong with our country right now. It's really upsetting to those of us who know we are capable of so much more as a nation.

Every western industrialized nation provides health care for its citizens. I can't imagine any of these other nations allowing people to die rather than have their taxes raised. Those who are in opposition of universal healthcare here accept anything they approve of being paid out of taxes; for example, a strong military-- but anything they disapprove of we have no right to, it's socialism, it borders on tyranny, it's their money how dare anyone suggest they pay for health care out of it.

[old_bold&cold]

I come from the time where my very early life did not have free medicare. There in thos times doctors made a good living, but they were mostly community based and they never really wer multi-millionaires. They were very highly regarded in the communities and were yes, in the upper classes of incomes. Once the government took over the medical care, you could also see the change in the doctors. They became more, non-personal and yes greed was one of the things that seemed to be there. I do not think that any profession should be making millionaires out of thpeopl in those callings. My personal family physician is very well to do, more from investing then from doctoring. Do not get me wrong he probably makes around $500,000.00 per year after his expenses, and works 14-16 hrs a day. He does donate time to help with the accreditation of many health organizations, and he loses money doing so, but feels it is the responsibility to make sure the basic things are done.

He will retire soon and he has taken on several young doctors that as he says, he hopes to find at least one or maybe two, that will take on the same standards he has always felt. It is a hard thing to do, as most new graduates want to make money first and foremost. That is a sad thing about our present way of doing things. Doctors should be compelled to perform well but also, it should not be a blank cheque to their lives. Here in Canada we have many graduates who go to the USA to start there. I think we should have a law that says any doctor must practice in Canada for at least 10 years before he leaves to another land. The cost to educate a doctor is hundreds of time more then what they pay in tuition, and we need to know before we invest so much tax money that we will see some benefit. If they still just say too bad and go away, we should then make them pay what the true costs were to educate them. That would only be fair, and it would go along way to make Canada's Healthcare more available in a timely manner. But even with all the warts and delays of our present system, it is still by far way better then what many other countries have now.

If Canada never had a government based healthcare plan, I am not sure we would be like the USA today. Because even back then we had many USA citizens coming to Canada because it was cheaper then what they could get there. The same thing has happened to Lasic Eye Surgury. When I went and got mine done it was $1000.00 for both eyes. In the USA it was $6000.00 for both, and with the exchange rate the people from the USA were even happier. The eye surgeon told me that 80% of the people he was doing now were from new York State. So yes even in todays times and standards, there are many people who preferr our way over the USA way. That is somethingwe Canadians can be proud of.

[Guest American Woman]

One comment about the prices doctors charge: where I live, it's not unusual for them to charge a different price for those with health coverage than those without. Whether or not this is true throughout the U.S., I couldn't say. But I'm curious as to where it was $6000 for lasik eye surgery as my daughter's surgery for both eyes was $2000.

But yes, o&b, you should be proud that Canada provided universal health care for all. As a side note, my daughter was looking up jobs in Canada, and commented on the fact that the jobs in the medical field were listed under "non profit."

One more comment: I think your idea about doctors being required to stay in Canada for ten (or whatever) years or else pay more for their education is definitely food for thought.

Edited September 3, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

No. They are NOT my "opinions." They are not "nothing." They are facts.

So don't be accusing me again of stating opinions when I am stating facts, or of a desire to fabricate rights out of nothing.

You are stating opinions in a desire to fabricate rights out of nothing. Healthcare is not a right in all those other "industrialized" countries as well. Your facts are also opinions. Facts are not your strong point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is it your "mistake" or an outright lie? Because I plan on finding out if outright lies are allowed on this board. I don't care to have my time wasted with such nonsense.

Of course ....your time fabricating "lies" (i.e. right to life = right to healthcare) is far more important than other members' contributions. Your false assertions have been debated and challenged the same as any other. There is nothing magic about this particular topic.