Liberal Canadian Politician Goes to US for Healthcare

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
"Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

Stronach's spokesman, Greg MacEachern, told the Toronto Star that the MP for Newmarket-Aurora had a "later-stage" operation in the U.S. after a Toronto doctor referred her. "
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...4/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=Health

Here's a great idea, let's move towards their system so people have no place to go for better healthcare! Elect Liberal Democrats in 2008 to help make this dream come true!
 
Watermark said:
Hillary Clinton's plan doesn't involve waiting lists. Actually, it's pretty much like what we have now.
Click to expand...

It moves to force people to buy insurance even if they don't want it.

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

And of course you would have higher waiting lists, she is offering a government run plan that would be cheaper (subsidized by her large tax increase). Make a good or service cheaper and people use it more heavily (higher demand with same supply), correspondingly waiting times go up.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL702.cfm
 
Jarod said:
So what, my CONSERVATIVE American Uncle goes to Cannada for health care!
Click to expand...
I call bullshit, the only time I've ever heard of healthcare being bought in Canada is when people are visiting and suddenly need emergency healthcare. Why would anyone go? Huge waiting lists coupled with a much higher charge in healthcare because the state really doesn't care how much non-voting foreigners pay.
Plus less talent, as more of the better doctors fled to the US for better pay.
 
It's interesting; if you don't mandate purchasing health insurance under such a plan, you're basically saying it's okay for taxpayers to pick up the tab on the uninsured.

It certainly does sound weird when you say it, but it's an idea that has bipartisan support, and is integral to Romney's healthcare in MA...
 
Onceler said:
It's interesting; if you don't mandate purchasing health insurance under such a plan, you're basically saying it's okay for taxpayers to pick up the tab on the uninsured.

It certainly does sound weird when you say it, but it's an idea that has bipartisan support, and is integral to Romney's healthcare in MA...
Click to expand...

Romney is just a Liberal Republican from Mass, I can't stand his plan either. People should not be forced into buying health insurance, if they as adults choose not to then they face the consequences.

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." – Thomas Jefferson
 
TheDanold said:
Romney is just a Liberal Republican from Mass, I can't stand his plan either. People should not be forced into buying health insurance, if they as adults choose not to then they face the consequences.
Click to expand...


I think the point is that they don't have to face the consequences. They'll get healthcare regardless. The American taxpayer faces those consequences.

Most of your thinking on this is, typically, myopic, shortsighted & under the category of "pennywise, pound foolish"
 
TheDanold said:
Romney is just a Liberal Republican from Mass, I can't stand his plan either. People should not be forced into buying health insurance, if they as adults choose not to then they face the consequences.

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." – Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

No they do not face the consequences, the taxpayer has to pick up the bill at that point, and in the preponderance of those cases the bill will be larger, because contrary to your very frightening ideas, preventive care works and saves money.

If only sick people had health insurance, there is no shared risk and of course, that would put insurance companies, or whoever was paying for the care, out of business.
 
Dano probably knows a guy who knew someone who didn't have insurance and was healthy their whole life, so therefore no one needs insurance and it doesn't affect the American taxpayer one iota if people choose not to get it...
 
Yeah it sucks that I have to buy auto insurance, and insurance on my home if I had a mortgage, etc...
and then I have to pay school tax even though I have no school age children...

WAH WAH :cry:
 
Onceler said:
I think the point is that they don't have to face the consequences. They'll get healthcare regardless. The American taxpayer faces those consequences.

Most of your thinking on this is, typically, myopic, shortsighted & under the category of "pennywise, pound foolish"
Click to expand...

The taxpayer shouldn't face those consequences, they didn't before the 1960's and there was no health calamity then.

The Democrat's plan just takes a step further away from having less government and more individual responsibility.
 
TheDanold said:
It moves to force people to buy insurance even if they don't want it.

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

And of course you would have higher waiting lists, she is offering a government run plan that would be cheaper (subsidized by her large tax increase). Make a good or service cheaper and people use it more heavily (higher demand with same supply), correspondingly waiting times go up.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL702.cfm
Click to expand...

IT DOESN'T INVOLVE A WAITING LIST.
 
TheDanold said:
The taxpayer shouldn't face those consequences, they didn't before the 1960's and there was no health calamity then.

The Democrat's plan just takes a step further away from having less government and more individual responsibility.
Click to expand...


Typical; trying to compare an era over 50 years ago to present-day America.

The fact is, the taxpayer IS facing those consequences, which makes your conclusions moot, and shows them to be poorly thought-out and impractical...
 
TheDanold said:
The taxpayer shouldn't face those consequences, they didn't before the 1960's and there was no health calamity then.

The Democrat's plan just takes a step further away from having less government and more individual responsibility.
Click to expand...

There was no health calamity to whom?

Do you believe no one died before emergency rooms were legally obligated to provide care?
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah it sucks that I have to buy auto insurance, and insurance on my home if I had a mortgage, etc...
and then I have to pay school tax even though I have no school age children...

WAH WAH :cry:
Click to expand...

We are talking about insurance here, not education taxes. As for home insurance, that is a condition of obtaining a mortgage, the mortgage company/bank can NOT force you to buy it, just if you want to borrow their money.
Plenty of people don't have it.

As for car insurance, I respect those who think it should be mandated because of what could happen to others if they injure them, but ultimately many drive without it anyway, and it is a definite restraint on ALL people's economic freedom.
So ultimately I think it should be optional.

Really my beliefs are that no insurance should be forced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top