Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Canadian Health Care System

I hate to get into the political threads, but I have 2 points.

1. We're already paying for low income/illegal health services. It's called emergency services. They're available to everyone, and it's pretty easy to get out without paying.

2. Presumably (ha ha ha), since employers would no longer be paying for health care coverage, salaries could go up. I know my employer pays a fair percentage of my total compensation towards health care.

Of course, point 2 only applies if you already have employer sponsored health care, so YMMV.

Excellent points Murph!

When you (nickbuol) talk about "free-loaders", I don't think they're can be such a thing in the Canadian (European) health system. If you are sick, you deserve to be treated and get better, regardles of your age, sex, income, habits, etc. This is the basis of a civilized society and basic human rights. There has been talk about doctors not helping smokers, and other issues pertaining to over weight and heart problems, but these are rare. Remember, most doctors became doctors primarily becasuse they want to help people.

We have a health card that we are required to show a medical facility to stop non Canadian citizens from abusing the system. However, if you are in a serious car accident, I don't believe they need to see you health card before they treat you (unlike stories I have heard in the US).

Ofcoarse, if the US adopted a health system similar to Canada, we wouldn't have the "cross boarder shoppers" like we do now.

Where's Bren?

This would not happen because of the increased taxes the employer (and us I'm afraid to say) would have to fork out. Nothing but nothing is free. If we think the companies here in th U.S. are going overseas at an alarming rate now be careful what we wish for.

Yeah, but the employer would also not have to pay insurance costs. It could balance out.

Not all employers do Ken, alot of them only pay a portion of the bill. With national health care the choice is no longer theirs to make, it's the goverment.

The plain thuth is I don't trust this goverment to run anything effectivly.

And I don't trust insurance companies at all. Guess we'll just have to disagree--which is a good thing, and one of the greatest things about this country.

Believe me I don't trust most of them either, no disagreement there. Taking about health care I'm off to the cardiologist. Got to see how the old hearts holding up. It's a good thread so far, I hope it is kept this way.

That's the paradox of the situation. Society has a moral obligation to help others. It is the humane thing to do. However, there are a group of these "others that need help" that don't feel morally obligated to even attempt to contribute to society. I guess when you hear of people that specifically say that they had 'X' number of kids just to get into another government plan, you know that they don't care or possibly even love their kids. They are just "things" that let them get more free hand-outs. Should the kids suffer? Heck no. It isn't their fault at all, but these "parents" are the ones I have a problem with.

How "fair" is it if you have a couple where niether are working a regular job, they have 7 kids, get Welfare, low-income health care, and other government provided services. Then you have a single mom, with 2 kids, working 2 jobs, but having to pay for day care, she has a very basic health care plan. Lets say that both moms are in a car accident. The 1st mom is covered by the government, but the second mom has to pay a huge deductible and out of pocket maximum. The second mom has to suffer higher expenses because she is actually trying to do what is morally right and trying to work for what she needs. How fair is that?

I guess it can be a moral issue versus a fairness issue. Of course, no matter which plan you have or where you live, you will always have someone trying to get something for nothing, and you will have innocent people (kids or others) who could suffer if something isn't there to help them out.

This is a pretty interesting conversation to me. I am sorry if I am being a pain in the butt about anything, but with the elections coming up in the USofA in several months, it is nice to hear some "inside track" on what it means to have some of these government services.

How much of an election issue is this for the candidates? I thought this was more a regional issue, places like New England for example, and not a national one?