Quote:
|
Originally Posted by feelgood
I haven't done my research but how come United States chose not to go with a public health care system that alot of European countries, even Canada is working under?
Everybody gets free health care, the government picks up the tab and in order to pay for the funding, some of the tax money (GST in Canada) is used toward to paying for it. By going with this kind of system, insurance companies can avoid having to force customers who are paying for health insurance to pay for those who do not have any health care insurance. Families and individuals can save thousands, especially if they don't often make a visit to the local hospital or paramacies (sp)
|
i'm sorry my canadian friend... but this is precisely the mentality that i detest among my own countrymen.
let's just re-iterate...
- no one gets free healthcare
- while you pay taxes, YOU are the government. ergo, YOU pick up the tab.
- ok, so the insurance companies are off the hook because everyone gets healthcare, now you're stuck paying it directly.
in an aggregate sense, no one saves money. the only difference is the redistribution of wealth to provide a flatter net wealth curve.
*************************
people go round and round on this issue, but often fail to see the very fundamental worldview issue at stake. it all boils down to a single problem "is it just for
the government to force you to pay for the healthcare of another?"
or its variant "is it just to force another to pay for your own healthcare needs?"
that's it. that's all there is to it. you have to answer both "yes" to be an intellectually honest proponent of such a system. i'd like to hear any poster justify such a position.