There's entire rungs of society that abuse the welfare system. They'd do the same with socalized medicine. It's destroyed Canadian ERs because for non-critical surgeries it can take months. A lot of Canadians will cross over to the US just to get those taken care of out of pocket rather than wait.
I live in a rural area. We have no local police. Our fire department is volunteer. We don't have a sewer system. (We have wells for water and septic-tanks for...waste.) The closest thing we receive in "benefits" is the roads* and their a bloody mess.
I also believe the Governments only function should be National Defense. (I can't add Police and such because, as I said, we don't have those.)
*The inter-state highway system was actually inspired by Germany's system and the ease of which it made moving their military around. To this end the US highway and road system would fall under "National Defense."
I agree wholeheartedly that greed is an issue with these things. However, rather than using taxes to circumvent the moral issues of the world is a Band-Aid on a gash. It's similar to the concept that banning violent video games will end people's decisions to kill others (or that banning guns will do it, actually). Instead of attacking freedoms of choice, there needs to be a greater investment (and I mean in terms of effort, not money) to end these negative morals, rather than half-assing something together to pretend it solves a problem when it simply solves one symptom.
What I suggest is incredibly difficult in such a morally bankrupt society, but if people were not so attached to a specific lifestyle, then we could get somewhere. People want to say "but I need it" when you say boycott telecommunications companies you hate by not buying a smartphone, but if a MASSIVE group of people would stop that mentality, we'd get somewhere. Instead, we want to attack the big companies with these silly taxes, when they're going to hurt honest, hard-working people more in the end.
Because socialized healthcare means you get a LOT of patients. And perhaps Canada has the same problem as my country does, understaffed and underfunded hospitals. I wouldn't know, I know nothing about Canada.
I've lived on welfare here in Sweden for 6 years because I've been through a lot of shit I'd rather not write about here. Again. You're telling me that I don't deserve healthcare because I have no job? Or how should people be judged and chosen?
Your diet appears to be critically deficient in reality. Have you ever even been to Canada, much less had anything to do with our healthcare system?
Have you ever actually talked with a Canadian about our healthcare system? And no, the lying fraud going on about her tumor the Republicans dredged up for their ads doesn't count.
Last edited by Masark; 2013-01-21 at 05:24 AM.
Are you aware of what "non-critical" means, in health-speak?
There's a reason you wait months. Because it's not that big a deal, and there's bigger issues. It has nothing to do with people "abusing" the system; you can't get surgeons to do wasteful surgeries on you.
It's really not "a lot". There's a few wealthy Canadians who do so to jump the queue or to pay extra for "first-class" post-op care, but there's wealthy Americans who go to various other countries for treatments they can't get in the US, too. That's still for the wealthy only, not regular folks.A lot of Canadians will cross over to the US just to get those taken care of out of pocket rather than wait.
Not to mention that there's literally busloads of Americans who come to Canada for our cheaper prescription prices. To the extent that it's becoming official policy in some border cities; http://seniorliving.about.com/od/law...adrugtrips.htm
Last edited by Endus; 2013-01-21 at 05:23 AM.
Biological evolution has nothing to do with being selfish to the point of not helping your fellow man. On the contrary, evolution led us to being a social creature and we survived over the ages because we were altruistic and we helped the sick and hungry. Once they were no longer sick and hungry, they were again able to contribute and help the tribe survive.
Putin khuliyo
In all fairness, it's not entirely wrong to say that, though. Some people are legitimately incapable of certain things, but ambition and willingness to work is a major problem. Welfare abuse angers people so greatly because of the ease with which it is done. I mean, we don't do anything CLOSE to enough to incentivize people to get off of welfare. My dad made mention a couple of weeks ago that my family would probably be better-off financially if he and my stepmom divorced, he took custody of my half-brothers, he got alimony from my stepmom, then he quit his job and lived off of welfare.
Seriously, what is this ObamaPhone garbage? There is a tent in my town where people can literally go and get a free cellphone and minutes. Someone my dad knows said he knew a guy who was getting a new phone almost monthly from his son because his son would go get these phones, then sell them online after a month and get a new one. That's the kind of craziness that bothers people.
And should I start to save money in 2014, I will eat my words and apologize. However logic would dictate something else.
Let's say you own a store that sells a certain product. Up until now you've worked on an open marked. Supply and demand set your prices. When demand went up so did your prices. That's the market. Now let's say the Feds come along and TELL everyone they HAVE to buy the product you sell, sending demand through the roof. Logic would dictate that you would raise prices. After all people HAVE to buy your product so what's the incentive to lower your prices?
Do you understand my logic now?
Except you could argue that unnecessary time and effort was put into helping many of those people. How is it beneficial to provide social services to uneducated, jobless people for free? Would it not be better to simply do away with them? I'm not saying I support these ideas, just that this idea that we're going to go with "survival of the fittest" while saying "help the unfit" seems to contradict itself.
Yes, I agree that there is a benefit in being the social creatures we are, but some of these ideas do not support the advancement of society like people want. Wouldn't it be better to simply start shooting and removing those who disagree with these sentiments if they are seen as slowing the progress of society, be that the religious right, the political right, or the uneducated/jobless?