An individual is the smallest minority, but those who claim to speak for the minority and want to give them free health care can't see an individual--only a color or a status.
No....the New Deal didn't "Prolong the Depression". Republican pressure to balance the budget in 1936 re-ignited it when FDR endorsed their Fiscal Responsibility measures. It was because of this that unemployment went up again.
Initially, unemployment was at 25% begore falling to 10% by the end of FDRs first term. Learn the facts, American. Then speak. Not the other way around.
I recon I like the title that they gave their Death Panel over there in Canada. It don't sound as scary. When I hear a title like "Health Minister", I know he's got my back.
I was raised to believe that if you have half a brain and work hard, you'll get a job with health benefits. In an age where even part time work at McDonald's and WalMart have health plans, if you don't have insurance it is because you are a LOSER. Please, America, let's not let these parasites take over and force us into universal health care. Tell 'em to get the hell off the couch and get a job.
Sorry, but part time workers at McDonald's and WalMart DON'T have health plans. Next time, wait until you have your facts straight before you decide to troll.
I worked at McDonald's, and 28 hours or more was considered 'full time', and therefore eligible, but I opted not to go with their plan because I wasn't planning on staying. I've also known folks that worked at WalMart, etc. Same thing.
I live in the real world, so I know these things. Sorry if that makes you angry, but I'd hardly call that 'trolling.'
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why is it that this is some kind of argument for the American system that does not work at all?
This is taking a local problem in Ontario, which I understand is fixed, or can be discussing and fixed, and blowing it up to apply to an imaginary system that the producer of the film wants to apply to a non-existent American system.
This is pure lying propganda.
And most of the comments are too. This is what 1/2 billion dollars of stolen insurance premiums buys ... just another tax by parasites.
This poor lady had BlueCross coverage- a conniving company that fools people into having the best of privatized and universal coverage. The UK has similar demons.
These poor bastards commenting, don't know she couldn't afford the treatments, and was tricked by an insurance company (a semi-private coverage that cheapens any procedure, but diminishes priority).
There are very dangerous problems with universal healthcare, and none of them mentioned... just socialism and communists...
free public healthcare is like a golden calf in canada. It''s basically a dogmatic religion here ! sad. Even in quasi socialist countries in europe, people can easily pay for healthcare but not in canada. As for that degenerate, filthy, repulsive, frivolous , airheaded , decerebrated, self centered piece of transsexual garbage, the less said the better i guess .. ( no i'm don't care much for that type of diversity, thank you , especially when it's displayed garishly)
YEA!!!! i can't wait till this comes to the U.S.!!!
i would rather pay on a 500,000 dollar debt every month for the rest of my life than to have to wait 3 years for a necessary surgery.
people need to wake up... socialism (read communism) does not work! if you want real change we should be looking into libertarianism. the only political philosophy i know that has real plans for both peace and prosperity.
That dude better not have gotten a sex change on our dollar.
I don't mind my taxes paying for people who run into the typical unpredictable, harmful, debilitating conditions, heck I can even put up with the bums that decide to "take a trip" paid for by social services, but if this ever flies, I'll invade Ottawa myself. I'll be doing the petition thing post haste. Stupid fricken radical feminist. I think plenty about those medical procedures you stupid prick!
ha ha I love your simple response. one example lets you bash an entire system? should we mention the millions in the US who still dont have basic coverage? how do you think they would feel about a system like this?
Why don't they have coverage? No one is stopping them from buying it.
I was out of work for six months and my first priority was to make payments on my health insurance. Why should I have to pay for coverage for someone else who chooses not to pay for it?
When food, shelter, transportation, and family, drain all of your money, where are you supposed to get money for healthcare? Also, with out system, everyone who pays taxes pays for heathcare, it's not an option. We have the choice of extended covereage at our own cost.
Ok, I'm not even from the US to know that many poor people are POOR. They dont all have the luxuries you think they have. On a side note, most places now can get cell service cheaper than a land line. Step out of your world and into theirs, they dont have anything to give up.
So you are better than the others waiting in line aswell? What about their freedoms? She was free to leave the country and pay, she chose not to. If you actually knew anything about Canada you would know we have more freedom than Americans, but no you're right, this one clip represents everything in Canada... your are an example of why the world believes most Americans are ignorent.
For every one who gets screwed like this under universal health care, there are a thousand who get screwed by the fact of poverty in the USA. Private health care means a few will get served whenever they wish, and most will get nothing. That's not freedom. Canadian socialized health care works.
"there are a thousand who get screwed by the fact of poverty in the USA" --
Poverty in the USA means having only 1 car and 3 TV's. If you're concerned about poverty, open up YOUR CHECKBOOK and prove it. Otherwise, shut up and stop trying to spend other people's money in order to make yourself feel better. Socialism is the ultimate act of selfishness.
The better metaphor for socialism, along your lines, would be that it is taking your wallet back from the pickpocket who just took it from you.
Compassion is the right word, because in socialism one systematically shares his wealth with those less lucky. It's not a matter of vocabulary usage. Calling socialist "theft" is highly simplistic as a refutation.
"Compassion is the right word, because in socialism one systematically shares his wealth with those less lucky" --
Wealth isn't a product of being lucky
Second, he doesn't "share" his wealth; it is confiscated from him at the point of a gun, using force. It's not compassion to spend someone ELSE'S money. No compassion is required to take spend something that is of no cost to you
If you think the poor should be helped, help them. Just don't force me to adopt your values. That's tyranny
Inheritance and being born rich are examples of lucky wealth.
Socialism is the sharing of wealth, a natural and ancient impulse. No guns necessarily involved. Socialized health care in Canada was brought without a shot fired. So quit the histrionics and argue. I'll have more respect for your position then, which I am actually interested in hearing.
My landlord extorts money from me by force, so there's your tyranny.
"Socialism is...a natural and ancient impulse. No guns necessarily involved" --
Oh really?! Say I choose not to give my money to the government? Will men with guns not come to my house to arrest me? Follow your "ancient" impulse without threatening me with force
"My landlord extorts money from me by force, so there's your tyranny" --
Didn't you sign a lease with him? If he got your signature under threat of force, the contract is legally void. Not true with the government
I signed a lease with my landlord because the alternative is living on the street. That is not a free choice. I was forced because there is no alternative to living in doors that isn't life-threatening. Capitalists dress up the concept of "work or starve" as a matter of two free individuals agreeing on a contract. But the imposition of starvation and homelessness is violence; that's the tyrannical gun in the capitalist order.
"I signed a lease with my landlord because the alternative is living on the street. That is not a free choice" -
It's free in that you may make choices without outside threats. I can't change whether humans have vital needs, but can change whether I use the guns of government socialism. You have no positive right to anything, but have the "negative" right not to have violence initiated against you. Self-ownership: the responsibility to sustain yourself, and the liberty not to be threatened
"Sign on the dotted line or live on the street" is an outside threat. "Work or starve" is a coercive threat of violence. The individual does not stand platonically alone in the universe. All is interdependent, including the system of rights, both positive and negative.
By the way, blackproteus, just because the gang that uses force against me to force me to do things when I'm minding my own business is comprised of 51%+ of the voters changes nothing about the morality of the method. After all, the idea of "rights" is that they are there REGARDLESS of voting trends. Rights are ANTI-democratic. They're used by the minority against the majority (because, after all, the majority already gets what they want). Is that not true?
A gang using force to make me do something, even when I'm minding my own business, is wrong. If the gang comprises 51%+ of the voters, it's still immoral
"Rights" exist REGARDLESS of voting. They're ANTI-democratic and used by the minority against the majority (the majority already gets what they want through voting)
For more info see the following youtube video: watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Google "The law by Frederic Bastiat" and read the free online version
I think we are getting near the basis of our differences, which is interesting: You seem to believe that an individual's rights can be disconnected from other people and from society; I don't. We all quite literally depend on each other for survival, and so it is correct that society has some demands on us. Obviously, I favour the most democratic means possible, and the most individual freedom there can be, therefore I am a libertarian socialist.
"You seem to believe that an individual's rights can be disconnected from other people and from society" --
Absolutely not! A person's rights end when they infringe on another's right. Having said that, a majority vote doesn't give people the right to violate rights, anymore than they may as individuals.
"Obviously, I favour the most democratic means possible" --
"A person's rights end when they infringe on another's right."
You have responsibilities to the people around you, in your society. Just as one does in a family or a tribe. You don't support your children according to contract, nor should you. The human family is similar.
"You have responsibilities to the people around you" --
I have no responsibilities except for myself. Saying I have to care for my children is a red herring because those children are people I brought into this world by choice. I have no responsibility to take care of your or anyone else.
If *YOU* feel a responsibility to do so, DO SO, but don't you dare try to make ME pay for it and act like that's somehow compassionate of you. It's nothing but legalized theft
Our common law recognizes that you have responsibilities to strangers. If you see a man bleeding to death in the street, you have a responsibility to help, for example. Protecting the weak is what humans should do. In hunter-gatherer societies it is common sense: you help to raise other people's children, not just your own, and you share with elders simply because they need it. That's the true human nature.
If you want to help others, be my guest. But again, DON'T USE THE GUNS OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE ME DO WHAT YOU THINK I SHOULD AND THEN PRETEND THAT **YOU** ARE BEING COMPASSIONATE. Be compassionate without using government violence.
My point is that we all must help each other. Just as my man-dying-in-the-street example works, you are obligated to help others. If you agree with the law (backed by guns, I guess, if you insist on boiling it down to that for dramatic effect) that a citizen can't legally walk past a dying man on the street, why doesn't that also apply to a man dying of a disease who can't afford health care?
Then do it. But don't use a the guns of government to steal from others and redistribute and then act like you're "helping." You're not, anymore than any other theief.
If your compassion is real, and I doubt it is, lower your standard of living and give your OWN money. Don't give away mine.
I guess when your argument isn't working on its own, cheap shots ease the pain.
Saying "Then do it" doesn't answer my point. Our law *obliges* you to help a stranger bleeding to death on the street. That is a good law, and an example of how you *do* have responsibilities to strangers. If that is accepted, then further responsibilities are plausible. How do you answer that?
Having a law requiring citizens to aid a fellow citizen dying in the street does not ipso facto make the government that passes such a law "socialist." In fact, this is the law in may liberal-democratic (i.e., capitalist) states.
But I agree in the sense that this basic level of fellow responsibility justifies a basis for socialism.
I wonder, do you complain this much about paying any tax? In my view paying into our healthcare is no different from paying municipal taxes for road maintenance. You could say they are stealing because I dont drive on all the roads, therefore not getting all my moneys worth. You seem like a petty individual who thinks everyone should fend for themselves. I'm sure you're not, but thats how I read most of your arguments.
"Except that the pickpocket first invested a lot of wealth and risk into establishing a business so that you could get a job."
This was Marx's observation of the problem: The entrepreneur starts a business with capital, but the labourers are the ones who make it continue to work year after year, long after that initial entrepreneurial effort is a fading memory. How is it then fair that the initial investor gets paid and repaid forever, when it's the workers who make the business function?
That's a poor question as you framed it. You are saying that such investments see an entrepreneur being 'paid and repaid forever', so you are ignoring that there are risks. For every success story, there are probably ten people still working because that risk turned out to be all too real.
In any case, you are free to apply at a cooperative if you think working for others is lame. That's entirely your choice, and nobody is stopping you.
The risk does not justify continued exploitation. And I make a distinction between petty bourgeois owners and large capitalists; small business that fail have my sympathy, because they exploit none, or very few; often they area small family operations. That's different from, say, Walmart. The workers make Walmart function, they could run it, and they should own it. Taking it would not be theft, it would be putting the wealth they create in their own pockets.
Just like the laissez faire camp, you guys sound like a bunch of broken records. Yet you come off with the same enthusiasm every time as if you are reciting something miraculous that nobody has every heard before.
The great thing about Marxists is that they have to tell people where *their own* interests lay. Now that's irony.
Not a very subtle message. This is pure propaganda. Naturally some prioritisation need to occur in any health care system, but I wonder why the trans gender patient was selected for the film. Was it to appeal to certain prejudices? Come on you can do better than this.
socialized medicine removes competition from healthcare.you put you're life in the hands of doctors who have no need to compete with other docs because the government provides them with patients.they lose their will to preform better services.
You're certainly right that I have no *right* to health care or anything else like that. I live in Canada, and I get health care because the majority of Canadians have enough concern for poor fellas like me who can't pay for it on their own. If most Canadians decided not to give me health care, too bad for me, but I'm glad they do.
they dont have concern.you're governments forces them to pay taxes for you're free ride.youre free ride has made everyone equal in shitty healthcare.i REALLY care about you.i dont want to GIVE you anything.i want you to be wealthy.i want to end lines and increase the quality of you're life.unfortunately you're greed for freebies has caused huge unmanageable government Bureaucracys that deal with the most important part of life.you're ability to live.you're health.
I didn't realize the majority of Canadians are being forced to vote for pro-public health care, left-wing political parties. I must not have noticed the guns to everyone's head last time I went to the polls.
why dont you tell that to Stephen Harper frasor.why dont you get a higher paying job? dont you think you can get better health care with more money rather then shitty waitonline government healthcare?
the entire system is being supported by the over 12000(which includes the middle class) crowd.if it werent for the invertible huge increase in taxes due to the huge bureaucracy that government healthcare creates those citizens could have money for nonwaitinglist healthcare.please do not use youre lack of will or drive to earn to destroy the rest of us.(hope this isnt a double post)
I'm broke. I can't even afford insurance. If I had such a condition, I would far rather be on a three year waiting list than never be able to afford treatment at all.
i would rather you become wealthy then take my money for you're health care.a government system requires more taxes thus by taking more of you're money making you less likely to afford anything.
You don't pay tax if you make less than $12,000 a year in Canada. You even get a refund on the sales tax you pay. I'd rather not have to count on getting rich in order to get treatment. That would likely take a lot longer than any waiting list.
so everyone who makes more then 12000 has to get screwd in to paying for you're healthcare in an awful wait online system? why would you not want to be in a system that encouraged you to make more money? why would you be for higher taxes big government awful system.you dont have a right to health,food,shelter,cable or anything.you have the right to earn.thats all.
You don't have to pay for it. You can go live in a country without socialized medicine (and probably do).
I live in a country in which I and the majority of the population chooses public health care. I don't go to the States and advocate the nationalization of everything, so don't bother Canadians about a system the majority approves of.
"I live in a country in which I and the majority of the population chooses public health care" --
So theft ceases to be theft when 51% of the people approve of it? As Franklin said, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
"so don't bother Canadians about a system the majority approves of" --
I won't. I like all the extra cash that comes into our free healthcare from those left behind by your soviet-style system.
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that healthcare in Canada is theft. I'm also curious how you compare the thousands of Canadian people who travel to the US or abroad to get treatment to the millions in the US who do not have nor can afford basic medical coverage?
If you saw a person who needed healthcare, stole my wallet at gun point and then gave it to the person needing healthcare, no one would say you were "compassionate." It would be theft.
Yet, in your mind, if 51% of the people all come to me and tell me to give them my money (under the threat of gov't force), then it's ok with you. You support legalized, government-sponsored theft because you're too selfish and lazy to fix the problem on your own
This film seems contrived. If they wanted to pay out of pocket, there would have been plenty of doctors in the US who would have done it. Why don't they mention if they did or didn't try going to the US. If they did try the US, they probably found they couldn't possibly have affored it.
American Hospitals charge people WITHOUT health insurance a much higher price.
If the operation cost $20000 for someone WITHOUT insurance and $10000 for someone WITH insurance. Insurance companies do not pay right away and lets say they pay 2 weeks after hospital send the bill. For this woman since she does not live in USA then they would require full payment before the operation. Which person would the hospital operator first ... $20000 paid in full or $10000 payment in 2 weeks ...
i swear if i hear one more person refer to socialized medicine as "FREE health care" i'm gonna vomit. The government doesn't MAGICALLY get money to give people medical coverage, it comes from every person in the nation.
I agree, as I'm a British citizen... There are a lot of problems with the NHS, but everyone has the right to pay for private healthcare if they wish. It seems ridiculous that there is somehow a ban on private healthcare in Canada; what's going on?
if there were no profit, no incentive, no "greed" as the class-warfare invoking socialist like to put it, in the medicine industry, the last great breakthrough would have been battlefield amputation.
I've been trying to find the guy's name, a movie critic that reviewed michael moore's sicko in the UK, heard him referenced the other day as saying " one thing Mr. Moore has not done, is sit in an 'emergency room' in queue, watching his severed toe disintegrate in a cup of ice water, as he waited for hours for it to be reattached, I have".
Do you think that a member of Smitherman's family would be placed that waiting list for as long? All Canadians are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Oh. My. God. I knew, academically, in my head, that socialism not only does not work, but that it hurts a lot of people. But to see the horrors visited on people every day by government is... sobering. For the love of God, people go to Mises dot org.
i can NOT understand why Smitherman is still the Ministry of Health.. The next election is in October .... and i think they do NOT want to replace him so close to an election ... Just like the guy at Fema who resigned .. when you appoint a person to job who is incompedent bad things happen.. I
the only thing wrong with the american healthcare is it's polluted with elements of socialism, sorry, but poor decisions on your part do not constitute an emergency on my part, there is no reason why I should be forced to cover the cost of some high school drop out 30 year old whopper flopper's 5 child when they knew they couldn't afford one.
Like in UK, the Canadian government is controlled by the majority of the previleged and the rich (most of politicians are corrupt and accept undertable contribution/benefits from the pharmaseudical manufacturing comapanies, likewise in the U,S.) The whole health care system only provide and carter for the rich (the ones who can afford it). Americans need a free enterprized health system that every citizens can benefit from and can afford to pay for it.
in usa, people die because they don't have the money
basically, no matter what country you go to, you are going to die anyway.......
just imagine if those two womem DIDN'T have the money to go to the usa to get treated, then both systems have failed. and people die as a result of it.
Thank God I'm American, and my blader works just fine. So fine, in fact, that I'm thinking of taking a road trip to Canada. Gonna hold it all the way, cuz when I get to Parliment, there's a certain Minister who's gonna find out firsthand how I hope his political career is a SPLASHING success.
Smitherman is NOT in Ottawa, Ontario but in Toronto Ontario. He is a minister of health in the Province of Ontario government.. A province is what in the US is called a "State"... Health is a "provincial" responsibility and NOT a federal one. DO not worry.. October 2007 is the provincial election ... so Smitherman could get voted out of office in a few month.
You should be carefully.. In 1814 ... Canada while still part of the British Empire ... occupied Washington DC... and well find of burned down some stuff.. Wonder how the White House got it name... After they partly burned down the President Residence then it was painted with white paint. That is when people started calling the President Residence .. THE WHITE HOUSE... This happened during the War of 1812...
Agreed. Simply and clear. Canadian health care system sucks. Ask the elderly Candian elderly citizens who had to come across the border to get their surgery done-it is a matter of life and death decisios for them! This is what's going to happen to YOU!
Canada must of course be a socialist state, just happens to be run by conservatives atm... Anyways, back to tending the polar bears, oh and gotta remember to light the fire in the igloo before bed, night all from the great frozen north =)
That is horrible. Was there no way for her to come to the US to have the operation? It's just disgusting that they didn't allow her to pay to have the surgery. If socialist programs such as that ever try to edge their way into US policy, we have to do our best to prevent it from being approved. This unfortunately is an example we can use.
Yes she could go to the US and have it done, they didn't take that route apparently. And yes, we have private clinics now that let you pay for their services, but this does not sound like common surgery, so it may not be available yet. It's not perfect, but I will take it over the US system any day. It's unfortunate that ignorent americans take one example and run with it. This DOES NOT represent the entire system. Do you're own bloody research before you rail against something.
wemfraver2003 so give preference to elective cosmetic surgery of sex change to the surgery this woman needed. where as transgendered woman needed to feel emotionally comfortable this woman couldnt use her bladder properly. would you feel the same if you were unable to use your bladder. if you had to wait three years to go to the bathroom in a manner you would prefer over a cathader? would you?
"but this does not sound like common surgery, so it may not be available yet" --
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....hah ah aha haha haha...ahhhhh. .......... HA ha ha ha ha ha ha
"not available yet." That's rich. Hey buddy, guess what? The free market has it "available" within a few days just South of the border. By the time your big, clumsy government gets around to it, it'll probably be outdated anyway.
Actually I was refering to the private clinics or the "free market" as you put it. It was all in the same sentence, how did you miss that? Now here are your holes, the "big clumsy govermnment" already has it available, just not fast enough. Did you even watch the video? Canada has a free market medical system, but if no clinic preforms the surgury how is that the fault of the government?
I don't know if it qualifies as free market, but yeah, in Canada the services are indeed provided by private organizations and individuals running their businesses out of their own pockets.
The government just runs the insurance, and that is mandatory.
It's a great system.
Sure, it sucks things are politicized, where a politician will meet with a tranny just to be politically correct, but c'est la vie. That'll happen as long as we have politicians.
"I don't know if it qualifies as free market, but yeah, in Canada the services are indeed provided by private organizations and individuals running their businesses out of their own pockets" --
They're still regulated to death, the prices are set for them and they're told which patients they must accept. It's not a free market by any stretch of the word.
However, that shouldn't hide the fact that I think regulations can potentially be a good thing, and not just a bad thing as you imply, given your "regulated to death" remark.
that's not the crux of the problem, main thing was, she is only allowed to see a certain doctor, and that doctor is only allowed to perform x amount of said surgeries a year
I can't imagine waking up every day waiting for the government to do something for me. When did so many people in the United States begin believing that it was the job of the government to take care of them? When all of us Baby Boomers retire are all of you young socialists going to foot the bill? No, you'll find religion and turn into a Reagan Democrats!
this is extremmly rare. if a rare sort of thing such as this happens people are sent to other prov. or even to the states and still they dont pay one cent.
She never said in the video if she applied to get her operation done in other province or the United States. The Ontario government has send people to Cleveland Ohio for operations ... i believe they were heart surgery .. at no cost for their treatment .. they even pay airfare, hotels, and other costs.
America dosn't have a health care problem, we have a health insurance problem. The democrats want to fix health insurance by revamping health care but that will not work. Lets just have govt. funding for health insurance.
Health insurance companies only want to have healthy people insured. So you want all people who have health problems to be doomed to a life of poverty. The gon't has manipulated the world econmy so much, we need SOME govt. intervention or our health care services WILL break down. Enforce the border, don't give health care to illegals, and we can help eople out with health insurance.
"Lets just have govt. funding for health insurance" --
So why exactly do you want government to destroy health insurance more than it already has? You do realize that everything the government touches turns to crap right?
The real flaw in this system is that citizens should have the option to get faster treatment if they can afford it, and therefore have 2 systems, one public and one private, to plan for situations like these. The only reason the transsexual got included is to show bias from the health minister of Ontario. You still have to realise the amount of disadvantaged people that get access to free health care.
Sex change operations are not paid by OHIP currently. IT was ended by the Conservatives government of Ontario in 1998. There are NO plans by the current government or opposition party to pay for sex change operations. The opposition party is the party that ended OHIP paying for sex change operations.
not sure i understood the point of this video. they want the government to force these specialist doctors and surgeons to do more work or something? as for adding that tranny into the mix.. wtf was the point of that? seperate issue all together.
The only reason why the government can't go to no socielist programs is, because they know, if we don't have them, something like the great depression can destroy our country. Rich people rule the country and the government sucks, because of it. When you climb the ladder most forget how they got there.
Right now our country is so messed up is because rich people run the country. The don't care about others. They only care about themselves. With means more money for them and less money that is used in the system. The only true way to make health care affordable is to make a community health care, non-profit.
The problem with people that believe in only capitalist society is that when bad things happen to people with no money they die. This person could have come to the US and had the operation if she really could afford to pay for it. Right now alot of people don't have health care. Why, because they can't afford it.
lmao sure they can't. Your so right. They would rather have a $50+ cell phone, cable TV, fast access internet and the other things in life instead of putting that money into health insurance.
Rich people create jobs. Don't believe me go ask a poor person for a job see what they tell you. Most the rich people are rich because they earned it. Now explain why they should have to hand that money out to You. Sounds selfish if you ask me.
Well, Not sure but willing to say that cost in health care is so high for americans to compensate for the stuff not paid for (given for free) to illegal immigrants. That would explain a big part of, if not most of it.
What about the lucrative brand names marketed by the big pharmaceutical companies? I'll agree that they need to recoup their costs somehow, but could it be done in a somewhat more ethical way?
I don't know there are people that have been working on this "problem" for years and I have yet to see something that actually "works for everyone" I just do not want to see it in the hands of the government. I havn't done any research on it personaly a good plan costs around 200 or so bucks a mo I think I can spare $50 bucks a week and try to eat right. Nothing work having comes easy and health is included in that statment its not hard its just inconvenent(sp?)
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." That is part of the Hippocratic Oath, which is obviously not too important when Universal Healthcare is concerned.
The only question is whether we, as a nation, can counter the massive P.R. misinformation campaign that will precede the imposition of such a healthcare system on our country and our economy. Folks, we are going to have to struggle MIGHTILY to stop the utopian desires of those who advocate socialized medicine. I can only hope we are up to the task.
Wrong answer. "Life, liberty,..." is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Before anyone brings up "General Welfare":
James Madison, Father of the Constitution:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's the first one, Scotty" --
You misunderstand the entire notion of rights and therefore misinterpret the "right to life"
Rights are defensive. They shield people from aggression. You have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to be bought microphone. You have freedom of the press, but not the right to be GIVEN a press. You have the right to life, but not at the expense of stealing another's rights
If Hillary or Edwards becomes president, we all experience a slow, painful death. Someone please tell me that socialism is not inevitable. Please tell me there are Americans who are armed and ready to fight. DEATH TO THE SOCIALIST!
"Someone please tell me that socialism is not inevitable" --
It's not inevitable *IF* we fight it. Right now, liberty advocates are spread too thin to make enough of an impact. Some people are doing something abotut that by uniting together to make a last stand in America's freest state.
I've never felt more fortunate to live in the US that when I was diagnosed with cancer that was in stage 4. I had friends living in Canada at the time, and from what I heard from them, if I'd been there too, I would have been dead before any diagnosis was made. Ever since, I've been vehemently opposed to such a system.
The U.S. should make it illegal for people who live in other countries who have have taxpayer supported health care to come here for treatment. While this may seem mean and cold, it would make the all people in those other countries, including the people in charge, have to use the same health care that the majority do.
And this type of health care is what the pandering pukes who want to become president in the U.S. are attempting to bring to fruition. I can't express my disgust at the Canadian system strongly enough, and this poor woman has no bladder as a consequence. And to put gender modification (or whatever it's called) above a life threatening illness is unconscionable.
Good video
TheShipOfTheseus 1 year ago
An individual is the smallest minority, but those who claim to speak for the minority and want to give them free health care can't see an individual--only a color or a status.
Lisarata 1 year ago
No....the New Deal didn't "Prolong the Depression". Republican pressure to balance the budget in 1936 re-ignited it when FDR endorsed their Fiscal Responsibility measures. It was because of this that unemployment went up again.
Initially, unemployment was at 25% begore falling to 10% by the end of FDRs first term. Learn the facts, American. Then speak. Not the other way around.
Zettel9016 1 year ago
I recon I like the title that they gave their Death Panel over there in Canada. It don't sound as scary. When I hear a title like "Health Minister", I know he's got my back.
Stockpile1 1 year ago
I was raised to believe that if you have half a brain and work hard, you'll get a job with health benefits. In an age where even part time work at McDonald's and WalMart have health plans, if you don't have insurance it is because you are a LOSER. Please, America, let's not let these parasites take over and force us into universal health care. Tell 'em to get the hell off the couch and get a job.
DevSodDribble 2 years ago 2
Sorry, but part time workers at McDonald's and WalMart DON'T have health plans. Next time, wait until you have your facts straight before you decide to troll.
taurinsing 2 years ago
Sorry, but they DO have health plans.
I worked at McDonald's, and 28 hours or more was considered 'full time', and therefore eligible, but I opted not to go with their plan because I wasn't planning on staying. I've also known folks that worked at WalMart, etc. Same thing.
I live in the real world, so I know these things. Sorry if that makes you angry, but I'd hardly call that 'trolling.'
DevSodDribble 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is it that this is some kind of argument for the American system that does not work at all?
This is taking a local problem in Ontario, which I understand is fixed, or can be discussing and fixed, and blowing it up to apply to an imaginary system that the producer of the film wants to apply to a non-existent American system.
This is pure lying propganda.
And most of the comments are too. This is what 1/2 billion dollars of stolen insurance premiums buys ... just another tax by parasites.
justgivemethetruth 2 years ago
This poor lady had BlueCross coverage- a conniving company that fools people into having the best of privatized and universal coverage. The UK has similar demons.
These poor bastards commenting, don't know she couldn't afford the treatments, and was tricked by an insurance company (a semi-private coverage that cheapens any procedure, but diminishes priority).
There are very dangerous problems with universal healthcare, and none of them mentioned... just socialism and communists...
sypin 2 years ago
free public healthcare is like a golden calf in canada. It''s basically a dogmatic religion here ! sad. Even in quasi socialist countries in europe, people can easily pay for healthcare but not in canada. As for that degenerate, filthy, repulsive, frivolous , airheaded , decerebrated, self centered piece of transsexual garbage, the less said the better i guess .. ( no i'm don't care much for that type of diversity, thank you , especially when it's displayed garishly)
ogunsiron 3 years ago 4
Socialist medical system can be problematic, but the real cancer is when gay activism and corrupt, amoral politicians.
EricBarbman 3 years ago
-"when"
EricBarbman 3 years ago
YEA!!!! i can't wait till this comes to the U.S.!!!
i would rather pay on a 500,000 dollar debt every month for the rest of my life than to have to wait 3 years for a necessary surgery.
people need to wake up... socialism (read communism) does not work! if you want real change we should be looking into libertarianism. the only political philosophy i know that has real plans for both peace and prosperity.
kindkayne 3 years ago 3
Ridiculous, but true. I don't know how come Canadians are not preoccupied with the medicare system
olegplanets 3 years ago
I am a Canadian, this is the truth.
newtonbrook 3 years ago 6
That dude better not have gotten a sex change on our dollar.
I don't mind my taxes paying for people who run into the typical unpredictable, harmful, debilitating conditions, heck I can even put up with the bums that decide to "take a trip" paid for by social services, but if this ever flies, I'll invade Ottawa myself. I'll be doing the petition thing post haste. Stupid fricken radical feminist. I think plenty about those medical procedures you stupid prick!
justsmit 4 years ago
wake up america!
voteDRNO 4 years ago
If Hillary gets elected next year this is how it will be in the U.S. too.
tuttt99 4 years ago 2
ha ha I love your simple response. one example lets you bash an entire system? should we mention the millions in the US who still dont have basic coverage? how do you think they would feel about a system like this?
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
Why don't they have coverage? No one is stopping them from buying it.
I was out of work for six months and my first priority was to make payments on my health insurance. Why should I have to pay for coverage for someone else who chooses not to pay for it?
tuttt99 4 years ago
When food, shelter, transportation, and family, drain all of your money, where are you supposed to get money for healthcare? Also, with out system, everyone who pays taxes pays for heathcare, it's not an option. We have the choice of extended covereage at our own cost.
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
maybe you put the money ahead of things like a cell phone or tv cable..
I gave up luxuries until I could afford them again.
tuttt99 4 years ago
Ok, I'm not even from the US to know that many poor people are POOR. They dont all have the luxuries you think they have. On a side note, most places now can get cell service cheaper than a land line. Step out of your world and into theirs, they dont have anything to give up.
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
"Can I pay for it myself?"
"Absolutely not, YOU'RE A CANADIAN CITIZEN."
Translation: "You are not a free person."
FUCK THAT! If I want to pay for a medical procedures I WILL BE DAMNED before I let a frickin politician tell me no!!
It's all about freedom.
TimPoet 4 years ago 4
So you are better than the others waiting in line aswell? What about their freedoms? She was free to leave the country and pay, she chose not to. If you actually knew anything about Canada you would know we have more freedom than Americans, but no you're right, this one clip represents everything in Canada... your are an example of why the world believes most Americans are ignorent.
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
For every one who gets screwed like this under universal health care, there are a thousand who get screwed by the fact of poverty in the USA. Private health care means a few will get served whenever they wish, and most will get nothing. That's not freedom. Canadian socialized health care works.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"there are a thousand who get screwed by the fact of poverty in the USA" --
Poverty in the USA means having only 1 car and 3 TV's. If you're concerned about poverty, open up YOUR CHECKBOOK and prove it. Otherwise, shut up and stop trying to spend other people's money in order to make yourself feel better. Socialism is the ultimate act of selfishness.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
There are many people in the USA who don't have the money to afford one car. Are you high?
Socialism is compassion.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"Socialism is compassion" --
Socialism is compassion in the same way that robbing a pedstrian and giving his wallet to a homeless person is compassion.
COMPASSION involves YOU sacrificing something that YOU care about, not taking something from someone else. That's called "theft." Learn English.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
The better metaphor for socialism, along your lines, would be that it is taking your wallet back from the pickpocket who just took it from you.
Compassion is the right word, because in socialism one systematically shares his wealth with those less lucky. It's not a matter of vocabulary usage. Calling socialist "theft" is highly simplistic as a refutation.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"Compassion is the right word, because in socialism one systematically shares his wealth with those less lucky" --
Wealth isn't a product of being lucky
Second, he doesn't "share" his wealth; it is confiscated from him at the point of a gun, using force. It's not compassion to spend someone ELSE'S money. No compassion is required to take spend something that is of no cost to you
If you think the poor should be helped, help them. Just don't force me to adopt your values. That's tyranny
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
Inheritance and being born rich are examples of lucky wealth.
Socialism is the sharing of wealth, a natural and ancient impulse. No guns necessarily involved. Socialized health care in Canada was brought without a shot fired. So quit the histrionics and argue. I'll have more respect for your position then, which I am actually interested in hearing.
My landlord extorts money from me by force, so there's your tyranny.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"Socialism is...a natural and ancient impulse. No guns necessarily involved" --
Oh really?! Say I choose not to give my money to the government? Will men with guns not come to my house to arrest me? Follow your "ancient" impulse without threatening me with force
"My landlord extorts money from me by force, so there's your tyranny" --
Didn't you sign a lease with him? If he got your signature under threat of force, the contract is legally void. Not true with the government
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
I signed a lease with my landlord because the alternative is living on the street. That is not a free choice. I was forced because there is no alternative to living in doors that isn't life-threatening. Capitalists dress up the concept of "work or starve" as a matter of two free individuals agreeing on a contract. But the imposition of starvation and homelessness is violence; that's the tyrannical gun in the capitalist order.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"I signed a lease with my landlord because the alternative is living on the street. That is not a free choice" -
It's free in that you may make choices without outside threats. I can't change whether humans have vital needs, but can change whether I use the guns of government socialism. You have no positive right to anything, but have the "negative" right not to have violence initiated against you. Self-ownership: the responsibility to sustain yourself, and the liberty not to be threatened
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
"Sign on the dotted line or live on the street" is an outside threat. "Work or starve" is a coercive threat of violence. The individual does not stand platonically alone in the universe. All is interdependent, including the system of rights, both positive and negative.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
By the way, blackproteus, just because the gang that uses force against me to force me to do things when I'm minding my own business is comprised of 51%+ of the voters changes nothing about the morality of the method. After all, the idea of "rights" is that they are there REGARDLESS of voting trends. Rights are ANTI-democratic. They're used by the minority against the majority (because, after all, the majority already gets what they want). Is that not true?
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
Let me restate my last comment
A gang using force to make me do something, even when I'm minding my own business, is wrong. If the gang comprises 51%+ of the voters, it's still immoral
"Rights" exist REGARDLESS of voting. They're ANTI-democratic and used by the minority against the majority (the majority already gets what they want through voting)
For more info see the following youtube video: watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Google "The law by Frederic Bastiat" and read the free online version
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
I think we are getting near the basis of our differences, which is interesting: You seem to believe that an individual's rights can be disconnected from other people and from society; I don't. We all quite literally depend on each other for survival, and so it is correct that society has some demands on us. Obviously, I favour the most democratic means possible, and the most individual freedom there can be, therefore I am a libertarian socialist.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"You seem to believe that an individual's rights can be disconnected from other people and from society" --
Absolutely not! A person's rights end when they infringe on another's right. Having said that, a majority vote doesn't give people the right to violate rights, anymore than they may as individuals.
"Obviously, I favour the most democratic means possible" --
Democracy and liberty are two different things
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
"A person's rights end when they infringe on another's right."
You have responsibilities to the people around you, in your society. Just as one does in a family or a tribe. You don't support your children according to contract, nor should you. The human family is similar.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"You have responsibilities to the people around you" --
I have no responsibilities except for myself. Saying I have to care for my children is a red herring because those children are people I brought into this world by choice. I have no responsibility to take care of your or anyone else.
If *YOU* feel a responsibility to do so, DO SO, but don't you dare try to make ME pay for it and act like that's somehow compassionate of you. It's nothing but legalized theft
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
"I have no responsibilities except for myself"?
What a bleak ideology!
Our common law recognizes that you have responsibilities to strangers. If you see a man bleeding to death in the street, you have a responsibility to help, for example. Protecting the weak is what humans should do. In hunter-gatherer societies it is common sense: you help to raise other people's children, not just your own, and you share with elders simply because they need it. That's the true human nature.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"What a bleak ideology" --
If you want to help others, be my guest. But again, DON'T USE THE GUNS OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE ME DO WHAT YOU THINK I SHOULD AND THEN PRETEND THAT **YOU** ARE BEING COMPASSIONATE. Be compassionate without using government violence.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
No need to shout at me with all-caps, mate.
My point is that we all must help each other. Just as my man-dying-in-the-street example works, you are obligated to help others. If you agree with the law (backed by guns, I guess, if you insist on boiling it down to that for dramatic effect) that a citizen can't legally walk past a dying man on the street, why doesn't that also apply to a man dying of a disease who can't afford health care?
BlackProteus 4 years ago
"My point is that we all must help each other" --
Then do it. But don't use a the guns of government to steal from others and redistribute and then act like you're "helping." You're not, anymore than any other theief.
If your compassion is real, and I doubt it is, lower your standard of living and give your OWN money. Don't give away mine.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
"If your compassion is real, and I doubt it is"
I guess when your argument isn't working on its own, cheap shots ease the pain.
Saying "Then do it" doesn't answer my point. Our law *obliges* you to help a stranger bleeding to death on the street. That is a good law, and an example of how you *do* have responsibilities to strangers. If that is accepted, then further responsibilities are plausible. How do you answer that?
BlackProteus 4 years ago
Sounds like socialism.
bootme21 4 years ago
Having a law requiring citizens to aid a fellow citizen dying in the street does not ipso facto make the government that passes such a law "socialist." In fact, this is the law in may liberal-democratic (i.e., capitalist) states.
But I agree in the sense that this basic level of fellow responsibility justifies a basis for socialism.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
I wonder, do you complain this much about paying any tax? In my view paying into our healthcare is no different from paying municipal taxes for road maintenance. You could say they are stealing because I dont drive on all the roads, therefore not getting all my moneys worth. You seem like a petty individual who thinks everyone should fend for themselves. I'm sure you're not, but thats how I read most of your arguments.
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
Your comment is directed at whom?
BlackProteus 4 years ago
Somebody worked for that money before that rich person inherited it. They have a right to do what they wish with the money they've earned.
cybele24 3 years ago
They have the rights that society says they have. That's what "rights" are.
BlackProteus 3 years ago
Except that the pickpocket first invested a lot of wealth and risk into establishing a business so that you could get a job.
justsmit 4 years ago
"Except that the pickpocket first invested a lot of wealth and risk into establishing a business so that you could get a job."
This was Marx's observation of the problem: The entrepreneur starts a business with capital, but the labourers are the ones who make it continue to work year after year, long after that initial entrepreneurial effort is a fading memory. How is it then fair that the initial investor gets paid and repaid forever, when it's the workers who make the business function?
BlackProteus 4 years ago
That's a poor question as you framed it. You are saying that such investments see an entrepreneur being 'paid and repaid forever', so you are ignoring that there are risks. For every success story, there are probably ten people still working because that risk turned out to be all too real.
In any case, you are free to apply at a cooperative if you think working for others is lame. That's entirely your choice, and nobody is stopping you.
justsmit 4 years ago
The risk does not justify continued exploitation. And I make a distinction between petty bourgeois owners and large capitalists; small business that fail have my sympathy, because they exploit none, or very few; often they area small family operations. That's different from, say, Walmart. The workers make Walmart function, they could run it, and they should own it. Taking it would not be theft, it would be putting the wealth they create in their own pockets.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
Just like the laissez faire camp, you guys sound like a bunch of broken records. Yet you come off with the same enthusiasm every time as if you are reciting something miraculous that nobody has every heard before.
The great thing about Marxists is that they have to tell people where *their own* interests lay. Now that's irony.
justsmit 4 years ago
"The great thing about Marxists is that they have to tell people where *their own* interests lay. Now that's irony."
No, it's hegemony.
I'm not a Marxist, by the way. I'm a libertarian socialist. But yes I am enthusiastic about the liberation of humankind.
BlackProteus 4 years ago
Not a very subtle message. This is pure propaganda. Naturally some prioritisation need to occur in any health care system, but I wonder why the trans gender patient was selected for the film. Was it to appeal to certain prejudices? Come on you can do better than this.
imaginenoreligion 4 years ago
socialized medicine removes competition from healthcare.you put you're life in the hands of doctors who have no need to compete with other docs because the government provides them with patients.they lose their will to preform better services.
youngmarklevin 4 years ago
You're certainly right that I have no *right* to health care or anything else like that. I live in Canada, and I get health care because the majority of Canadians have enough concern for poor fellas like me who can't pay for it on their own. If most Canadians decided not to give me health care, too bad for me, but I'm glad they do.
Frasor 4 years ago
they dont have concern.you're governments forces them to pay taxes for you're free ride.youre free ride has made everyone equal in shitty healthcare.i REALLY care about you.i dont want to GIVE you anything.i want you to be wealthy.i want to end lines and increase the quality of you're life.unfortunately you're greed for freebies has caused huge unmanageable government Bureaucracys that deal with the most important part of life.you're ability to live.you're health.
youngmarklevin 4 years ago
I didn't realize the majority of Canadians are being forced to vote for pro-public health care, left-wing political parties. I must not have noticed the guns to everyone's head last time I went to the polls.
Frasor 4 years ago
lol, good one.
DblOSmith 4 years ago
why dont you tell that to Stephen Harper frasor.why dont you get a higher paying job? dont you think you can get better health care with more money rather then shitty waitonline government healthcare?
youngmarklevin 4 years ago
The guns come later.
Guncriminal 4 years ago
the entire system is being supported by the over 12000(which includes the middle class) crowd.if it werent for the invertible huge increase in taxes due to the huge bureaucracy that government healthcare creates those citizens could have money for nonwaitinglist healthcare.please do not use youre lack of will or drive to earn to destroy the rest of us.(hope this isnt a double post)
youngmarklevin 4 years ago
I'm broke. I can't even afford insurance. If I had such a condition, I would far rather be on a three year waiting list than never be able to afford treatment at all.
Frasor 4 years ago
i would rather you become wealthy then take my money for you're health care.a government system requires more taxes thus by taking more of you're money making you less likely to afford anything.
youngmarklevin 4 years ago
You don't pay tax if you make less than $12,000 a year in Canada. You even get a refund on the sales tax you pay. I'd rather not have to count on getting rich in order to get treatment. That would likely take a lot longer than any waiting list.
Frasor 4 years ago
so everyone who makes more then 12000 has to get screwd in to paying for you're healthcare in an awful wait online system? why would you not want to be in a system that encouraged you to make more money? why would you be for higher taxes big government awful system.you dont have a right to health,food,shelter,cable or anything.you have the right to earn.thats all.
youngmarklevin 4 years ago
Exactly.
DblOSmith 4 years ago
"I would far rather be on a three year waiting list than never be able to afford treatment at all" --
Your body isn't my business. I see no reason I should have to pay for it.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
You don't have to pay for it. You can go live in a country without socialized medicine (and probably do).
I live in a country in which I and the majority of the population chooses public health care. I don't go to the States and advocate the nationalization of everything, so don't bother Canadians about a system the majority approves of.
Frasor 4 years ago
"I live in a country in which I and the majority of the population chooses public health care" --
So theft ceases to be theft when 51% of the people approve of it? As Franklin said, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
"so don't bother Canadians about a system the majority approves of" --
I won't. I like all the extra cash that comes into our free healthcare from those left behind by your soviet-style system.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that healthcare in Canada is theft. I'm also curious how you compare the thousands of Canadian people who travel to the US or abroad to get treatment to the millions in the US who do not have nor can afford basic medical coverage?
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
If you saw a person who needed healthcare, stole my wallet at gun point and then gave it to the person needing healthcare, no one would say you were "compassionate." It would be theft.
Yet, in your mind, if 51% of the people all come to me and tell me to give them my money (under the threat of gov't force), then it's ok with you. You support legalized, government-sponsored theft because you're too selfish and lazy to fix the problem on your own
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
I saw this trans-sexual at York University when I attended there.
qtronman 4 years ago
the Canadian system is just screwy.
RepConsnow4ever 4 years ago
This film seems contrived. If they wanted to pay out of pocket, there would have been plenty of doctors in the US who would have done it. Why don't they mention if they did or didn't try going to the US. If they did try the US, they probably found they couldn't possibly have affored it.
terjayne 4 years ago
American Hospitals charge people WITHOUT health insurance a much higher price.
If the operation cost $20000 for someone WITHOUT insurance and $10000 for someone WITH insurance. Insurance companies do not pay right away and lets say they pay 2 weeks after hospital send the bill. For this woman since she does not live in USA then they would require full payment before the operation. Which person would the hospital operator first ... $20000 paid in full or $10000 payment in 2 weeks ...
pvukosavljev 4 years ago
The Canadian system has many problems. Some people get the help they need and others do not and sometimes it just doesn't make any sense at all.
lizzielou73 4 years ago
In the USA you would be ok
JJHusker 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you had the money.
doublehalf 4 years ago
i swear if i hear one more person refer to socialized medicine as "FREE health care" i'm gonna vomit. The government doesn't MAGICALLY get money to give people medical coverage, it comes from every person in the nation.
smashweights 4 years ago 2
I agree, as I'm a British citizen... There are a lot of problems with the NHS, but everyone has the right to pay for private healthcare if they wish. It seems ridiculous that there is somehow a ban on private healthcare in Canada; what's going on?
trojjer 4 years ago
WOW, iv never seen Chomsky is a dress before! Looking good.
edokyo 4 years ago
Hehe
jakob0815 4 years ago
if there were no profit, no incentive, no "greed" as the class-warfare invoking socialist like to put it, in the medicine industry, the last great breakthrough would have been battlefield amputation.
wytkracka 4 years ago
I've been trying to find the guy's name, a movie critic that reviewed michael moore's sicko in the UK, heard him referenced the other day as saying " one thing Mr. Moore has not done, is sit in an 'emergency room' in queue, watching his severed toe disintegrate in a cup of ice water, as he waited for hours for it to be reattached, I have".
wytkracka 4 years ago
Do you think that a member of Smitherman's family would be placed that waiting list for as long? All Canadians are equal, but some are more equal than others.
xteacher 4 years ago
of course not
JME1282 4 years ago
Oh. My. God. I knew, academically, in my head, that socialism not only does not work, but that it hurts a lot of people. But to see the horrors visited on people every day by government is... sobering. For the love of God, people go to Mises dot org.
rabidquill 4 years ago
Though canadian healthcare is better than American healtcare, Canadian healthcare is merely the lesser of two evils. Socialism does NOT work
takadi 4 years ago
I don't think Canadian healthcare is better. Both systems have problems.
lizzielou73 4 years ago
i can NOT understand why Smitherman is still the Ministry of Health.. The next election is in October .... and i think they do NOT want to replace him so close to an election ... Just like the guy at Fema who resigned .. when you appoint a person to job who is incompedent bad things happen.. I
pvukosavljev 4 years ago
the only thing wrong with the american healthcare is it's polluted with elements of socialism, sorry, but poor decisions on your part do not constitute an emergency on my part, there is no reason why I should be forced to cover the cost of some high school drop out 30 year old whopper flopper's 5 child when they knew they couldn't afford one.
wytkracka 4 years ago
AMEN TO THAT TESTIFY.
JME1282 4 years ago
Like in UK, the Canadian government is controlled by the majority of the previleged and the rich (most of politicians are corrupt and accept undertable contribution/benefits from the pharmaseudical manufacturing comapanies, likewise in the U,S.) The whole health care system only provide and carter for the rich (the ones who can afford it). Americans need a free enterprized health system that every citizens can benefit from and can afford to pay for it.
JihadWatchDog 4 years ago
it's sad, both systems are flawed
in canada, people die because they wait
in usa, people die because they don't have the money
basically, no matter what country you go to, you are going to die anyway.......
just imagine if those two womem DIDN'T have the money to go to the usa to get treated, then both systems have failed. and people die as a result of it.
therealdeal145 4 years ago
Thank God I'm American, and my blader works just fine. So fine, in fact, that I'm thinking of taking a road trip to Canada. Gonna hold it all the way, cuz when I get to Parliment, there's a certain Minister who's gonna find out firsthand how I hope his political career is a SPLASHING success.
BillyBughead 4 years ago
Smitherman is NOT in Ottawa, Ontario but in Toronto Ontario. He is a minister of health in the Province of Ontario government.. A province is what in the US is called a "State"... Health is a "provincial" responsibility and NOT a federal one. DO not worry.. October 2007 is the provincial election ... so Smitherman could get voted out of office in a few month.
pvukosavljev 4 years ago
Maybe we (USA) need to liberate Canada.
stevenewyork 4 years ago
Please liberate us from these socialists.
richmondrk 4 years ago
You should be carefully.. In 1814 ... Canada while still part of the British Empire ... occupied Washington DC... and well find of burned down some stuff.. Wonder how the White House got it name... After they partly burned down the President Residence then it was painted with white paint. That is when people started calling the President Residence .. THE WHITE HOUSE... This happened during the War of 1812...
pvukosavljev 4 years ago
"Maybe we (USA) need to liberate Canada" --
Yes, the conservative version of socialism: war. ::rolleyes::
Maybe we (USA) need to mind our own business
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
This is exactly why the U.S. should NEVER adopt Canada's universal health care.
DON'T VOTE THE SOCIALIST HILLARY INTO OFFICE!
KawaiiKohaku 4 years ago
Agreed. Simply and clear. Canadian health care system sucks. Ask the elderly Candian elderly citizens who had to come across the border to get their surgery done-it is a matter of life and death decisios for them! This is what's going to happen to YOU!
Support free enterprised health care system.
JihadWatchDog 4 years ago
Canada must of course be a socialist state, just happens to be run by conservatives atm... Anyways, back to tending the polar bears, oh and gotta remember to light the fire in the igloo before bed, night all from the great frozen north =)
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
That is horrible. Was there no way for her to come to the US to have the operation? It's just disgusting that they didn't allow her to pay to have the surgery. If socialist programs such as that ever try to edge their way into US policy, we have to do our best to prevent it from being approved. This unfortunately is an example we can use.
Vegee 4 years ago
Yes she could go to the US and have it done, they didn't take that route apparently. And yes, we have private clinics now that let you pay for their services, but this does not sound like common surgery, so it may not be available yet. It's not perfect, but I will take it over the US system any day. It's unfortunate that ignorent americans take one example and run with it. This DOES NOT represent the entire system. Do you're own bloody research before you rail against something.
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
wemfraver2003 so give preference to elective cosmetic surgery of sex change to the surgery this woman needed. where as transgendered woman needed to feel emotionally comfortable this woman couldnt use her bladder properly. would you feel the same if you were unable to use your bladder. if you had to wait three years to go to the bathroom in a manner you would prefer over a cathader? would you?
JME1282 4 years ago
spell "ignorant" right if you're going to accuse someone else of being so.
wytkracka 4 years ago
"but this does not sound like common surgery, so it may not be available yet" --
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....hah ah aha haha haha...ahhhhh. .......... HA ha ha ha ha ha ha
"not available yet." That's rich. Hey buddy, guess what? The free market has it "available" within a few days just South of the border. By the time your big, clumsy government gets around to it, it'll probably be outdated anyway.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
Actually I was refering to the private clinics or the "free market" as you put it. It was all in the same sentence, how did you miss that? Now here are your holes, the "big clumsy govermnment" already has it available, just not fast enough. Did you even watch the video? Canada has a free market medical system, but if no clinic preforms the surgury how is that the fault of the government?
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
I don't know if it qualifies as free market, but yeah, in Canada the services are indeed provided by private organizations and individuals running their businesses out of their own pockets.
The government just runs the insurance, and that is mandatory.
It's a great system.
Sure, it sucks things are politicized, where a politician will meet with a tranny just to be politically correct, but c'est la vie. That'll happen as long as we have politicians.
justsmit 4 years ago
*should read 'many of the services', not 'the services'
justsmit 4 years ago
"I don't know if it qualifies as free market, but yeah, in Canada the services are indeed provided by private organizations and individuals running their businesses out of their own pockets" --
They're still regulated to death, the prices are set for them and they're told which patients they must accept. It's not a free market by any stretch of the word.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
I totally agree with this observation of yours.
However, that shouldn't hide the fact that I think regulations can potentially be a good thing, and not just a bad thing as you imply, given your "regulated to death" remark.
justsmit 4 years ago
why would she get up the list?! what about the 31 people ahead of her, they need the surgery too.
112343211 4 years ago
Yeah, and why should she be allowed to pay out of her own fucking pocket? We can't have that...
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
that's not the crux of the problem, main thing was, she is only allowed to see a certain doctor, and that doctor is only allowed to perform x amount of said surgeries a year
wytkracka 4 years ago
I can't imagine waking up every day waiting for the government to do something for me. When did so many people in the United States begin believing that it was the job of the government to take care of them? When all of us Baby Boomers retire are all of you young socialists going to foot the bill? No, you'll find religion and turn into a Reagan Democrats!
dhgmust 4 years ago
Some of that made sense... I'm sure...
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
Is that what we have to look forward to in the USA?
Senatorcliffbrown 4 years ago
this is extremmly rare. if a rare sort of thing such as this happens people are sent to other prov. or even to the states and still they dont pay one cent.
bill739 4 years ago
She never said in the video if she applied to get her operation done in other province or the United States. The Ontario government has send people to Cleveland Ohio for operations ... i believe they were heart surgery .. at no cost for their treatment .. they even pay airfare, hotels, and other costs.
pvukosavljev 4 years ago
America dosn't have a health care problem, we have a health insurance problem. The democrats want to fix health insurance by revamping health care but that will not work. Lets just have govt. funding for health insurance.
abc7536 4 years ago
Lets just let the government do it all for us. Hell with working for anything.
glawlerx2 4 years ago
Health insurance companies only want to have healthy people insured. So you want all people who have health problems to be doomed to a life of poverty. The gon't has manipulated the world econmy so much, we need SOME govt. intervention or our health care services WILL break down. Enforce the border, don't give health care to illegals, and we can help eople out with health insurance.
abc7536 4 years ago
"Lets just have govt. funding for health insurance" --
So why exactly do you want government to destroy health insurance more than it already has? You do realize that everything the government touches turns to crap right?
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
The real flaw in this system is that citizens should have the option to get faster treatment if they can afford it, and therefore have 2 systems, one public and one private, to plan for situations like these. The only reason the transsexual got included is to show bias from the health minister of Ontario. You still have to realise the amount of disadvantaged people that get access to free health care.
OddEye83 4 years ago
Sex change operations are not paid by OHIP currently. IT was ended by the Conservatives government of Ontario in 1998. There are NO plans by the current government or opposition party to pay for sex change operations. The opposition party is the party that ended OHIP paying for sex change operations.
pvukosavljev 4 years ago
not sure i understood the point of this video. they want the government to force these specialist doctors and surgeons to do more work or something? as for adding that tranny into the mix.. wtf was the point of that? seperate issue all together.
babolimp 4 years ago
Seriously, me either.
Axiomat097 4 years ago
The only reason why the government can't go to no socielist programs is, because they know, if we don't have them, something like the great depression can destroy our country. Rich people rule the country and the government sucks, because of it. When you climb the ladder most forget how they got there.
yukayj2524 4 years ago
You do know that the New Deal actually PROLONGED the depression, right?
cybele24 3 years ago 5
Right now our country is so messed up is because rich people run the country. The don't care about others. They only care about themselves. With means more money for them and less money that is used in the system. The only true way to make health care affordable is to make a community health care, non-profit.
yukayj2524 4 years ago
You should take a course in economics.
snuffydoug 4 years ago
Oh, yeah and my previous comment was not a complement. You really seem to have no idea what your talking about.
snuffydoug 4 years ago
The problem with people that believe in only capitalist society is that when bad things happen to people with no money they die. This person could have come to the US and had the operation if she really could afford to pay for it. Right now alot of people don't have health care. Why, because they can't afford it.
yukayj2524 4 years ago
lmao sure they can't. Your so right. They would rather have a $50+ cell phone, cable TV, fast access internet and the other things in life instead of putting that money into health insurance.
Rich people create jobs. Don't believe me go ask a poor person for a job see what they tell you. Most the rich people are rich because they earned it. Now explain why they should have to hand that money out to You. Sounds selfish if you ask me.
Hard work! Blood for freedom!
glawlerx2 4 years ago
The question is though, why do Americans spend more money on healthcare than any other western nation?
snuffydoug 4 years ago
Well, Not sure but willing to say that cost in health care is so high for americans to compensate for the stuff not paid for (given for free) to illegal immigrants. That would explain a big part of, if not most of it.
glawlerx2 4 years ago
What about the lucrative brand names marketed by the big pharmaceutical companies? I'll agree that they need to recoup their costs somehow, but could it be done in a somewhat more ethical way?
trojjer 4 years ago
I don't know there are people that have been working on this "problem" for years and I have yet to see something that actually "works for everyone" I just do not want to see it in the hands of the government. I havn't done any research on it personaly a good plan costs around 200 or so bucks a mo I think I can spare $50 bucks a week and try to eat right. Nothing work having comes easy and health is included in that statment its not hard its just inconvenent(sp?)
glawlerx2 4 years ago
Now there's a story you won't see in the NYT.. or the MSM in general..
God i hope that don't happen here..
Stlpatriot 4 years ago
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." That is part of the Hippocratic Oath, which is obviously not too important when Universal Healthcare is concerned.
jnorrett 4 years ago
Fuck Socialism!
zzx2847 4 years ago
and the horse it road in on.
glawlerx2 4 years ago
Ditto Buddy. Fuck Socialism!
snuffydoug 4 years ago
The only question is whether we, as a nation, can counter the massive P.R. misinformation campaign that will precede the imposition of such a healthcare system on our country and our economy. Folks, we are going to have to struggle MIGHTILY to stop the utopian desires of those who advocate socialized medicine. I can only hope we are up to the task.
killjoycranks 4 years ago
This is what happens when the Government runs health care. They run it just like the post office. Is that what we want in America?
Where does it say in the Constitution that health care is a right.
ScottyDog2 4 years ago
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's the first one, Scotty.
DblOSmith 4 years ago
Where does it say free health care that is rationed?
ScottyDog2 4 years ago
Wrong answer. "Life, liberty,..." is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Before anyone brings up "General Welfare":
James Madison, Father of the Constitution:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
MisterZeebub 4 years ago
From what I understand, the Declaration of Independence is a valid US document, contract, means. Or are we still a Brittish colony?
DblOSmith 4 years ago
""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's the first one, Scotty" --
You misunderstand the entire notion of rights and therefore misinterpret the "right to life"
Rights are defensive. They shield people from aggression. You have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to be bought microphone. You have freedom of the press, but not the right to be GIVEN a press. You have the right to life, but not at the expense of stealing another's rights
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
Being someone who has had their share health problems this is scary. If Dem's win in 08 prepare yourselves.
leadzeppelin 4 years ago 2
Get ready for the Democrats plan for America.
DaMav 4 years ago 2
The Hillary Health Plan in action! Watch out USA!
Sunshine484848 4 years ago 2
If Hillary or Edwards becomes president, we all experience a slow, painful death. Someone please tell me that socialism is not inevitable. Please tell me there are Americans who are armed and ready to fight. DEATH TO THE SOCIALIST!
JayAreDubya 4 years ago
I am armed and ready to fight socialism. I hate the state.
snuffydoug 4 years ago 2
Yes attack Canada the socialist state...
WemfRaver2003 4 years ago
LOL
snuffydoug 4 years ago
"I hate the state" --
Click on FreeStateProject*org
You'll fit right in with that attitude! :)
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
"Someone please tell me that socialism is not inevitable" --
It's not inevitable *IF* we fight it. Right now, liberty advocates are spread too thin to make enough of an impact. Some people are doing something abotut that by uniting together to make a last stand in America's freest state.
FreeStateProject*org
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
Well guess what-it's coming in 2008. So good luck everyone.
decoratingisfun 4 years ago
Superb point made. A+
janiejanejo 4 years ago
I've never felt more fortunate to live in the US that when I was diagnosed with cancer that was in stage 4. I had friends living in Canada at the time, and from what I heard from them, if I'd been there too, I would have been dead before any diagnosis was made. Ever since, I've been vehemently opposed to such a system.
CrusaderCoyote 4 years ago
The U.S. should make it illegal for people who live in other countries who have have taxpayer supported health care to come here for treatment. While this may seem mean and cold, it would make the all people in those other countries, including the people in charge, have to use the same health care that the majority do.
stunha7878 4 years ago
In the UK you can pay for private healthcare if you wish, without a problem. It seems odd that Canada apparently bans this entirely, and ridiculous.
trojjer 4 years ago
And this type of health care is what the pandering pukes who want to become president in the U.S. are attempting to bring to fruition. I can't express my disgust at the Canadian system strongly enough, and this poor woman has no bladder as a consequence. And to put gender modification (or whatever it's called) above a life threatening illness is unconscionable.
anjullyn 4