Healthcare should not only be a government priority. Whether it be socialized or private, healthcare should be available and affordable for everyone. I find the priorities of government and individuals are sometimes extremely distorted when large amounts of time and finance are wasted. Unfortunately we do not live in a utopia, but it just seems like common sense to me that many aspects of social life should be community concerns, healthcare included. Reliance on government or political systems is destined to failure unless those political systems have the backing and involvement, in whatever form, of the majority of community members effected by that particular system. A community that takes the attitude of me first and everyone else a distant second is a community that the old saying applies to, ‘you get the government you deserve.’

Why should it be available and affordable? For thousands of years it was neither available nor affordable, but now it should be? Health care is a service, just like car repair or house painting. 

It should be as available and affordable as the market can bear.

When the government gets involved, someone eventually will be coerced. Either you will have to coerce the doctors to work for free, or you will have to coerce healthy people into subsidizing the care of the sick. As Mike’s example shows, even in the Canadian system, you get the health care you can afford. And that’s how it should be.

I think Red Star’s point is more that community should take care of its own, not the government.  For thousands of years water was neither clean nor readily available in your house, but I imagine you don’t want to build an outhouse in your backyard for tradition’s sake.  While I agree that the market needs to determine a vast amount of health care, the idea is that if community were more responsible for helping those in need, the market would still be in place, and more people would be helped.  It is the idea of the help being *voluntary* as opposed to government coerced that is the major issue. :)

Thankyou Jim, my point exactly, and Belcatar, you lost me here, you’re comparing the welfare of humans to house painting or car repairs.?

Medical care today is a complex issue.  To put it simply, our ability to provide top notched, state of the art health care to everybody is impossible. 

The golden age of medicine was the 60s to 70s, when our knowledge levels based on cost to administer care was at its best.  There was little that could be done in intensive care, ventilators were used, but we did not have the drugs and medical devices available today to treat and prolong life, so they did the best they could and the costs were kept at a reasonable level.  We did have much success in treating diseases and prolonging life, but nothing to the effect of what we can offer today.  The science has expanded way beyond the ability of society to keep up with the costs.

There is no one solution to this problem, because, as I’ve said, the costs of providing care has far exceeded our ability to provide it unrestricted to the masses.  Everybody can’t have an MRI for back pain, everybody can’t have a cardiac cath for chest pain… The only system that will work is a mixed provider system that will unfortunately produce various levels of care.  Any level will still be light-years ahead of the care provided in the 60s-70s.

Thankyou Jim, my point exactly, and Belcatar, you lost me here, you’re comparing the welfare of humans to house painting or car repairs.?

Belcatar’s point was that there are plenty of other services that effect quality of life that we DON’T expect to be available and affordable, necessarily, and questioning why medical services should be treated all that differently.
From a government action view, its something I’d agree with. However, if you’re saying that the general community should help (through things such as charities) rather than the government stepping in, I’d agree with that, so long as its not the government itself doing it.

Healthcare is not a service, neither is it a right or privilege, it is an absolute neccessity. And until it is viewed that way by the community at large most of us will go on arguing that political systems will solve our problems. I’m sorry Lowbacca, but I fail to see how house painting or car repairs effect our quality of life,in fact I find comparing human welfare to the selling of any commodity abhorrent. One thing recent history has proved, whether it be 9/11, the special period in Cuba, or the communal councils of Venezuela there is a spark of compassion, care and responsibility in communities. And there is also the possibility that spark can be deadened. I would go so far as saying, if we allow our communities to become isolated and uncaring the survival of the entire species could be in jeopardy, socially and morally at the very least. If the individuals focus is on repeat episodes of ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’ , ‘Sports Illustrated’ and working overtime, the end result will be something similar to ‘Dawn Of The Dead,’ the population at large will become souless zombies feeding off each other. A community that surrenders its responsibility and power to government is a sick one.

I think Red Star’s point is more that community should take care of its own, not the government.

So in other words… Communism.

Never mind all the negative stereotypes that the word “Communism” immediately brings to mind, at the heart of it this is preceisely what Red Star is advocating.  A system whereby everyone is cared for by everyone else and there is no hunger, no poverty, no want for anything.  It’s a nice idea, just too bad that people, not robots, are the ones trying to live by it.

Healthcare is not a service, neither is it a right or privilege, it is an absolute neccessity.

I must disagree with you there—it is possible to go for years without seeing a doctor.  However, you can only survive a few weeks without food.  THAT is the true necessity.  (For the sake of a simpler argument, I’m not going to discuss water.) Should we not ask the gov’t to supply us with food?*

*To date, no one has responded to my contention that we should be more concerned about free food than free healthcare.

Obsidian, please don’t take me for a complete idiot. I have never said that poverty, hunger or want will be eradicated. What I did say was that these and other issues need to become community oriented, as well as government concerns. There are too many people self absorbed, paralysed by mediocrity, ignorance or apathy to ever alleviate social problems once and for all.

*To date, no one has responded to my contention that we should be more concerned about free food than free healthcare.

They can’t.  Saying the government should provide EVERYONE with free food is fucking absurd on its face, and they couldn’t be taken seriously if they advocate it.  But you’re 100% correct of course.  It’s a far greater necessity than access to an MRI machine or a dentist or a heart surgeon or treatment for a frigging hangnail.  Where’s the movement for government-run groceries and taxpayer-funded food shopping?

I’d like to see an answer before the pro-free-magic-universal-health-care people say one more word on any subject…

Bismarck, we are talking about healthcare here, of course many other issues are neccessities as well. Just because I didn’t specify the issues, or list them in order of importance doesn’t mean I am singling out healthcare.

A community that surrenders its responsibility and power to government is a sick one.

Then why do you advocate the government take over responsibility and power for health care?  That’s rather contradictory.

There are too many people self absorbed, paralysed by mediocrity, ignorance or apathy to ever alleviate social problems once and for all.

By the way, I love how you pretend that Communism could really work if it weren’t for those pesky human traits...the ones that allowed us to rise to the top of the food chain and stay there.

*cough*

Comrade Jim....I did not advocate government take over healthcare, please show me a quote where I proposed that. And if it were not for those human traits, none of us would be human. I am not saying I am free from any of those particular failings. I do reiterate..once again, community involvement is essential to the community, at the very least we should work towards that.

Obsidian, please don’t take me for a complete idiot.

Kind of hard not to when you proceed to deny my claim and then prove that it is in fact what you are saying.  You’re looking for a society where the “Community” comes together and works out things for the greater good.  I.e.  Communism.

By the way, I love how you pretend that Communism could really work if it weren’t for those pesky human traits…

To quote Clerks

This job would be great if it weren’t for the customers.

You will have to excuse me guys, it’s early moring here. I need to finish the next chapter of Das Kapital and get some sleep, have a good day.

Bismarck, we are talking about healthcare here, of course many other issues are neccessities as well. Just because I didn’t specify the issues, or list them in order of importance doesn’t mean I am singling out healthcare.

Just to clarify, then… do you support the gov’t supplying us with free food?

Incidentally, I’d like to publicly thank you for voicing your opinions and reasonings without resorting to the name-calling or foot-stamping that we so often encounter around here.  I may disagree with you on many points, but I appreciate your tact.

Healthcare is not a service, neither is it a right or privilege, it is an absolute neccessity. And until it is viewed that way by the community at large most of us will go on arguing that political systems will solve our problems. I’m sorry Lowbacca, but I fail to see how house painting or car repairs effect our quality of life,in fact I find comparing human welfare to the selling of any commodity abhorrent. One thing recent history has proved, whether it be 9/11, the special period in Cuba, or the communal councils of Venezuela there is a spark of compassion, care and responsibility in communities. And there is also the possibility that spark can be deadened. I would go so far as saying, if we allow our communities to become isolated and uncaring the survival of the entire species could be in jeopardy, socially and morally at the very least. If the individuals focus is on repeat episodes of ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’ , ‘Sports Illustrated’ and working overtime, the end result will be something similar to ‘Dawn Of The Dead,’ the population at large will become souless zombies feeding off each other. A community that surrenders its responsibility and power to government is a sick one.

Healthcare is not at all a ‘neccessity’ of being alive. We wouldn’t have gotten this far if it was. Someone can go without healthcare and live a life. What healthcare is is about increasing lifespan and increasing quality of life. Those two things can be done by many things. Where I live, my quality of life is vastly increased by having a car. I also would not have an income if I didn’t have a car. Should the government provide my car with maintainance because of that? And face it, no one focuses on Everybody Loves Raymond

Oh, and I’d add, the simple idea of the community acting to better the less fortunate isn’t neccessarily communism, it can also be charity. The community creating a system so that everyone gets the same health care regardless of income, that would be communism.

Bismarck, no I don’t think the government should provide free food, cheaper food would be nice, but God forbid we should cut into the obscene profits of the major food chains. Lowbacca, to me “increasing lifespan and quality of life” fits the category of neccessity, and “no one focuses on Everybody Loves Raymond”? then how about Seinfeld.? And I wouldn’t expect the government to supply maintenance to your car, did someone miss my point that reliance on government is not what I advocate,?? but wouldn’t it be great if your employer offered to help you out with car maintenance.?

Bismarck, no I don’t think the government should provide free food, cheaper food would be nice, but God forbid we should cut into the obscene profits of the major food chains.

Just…

I mean, statements like this make me wonder why you guys are still trying any semblance of a reasonable debate with this guy. He’s either a troll or a complete whacko. Either way, I don’t think any sort of dialog with him will ultimately be productive, just waste time and cause aggravation.

Rann Aridorn, personally I find your comments offensive, I was quite reasonable. And for a moron like you to accuse me of anything else, when you haven’t even bothered to contribute anything to the conversation is laughable. Either present an argument or go back into hiding, fool.

Either present an argument or go back into hiding, fool.

Tell ya what, when you present a reasonable argument and refrain from being insulting, I’ll present you with the same courtesy. You’ve yet to contribute anything resembling a rational debate, and have snapped off such winners as “don’t take me for a complete idiot”.

You have given no sign of actually respecting anyone else’s opinions or seeing anyone else’s side, and your stated viewpoints are so extremist and, frankly, whacko, and you have refused to budge on any of them or answer relevant questions, that it is entirely valid to question your sincerity or, if you are sincere, what the point is to continuing a dialog with you.

You throw out stuff like “obscene profits of the major food chains” with no irony whatsoever, and it makes you sound like one of the frothing nutjobs standing on the streetcorner waving around a pamphlet about how capitalism is destroying the world. I wouldn’t stop to debate such a person, and I would discourage anyone I was with from engaging in such a pointless and fruitless activity, and that’s exactly what I did here.

At least have the decency to tone down your act and try to seem less extremist than you are, and thus give the impression that discussion with you could have some merit or point, or have the grace to troll openly and unabashedly. Either way, be finished and be gone as soon as possible. Fool.

Anyway, on the article itself…

In fact, Belinda thinks very highly of the Canadian health-care system, and uses it when needed for herself and her children, as do all Canadians.

It’s weird that they’d put this in there, considering that directly above it in the article, they show that this is a lie. I mean, lying in the news media is nothing particularly new, but such blatant falsehood, when the truth is right above it…

It says she uses the Canadian health care system when she needs it. Except that if that were true, she wouldn’t have had to go to California. I mean, it’s as simple as that. Why did she go to California to pay for an operation if the Canadian health care system provides for all her needs? Did she just want an ocean view recovery room? (Even then, it’s still indulging in a service that privatized health care gives that socialized health care won’t. I kind of doubt Canadian socialized health care allows the average Canadian to say “Well, I’d like to go to the Montreal hospital to have my operation, so that I can do a little shopping after the stitches heal.")

I mean, isn’t that just a little strange? That’s a really Moore-level thing there, telling a bald-faced lie when everyone around you knows the truth, when your own actions have borne it out. (Hell, Moore went to a super-exclusive fat camp. Did that make it into Sicko? Does he advocate everyone getting the opportunity to do what he did?) She says that the Canadian health care system provides all she needs, but when she needed something she still came and used ours.

Rann Aridon, your introduction to me was imbecilic name calling, “whacko” I believe was the term you used. Sorry if I find that brand of juvenile stupidity irritating. If you bothered to read my posts, you would in fact find that there is some agreement between myself and those who I have been in discussion with. And you find my comment on obscene profits unreasonable, are you serious.? Here in Australia we pay mark ups on food of well over forty percent, the major food chains quite often refuse local produce because there is no room for profit to be made in prices asked from local producers, I find that unreasonable, the workers in these food chains consist mainly of teenagers, who do not receive adequate salaries, I find that unreasonable. Woolworths has moved into liquor and petrol sales forcing many small businesses to the wall, I find that unreasonable. Their profit in the last financial year was over a billion dollars, I find that unreasonable. In fact, I find you unreasonable, if you think my comments are “whacko” ignore them, trust me I wont mind at all.

Enough enough enough enough enough!!!!!

STOP!!!!!

First off, let me say, I’m in a REALLY pissy mood
today. (Just as an explanation for my short fuse.)

All Moorewatchers; I am one of you. I love you all.
But you it’s plain to see that we’re reaching a boiling point, here, where we’re just out for blood.
This has to stop!
We do no service to ourselves as a community when we
allow ourselves to slip even slightly into the mold
our ideological or political opponents have cast for us.
We’re better then that. We’re better than them.
Please don’t ever forget that.

Rann, you’re being condescending and rude for no reason. Red Star didn’t promote socialization. I paid close attention to what he/she was saying. I saw that NOWHERE.
What RS did promote is more community concern. (Not even, necessarily, structured community services.) Just neighbors, informally, looking out for each other. That’s all.
You disagree with that? I sure don’t. I’m all-fucking-for it, actually.

Look Rann… I know we’ve been troll-free for a while, and that it gets frustrating not having someone to bash… but RS doesn’t seem to be a Mooreon. He’s just not a down-the-line conservative, is all.
So what? Neither am I. Neither is Jim. Are you?
Point is, I don’t think he deserved what he got.

Now, Red Star… while you may not have earned the title of troll, and while I find your comments interesting and intelligent most of the time, I have to say, your response to Rann was downright rude. There’s just no reason for insults like that, on either side.
Rann is a bit of a hothead, but one thing he certainly is NOT, is a “moron”. Neither is he a “fool”, nor “imbecilic”.
In fact, he’s a very intelligent guy who is just, on occasion, a bit quick to stomp some heads.

You would be, too, if you had to face the endless parade of moore-ons who come here posing as rational moderates (for about 10 minutes, until their tru colors show.)

So I’m asking everyone to please take a deep breath and reassess each others’ positions with clarity. You just might find that you’re not as opposed as you first thought.

BTW- I know someone will bring up the “outrageous profits” line as an example.

This might be a good indicator… OR…
it might just be the same sentiment that every single one of us has expressed at one time or another while shopping.

I mean, come on… who here has NOT picked up a
package of T-bones and said “$7.99 a pound??!? Greedy fuckers!” ...?

Doesn’t necessarily equate to political advocacy for
a socialized government, does it?

I’m just sayin’… breathe. Don’t take everything so literally or so seriously.
Save it for the real whackos.
Them, we can obliterate.

Ok, I have to admit to being slightly aggravated at being insulted for simply expressing an opinion. I apologise for my rude response, but for the life of me I can’t see community involvement in at least some of the democratic processes as extremist, nor do I agree with the greed is good credo. If that makes me a whacko or a troll, whatever that may be, then I gladly accept that title. However my rave will end here, and once again apologies to Rann, and whoever else took offence at my opinions.

Alright, if I jumped to a conclusion from what I saw and other factors, then I apologize too.

Posted by Red Star on 09/20/2007 at 12:21 PM (Link to this comment | )

Bismarck, we are talking about healthcare here, of course many other issues are neccessities as well. Just because I didn’t specify the issues, or list them in order of importance doesn’t mean I am singling out healthcare.

I don’t think that’s a thoughtful response… Often, we need to look at issues from other points of view for prospective. Turn things around, et cetera… It’s totally fair IMO to bring up food… We, as a society, dealt with food issues with welfare for the poor (often script, or cash, to use at private stores to buy food). Not government run universal food distribution stores everyone had to use (to be equal in food treatment). It’s a good point.

I have worked with homeless men and women for a little over ten years, in Australia they don’t really go hungry. Church organizations and varying charities see to that, which is commendable. Where the difficulty lies is this, at every shelter I have worked in there are at the most seven to twelve employees who have to shoulder a large degree of responsibility, eight hours a day, seven days a week for eighty to a hundred drug addicted, alcoholic, mentally ill or recently paroled individuals. I hate to bring this up, and am ready for another round of indignant replies, but where is the rest of the community involvement with these guys.? A dozen or so people can’t shoulder the responsibility without facing burnout at the worst, severe frustration at the best. Community involvement would lighten the load at the very least.

You throw out stuff like “obscene profits of the major food chains” with no irony whatsoever, and it makes you sound like one of the frothing nutjobs standing on the streetcorner waving around a pamphlet about how capitalism is destroying the world.

I sure would like to know exactly how Red Star defines “obscene profit”.  Care to help me out here, Red Star?

Bismarck, no I don’t think the government should provide free food, cheaper food would be nice, but God forbid we should cut into the obscene profits of the major food chains. Lowbacca, to me “increasing lifespan and quality of life” fits the category of neccessity, and “no one focuses on Everybody Loves Raymond”? then how about Seinfeld.? And I wouldn’t expect the government to supply maintenance to your car, did someone miss my point that reliance on government is not what I advocate,?? but wouldn’t it be great if your employer offered to help you out with car maintenance.?

Except, it isn’t neccessity. And a large number of people could increase lifespan and quality of life themselves as well. Outlawing cars could, arugably, increase lifespan and quality of life. But we’re not going to do that.
My point is that health care is not a neccessity, but food and water are, and yet some people would put a greater expectation on the gov’t to provide health care than food.
And there is NO reason that my employer should be expected to offer help with car maintainance. (they wouldn’t, anyway. i’ve two jobs and both of them are somewhere that puts me as a gov’t employee, technically)
Charity should not be an expectation, and it shouldn’t be provided by the gov’t. Thats not to say that charity isn’t good, though. I don’t have any problem with people choosing to help other people as a direct action. Its the involvement of government I’m criticising, and its two ideas that I think should be seperated.

Buzz, approximately seven posts above yours is my definition of obscene profit, by obscene I mean exploitative. I think I may need to clarify a few things here for the sake of honesty and integrity. I have Socialist leanings, simply because I am so frustrated at the poverty, injustice and total irrationality of the system those I work with face everyday. Secondly, I am not interested in converting anyone here, thirdly I am here for the simple fact I like to interact with others whose ideas differ from mine. I do not wish to disrupt this forum, I do not wish to intrude on anyones beliefs, I simply wish to exchange ideas. And finally, if it makes anyone feel a little better, most Marxists writings are completely beyond my comprehension, I am not that well educated. I guess the rest is up to you guys, I apologise for distracting from the subject of this thread, it was not intentional, I will not post in this thread again so you can get on with discussing the original topic.

Red Star, it might serve you well in future to understand the difference between mark up and net profit margin. The largest grocery chain in this country is Kroger, and they operate on a 1.7% net profit margin . . . hardly what any reasonable person would call obscene profits.  I would think it the same in Australia.

The thing is that almost any product sold is sold at an “obscene” profit margin. Sometimes that profit margin, however, is justified. Sometimes it is not.

Let’s take, for example, soda. Now, if you’re at the drive-through of McDonald’s or whatever, a soda is going to cost you something like $1.60. That soda is costing McDonald’s maybe… two cents for the liquid and maybe, MAYBE, a nickel for the cup. (We’ll be exceedingly generous with their costs on those.) Factor in the cost of shipping the syrup and soda water and maintaining the equipment and paying the guy who dispenses it, and they’re still probably going to be making well over 100% profit on every soda. Maybe even something like 200%. A 200% profit’s pretty obscene, isn’t it?

But in the case of the soda, I have alternatives. Essentially what I’m paying for is the convenience of having it handed to me in a form that is ready to be partaken of easily and readily, possibly while driving. If I don’t want to pay for that convenience, I can drop into the grocery store and get more soda for less (definitely if I buy it unchilled, or the store’s generic brand). Or if I want to look at the really long-term money-saving option, I can invest in a soda dispenser of my own, and just dispense my own fountain drinks. Sure, the all-at-once pay for each thing of syrup and soda water and whatnot might be more, but one thing of ‘em would probably last me a really long time, and thus save me money in the long run.

So when McDonald’s makes that 200% profit, it’s not because they’ve got me captive, I’m choosing to let them make it for convenience’s sake. So while it’s a huge profit, I don’t think I’d classify it as “obscene”, with all the negative connotations that word carries.

Now, compare that to something like the music industry, whose cost for a total packaged CD is likely a nickel, they pay the artist a few cents’ royalty on each one, they make sixteen bucks, and they have (or had) you held hostage because there is/was no way for you to get the same product at a significantly lessened cost, then I’d definitely call that obscene.

But then, neither soda or music are anything close to necessities. Well, some people might classify them as such, especially music… an unentertained mind is a listless and unproductive and eventually insane mind. (You’re going to be paying someone for entertainment, at some point, and don’t even get me started at publishing companies that put out those hardback-sized paperbacks to justify still making you pay seventeen bucks for one.)

But the fact of the matter is, the money for providing anything to the public, including anything you decide to classify as a necessity, is going to come from somewhere. Someone is still going to pay for it, the money isn’t going to fall from the sky just because God loves you for providing necessities.

So it’s a matter of who’s going to pay for it. Is everyone going to pay for it equally? Well, if everyone’s going to pay for it, why can’t they just pay for it in the first place? I mean, everyone paying for it has the benefit of them also being forced to pay for the people that don’t give back any money to the system… but be honest with yourself. Is that really fair? I mean, forget all things about humanitarian or moral or whatever… is it FAIR to ask someone to pay for a system that other people, who haven’t paid into it, get to enjoy fully equal use of? Sure, life’s not fair, but that’s no justification for deliberately making it more unfair.

Think of it on a personal level. If a group of you and your friends went out to lunch, and decided to split the check, you’d expect everyone to pay their percentage? If there were six of you, everyone should pay a sixth. Maybe one buddy’s having hard times, maybe he forgot his wallet, so you split it five ways to cover him. But be honest… if that same guy kept on having hard times, kept on forgetting his wallet, every single time you went out, you’d stop inviting him, wouldn’t you? Either that, or you’d go someplace cheaper that he could afford his part of, penalizing everyone else that could afford the nicer place, but at least buddy’s on equal standing now.

The other option is to make the rich people pay. Cut the guy that owns Kroger down to the same $30,000 a year salary as his assistant managers, to cut down his “obscene” profits. Except that why should he bother, then? Why not just close Kroger, take the money he already made, and retire? Well, now there’s no Kroger to get cheap groceries at, and so people don’t starve (obviously I’m really simplifying this), the government has to take over, and it’s back to everybody paying.

I’m sure that there’s a lot of flaws in these comparisons, and feel free to point them out, but can you debate that the base foundation of them is true, that someone is going to have to pay for these things, and it’s going to eventually come back to the average citizen? (And we can get further into the citizen’s role in helping provide society’s necessities, if you like.)

Although, at the end of this very long post, I will make one note… have I missed other people discussing the specifics of the article itself rather than the principles behind it, or was I the only one that had a try at it?

Hey, you know what keeps prices anything approaching reasonable given the thin profit margins in the grocery business?

COMPETITION.

Anyway, Rann, good points.  Let me clarify your “friends eating out” example though to - what I think will - better illustrate the fairness idea.

6 people go out for dinner.  Everyone has pasta and a beverage, except one guy who orders two lobsters and a bottle of wine.  When the check comes, not only does he NOT pay his part of the bill, he doesn’t pay at all and gets indignant when the rest of the table questions it.

That is the result of government-run programs to “fairly” allocate money and resources.  Fair is never fair.  It’s theft at gunpoint to forcibly establish “fair redistribution of wealth.”

Hey, you know what keeps prices anything approaching reasonable given the thin profit margins in the grocery business?

COMPETITION.

Exactly!  If grocery stores in Australia were netting 40%, there would be a multitude of investors standing in a very long line eager to invest tons of cast to start new grocery businesses . . . which of course would create more competition which in turn would reduce that profit to the point where many of them weren’t making money . . . which would cause most of them to fold until the market reached a point where some could survive.

Socialists of course either don’t understand this or they just ignore it because it’s not what they want to hear . . . or believe.  You sure don’t hear Mikey complaining about General Motors these days, do you?  Companies either make money or they bleed red ink.  If they bleed, people get laid off, shareholders lose money and get pissed, management gets ulcers, and the government is out a bunch of tax revenue.

The point is this:  If some people can’t afford food, reducing profits to zero isn’t going to make food affordable to those people.  In other words, if they can’t afford to spend $100 on food, how are they going to afford spend $98.30 on food?

And so it goes with health care . . . some people just can’t afford it.  Knock 6% off the price and they still can’t afford it.  And guess what?  Neither can the government.  That’s why health care in other countries is rationed . . . to make it affordable for GOVERNMENT.

I might differ with MikeS regarding Belinda Stronach, the liberal MP from Canada who sought medical treatment in America.  While I wouldn’t deny her the opportunity to be treated here, the philosophy on which the healthcare system in Canada is based is that no one should be able to obtain special treatment just because they have more wealth than others.  That is the fundamental argument against having private health insurance in that country.  It would destroy the “fairness” of the system.  In other words, the government of Canada doesn’t want to compete with the private sector.  Don’t you wonder why?  And they are willing to let people suffer in order to keep everyone on a level playing field.  Belinda Stronach just made the strongest case possible for private health insurance in Canada . . . whether she meant to or not.  If she still supports her party’s position on this matter, in my opinion, it’s no longer a personal matter.