05 Oct 07
Originally posted by shavixmirDespite what I'm sure you believe, inflation and the cost of living in the United States has been going down for at least 8 years , maybe longer. And by any standards, 42,000 British pounds , translates into a very tidy sum in USD .... nearly 86,000 to be exact.
Well, 25... disputable. Most psychologists do tend to think that "real" maturity is reached around the age of 27.
As for earning 42.000 pounds a year. Well poverty is a comparison. 42.000 might sound like a lot, but if a hamburger costs 50, then it's not gonna be that much.
AND the bill reads "up to". So it also includes a lot of people earning a lot less than 42.000.
By that reasoning, I'm in the poverty level . Fear not though, I'm living very comfortably ... not extravagantly like Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, any of the Hollywood liberals ... er progressives. But if you want to send cash.. that Post Office Box number is ..... :-)
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by SMSBear716When cig taxes are increased, it for sure reduces the amount of people smoking. this is turn will mean less people get sick, which will reduce the amount of costs to other health care programs like medicaid/medicare. The savings found in these programs could be used to pay for the drop in revenue as cigarette sales decrease.
President Bush wanted to increase the amount spent on this program by $5Billion, the liberals wanted $35 billion The liberals ... er progressives I keep forgetting they changed what they are called since liberal has such a terrible stigma attached to it, wanted to raise the cigarette tax by 156% or a dollar a pack (maybe they reduced it to 61cents). The f ...[text shortened]... en of illegal immigrants are not entitled to any federal program or state program, etc.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by lepomisI'm not an expert on US healthcare but I would assume this program was created to cover gaps in the existing programs. Wouldn't make sense for the Republicans to just toss $5 billion away for a duplication in coverage.
🙂 That was good.
That baby is covered under medicaid, but I'm sure DSR knows that. You seem to be an expert in US healthcare, why do you not know about medicaid?
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lepomisUzless must be knowledgeable of USA healthcare in case he gets very ill. It seems story after story from Canada shows where the USA will be if it adopts socialised medicine. Many Canadians hope USA doesn't!
🙂 That baby is covered under medicaid, but I'm sure DSR knows that. You seem to be an expert in US healthcare, why do you not know about medicaid?
http://www.komotv.com/news/10216201.html
SEATTLE -- A problem in Canada's hospitals is sending scores of pregnant women south of the border to have their babies. Some were even airlifted at up to $5,000 per flight.
Carri Ash of Chilliwack, B.C. was sent to the U.S. to have her baby after her water broke on Sunday. Ash's hospital couldn't handle the high-risk pregnancy. Doctors searched for another hospital bed, but even hospitals in Vancouver, B.C. didn't have a neo-natal bed.
Aidan Nassey was born premature in Canada and developed breathing problems and he was taken away and that was it," said Courtney Nassey, his mother. There wasn't a hospital in western Canada that could take in Aidan, and a helicopter had to rush them to Seattle. Vicki Irvine crossed the border for her daughter to give birth."You can't even have a baby near home. It's horrible,"
Irvine and Ash are questioning Canada's priorities. "I think it's ridiculous that we can have the Olympics but not enough beds so I can have a baby," said Ash.
The family says there is one benefit to their neo-natal nightmare -- the newborn will have dual citizenship and, so far, they like what they see over the border.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/26/1056449368268.html
But Canada has money for Heroin injecting rooms for junkies.
Canada's Health Ministry has approved North America's first sanctioned "safe injection site" for illegal drug users, a controversial project in Vancouver that the United States has criticised as state-sponsored suicide.
1edit-typo
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by mdhallNothing really..except for a small percentage who would die. Babes, similar to those in the article, who appear 2 1/2 mos. early or have breathing problems, etc. would die. Mothers who needed ceasarian section could be lost - along with the babe.
What does it mean if Humans cannot have babies without a hospital?
Doesn't that seem odd?
Other than those and similar problems....Then humans can have babies without hospitals...did for centuries!
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessMedicare helps senior citizens with their healthcare as well, how you going to stop people from getting old? Also, since the 'babyboomers' are starting to enter the period when they can get Medicare, the stress on the system will continue to increase, no matter what savings are made from people stopping smoking and not getting sick. Those savings will be 'eaten up' by the increased numbers getting the service from government. The only way to keep up the demand for money for the programs will be to raise taxes even more, or cut the amount each person in the system gets ...or find alternative means to provide the services.
When cig taxes are increased, it for sure reduces the amount of people smoking. this is turn will mean less people get sick, which will reduce the amount of costs to other health care programs like medicaid/medicare. The savings found in these programs could be used to pay for the drop in revenue as cigarette sales decrease.
Unfortunately then, your logic is seriously flawed. One day, progressives will figure out that the government is not everyone's Mommy and Daddy. Thats its not government's job to provide for everyone's needs from cradle to the grave.
After all, Americans are granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't say the government (which is the rest of the American people) are responsible for supporting the life you want or coughing up tax dollars for your happiness. Maybe in socialist/communistic systems like Canada it is but not in the US.
As a conservative, I believe everyone is entitled a handup from their fellow citizens, but I'll be damned if that means I suppose to give you a hand out forever.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by MacSwainYes, please continue to posts stories that account for approximately 0.000001% of all medical cases in Canada per year.
Uzless must be knowledgeable of USA healthcare in case he gets very ill. It seems story after story from Canada shows where the USA will be if it adopts socialised medicine. Many Canadians hope USA doesn't!
http://www.komotv.com/news/10216201.html
SEATTLE -- A problem in Canada's hospitals is sending scores of pregnant women south of the border to h ...[text shortened]... he United States has criticised as state-sponsored suicide.
1edit-typo[/b]
My Aunt smoked a pack of cigarettes until she was 90 and never got cancer. I guess that means cigarettes don't cause cancer like people say they do.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by uzlessExcellent.
Yes, please continue to posts stories that account for approximately 0.000001% of all medical cases in Canada per year.
My Aunt smoked a pack of cigarettes until she was 90 and never got cancer. I guess that means cigarettes don't cause cancer like people say they do.
05 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by mdhallThe Human did get medical care at a hospital. It was paid for by Canadians. Sometimes when you require specialized service, you have to travel longer distances than the person who needs a few stiches. The baby's life was never in danger. Perhaps you have an issue with a line on a map? Most Canadians don't.
What does it mean if Humans cannot have babies without a hospital?
Doesn't that seem odd?
The funny thing is that ANY Canadian can go into that hospital in the US and get their medical treatment paid for, yet 40 million Americans can't go into that same hospital because they have no health care coverage.
Which system would you choose?
05 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SMSBear716Canada a communist country? What is this, the 1950's again????
. Maybe in socialist/communistic systems like Canada it is but not in the US.
.
We pay more taxes so that we don't have to pay up gigantic health bills.
That doesn't make us a bunch of commies. It just makes us healthy. 😉
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by uzlessMy Mom smoked from the time she was a teenager till she couldn't afford to do so anymore (all them taxes on cigarettes you know, deprived her of her right of pursuit of happiness) around 75 I reckon.
Yes, please continue to posts stories that account for approximately 0.000001% of all medical cases in Canada per year.
My Aunt smoked a pack of cigarettes until she was 90 and never got cancer. I guess that means cigarettes don't cause cancer like people say they do.
Its been my theory(completely unsubstantiated) that cancer (whatever form) is a genetic weakness of the species. You can live healthy , exercise, eat right , not smoke, not drink and one day something sets it off. Maybe it has something to do with aging, who knows.
Think I read recently that some scientist were pursuing exactly this thing, looking at human DNA to determine if there was some weakness that everyone has.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by uzlessI would chose to not have Canada style disease care. US private pay disease care is just fine. What has to change in the US is the dependence on the medical system, which is broken, not who pays for it. If Canadians are happy with what they have, who am I to tell them what to do.
The Human did get medical care at a hospital. It was paid for by Canadians. Sometimes when you require specialized service, you have to travel longer distances than the person who needs a few stiches. The baby's life was never in danger. Perhaps you have an issue with a line on a map? Most Canadians don't.
The funny thing is that ANY Canadian can go i ...[text shortened]... at same hospital because they have no health care coverage.
Which system would you choose?