|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Have to agree with the Pro Health Care faction here; if Americans were living longer and healthier lives, I may change my views, but the problem is not free healthcare.
Fox seems to sum it up best, it's the way Medicine is practiced -way to many over qualified people to treat basic ailments and a drug industry that is as disgusting as the banks.
I have alway recieved the treatment I needed in Canada and like Captain Corea's mom, my mother was given three months to live after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She went on to live another three years and was very satisfied with her treatment.
I think that Canada needs to overhaul healthcare every bit as much as America, but I know that in Canada, I will never lose my home, or face bankruptcy if I get cancer, or some other life threatening ailment in Canada.
That being said, I can say that for minor ailments and cost effectiveness, I am pretty happy with the Korean health system. Of course, I've spent a few bucks having two kids and one surgery for my odest son that would have been free in Canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
This is not a strong argument. Americans can be cut off from insurance for a number of reasons that have little to do with personal responsibility. The fact is, our society has a lot of positions that need to be filled which simply don't offer health insurance as part of their compensation package, while simultaneously not providing enough money to afford health insurance. One might say, "Well, then they shouldn't take those jobs," but the reality is many such positions exist, they need to be filled, and if people don't take those jobs, then the higher paying jobs that rely on those positions (such as middle and upper management) also won't exist. So let's not pretend like we don't need to consider people who are in positions like these, and let's not call them irresponsible.
Now add in the unemployed. Now add in people with pre-existing conditions. Now add in people who were booted off of their health care plan as soon as they got sick so their health insurance companies could avoid paying for them. It's very clear that there's a substantial number of people who are cut off from non-emergency health care for reasons far more complex than simply being "irresponsible." |
I agree with some of your ideas, but the main point I'm trying to make is that free universal healthcare promotes and encourages dependence, irresponsibility, and higher taxes for people who contribute to the economy. You're right insomuch as we cannot ALL be rich, but the point I'm trying to make is that liberal social policies, such as Canada's free universal healthcare, is a road to hell paved with good intentions: the "poor" (but necessary) segment which you speak of is growing (yes, growing) in Canada BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it.
Bottom line: EVERY American could afford healthcare if they CHOSE not to have babies they can't afford, CHOSE not to do drugs, and CHOSE to go to work everyday. Life is tough, but not impossible.
| Fox wrote: |
| You're painting a false picture here. Reproductive rates are influenced by level of education and success, not by being "hard working" or "irresponsible." A hard working farmer is more likely to have many children than an irresponsible middle manager with a college degree. You're falsely equating level of education and financial success with whether or not one is hard working or irresponsible. I find this is something conservatives often do. Condemning the impoverished is ridiculous when poverty is built into the system. Everyone can't come out on top; everyone can't be in the top 50%. And the only reason people who are on top are able to make so much money is because they manage to get people on the bottom to work for far lower wages than their labor is actually worth. |
Your facts are wrong. Read up on birthrates. Canada's poor, uneducated, sick etc reproduce more than twice the national average, because they are PAID to reproduce. Look at the demographic projections of Saskatchewan, Nunavut, Quebec, etc: Poor immigrants and aboriginals are multiplying quickly, while those who actually pay into the system are shrinking. And liberal notions of free healthcare, free money for illigitimate babies, free homes, etc enables and encourages a cycle of despondency and dependence. Why get a job? The "great white mother" will always take care of me. Free universal healthcare will be unaffordable when producing/contributing segments are too small.
I'll put it in simple terms: Canada's demogrpahics are about 10% welfare/drug-user/stupid people, 90% smart/capable/contributing people (which is shrinking due to a low birth rate). Without immigration, the "stupid" segment will grow to 20%. Then 30%. It's called demographic destiny. And it shouldn't be happening: FAS babies should be going down, not up. New group homes should NOT be being built, as irresponsible parents should not be reproducing in this day and age. But they are. "The great white mother" can only support these liberal policies for so long. Most of Europe is having the same problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Bottom line: EVERY American could afford healthcare if they CHOSE not to have babies they can't afford, CHOSE not to do drugs, and CHOSE to go to work everyday. |
Whether the lack of jobs lately has been caused by government regulation or by lack of government regulation, I just wanted to point out that a lot of my American friends can't even get a job at McDonald's right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Without immigration, the "stupid" segment will grow to 20%. Then 30%. |
That's a pretty bold prediction. Do you have a timeline for when that will happen?
Create jobs and people will work. Look at Maritime Canada: A higher birthrate, welfare rate and unemployment rate and it exports its workforce to the rest of Canada.
Educate people and they will most likely contribute to society. I'm no fan of people who are able to work not working, but I'd rather see that situation than the alternative -which is hardworking people losing thier entire lifesavings because of illness.
Both systems have cracks. Canada's cracks are not as wide or deep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| I agree with some of your ideas, but the main point I'm trying to make is that free universal healthcare promotes and encourages dependence, irresponsibility, and higher taxes for people who contribute to the economy. You're right insomuch as we cannot ALL be rich, but the point I'm trying to make is that liberal social policies, such as Canada's free universal healthcare, is a road to hell paved with good intentions: the "poor" (but necessary) segment which you speak of is growing (yes, growing) in Canada BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. |
I don't think free universal health care encourages this result anymore than free universal roads, or free universal education. A real analysis of the reason for Canada's demographic shifts is going to involve a lot more than health care. In fact, health care will only play a fairly minor role, if any. I agree the Canadian government's actions bear quite a bit of responsibility. But universal health care can exist without the other things that have been causing problems in Canada. You also seem to downplay the fact that Canada's culture bears a large portion of the responsibility.
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Bottom line: EVERY American could afford healthcare if they CHOSE not to have babies they can't afford, CHOSE not to do drugs, and CHOSE to go to work everyday. Life is tough, but not impossible. |
No, this is actually false. As I said, there are many jobs in our society which simply leave healthcard beyond ones means. However, these jobs must be filled, or else the higher level jobs which do grant access to health care would also vanish. As things stand, it's fundamentally impossible for every American to afford health care. It just can't be done. People working bottom tier jobs (which we've all ready asserted must continue to exist) have to work 2 jobs before they can begin to afford health care, but there isn't enough work for every poor person in America to have 2 jobs. Therefore, every American can't afford health care, even if they stop having babies, stop doing drugs, and start working hard. Some Americans who currently can't afford it could afford it if they made different choices, but not all, and probably not even most.
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Your facts are wrong. Read up on birthrates. Canada's poor, uneducated, sick etc reproduce more than twice the national average, because they are PAID to reproduce. |
Poorer, less educated people everywhere in the world reproduce faster than wealthy, successful, educated people. Your problem is you're treating Canada as the only source of data on this phenomenon, and it prevents you from seeing the real correlations. There's a reason the third world outbreeds us, and it's not because they're being paid to reproduce. Canada's reproductive subsidies probably do have an impact, though no where near as much of one as you seem to think and they almost assuredly increase reproductive rates in the middle class as well. Remove the subsidies, and you'd see a drop in reproduction in every sector except the upper class. If that's really what you want, fine; enjoy the Muslim immigrants you'll be importing to replace those lost births, because Muslims, being extremely poor and poorly educated, reproduce quite quickly. That's where you're going to have to make up that lost population from, after all.
| Kimbop wrote: |
| I'll put it in simple terms: Canada's demogrpahics are about 10% welfare/drug-user/stupid people, 90% smart/capable/contributing people (which is shrinking due to a low birth rate). Without immigration, the "stupid" segment will grow to 20%. Then 30%. It's called demographic destiny. |
Except, look at something else you yourself posted here:
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Look at the demographic projections of Saskatchewan, Nunavut, Quebec, etc: Poor immigrants and aboriginals are multiplying quickly, while those who actually pay into the system are shrinking. |
You yourself noticed that immigrants are part of the problem here, and now you're trying to make them out to be the solution? Unlikely.
Canadians from that poor, unproductive 10% can give birth to people who will rise out of that pool. Historically, that's usually what happens; a certain percentage of children born to the lowest rung of society work hard and escape it. It's when you start actively importing more people into that 10% from outside your country that it grows. And that's exactly what Canada is doing with its immigration policy. Importing poor immigrants who multiply quickly at the expense of people who pay into the system, as you yourself said.
Heavy immigration is a threat to Canada's current system. Heavy immigration is what's going to increase that unproductive 10% to an unproductive 20%. It's wrecking any real social equilibrium that would otherwise exist, and destroying Canada's ability to finance itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Without immigration, the "stupid" segment will grow to 20%. |
Presently, about 66% of immigrants are from the middle classes of India and China. The problem is we don't need Indian and Chinese engineers. I don't know what we need, really. The economy isn't flexible enough to absorb these new people. We import well educated people with grand stories of wages in Toronto and Vancouver. They end up driving cabs and flipping burgers. And we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed people already.
Have you read Why Mexicans Don't Drink Molson? I strongly recommend it. The Canadian economy involves digging the place up and selling it to the Americans and Chinese. We don't need more people to do the digging (wages are still middle-upper middle class in mining, forestry and energy). If we were a more open and entrepreneurial country (like zee Americans) all those Indian engineers would be gainfully employed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can afford to go to the doctor, but it's so overpriced in America, I just usually go to the pet store and buy some fish antibiotics instead.
Of course, I couldn't do a self-vasectomy and when I showed up at the hospital for the appointment, the nurse asked me, "Reggie, did you not bring a jock strap??" I chuckled and told her, "I've got it on right now!" She said if I hadn't brought one, the hospital would've charged around $45. That's ridiculous. A vasectomy is still a good investment, but $45 for a jock strap is financial rape, pure and simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: UFC champ Brock Lesnar slams Canadian healthcare |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Anyone who has experienced a Canadian hospital would concur with Mr. Lesnar. |
I find it funny that the OP totally avoids testimonials from Canadians with a different point of view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
