with insurance you pay based on the level of risk you present. But DF has a good point, the state will pay big time to treat a catestrophic failure, but nothing to prevent that. makes no sense. would be cheaper to treat people up front. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 18, 2009 11:30:54 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Not a blended scenarion. Public healthcare is what I meant all along.
As for stopping yourself from getting sick/injured... If we go that way, where do we draw the line? Not eating candy because you may have to go to the dentist? Not driving because you may have an accident (wheter by your or somebody elses fault)? If we choose that, than the only thing there is for us is to live in very small rooms with only one entrance, and a shotgun aimed at it all the time.
Head banger wrote:
a blended scenario??? should people not have some responsibility for their health? sure I cant control a hereditary disease, but I can stop myself from getting aids, drinking too much. (this said by the overweight hipocrit)\
_strat_ wrote:
Well, even if everything government run really fails, whats the alternative? Private healthcare isnt doing any good, thats for sure.
I say you should keep it. Dont go down the same road we are going, to the place Americans are at already.
Head banger wrote:
personaly I think that people need to get adequate medical care. just as welfare should be there for those who cant find work (not baby machines etc) so should people not die of medical conditions that can be treated. there is a lot of talk in canada against a "2 tier" system, where the rich could access more than the poor, but in reality that exists now. a pro hockey player tears up his knee, he is on the table getting surgery by the time the swelling has gone down, joe blow will wait months. a WCB patient will wait a couple weeks.
I dont want to see people starve to death or die needlessly of disease, yet govt run anything seems to fail most times. at least here it does.
