Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShivanAngel wrote:

I think i misused the word accommodations. I never expected my tests to be easier or my grades to be adjusted because of my ADHD. There are some things that should be given to people with disabilities. A wheelchair and wheelchair ramps is a necessity for someone who cant walk.

The things im talking about is someone with ADHD expecting an easier test or a curve simply because of their illness. Yes its unfortunate that they have said illness. However it just requires more work and a change in habits to accommodate yourself. (as well as the right medication).

Look at it this way. How would you feel if you found out the person who has your life in their hands at the hospital was allowed an easier time in college just because they had ADHD... Would make me more than a little nervous.

Sure, I see that. I've never heard of someone with ADHD getting an easier test. The accommodations I have seen include private testing areas and the like.

I think most people would want to accommodate disability, not give someone an automatic leg up on everyone else because they're ill or whatever.

And obviously not every disability can be accommodated. Obviously, the blind can't drive buses, for example.

Polonius wrote:I partied with, and slept with, enough people in college that went on to med school to be frankly terrified of needing medical care. My brother is a paramedic, and one night while drinking a case (each), he dropped an IV in each of us to hang a saline bag to prevent the hangover.

It's hard to know where to draw the line between making things fair, and giving the disabled an advantage. I do know that nobody would swap being perfectly healthy for any disability on the market.

I have a few friend in med school (and nursing school). Somewhere between starting med school and the first year something changes. MAybe they grow up, or realize the magnitude of their undertaking. But damn its a night and day difference after a year or so.

Well, then by the same token I'm not sure it matters that you got an A and not an A- in Pysch 101 because you got some accommodation.

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

I think i misused the word accommodations. I never expected my tests to be easier or my grades to be adjusted because of my ADHD. There are some things that should be given to people with disabilities. A wheelchair and wheelchair ramps is a necessity for someone who cant walk.

The things im talking about is someone with ADHD expecting an easier test or a curve simply because of their illness. Yes its unfortunate that they have said illness. However it just requires more work and a change in habits to accommodate yourself. (as well as the right medication).

Look at it this way. How would you feel if you found out the person who has your life in their hands at the hospital was allowed an easier time in college just because they had ADHD... Would make me more than a little nervous.

Sure, I see that. I've never heard of someone with ADHD getting an easier test. The accommodations I have seen include private testing areas and the like.

I think most people would want to accommodate disability, not give someone an automatic leg up on everyone else because they're ill or whatever.

And obviously not every disability can be accommodated. Obviously, the blind can't drive buses, for example.

oh god private testing areas.... I think I would have died without those. Also computerized testing helped loads. You didnt want to see my scratch paper after a test on paper...

Here's the thing: while a private testing area helped you break even, for a lot of people it'd be a pretty nice advantage.

It's simply tough to really draw the line about what's fair, and what's abuse.

In your example of the bedazzled lady in the nice car, it might be a welfare queen, or it might be a prostitute wearing costume jewelry getting dropped off by her pimp.

Polonius wrote:Here's the thing: while a private testing area helped you break even, for a lot of people it'd be a pretty nice advantage.

It's simply tough to really draw the line about what's fair, and what's abuse.

In your example of the bedazzled lady in the nice car, it might be a welfare queen, or it might be a prostitute wearing costume jewelry getting dropped off by her pimp.

Yes, that is what I'm getting to getting back on topic. I think that probably a certain amount of abuse is going to happen. Doesn't mean its right, and it doesn't mean you don't try to stop it, but its probably the reality of things.

Stormrider wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Khornholio wrote:Canuckistanis are too dependent/proud of their healthcare system. Any politician that tried to take it away would be hung, drawn and quartered.

As much as I enjoy dumping on Canuckistan, a little socialism goes along way. It's just when they unilaterally decide things along the lines of harmonizing sales taxes, provinically owned beer and liquor stores (yes, you have to go to 2 different places to buy a case of beer and a bottle of vodka...and the hours suck in some parts of Canadurr), no fault car insurance to name a few.

Yes, I frankly don't know much about how the Canadians handle their healthcare, but I'm heading off the implied argument that universal coverage is too expensive, inefficient, non-innovative, impractical, etc. for the United States.

If it's inefficient for 30 million, imagine the mess with 300 million.

It's significantly more efficient than our privatized system mind you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:We'll agree to disagree because I've stated my opinion and it won't change.

It doesn't matter who or what it helps. Forcing me to buy something I don't want isn't right. What if Mr. Government tomorrow told you that you must buy a new car every 2 years because your old one is a gas guzzling, polluting POS. You would refuse I'm assuming? Then the government would say "well son, buying a new, cleaner running more efficient car every 2 years benefits everyone in the long run, not just you."

So would you still do what the government says and buy a new car every 2 years wether you can afford it or not or would you tell them to go feth themselves? If you would do the former than I'd tell you to put down the Kool-Aid and quit thinking the government always knows best and what's right.

Weren't we paying for your unemployment benefits a short time ago?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

I think i misused the word accommodations. I never expected my tests to be easier or my grades to be adjusted because of my ADHD. There are some things that should be given to people with disabilities. A wheelchair and wheelchair ramps is a necessity for someone who cant walk.

The things im talking about is someone with ADHD expecting an easier test or a curve simply because of their illness. Yes its unfortunate that they have said illness. However it just requires more work and a change in habits to accommodate yourself. (as well as the right medication).

Look at it this way. How would you feel if you found out the person who has your life in their hands at the hospital was allowed an easier time in college just because they had ADHD... Would make me more than a little nervous.

Sure, I see that. I've never heard of someone with ADHD getting an easier test. The accommodations I have seen include private testing areas and the like.

I think most people would want to accommodate disability, not give someone an automatic leg up on everyone else because they're ill or whatever.

And obviously not every disability can be accommodated. Obviously, the blind can't drive buses, for example.

As a child with severe ADHD I can pretty much tell you that there are are certainly easier tests. I refused to take them (or more accurately I wasn't deep enough in the resource program to benefit from them) however they certainly do exist, and they aren't entirely based on the severity of illness. The grades are essentially padded up, but the methods that caused those grades to rise are not forgotten. The American school system has a problem with hand holding. In my senior english class I decided to take the most remedial class possible (I was an awful highschool student). I was horrified to find that some kids who had managed to make it so far still couldn't read. To this day I find that situation unacceptable.

sebster wrote:

Khornholio wrote:You might be right about how much the US dropped on healthcare. That's great. But what I said is TRUE and not rubbish.

I see this is hard for you so I'll type slowly.

Canada spent an amount on healthcare per capita roughly equal to other developed nations.

It makes no sense, no sense, no sense at all to claim Canada could only afford this because it neglected defence spending, when it spent as much as other nations.

Never claimed that at all. I might've inferred it in comparing it to the US. You said the facts that I stated were 'rubbish' and 'nonsense'. I saw that this was almost impossible for you, that's why I emphasized the difference between CANADA and USA in my last post. I said that CANADA pumped less money into THEIR military than they did into THEIR Healthcare system. It is a fact. I backed it up with not one, but two articles. So here is my official line: CANADA military $18.1 billion. CANADA Healthcare $183.1 billion. $183.1 billion > $18.1 billion. CANADIAN money into Healthcare > CANADIAN money into military.

sebster wrote:It makes no sense, no sense, no sense at all to suggest that if the US toned down money for their military there'd be money for healthcare, when the US spends about twice as much per capita on healthcare with their current system.

You're right. And I retracted that inference statement way back on page one and gave you a 1/2 nonsense point, making my post only 1/6 nonsense. I said, and you were correct in quoting:"If the US toned down their military (ain't gonna happen/not suggesting it), then there would probably be cash for universal healthcare in the US." But then again, if they did tone down their military, there would be cash for universal healthcare. It might not cover it all. It could be 17 times the amount Canada pays per capita, but there would still be money for healthcare. So, I guess I was correct all along. 1/2 nonsense point retracted.

Polonius wrote:Maybe I misread the article, but it seemed to me that they're looking at cutting administrative cost and vendor profits, not services. I'm not sure what part of that constitutes"reassessing the model", but maybe somebody can explain that to me.

Oh, how I've missed your dry wit.

It's good to be back.

Khornholio wrote:Yeah, but you've got to remember that while Canada was pumping huge amounts of cash into their healthcare system, they were putting hardly anything into the military.

I have always found this one sentence amusing. Who is a natural enemy of Canada that can attack it? The Russia? Really. Canada has one possible attacker and even if we wanted to we couldn't stop the single power that could reasonably attack us.

Khornholio wrote:
If the US toned down their military (ain't gonna happen/not suggesting it), then there would probably be cash for universal healthcare in the US.

Which is unreasonable for what reason? The Us can destroy any and all possible opponents (exception being MAD states)

Khornholio wrote:
Canada's problem is that it became a 2nd rate socialist country over a few decades and now a fair amount of the population feels entitled to way too many things, IMHO.

A second rate socialist country that leads the G7 in growth much of the time. Right.

Khornholio wrote:
That's why I live in self-imposed exile in the Archipeligo Cipangu.

I can think of so many things to say here. We'll stop at good.

Fateweaver wrote:Sure. If I get cancer it's because a higher power wants me off this Earth.

If I'm meant to die I'm meant to die. Now lets assume for fun that I'm worth $300M. Should I need to buy insurance to cover medical expenses for cancer? Afterall, I have $300M and even a heart transplant wouldn't begin to touch that.

IMO the HCR Bill is a pile of gak. My opinion won't change. The current health care system isn't perfect but the "fix" isn't fixing anything at all.

You're challenging a bill because you don't like the effect on people earning $300m? If the problem with a bill is that a few hundred people with millions in the bank will be forced to pay a thousand odd dollars for healthcare they don't need then it sounds like a wonderful bill.

On your other point, well, sure, if you think people who can't afford insurance should be allowed to die then I'll leave you to your opinion, happy that almost all of the rest of us have some level of empathy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Can you explain what this post was meant to accomplish?

Or was it simply flaming for fun?

About 90% of fateweaver's worldview is based around being opposed to very strange strawmen. Once you move past his antagonism to the fantasy people in his head, everything else can be summed up as 'screw you I got mine'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:Never claimed that at all. I might've inferred it in comparing it to the US. You said the facts that I stated were 'rubbish' and 'nonsense'. I saw that this was almost impossible for you, that's why I emphasized the difference between CANADA and USA in my last post. I said that CANADA pumped less money into THEIR military than they did into THEIR Healthcare system. It is a fact. I backed it up with not one, but two articles. So here is my official line: CANADA military $18.1 billion. CANADA Healthcare $183.1 billion. $183.1 billion > $18.1 billion. CANADIAN money into Healthcare > CANADIAN money into military.

You really need to read more carefully. I never said your facts were rubbish. I said your argument was rubbish.

Stop pretending you 'inferred'. " If the US toned down their military (ain't gonna happen/not suggesting it), then there would probably be cash for universal healthcare in the US" is not an inference. It is explicit.

It is a nonsense to directly compare different elements of the budget, as though raw spending is an indication of anything. Military spending is never anywhere near health spending, in any country on the Earth. Even in the US, which you claim is doing all the heavy lifting on defence that allows Canada universal healthcare, spends far more on health than it does on the military.

There is no either/or between health and defence, because the former will always dwarf the latter by so much. It's like saying the only reason I can afford that new Audi is because I stopped buying a lottery ticket on Thursdays. The cost of the former utterly dwarfs the latter.

You're right. And I retracted that inference statement way back on page one and gave you a 1/2 nonsense point, making my post only 1/6 nonsense. I said, and you were correct in quoting:"If the US toned down their military (ain't gonna happen/not suggesting it), then there would probably be cash for universal healthcare in the US." But then again, if they did tone down their military, there would be cash for universal healthcare. It might not cover it all. It could be 17 times the amount Canada pays per capita, but there would still be money for healthcare. So, I guess I was correct all along. 1/2 nonsense point retracted.

The point is, again, that the US doesn't need to tone down it's military to gain universal coverage. It just needs a system that doesn't suck really bad. If it had a decent system it could achieve far greater coverage at reduced cost.

sebster wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Sure. If I get cancer it's because a higher power wants me off this Earth.

If I'm meant to die I'm meant to die. Now lets assume for fun that I'm worth $300M. Should I need to buy insurance to cover medical expenses for cancer? Afterall, I have $300M and even a heart transplant wouldn't begin to touch that.

IMO the HCR Bill is a pile of gak. My opinion won't change. The current health care system isn't perfect but the "fix" isn't fixing anything at all.

You're challenging a bill because you don't like the effect on people earning $300m? If the problem with a bill is that a few hundred people with millions in the bank will be forced to pay a thousand odd dollars for healthcare they don't need then it sounds like a wonderful bill.

On your other point, well, sure, if you think people who can't afford insurance should be allowed to die then I'll leave you to your opinion, happy that almost all of the rest of us have some level of empathy.

I think he was using hyperbole to illustrate his opinion that being forced to purchase insurance isn't right. He's saying that if you think you can afford your own healthcare you should have the right to pay it out of pocket and not have to buy it, as I don't think buying subsidized insurance helps anyone else, its there to help you. I don't think that he's arguing that people worth 300m shouldn't have to pay into the franchise. My argument is that most uninsured don't have 300M and those uninsured are costing us all a great deal, not to mention it being bad that they don't have or can't get health coverage. I think under the law we have now if someone really wants to avoid purchasing insurance and they think they have the net worth to cover it, they should be able to provide evidence of that and be exempted. We have a similar policy for motorists liability insurance in my state, where if you prove you have a certain amount of net liquid wealth, you don't have to have liability ( Its several hundred thousand, I don't remember the specifics). Note that in both those cases I think its a bad financial decision for even the very wealthy, but that is my opinion.

I think the propaganda engine has focused entirely on the fact that people are forced to buy insurance and totally ignoring the fact that the entire point was to make sure people who couldn't previously get health insurance could now get it. In the United States most of us *really* don't like being told what to do, and the people who have motivation not to have healthcare reform have that particular propaganda engine running fully open.

Personally, I think it isn't the best way to handle it, and I'd rather see taxpayer funded health care. The problem is, many of the same people who don't like being told they have to buy insurance are going to yell socialism at a program that would give them that said insurance instead of forcing them to buy it.

^
Someone understands me. I was using an extreme example, because this is dakka and it appears dakkaites like to use extreme examples for everything.

Part of what would lower cost of health care in this country would be making sure non-citizens can't get free healthcare. Round up the illegals who are getting it, cut them off and kick them out of the country. I bet that would save the US billions a year in healthcare costs.

I will say it again even though I know I'm talking to a brick wall. EVERYBODY I KNOW AGAINST THE HCR IS AGAINST IT DUE TO BEING FORCED TO BUY COVERAGE THEY MAY NOT WANT OR NEED. There are some real asinine provisions in the bill as well, provisions that don't make sense and that are only in place to make you pay more (prenatal coverage for single men with no kids; pediatric care for single women that can't even get pregnant). How the hell do those 2 provisions make sense? That's like forcing me to buy a motorcycle license and keep it renewed if I never intend to buy a motorcycle.

The public option should be an option. I should have the right to choose if I want privatized or subsidized insurance or no insurance at all. If I choose the last option than woe is me if I end up with cancer (which does run in the family) or diabetese (the other problem in the family).

I have empathy. I also don't tolerate the lazy or the stupid. Anyone that is fit to work can get health insurance of some sort. Single person working at McD's 20 hours a week? I bet you could still afford health insurance. Family of 4 with mom and dad making $30k/year combined? I bet you can still afford insurance. The Gate's family? Well, you shouldn't be made to buy what you don't need as I've already explained why up above.

This thread is about Canada and it's crappy system of health care. For years liberals wanted us to follow Canada's system of health care. Well they got it even though now it means losing in 2012. LOL. I can at least take comfort in the fact that PresBO pissed off so many people with this HCR thing that he has no chance in hell of ever getting relected (among other things he did). Thank God for small favors.

Fateweaver wrote:^
Someone understands me. I was using an extreme example, because this is dakka and it appears dakkaites like to use extreme examples for everything.

Part of what would lower cost of health care in this country would be making sure non-citizens can't get free healthcare. Round up the illegals who are getting it, cut them off and kick them out of the country. I bet that would save the US billions a year in healthcare costs.

I will say it again even though I know I'm talking to a brick wall. EVERYBODY I KNOW AGAINST THE HCR IS AGAINST IT DUE TO BEING FORCED TO BUY COVERAGE THEY MAY NOT WANT OR NEED. There are some real asinine provisions in the bill as well, provisions that don't make sense and that are only in place to make you pay more (prenatal coverage for single men with no kids; pediatric care for single women that can't even get pregnant). How the hell do those 2 provisions make sense? That's like forcing me to buy a motorcycle license and keep it renewed if I never intend to buy a motorcycle.

The public option should be an option. I should have the right to choose if I want privatized or subsidized insurance or no insurance at all. If I choose the last option than woe is me if I end up with cancer (which does run in the family) or diabetese (the other problem in the family).

I have empathy. I also don't tolerate the lazy or the stupid. Anyone that is fit to work can get health insurance of some sort. Single person working at McD's 20 hours a week? I bet you could still afford health insurance. Family of 4 with mom and dad making $30k/year combined? I bet you can still afford insurance. The Gate's family? Well, you shouldn't be made to buy what you don't need as I've already explained why up above.

This thread is about Canada and it's crappy system of health care. For years liberals wanted us to follow Canada's system of health care. Well they got it even though now it means losing in 2012. LOL. I can at least take comfort in the fact that PresBO pissed off so many people with this HCR thing that he has no chance in hell of ever getting relected (among other things he did). Thank God for small favors.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree with you. It is my personal opinion that you're caught up in the propaganda engine. I can't prove that, and those are things you have to decide for yourself, and you're certainly welcome to disagree. Unlike some people on this board, I don't think you're stupid because I feel you're influenced by propaganda, as I know people with graduate degrees who buy almost every word that flows from Fox News.

As far as non citizens receiving tax funded benefits, yes, that is a problem. I go back to the position, however, that that is something that can be policed, and doesn't justify scrapping the concept. At the same time, I'm not going to watch an illegal alien die. I do think that once we treat that person they need to become a citizen, pay for the care, or leave, then we should pursue that state's public health funding to cover it.

As far as being forced to buy something you don't need, my opinion is that if you don't have *liquid* assets ( cars, homes, retirement doesn't count) of at least 5 million dollars ( thats just a number I threw out, but I don't think it unreasonable) you need to have some form of health insurance. That is for your benefit and the benefit of society. I know it is irksome, because like many Americans I have an independent anti-authoritarian streak a mile wide, but I accept the need for this one. Does your state make you buy auto liability insurance? I bet they do. Are you angry about being forced to buy auto liability coverage? I'm willing to bet that if you got hit by, say, an illegal with no coverage, and you end up in the hospital, you're going to A. Understand financial responsibility laws B. Want uninsured motorist coverage ( Some states make you take that, mine requires it to be offered but doesn't require it)

I know you have empathy, and I get as angry as you when I see an abuse of government aid. I know it is abused by both American citizens and illegals. I have known an individual who wasn't abusing the system, but could have lessened the amount of aid he received for his family *and* gained a higher standard of living but chose not to because of laziness ( This isn't hearsay, he told me so). I feel that none of these abuses justifies not having some form of public health care for all with the idea being that the majority of people who need it really *need* it and aren't lazy.

As far as anyone who is not lazy or stupid being able to get health insurance, I'm not so sure about that. What happens when someone making even 100k per year as a sole wage earner loses their job through no fault of their own ( or even if they screw up for that matter). All of a sudden, there is no money. Sure, if they were smart, they had some savings set aside, but even cutting your lifestyle I'm guessing you'd still go through a lot of savings fairly quickly. Digging into your retirement is long term financial disaster. Credit cards still have to be paid. It is also not trivial to change your lifestyle from an upper middle income lifestyle to something less. It is more than being frugal and sucking it up, it involves fundamentally changing how you view money and expenses. Sure, there is COBRA, but that is horribly expensive ( I would have to pay close to 1000 per month if I had to get COBRA) and if you let it lapse, the way things were you might not be able to get insurance again.

A family of 4 making 30k, particularly if that is two wage earners, is going to have a tough time paying for insurance. Remember if that is two wage earners, they're going to have to make arrangements for child care while they work, or have some agreement with a parent or other couple to help in that regard. Someone with two salaries that low probably lives in a rural area, which means paying for gas.

Many small businesses don't even offer insurance.

As far as the Pres not getting elected again, well, thats OT but my opinion is only time can tell. There was plenty of party switching by both politicians and individuals last election. I didn't vote this time, but in hindsight I have to say I probably would have voted for Obama, primarily over the promise of healthcare reform. Just 4 years ago, the idea of me voting for any democratic politician would be like the idea of the sky suddenly turning purple or monkeys flying out of my ass. Part of it is changes in my outlook, but I also think the political landscape in this country has changed.

Grignard wrote:I think the propaganda engine has focused entirely on the fact that people are forced to buy insurance and totally ignoring the fact that the entire point was to make sure people who couldn't previously get health insurance could now get it. In the United States most of us *really* don't like being told what to do, and the people who have motivation not to have healthcare reform have that particular propaganda engine running fully open.

There's also a big problem with people being rejected for pre-existing conditions, when insurance companies see there's chance to cancel someone's coverage before forking out for cancer treatment they're quite happy to do so. The only solutions are not-for-profit, member run private insurers (unthinkable!) or a removal of the ability to cancel coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Once a person can get coverage at any time, you have a real problem with people not bothering to insure until they're actually sick. The solution is to require everyone to get coverage.

Personally, I think it isn't the best way to handle it, and I'd rather see taxpayer funded health care. The problem is, many of the same people who don't like being told they have to buy insurance are going to yell socialism at a program that would give them that said insurance instead of forcing them to buy it.

Yeah, the HCR bill is a half way step. There's too many insurance dollars in both parties to allow for greater reform.