Quote:
Originally Posted by chiliD
The easiest thing they could've done was just lower the qualifying age of Medicare from 65 to ZERO! Just go "National Health" like England & Canada. I spent a lengthy time in Canada back in the early 80s & because I was employed up there, I was covered under the Candian National Health plan. I only need to use services once, but it was smooth & efficient (at least the one time I got sick); a couple of other people in my band used services a bit. Every incidence was just great. I have nothing bad to say about my experiences with the Canadian National Health.  |
I'm happy your experiences in Canada were so positive, chiliD. Have to quibble a bit, though. There is actually no such thing as "Canadian National Health", healthcare falls under the provincial umbrella. Every province has its own healthcare service. What province were you in, out of curiosity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jondalar
Everything kills. I don't smoke anymore but I think the way they are treated is ridiculous. I think that fat people are going to get it next. People with children should be charged more becuase kids kill. Also, people who eat red meat because they more likely to get cancer. la la la la
|
I completely agree, Jondalar. This highlights one of the major problems with for-profit healthcare to me, but I won't get too soapboxy about it. Basically, people's lifestyle choices need to be accepted without punishment when it comes to healthcare. At the end of the day there are just too many variables to factor them all in. Do we give the agoraphobe much cheaper coverage because he never leaves his house and is unlikely to die in a vehicular accident? It's too much of a can of worms. Smokers are villainized too often as the bane of a healthy society, when in fact almost every practice in modern society is unhealthy to a degree. It's just not fair.
Edited for ze typos