Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately I have had a lot of health issues over the past 20 years or so. I had major surgeries on both my knees, one complete wrist reconstruction, 5 major shoulder surgeries including a complete rebuild of my left shoulder involving bone grafts, tendon and ligament grafts. In addition to that I have had two cochlear implants. The amount of aftercare visits to the hospital, physio and Dr's clinics are uncountable.
I have never had to pay one red cent for any of this. Thank the Lord I'm a Canadian and my country supplies universal healthcare to everyone. Does it not just drive you Americans nuts that we manage to do this and spend only about 50% per capita on healthcare that your government spends?
Well my overall tax rate is less in Ontario, Canada than it was in California.
As I note in a couple posts above........Canadians aren't paying for the health care and welfare of those there illegally like those in California have to.
Can I assume that you would suggest that we follow the Canadian model?
Canada has cut off illegals from health care so they do not provide healthcare to everyone. I realize this wasn't your point. They don't allow just anyone stream across the border and avail themselves to all the welfare programs.
Canada's system isn't nationalized. While I am no expert each providence runs their own system. We could get something like that done here far easier. The handful of states that would argue to cover illegals want no part of that though.
So can I assume you would suggest we throw out all the illegals and make sure none of them had access to healthcare like in Canada?
Well just so you are under no illusions as to ineligibility; we have similar rules, regarding indigent folks, to yours where denial of life saving treatment is not allowed so in that regard the playing field is reasonably level. If they sneak in somehow and show up at an ER with cancer; they ain't gonna be left to die out in the parking lot.
Your laws regarding immigration are yours to police as you see fit but that 'cheap labour addiction' beast you've been nurturing in your basement for decades has now got you chained by the ankles and it's moved into your living room.
You allow agencies like NSA and Homeland security to boogyman you to death, patting down senior citizens from Canada or other foreign nations entering while ignoring those swimming across the Rio Grande under the very noses of your Border Agents that I have witnessed with my own eyes at port of entry Algodonez Mx..
I put it to you: what do you think you should do with 13 million people who broke your laws and entered your country fraudulently while listening to the NSA and HS telling you to suck it up and tolerate reduction of your freedoms and liberties?
Well just so you are under no illusions as to ineligibility; we have similar rules regarding indigent folks to yours where denial of life saving treatment is not allowed so in that regard the playing field is reasonably level. If they sneak in somehow and show up at an ER with cancer; they ain't gonna be left to die out in the parking lot.
They aren't going to be treated for their cancer either.
Quote:
Your laws regarding immigration are yours to police as you see fit but that 'cheap labour addiction' beast you've been nurturing in your basement for decades has now got you chained by the ankles and it's moved into your living room.
You allow agencies like NSA and Homeland security boogyman you to death while patting down senior citizens from Canada or other foreign nations entering while ignoring those swimming across the Rio Grande under the very noses of your Border Agents that I have witnessed with my own eyes at port of entry Algodonez Mx..
I put it to you: what do you think you should do with 13 million people who broke your laws and entered your country fraudulently while listening to the NSA and HS telling you to suck it up and tolerate reduction of your freedoms and liberties?
It's not really proper to answer a question with a question. While it's completely off topic few have complained more about the NSA actions or the idiocy of feeling up old women at airports than I have. "Cheap labor" is just an excuse for "cheap votes".
So while you seemed to be reluctant to state an outright comment, you seem to be saying that we need the government to concentrate more on enforcing current laws as opposed to creating new costly ones that really do nothing.
They aren't going to be treated for their cancer either.
It's not really proper to answer a question with a question. While it's completely off topic few have complained more about the NSA actions or the idiocy of feeling up old women at airports than I have. "Cheap labor" is just an excuse for "cheap votes".
So while you seemed to be reluctant to state an outright comment, you seem to be saying that we need the government to concentrate more on enforcing current laws as opposed to creating new costly ones that really do nothing.
That is always the best start and then adjust from there.
They used to itemize it on our pay stubs some time ago but they now just lump the cost in with the Federal tax,so its kinda hard to set an exact figure on what it costs, when they were itemizing it as a $50K factory worker i was being deducted $40 per paycheck, it might be as high as $50 by now.
I think it's for the tax write-offs if the deadbeats that don't have insurance don't pay their bills. There's usually also a cash discount for those who do pay.
14 years ago my daughter got bit by grannies little weiner dog the day after Christmas.
A week later we got a letter of denial of coverage because it was my mother in-laws dog and on my mother in-laws property.
I was not going to force my mother-in-law to pay the $5000 bill the emergency room at the hospital had billed my insurance. I went in and ask to make payments. They presented me a bill for $285. I thought that was the monthly payments they wanted. It was the entire bill. I paid it in full.
Done!
Insurance is the cause of the high cost of care. Not the doctors or hospitals.
14 years ago my daughter got bit by grannies little weiner dog the day after Christmas.
A week later we got a letter of denial of coverage because it was my mother in-laws dog and on my mother in-laws property.
I was not going to force my mother-in-law to pay the $5000 bill the emergency room at the hospital had billed my insurance. I went in and ask to make payments. They presented me a bill for $285. I thought that was the monthly payments they wanted. It was the entire bill. I paid it in full.
Done!
Insurance is the cause of the high cost of care. Not the doctors or hospitals.
I paid $1,000 to settle a 10k bill. The point being is that the entire system needed fixed to properly do this and that was not done. Very little was done. The only thing actually done was for the government to demand that you buy insurance from a for profit company or get fined.
They aren't going to be treated for their cancer either.
It's not really proper to answer a question with a question. While it's completely off topic few have complained more about the NSA actions or the idiocy of feeling up old women at airports than I have. "Cheap labor" is just an excuse for "cheap votes".
So while you seemed to be reluctant to state an outright comment, you seem to be saying that we need the government to concentrate more on enforcing current laws as opposed to creating new costly ones that really do nothing.
Well let's deal with the decorum of answering a question with a question firstly:
When a question is posed based upon an inaccurately assumed premise in the first place, an answer is really not an obligation.
Now as to your inaccurate premise AND your inaccurate assumption: "They aren't going to be treated for their cancer either."
You are confusing 'ineligibility for health coverage' with 'medical treatment'. The two are not the same thing.
Perhaps further study of the decision rendered would be of some value:
Of particular note and specific to this series of posts would be the last para of page #2
"The decision represents only a limiting interpretation of an existing Federal Law that does, in fact, extend coverage to at least some aliens residing illegally in Canada. The decision is focused on this law alone and DOES NOT purport to constitute a free standing interpretation unequivocally holding that illegal immigrants are barred from health services in........"
In short; 'treatment' for an illness is, as it always has been, not denied out of hand to illegal aliens given the severity and time constraints of the illness, while access to 'universal health coverage" may be denied.
Finally; as to my apparent reluctance; I assumed, given you have laws on the books regarding your immigration, that you were asking a rhetorical question. AGAIN, no requirement of an answer exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
