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.
And why would covering abortions solve this? You would need to pay for them now plus you are killing the taxpayers of tomorrow when it is your turn to need care. Who will pay for your care if not the babies being born today? We need more taxpayers not less.
Why does he think he will be better off with universal health care. At the very least he would be put on a waiting list. When his turn came, if it ever came before he died, he may get some care.
And why would covering abortions solve this? You would need to pay for them now plus you are killing the taxpayers of tomorrow when it is your turn to need care. Who will pay for your care if not the babies being born today? We need more taxpayers not less.
Why does he think he will be better off with universal health care. At the very least he would be put on a waiting list. When his turn came, if it ever came before he died, he may get some care.
Uh, what exactly does covering abortions have to do with the topic at hand?
Why would he be put on a waiting list with UHC? Have you ever actually been to a country with UHC? He wouldn't get put on a waiting list with diabetes.
The meters are not what are expensive in the long run, the strips are. It is very easy to get a free meter, not easy to get a free supply of strips every month.
You could've fooled me if I didn't have a pile of them sitting in front of me. To each his own though...
Uh, what exactly does covering abortions have to do with the topic at hand?
Why would he be put on a waiting list with UHC? Have you ever actually been to a country with UHC? He wouldn't get put on a waiting list with diabetes.
Ya wanna bet?
Someone brought up abortion---not allowing it but allowing this man to die. Well who is going to pay for this trillion dollar health care bill then?
You can regulate cost which is what most of the Government run UHC systems in Europe do.
The government is highly involved in those systems as well though. The bottom line is that as long as private fro profit insurance companies are involved we lose because care for the people equals less profit. Period. Other countries also have laws against for profit insurance programs as well as every other industrialized nation having universal care.
And why would covering abortions solve this? You would need to pay for them now plus you are killing the taxpayers of tomorrow when it is your turn to need care. Who will pay for your care if not the babies being born today? We need more taxpayers not less.
Why does he think he will be better off with universal health care. At the very least he would be put on a waiting list. When his turn came, if it ever came before he died, he may get some care.
since you are looking at humans or future humans as dollar signs...you do realize that abortion is much cheaper than the cost of birth and all future associated costs of unwanted children. Children who are not loved and cared for properly do not usually make the best adults. Plus I don't believe anyone is advocating aborting every child.
Also your comments about waiting lists are il-informed. There may be a wait for someone to see a dermatologist but not for by-pass surgery or any other medical necessity. Don't you see the issue that UHC will provide coverage to all americans not just the ones with money, no health issues, and those not denied at time of service.
In 2007, most Canadians (57.1%) aged 15 years and older who had a diagnostic service reported waiting less than one month for their test. However, 10.5% of Canadians reported that they waited over three months for diagnostic testing.
The median wait time for specialist physician visits for a new illness or condition was 4.3 weeks in 2007. Regarding the distribution of wait times, 46.2% of Canadians waited less than one month for specialist physician visits, while 40.3% waited from one to three months, and 13.6% waited longer than three months, an increase since 2003 when 10.4% reported waiting more than three months.
In 2007, the median wait time for non-emergency surgeries remained steady at 4.3 weeks, the same figure reported in both 2003 and 2005. Regarding distribution of wait times, 41.9% of Canadians reported that they waited less than one month, while 40.3% of Canadians reported that they waited one to three months, and 17.8% of Canadians reported that they waited longer than three months.
In 2006, over one in five households were spending more than 1% of their after-tax income on prescription drugs. The percentages of Canadian households reporting out-of-pocket expenditures of over 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% of their after-tax income increased from 2000 to 2006.
Considering G7 countries in 2007, the United States had a high percentage of respondents (34%) who felt that their health care system should be completely rebuilt, followed by Germany (27%), the United Kingdom (15%) and Canada (12%). An even greater number of respondents thought that fundamental changes were needed to reform the health care system: 60% in Canada, 57% in the United Kingdom, 51% in Germany and 48% in the United States.
Not sure how public information in Canada is controlled, but I would think since it's for the public there should be no copyright violations.
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.
