WHO ON THIS FORUM LIKES PAYING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO WORK?,

[Deanh]

Hence the number of people in the ER with sniffles. You cannot be turned away from an ER based on your ability to pay. Collectively, this society does not want to deny care to anyone, yet doing so creates a system that can be gamed and abused. It's the price of humanity, I suppose.

and consequently the anger at providing such services to people that put NOTHING back into the system.....what is sad is when it is adressed all the so called human rights activist jump to their feet screaming blue murder and "their" rights....one consolation...at least most don't precede their names with the obligatory "Reverend" BS....like I have said I/ we/ they came here, we should observe THIS countries customs/ and laws.....NOT abuse the privelidge....

Edited November 13, 2007 by Deanh

[RichardJensen]

There are always going to be poor people and poverty. These people, obviously, are going to 'contribute' less to the overall workings of society. No matter what, you will always be able to point at some arbitrary section of society and accuse them of 'not carrying their share.'

 

Then you can deny services to them--or better yet, make them scapegoats for societal ills, round them up and kill them. Just like Pol-Pot.

 

Sounds ridiculous right? Well, the second you start that, "not pulling their weight" argument, that's the road you're on.

 

There is, of course, a certain monetary cost to providing health care and food to the indigent. But there is equally an ethical cost to denying these things.

Edited November 13, 2007 by RichardJensen

[suv_guy_19]

There are always going to be poor people and poverty. These people, obviously, are going to 'contribute' less to the overall workings of society. No matter what, you will always be able to point at some arbitrary section of society and accuse them of 'not carrying their share.'

 

Then you can deny services to them--or better yet, make them scapegoats for societal ills, round them up and kill them. Just like Pol-Pot.

 

Sound ridiculous right? Well, the second you star that, "not pulling their weight" argument, that's the road you're on.

 

There is, of course, a certain monetary cost to providing health care and food to the indigent. But there is equally an ethical to denying these things.

 

 

Very good Richard, I agree 100%

[Deanh]

There are always going to be poor people and poverty. These people, obviously, are going to 'contribute' less to the overall workings of society. No matter what, you will always be able to point at some arbitrary section of society and accuse them of 'not carrying their share.'

 

Then you can deny services to them--or better yet, make them scapegoats for societal ills, round them up and kill them. Just like Pol-Pot.

 

Sounds ridiculous right? Well, the second you start that, "not pulling their weight" argument, that's the road you're on.

 

There is, of course, a certain monetary cost to providing health care and food to the indigent. But there is equally an ethical cost to denying these things.

sad situation and no easy answer...will be interesting to here the political claptrap that gets treacle coated for our voting benefits come debate time....but, all I am saying is the country only has itself to blame for concentrating on "other" issues less importatnt and letting this situ spiral seemingly out of control to the point of it being this touchy a subject, and letting it get to this point means no going back, precedents have been set to which ANY quick easy answer will be veiwed as "brutal" and lacking compassion....Pol Potting it just a "tad" extreme Rich....

[RichardJensen]

Pol Potting it just a "tad" extreme Rich....

No, it's out and out extreme. But it's the extreme toward which any denial of services tends.

 

Either you adopt a humane attitude which says we will not turn people away seeking shelter, food, or medical care; or you defiantly set conditions to these things, and say 'we will allow illegal immigrants to freeze to death on our streets, we will allow poor people to starve, we will allow the unemployed to die without medical treatment.'

 

It's not as though there are no -easy- answers, there are flat out -no- answers period. It is not the persistent desire to find easy answers, it is the persistent unwillingness to acknowledge that there are in fact NO answers.

 

Every system that guarantees universal access WILL be exploited and WILL be inefficient. Every system that guarantees universal coverage will distribute costs unfairly.

Edited November 13, 2007 by RichardJensen

[ShockFX]

Of course it is.

 

Beacuse we have a universal system. And the Gov't pays the bills owed in the U.S by Canadians. The Canadian gov't then comes after the Canadian individual directly for any out standing balance (if their was any that was not covered by their Provincal Health Coverage.

 

Becuase we have universal coverage country's that treat our citizens are not left holding the bag for medical services rendered.

 

I have heard the Canadians being treated in the U.S atucally get better treatment that a lot of the the U.S citizens . Cause the Hospitals know they will be paid for services rendered. And do not have to fight with HMO's or insurance companies to get thier money.

Matthew

The doctors that treat you do not know your insurance status. So define better treatment before you make outlandish claims.

[BlackHorse]

There are always going to be poor people and poverty.

 

Why? I mean not to get all heady and sociological on you but the only reason we have poverty is because we have people. People are the ones that invented money, and economies and all the rules that go along with that and you can bet that waaaaaay back when such things were invented that the ones who had all the gold were the ones that convinced everyone else it was the thing to have. I understand you're going to respond with the whole "This is how it's always been done." or "This is how we have civilized societies."

 

Hell we aren't all that civilized you know. We have just invented a giant monopoly game and divided the world into haves and have nots. We are all forced to play and don't worry its only your life hanging in the balance. Poverty is not a natural condition of the human species. It is a condition we have invented, it is a people problem. Just as it has been created, it can be done away with if we really wanted to. I'm not saying I know how or even that most people could get their head around such a world. But it could be done. Honestly that's a whole thread in itself though, just thought I'd touch on it.

[RichardJensen]

Why will there always be poverty? Because we, collectively (including the poor) wouldn't have it any other way. We, collectively, insist on earning out sustenance, instead of having it provided to us. Since a certain percentage of the population will not be able to meet the criteria necessary to earn fundamental provisions, there will always be poverty.

 

We can ameliorate poverty (for instance, starvation is unheard of in the first world). However, we cannot eliminate it.

 

I could go all Biblical on you and note that both the Jewish Law and Jesus said that poverty was a basic condition of human existence, but I won't.

 

Thing is, BlackHorse, we didn't invent the rules to this game of Monopoly, we gravitated toward them based on what is easiest for us. Therefore imposing any global solution is impossible (otherwise we'd have already seen the withering away of the state, and we'd have our worker's paradise).

Edited November 13, 2007 by RichardJensen

[BlackHorse]

Why will there always be poverty? Because we, collectively (including the poor) wouldn't have it any other way. We, collectively, insist on earning out sustenance, instead of having it provided to us. Since a certain percentage of the population will not be able to meet the criteria necessary to earn fundamental provisions, there will always be poverty.

 

We can to a certain extent, ameliorate poverty (for instance, starvation is unheard of in the first world). However, we cannot eliminate it.

 

I could go all Biblical on you and note that both the Jewish Law and Jesus said that poverty was a basic condition of human existence, but I won't.

 

Like I said.

 

"This is how it's always been done." or "This is how we have civilized societies."

 

You just took the more wordy way to say it. You went all Stephen King on me. lol

 

I'm not arguing the point Richard. I think as a species humans don't know how else to behave. Everybody is always in the mindset of "This is my shit!!! Stay away!!!" End result, money. Perhaps as a species we will eventually evolve and maybe a thousand years from now humans will figure out that "your shit" isn't all that important but it's ok to have some. We will figure out how to eliminate poverty. Hell maybe we'll eliminate economies all together who knows. I gotta quit now before Gene Rodenberry gets out of his grave and sues me. LOL

[ShockFX]

Why will there always be poverty? Because we, collectively (including the poor) wouldn't have it any other way. We, collectively, insist on earning out sustenance, instead of having it provided to us. Since a certain percentage of the population will not be able to meet the criteria necessary to earn fundamental provisions, there will always be poverty.

 

We can ameliorate poverty (for instance, starvation is unheard of in the first world). However, we cannot eliminate it.

 

I could go all Biblical on you and note that both the Jewish Law and Jesus said that poverty was a basic condition of human existence, but I won't.

 

Thing is, BlackHorse, we didn't invent the rules to this game of Monopoly, we gravitated toward them based on what is easiest for us. Therefore imposing any global solution is impossible (otherwise we'd have already seen the withering away of the state, and we'd have our worker's paradise).

 

We'll always have poor since we classify x% of people as being in poverty. However, I'm sure the vast majority of Africa, or even poor chinese/indians/russians would love to be classifed as being poor in America. That standard of living vastly dwarfs their own.

[RichardJensen]

I gotta quit now before Gene Rodenberry gets out of his grave and sues me. LOL

 

I guess, if there was any evidence that we've gotten less selfish over the past several thousand years of recorded history, I could conceive of us becoming collectively more altruistic as time goes by........

[BlackHorse]

 

I guess, if there was any evidence that we've gotten less selfish over the past several thousand years of recorded history, I could conceive of us becoming collectively more altruistic as time goes by........

 

 

LOL Unfortunately just the opposite is true.

[RichardJensen]

We'll always have poor since we classify x% of people as being in poverty. However, I'm sure the vast majority of Africa, or even poor chinese/indians/russians would love to be classifed as being poor in America. That standard of living vastly dwarfs their own.

Okay....... Except.......

 

How much money does an unemployed person in the U.S. make? Same as an unemployed person in Russia, right?

 

What differentiates the U.S. is that collectively, benefits are provided to people who would otherwise be as poor as people anywhere else.

 

Also there are some schools of thought that suggest the dramatically higher standard of living in the first world casts a shadow of obligatory poverty throughout the 3rd world. That by providing a minimum standard of living significantly higher than the rest of the world, first world countries create an environment where the rest of the world's poor will be significantly poorer.

[mlhm5]

If you don't think our tax money is being put to good use paying for American's wellness/health, what do you think we should be spending tax money on?

[suv_guy_19]

If you don't think our tax money is being put to good use paying for American's wellness/health, what do you think we should be spending tax money on?

 

Your government tax money is not being well spent on health. You spend more than other countries, but provide less to the people out of that money. It really makes no sense.

[ShockFX]

Your government tax money is not being well spent on health. You spend more than other countries, but provide less to the people out of that money. It really makes no sense.

 

It's cause we fail at socialism.

[suv_guy_19]

It's cause we fail at socialism.

 

 

And do you think that is good, or bad?

[BlackHorse]

And do you think that is good, or bad?

 

 

Uh, SUV, I would have thought that Canada would use the British Challenger tank not the German Leopard 2.

[suv_guy_19]

Uh, SUV, I would have thought that Canada would use the British Challenger tank not the German Leopard 2.

 

 

Nope, we currently use the Leopard C2 (an upgraded leopard 1) and we have 20 Leopard 2s from Germany on Loan in Afghanistan. We are buying a mix of 100 2A4 and 2A6M from the Dutch. They bought them near the end of the cold war and shelved them....brand new, so we got them at a bargain. We have to buy the best since we can't have many. Not even an Abrams can Match a Leopard.

[Edstock]

Not even an Abrams can Match a Leopard.

 

AFAIK, the Abrams has better armor, but the Leopard is faster.

[suv_guy_19]

AFAIK, the Abrams has better armor, but the Leopard is faster.

 

 

Well, all I know is that on the 10 best tanks, the Leopard was seen to be best, I don't remember why. I do know though, that the M stands for mine hardened, and so half of the tanks we are getting have more armour than normal.

Edited November 13, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[BlackHorse]

Don't put too much faith in some 10 best tanks list SUV. Nothing against the Leopard 2A6, it's a damn fine MBT, but at best it's really only just as good as the M1A2 in a fight. The best Leopard in the world is still only a Javelin away from a scrap heap. Frankly you would have been just as well served by the Challenger II.

[suv_guy_19]

Don't put too much faith in some 10 best tanks list SUV. Nothing against the Leopard 2A6, it's a damn fine MBT, but at best it's really only just as good as the M1A2 in a fight. The best Leopard in the world is still only a Javelin away from a scrap heap. Frankly you would have been just as well served by the Challenger II.

 

 

Well, we've had leopards since the 70's, so that's why I think they stuck with them. I love the abrams. The US wanted to sell them to us before, but we wouldn't take them because we were going to the 8 wheeled mobile gun system. Needless to say we changed our mind. I still think that the list had some truth to it though. They gave all the reasons for their choice, I just can't remember them.

[suv_guy_19]

So while your doing that, why not cover everyone? I mean, they already are today, so why not under the new system?

 

 

I just found the rankings someone else did, and it was the same pretty much.

 

It doesn't matter, it was pretty close 1, 2, 3. Leopard 2A6, Challenger II, and M1A2 Abrams.

[joihan777]

The death penalty does little to deter and nothing to rehabilitate.

 

NO, it absolutely deters crime. Criminals calculate their chances of getting caught/sentenced/jailed/freed when they plan their crimes. If they knew, for a certainty, that they would immediately be put to death within one week of conviction, you darn well know they will think twice about their actions.

 

It is not enough capital punishment that is hurting this nation. Although I believe the burden of proof must be ironclad, once proven there should not be more than a few hours to gather ones thoughts. In most cases, that is far more time than the victim received.

 

American gangs COUNT ON soft, nearsighted leftists defending their right [to commit more crime].

 

Two of my best friends from HS are on death row. They knew the first day after they did their crimes that they were guilty. They would sneer at you for being soft and step all over you.