BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 11:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.

BWAHAHAHAHA

That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting
your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate
based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips.

Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking."

That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they
can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging
my
liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the
government health plan!!!

Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which
is bad for your liver.

Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are
deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care!

That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.

That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity
has
been all but eliminated there.

I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only
that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every
person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose.
What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to
heal them when they screw up.

LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach.

Indeed. Liberty, self-reliance, prosperity, individual responsibility,
mutual respect...yep, lots of consequences.

More like paranoid assholes walking around with concealed weapons and living
their life in fear.

No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people
might care about each other.

I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish
without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema
to you?

Living without a concern for others is anathema to me.

Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective
means of showing concern for others.

My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they
don't harm others

The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to
those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector
health care are indeed harming others.

and other people neither interfere with them nor do they
require them to subsidize the equal exercise of liberty rights by others,
even when such exercise results in some ill effects. This does not preclude
anyone from offering assistance of their own free will, but it does preclude
the "community" from extracting "caring" by force of law from those who do
not choose to be "caring" for one reason or another.

Yup, I know that's your vision. Everyone in their own little cabin with
their own little guns with their entire life devoted to protecting what's
theirs.

None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance

That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well
here. I wonder how they stay in business?

By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised
to put in the bank.

?

First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say
Canadians are paying to much for it?

Yeah, Canadians are *really* stupid that way...buying something they can't
use and don't need. Sheesh.

Well, which is it...is there not such thing as private medical insurance in
Canada? Or is there such a thing?