Oh Canada!!

[Emsworth]

Chris, there is no such thing as a "right to a military." If the government decides, for example, to abolish the Navy, one cannot sue it for violating one's rights.

Similarly, one is not entitled to public assistance in civil matters. If the government happens to be the source of one's need for counsel, then one is entitled to a public defender.

[John Dibble]

Let's abolish the military, then!

Technically we don't have a right to that, but it is arguably necessary to have a viable fighting force for the defense of the country, though, and I don't think you can make the 'necessity' argument on healthcare(for the country that is, not for individuals).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the necessary for government to function argument can be made with the judiciary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even by opebo's standards that isn't work.

[ilikeverin]

Let's abolish the military, then!

Technically we don't have a right to that, but it is arguably necessary to have a viable fighting force for the defense of the country, though, and I don't think you can make the 'necessity' argument on healthcare(for the country that is, not for individuals).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the necessary for government to function argument can be made with the judiciary.

Just noting what KEmperor would like to have abolished

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even by opebo's standards that isn't work.
[/quote]

dictionary.com's first definition of work:

"Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something."

Sex sounds dangerously like work to me!

[KEmperor]

No, and that's a stupid strawman argument verin, quite unlike you.

[DanielX]

None of those retarded cartoons are even close to being true!

Um?  Every single one is true...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have got to be kidding me.  Just a few weeks ago a kid died in Toronto AGAIN because the lineups into the emergency room were too long.

Guess what, in America last year hundreds died because the hostpital wouldn't take them! 

Remember, in a good country, healthcare is a PRIVLEGE!

Actually, Healthcare is not a right. I have no more of a right to healthcare then I do to a sailboat, and neither do you. People don't have a right to food, shelter, sex, good plumbing, beer, a computer, 40 acres, a mule, or healthcare. 'Rights' are innate, like free speech.

For an example, I have the right to own a gun,  but I do not have the right to a gun. I have the right to print what I choose on my press (unless it infringes on someone else's rights), but I don't have the right to a printing press.

Um, health care is a right. Well, maybe not in the U.S., but nearly every where else in the world it is.

Which means almost everywhere in the world (I would include most of the US) doesn't have the foggiest idea what a right is.

A right has nothing to do with needs or wants - because those wants or needs have to come from somewhere. A 'right' either comes with a human being (like the right to think), or is an idea (ie like the right to free speech).

Yes, the idea is the right to health care.

Uhm.... someone has to give you the healthcare...

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, the idea is the right to health care.

While we're at it is there a right to food, shelter, and clothing?

Yes, of course.

[DanielX]

Yes, the idea is the right to health care.

While we're at it is there a right to food, shelter, and clothing?

Yes, of course.

Provided by whom?

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, the idea is the right to health care.

While we're at it is there a right to food, shelter, and clothing?

Yes, of course.

Provided by whom?

The tooth ferry and Santa Claus. Who do you think?

[DanielX]

Yes, the idea is the right to health care.

While we're at it is there a right to food, shelter, and clothing?

Yes, of course.

Provided by whom?

The tooth ferry and Santa Claus. Who do you think?

I'm sorry, but the Tooth Fairy (not ferry) and Santa Claus have a right to the fruits of their labors - not having them looted to supply food, shelter, and clothing to all 6 billion people on Earth!

Get my point? Healthcare might be something that a government provides for its citizens, but it is NOT a right.

[Platypus]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

[??????????]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

[Hatman 🍁]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

[DanielX]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

[John Dibble]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

Likely the Canadian federal government will cut funding towards Alberta in more areas than just healthcare, yet tax them the same, giving Alberta's money to the other provinces or just keeping it.

[Richard]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

Likely the Canadian federal government will cut funding towards Alberta in more areas than just healthcare, yet tax them the same, giving Alberta's money to the other provinces or just keeping it.

Ralph Klein threatened he would cut off all the oil money checks if the federal government did that, so they backed off.  They wanted to cut the health care funding because Alberta allows some private care.  The thing is, Alberta is giving more money to the federal government than it receives, so it would be a great idea to just cut off the rest of Canada.  I would support it.

[Hatman 🍁]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

Well, then they would be taking away a right of the people. It's okay to spend how you want, but when you start taking rights away, then there is a problem. But, yes, Alberta can decide to opt out of the health care system, but they have to suffer the consequences.

[John Dibble]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

Well, then they would be taking away a right of the people. It's okay to spend how you want, but when you start taking rights away, then there is a problem. But, yes, Alberta can decide to opt out of the health care system, but they have to suffer the consequences.

What right exactly would be taken away?

By the way, if people have the right to healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing, then does a person who doesn't work, doesn't want to work, and contributes nothing to society still have a right to those things?

[Hatman 🍁]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

Well, then they would be taking away a right of the people. It's okay to spend how you want, but when you start taking rights away, then there is a problem. But, yes, Alberta can decide to opt out of the health care system, but they have to suffer the consequences.

What right exactly would be taken away?

By the way, if people have the right to healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing, then does a person who doesn't work, doesn't want to work, and contributes nothing to society still have a right to those things?

Yes it is a right. Those things are necesities of life. Certainly, he has no right to any form of luxury. We cant pick and choose who gets rights, even if we despise their abuse to the system. I mean, we even provide these things to prisoners.

[John Dibble]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

Well, then they would be taking away a right of the people. It's okay to spend how you want, but when you start taking rights away, then there is a problem. But, yes, Alberta can decide to opt out of the health care system, but they have to suffer the consequences.

What right exactly would be taken away?

By the way, if people have the right to healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing, then does a person who doesn't work, doesn't want to work, and contributes nothing to society still have a right to those things?

Yes it is a right. Those things are necesities of life. Certainly, he has no right to any form of luxury. We cant pick and choose who gets rights, even if we despise their abuse to the system. I mean, we even provide these things to prisoners.

So, you advocate the government giving everyone food, shelter, and clothing as well as healthcare?

[KillerPollo]

So, you advocate the government giving everyone food, shelter, and clothing as well as healthcare?

well, that is what prevents extreme poverty! the best form of gov't for an underdeveloped nation is socialism, also great for former dictatorships. a country that instantly shifts to open democracy from tyranny usually goes anarchic. Hence, Irak

[John Dibble]

So, you advocate the government giving everyone food, shelter, and clothing as well as healthcare?

well, that is what prevents extreme poverty! the best form of gov't for an underdeveloped nation is socialism, also great for former dictatorships. a country that instantly shifts to open democracy from tyranny usually goes anarchic. Hence, Irak

If the government provides EVERYONE with food, shelter, and clothing, then it's not socialism, it's communism. If it doesn't provide everyone with it, then clearly it isn't a right in the eyes of the government. You can't have it both ways - they are rights or they aren't. I say they aren't - you don't have the right to take my hard earned money away from me to keep some leech who does nothing for me or anyone else alive. I couldn't give a damn if he needs it to live - if he needs it to live so much, he can work for it like the rest of us.

[12th Doctor]

Why exactly are you busting on Canada?  None of those retarded cartoons are even close to being true!  Is it because their country runs so smoothly using policies American conseratives are convinced if applied here would cause mass chaos.  Lack of censorship and gay marriage, oh the anarchy!

And as long as we are talking about Canada I would like to praise them for allowing gay marriage and equality in their nation.  They are truely a great people.   

What do you mean by their?  Richard is Canadian.

[Hatman 🍁]

I agree healthcare isn't a right. What I contend is that in a rich, western country, the people and government have a RESPONSIBILITY to improve the healthcare of all their citizens.

If the states provided it I would find it acceptable. The idea that my tax money would pay for some person stroking out in Michigan is preponderous.

Well, that's the system we have in Canada. The money comes from the provinces.

But what if, say, Alberta, decides it doesn't want to have a national healthcare system?

Well, then they would be taking away a right of the people. It's okay to spend how you want, but when you start taking rights away, then there is a problem. But, yes, Alberta can decide to opt out of the health care system, but they have to suffer the consequences.

What right exactly would be taken away?

By the way, if people have the right to healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing, then does a person who doesn't work, doesn't want to work, and contributes nothing to society still have a right to those things?

Yes it is a right. Those things are necesities of life. Certainly, he has no right to any form of luxury. We cant pick and choose who gets rights, even if we despise their abuse to the system. I mean, we even provide these things to prisoners.

So, you advocate the government giving everyone food, shelter, and clothing as well as healthcare?

The government should help people help themselves, of course. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he will eat for a life time.

[Gabu]

Why exactly are you busting on Canada?  None of those retarded cartoons are even close to being true!  Is it because their country runs so smoothly using policies American conseratives are convinced if applied here would cause mass chaos.  Lack of censorship and gay marriage, oh the anarchy!

And as long as we are talking about Canada I would like to praise them for allowing gay marriage and equality in their nation.  They are truely a great people.   

What do you mean by their?  Richard is Canadian.

I assume by "them" he means "the Canadian people".

[KillerPollo]

The government should help people help themselves, of course. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he will eat for a life time.

that was what the Mexican gov'ts policy was until the late 70s!
but i agree w/ ya earlAW! you got a good pt.