Smoke
Done here.
No, you're not. Death and taxes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Healthcare is a privilege or a right?
- Thread starter lilJimmy
- Start date
I just try to postpone each.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
So i did some thinking over lunch, and i came up with a few ideas. I'm sure it's nothing earth shattering, but it's something.
First, **** on universal healthcare. Even the roads that everyone is so fan of mentioning aren't completely government run, they're just government funded.
THAT SAID, healthcare reform is a thing that needs to happen.
1) I can never get behind the idea of requiring everyone to get insurance, but i CAN get behind the idea of requiring everyone to demonstrate financial responsibility for their children's health needs. This could come in the form of SCHIP for the poor, insurance for most of us, and just being rich for the super rich. Man, i can't wait until i'm rich.
This will fix the problem of children not getting healthcare because of their stupid parents. The level of poverty required to qualify for SCHIP should be adjusted based on the poverty line in that zip code* and the number and specific health needs of children.
2) Just as we make food and shelter available to the poor through welfare, the same needs to be done with health insurance. Access requirements will not be as lax as the children's healthcare, but will follow the same vein (local poverty line and individual health needs).
3) Private healthcare doesn't actually cost more compared to public. That's one of those correlation/causation things that people seize on to try to make their side look better. The causes of increased cost in the US are numerous and belligerent and range from us being a bunch of fatties** to how we scream "rationing" over everything. And that's the part i want to cover here. Did you know everyone over 65 in the US is on Medicare? Did you know that the last year of their lives accounts for 27% of Medicare's budget? I'm not saying cut all the old people off, but i will say that we need to stop shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to keep grandpa alive in a coma for an extra few days. Rationing of non-emergent facilities is not a bad thing.
*As has been mentioned before a person can be above the poverty line but unable to afford healthcare. A person can also be well below the poverty line and have healthcare AND ****-tons of disposable income. Cost-of-Living is not uniform across the country, and i don't know why the federal government tries to pretend it is.
**Obesity accounts for 6-12% of the US's healthcare costs, with about half of it specifically on Medicare and Medicaid. Did you know food stamps cover Mac and Cheese, but not fresh produce? Yeah. Link. Since i know someone is going to ask, yes, we are a clear outlier in prevalence of obesity. Go USA, i guess.
First, **** on universal healthcare. Even the roads that everyone is so fan of mentioning aren't completely government run, they're just government funded.
THAT SAID, healthcare reform is a thing that needs to happen.
1) I can never get behind the idea of requiring everyone to get insurance, but i CAN get behind the idea of requiring everyone to demonstrate financial responsibility for their children's health needs. This could come in the form of SCHIP for the poor, insurance for most of us, and just being rich for the super rich. Man, i can't wait until i'm rich.
This will fix the problem of children not getting healthcare because of their stupid parents. The level of poverty required to qualify for SCHIP should be adjusted based on the poverty line in that zip code* and the number and specific health needs of children.
2) Just as we make food and shelter available to the poor through welfare, the same needs to be done with health insurance. Access requirements will not be as lax as the children's healthcare, but will follow the same vein (local poverty line and individual health needs).
3) Private healthcare doesn't actually cost more compared to public. That's one of those correlation/causation things that people seize on to try to make their side look better. The causes of increased cost in the US are numerous and belligerent and range from us being a bunch of fatties** to how we scream "rationing" over everything. And that's the part i want to cover here. Did you know everyone over 65 in the US is on Medicare? Did you know that the last year of their lives accounts for 27% of Medicare's budget? I'm not saying cut all the old people off, but i will say that we need to stop shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to keep grandpa alive in a coma for an extra few days. Rationing of non-emergent facilities is not a bad thing.
*As has been mentioned before a person can be above the poverty line but unable to afford healthcare. A person can also be well below the poverty line and have healthcare AND ****-tons of disposable income. Cost-of-Living is not uniform across the country, and i don't know why the federal government tries to pretend it is.
**Obesity accounts for 6-12% of the US's healthcare costs, with about half of it specifically on Medicare and Medicaid. Did you know food stamps cover Mac and Cheese, but not fresh produce? Yeah. Link. Since i know someone is going to ask, yes, we are a clear outlier in prevalence of obesity. Go USA, i guess.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
First question - are you talking about legal or illegal immigration?
See, I live in Texas. I can assure you that the effects of illegal immigration are very far reaching in Texas and other border states.
(I don't mean to derail this thread into an illegal immigration thing - for the record, I wish our road to legal immigration was easier for those who want to integrate fully and work here - and I support immigration policy reform, including a level of amnesty, to accomplish that - I'm not some cold hearted *** hole.)
Secondly - on to immigration rates AND minority ratios in various countries (two sides of the same coin):
You state,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html
According to my source, the US ranks 26th in migration/immigration rate worldwide (I like this table because it doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal immigration, or refugees). Ranking higher than the US are Canada, Luxembourg, Monaco, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, (the only "Western" countries on the list -since you say we are discussing developed countries rather than under developed ones).
Denmark - ranked 33. The Netherlands - ranked 34. Germany - 40. UK - 41, Italy 42, Norway and Sweden 46 and 47 - all those are quite a ways down the list - not " either right above, or directly below the US in per capita immigration" at all.
(Not trying to be ugly here, but please, PLEASE let's keep misinformation to a minimum. If you are going to post such things as fact, please list a source and link if at all feasible.)
Now - let's take a look at exactly WHO is immigrating into those countries - because that is a very, very important piece of the puzzle. Where people come from, their educational and economic levels, skill level, health, etc is CRITICAL when it comes to how well they will be able to take care of themselves once they do immigrate.
Canada is ranked 17. Who is migrating there?
Immigration to Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
16.2% of the population belonged to visible minorities: most numerous among these are South Asian (4.0% of the population), Chinese (3.9%), African (2.5%), and Filipino (1.1%). Outstripping visible minorities in proportion, however, were (non-British, Irish or French) invisible minorities, the largest of which were German (10.18%), and Italian (4.63%), with 3.87% being Ukrainian , 3.87% being Dutch, and 3.15% being Polish. ("North American Indians", a group which may include migrants of indigenous origin from the United States and Mexico but which for the most part are not considered immigrants, comprise 4.01% of the national population.) Other non-visible minority ethnic origins include Russian (1.60%), Norwegian (1.38%), Portuguese (1.32%), and Swedish (1.07%).
In 2006, Canada received 236,756 immigrants. The top ten source countries were China (28,896), India (28,520), the Philippines (19,718), Pakistan (9,808), the United States (8,750), the United Kingdom (7,324), Iran (7,195), South Korea (5,909), Colombia (5,382), and Sri Lanka (4,068).[3] These countries were followed closely by France (4,026), and Morocco (4,025), with Romania, Russia, and Algeria. each contributing over 3,500 immigrants.
So - non-white, non hispanic minorities (gotta love the term "visible minorities" that Canada uses) are about 16% of the population. The "non-visible" minorities (in other words, white Europeans who aren't British or French) make up about 29 percent of the population. Canada counts ANYONE who is not of Canadian, British, or French origin to be a minority by the way. so this includes all sorts of Europeans - Germans, Italians, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedish, you name it. My point is that the vast majority of Canada's immigrants are NOT coming from impoverished, chaotic countries.
Just for the record, I didn't see ANY Hispanics in Canada's ranks of immigrants at ALL. Must be such a small number it doesn't register on the scale.
Let's take a look at Australia, which ranks 15 on immigration rate.
Immigration to Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The groups that migrate to Australia in measurable amts are:
UK 5.0 percent, New Zealand 2, China 1, Italy 1, Vietnam 0.8, India 0.7, Phillipines 0.6, Greece 0.5, Germany 0.5, and South Africa 0.4 percent.
The vast majority of Australia's population (94%), is white non hispanic of European ancestry.
Also, Australia, in spite of it's land mass, is 89% urbanized, which means that 89 percent of it's population lives in a few large cities, rather than spread out across it's land mass, unlike the US. This creates a situation more similar to Europe than the US.
Demographics of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not going to go into the demographics of the other western countries that outrank us immigration wise per capita - Luxembourg, Monaco, Singapore and Hong Kong. They are so dissimilar to the US that it should be obvious we are not comparing like entities.
Let's look at US minority stats:
In the US, 12.5 of the population is African American and 12.5 percent is Hispanic. That alone counts for 25% of the overall population. Asian is a little over 4 percent and Native American is about 1.5 percent. So that leaves about 70 percent of our population of European ancestry.
That's a 19 percent difference from Australia and a 14 percent difference from Canada. That's pretty significant, and why is that? (Hint - the answer is not "Because Kathryn is a racist pig.")
The reason why it is significant is that, for whatever reasons, the poverty level of non white minorities is markedly higher that of those of white, European majorities in Western, developed countries.
And - on the US statistics, those figures do not count illegal aliens who did not answer the US Census questionaire. Considering the flood of people coming across our southern border every year, this picture of the true rate of immigration to the US is not complete.
These factors, and differences between countries, cannot be understated or pushed aside. They impact our poverty rates, and the rates of uninsured people, within each country significantly.
Last edited:
The vast majority? Probably not, but they're a significant proportion. We take in about 25,000 refugees per year (source), which, based on your numbers works out to just over 10% of the total number of immigrants.
In contrast, the United States takes in 27,000 refugees per year (source) out of approximately 1,250,000 immigrants, including illegal immigrants (source), which works out to about 2%.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Not sure where the disparity in numbers comes from, but rather than try to do all sorts of math (don't care for it myself) I just looked up refugee immigration by country. Here's what I found:
NationMaster - Canadian Immigration statistics
According to this source, Canada averages 4.8 refugees per 1000 citizens and the US averages 3 percent. It's a difference but not an overwhelming difference, especially when you take into consideration that the US average of refugees DOES NOT INCLUDE illegal immigrants. These are ONLY refugees registered as such.
According to this same source, the US accepts 20 percent of the WORLD'S immigrants, while Canada accepts 3.2 percent.
Just thought that was interesting.
Those stats look incorrect for Canada, or at least out of date. We bring in almost 100,000 more refugees per year than it says.
I'm having trouble navigating to the US statistics; the site likes to hang for me.
Canada also has a tenth of the population of the US.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
OK - 2 percent of immigrants (US) vs 5 percent of immigrants (Canada) are refugees. Heck, say ten percent! These figures do NOT include the illegal immigrants in the US, which is hard to define because, well, because they don't like to be counted.
It still doesn't get around the fact that there's a very large disparity between ethnic groups represented in each country, and that for a multitude of reasons, poverty rates are higher in certain ethnic groups than others. The higher the poverty rate, the higher the ratio of uninsured - whether they QUALIFY for insurance assistance or not (they usually do, if they are at the poverty rate or even modest income rate - but of course if they don't feel confident about applying for assistance -for whatever reasons - they won't).
I don't want to get sidetracked on the minutia. The point is that the US has a much higher minority rate than Australia or Canada, and poverty rates are higher among minorities in all three countries, regardless of immigration status.
Therefore, in states with higher minority rates, poverty rates are also usually higher, along with infant mortality rates, and shortened lifespans.
But the US is very diverse region to region. These stats can be misleading when applied across the board. For instance, non whites outnumber non hispanic white people in three states - Texas, California, and one other (I can't remember right off the bat). Across the south, many cities are 50 percent or more African American. States in the south are sometimes 20 to 30 percent minority. (For example, Georgia is 31% minorities, Alabama is 30%, Mississippi is 40%, Louisiana is 35%, SC is 31%, and Texas is 51% minorities. Just to name a few below the Mason Dixon line.
These minority populations have a higher poverty rate than the general population, and certainly higher than the white non hispanic population. With corresponding health care issues that go much deeper than money alone can fix.
But these poorer regions also bring down the national averages and give a skewered picture of the rest of the nation.
http://www.census.gov/
Are there any states or territories in Canada with a "visible minority" rate of over 30 percent (non European ancestry)? I honestly don't know - so I'm curious.
It still doesn't get around the fact that there's a very large disparity between ethnic groups represented in each country, and that for a multitude of reasons, poverty rates are higher in certain ethnic groups than others. The higher the poverty rate, the higher the ratio of uninsured - whether they QUALIFY for insurance assistance or not (they usually do, if they are at the poverty rate or even modest income rate - but of course if they don't feel confident about applying for assistance -for whatever reasons - they won't).
I don't want to get sidetracked on the minutia. The point is that the US has a much higher minority rate than Australia or Canada, and poverty rates are higher among minorities in all three countries, regardless of immigration status.
Therefore, in states with higher minority rates, poverty rates are also usually higher, along with infant mortality rates, and shortened lifespans.
But the US is very diverse region to region. These stats can be misleading when applied across the board. For instance, non whites outnumber non hispanic white people in three states - Texas, California, and one other (I can't remember right off the bat). Across the south, many cities are 50 percent or more African American. States in the south are sometimes 20 to 30 percent minority. (For example, Georgia is 31% minorities, Alabama is 30%, Mississippi is 40%, Louisiana is 35%, SC is 31%, and Texas is 51% minorities. Just to name a few below the Mason Dixon line.
These minority populations have a higher poverty rate than the general population, and certainly higher than the white non hispanic population. With corresponding health care issues that go much deeper than money alone can fix.
But these poorer regions also bring down the national averages and give a skewered picture of the rest of the nation.
http://www.census.gov/
Are there any states or territories in Canada with a "visible minority" rate of over 30 percent (non European ancestry)? I honestly don't know - so I'm curious.
Last edited:
How many other Xtian "sins" would you want to legislate against for us non-Xtians?
You do have the option of charity, rather than forcing your neighbor to engage in the same charity.
Yes. As of the last census...
- Nunavut is 86% Aboriginal
- the Northwest Territories are 51% Aboriginal
- the Yukon is 26% Aboriginal and at least 5% other non-White groups
- BC is at least 33% non-white
- Ontario is close at 28% (at least)
Since Ontario and BC are probably the most ethnically diverse provinces, I haven't bothered to continue further, but the data for all the other provinces is all there on the census web site in case you feel like spending some quality time with your calculator.
Now... this is a lower limit. The statistics are by self-declared "ethnic origin", not race or skin colour. In all provinces, there are quite a few people who list their origin as simply "Canadian". This probably includes at least some non-white people who have long-standing roots in Canada, of which there are many.
Also, like you mentioned for the US, these are just the overall trends. Specific areas, especially cities, tend to have a much higher proportion of visible minorities. It made the news a few years ago when the City of Toronto reached the point where the majority of the people in the city are foreign-born.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Interesting - thank you very much for the information. I did not know all of that. To be honest, I am not as up on my Canadian facts as I need to be!
I wonder what the poverty rates are along with life expectancy and infant mortality rates in those provinces. I guess I can find that out online.
I wonder what the poverty rates are along with life expectancy and infant mortality rates in those provinces. I guess I can find that out online.
Smoke
Done here.
Actually, that list is a ranking of migrants. It includes both people entering and people leaving a country.
Smoke
Done here.
So, leave the minorities out of it. You never did account for the fact that life expectancy for white women in the U.S. is still lower than the life expectancy for women in 39 other countries.
So should our laws and rights be tied to what we consider to be sin?
Lets see if I follow, everyone gets health care because it would be a sin not to.
Abortion is a sin, so that would be illegal and not done at medical facilities.
Birth control is a sin, so we could prescribe none of that.
Are you getting my point?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
my take is that we are born into this world...its 'our' earth and we shouldnt have to pay money to live on it. As humans we have a right to housing, health and education...in the end, thats all we really need.
We even have to pay money to die on this earth...is there anything else someone wants to charge us for? The powers that be will be charging us money to breath soon.
We even have to pay money to die on this earth...is there anything else someone wants to charge us for? The powers that be will be charging us money to breath soon.
Last edited:
I hear similar laments from tenants now & then. The problem is that if they get free housing, then how do I convince the banks & the county
to not foreclose on my property just cuz I lack income to pay them? Where's my right to water & sewer service, fire protection, maintenance,
snow removal, lawn care, free loans, electricity, gas, roads, etc? People keep expecting me to pay them for their labor & materials!
Oh, the greed....sigh....
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
one mans service is another mans need
how about a barter system? That way we call all provide a service and receive of services that we need