100% employment is not possible......not everyone can AFFORD a house/home

I agree complately Rob the recent American fiscal and monetary policy has turned the country/economy to shit. I guess deregulation was a bad fucking idea.

Also, if everyone or anyone can afford a car (which hardly anyone could in the 1910s) then it stands to reason the same would follow for homes/houses. Houses and property are not that unique of a commodity.

If i understand correctly, Thraxle is suggesting that we should accept inequality in health care just as we accept class inequality. He's saying: "as long as there are rich people and poor people, there will be people with and people without access to health care."
What a sick and twisted logic.

I love people who think that poverty is a natural state of man.

"Why yes, good sir, I DO choose to live in crippling poverty, surrounded by opulence and apathy at every turn. I revel in the fact that stray animal shelters are nicer than the homeless shelters in my home town. I am just too lazy to get off my ass and find a job, nevermind the fact that I have crippling back pain and a ruined credit score due to the horrible car accident and resulting medical care that bankrupted me twenty years ago."

Back on topic......did Canada or did not Canada have a "vote" on whether or not to let a baby die, even against the parent's wishes?

desicions about who dies should be made by the individual in question, if they cannot choose, it should be made by experts (with all apropriate iput), if there are no sufficently qualified experts with sufficient infromation, it should be made by the family.

I have heard that 40% of healthcare costs in america is used on people with less than 1 year left to live. in this situation, YES a deathpanel should be put in place.

" most of you think I hang from every word O'Reilly and freinds say. "


friends*

i stopped reading after that

Thrax, yes they did. Experts said so, jury decided so, so therefore... duh.

I'm pretty sure that if it was possible to give that baby to his parents, it would've been done. The problem is... it can't be done. Unless a dangerous operation is made (which could make a doctor into a killer), the baby must be in hospital care. No one's objecting to its parents buying all that equipment needed to keep him "alive", but they obviously can't or don't want to.So the responsibility to keep him alive or not falls on the state, and it chose not to. Can't say it's the wrong decision either.

You may ask why the state should NOT do anything? Cause the baby's only technically human anymore. It's basically a vegetable now. Don't get me wrong, I would fully understand if that baby had any chance of recovery. Sadly, it doesn't, it's about the only thing everyone agrees on. So it's like spending a shitload of money to keep a pretty snowflake from melting when it's bound to happen soon anyway, and the only ones getting any consolation from that are its parents.

The very reason why I can't see Canada as the devil here is the one you tried to prove - people aren't equal. What the USA tries to do is to promote that inequality, spending thousands on sustaining one vegetable and keeping two parents happy instead of saving at least a couple of other people who, sadly, didn't get that as much attention as Joseph.