Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...

What kind of question is that? How many employers do you know that don't offer their benefits to their employees? If they are full timers, they are offered it.
:doh:

Not necessarily.

I worked at McDonalds when I was a teenager and back then they only offered health coverage to managers.

I can't believe we're talking about whether McDonald's offers quality health care. Here's another link to check out:

Friendly's slashes health benefits for 454 workers - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/01/25/friendlys_slashes_health_benefits_for_454_workers/)

Limited plans have become controversial in recent years as the debate over providing adequate health coverage has intensified and companies search for ways to control costs. They are favored by large chains that offer low-wage jobs, including Wal-Mart Stores (http://boston.stockgroup.com/sn_overview.asp?symbol=WMT), McDonald's Corp. (http://boston.stockgroup.com/sn_overview.asp?symbol=MCD), and Lowe's Cos. (http://boston.stockgroup.com/sn_overview.asp?symbol=LOW) About 1 million Americans are covered by such policies, according to a recent Kaiser study.

Explain away this one. It's funny, I keep seeing Wal-Mart and McDonald's being lumped together, yet you think there are no problems with McDonald's, but you agree there are problems with Wal-Mart.

How can you tell they are good benefits without knowing what the limits are, how much the co-pays are, and how much the out of pocket cost is?

Cost might not matter to you, but I guarantee cost really matters if you're making $8 an hour.

I think you're missing my point on the cost issue.
Sure it matters to everyone, but you need to make a choice, either to accept or not. If you CHOOSE not accept it, then that's your choice. You need to find a way to afford it or you go without...plain and simple. This whole argument started with my saying, even a burger flipper at McDonalds is offered insurance. People that don't have it choose not to have it. I'd be willing to bet those that don't have the insurance at work have cable and other luxuries though. So we are supposed to pay for their insurance cause they choose to spend their money elsewhere...I don't think so.

I'd be willing to bet that the bleeding hearts on here, if given the opportunity to put money where their mouth is, would not pay for someone else.
If Warpath decided to sponsor a family that can't afford the $600+ for insurance on a monthly basis, how many would actually pay? Or does it just sound better to argue for it and not come through? Every one of you complaining about it here maybe you should cancel some of your luxuries (like internet) and give it to those "less fortunate".

LOL...hell will freeze over before that happens.

I think you're missing my point on the cost issue.
Sure it matters to everyone, but you need to make a choice, either to accept or not. If you CHOOSE not accept it, then that's your choice. You need to find a way to afford it or you go without...plain and simple. This whole argument started with my saying, even a burger flipper at McDonalds is offered insurance. People that don't have it choose not to have it. I'd be willing to bet those that don't have the insurance at work have cable and other luxuries though. So we are supposed to pay for their insurance cause they choose to spend their money elsewhere...I don't think so.

I think there's a fundamental problem with having to decide whether health coverage is worth it or not. For lower paying jobs, people have to make that choice and that's what I have a problem with. And the coverage they get isn't even that great. Shouldn't they be entitled to quality coverage that is affordable in comparison to how much they make?

I think there's a fundamental problem with having to decide whether health coverage is worth it or not. For lower paying jobs, people have to make that choice and that's what I have a problem with. And the coverage they get isn't even that great. Shouldn't they be entitled to quality coverage that is affordable in comparison to how much they make?

I won't argue whether that is a fundamental flaw or not. It is. But we all do it. You can't band-aid one area and hope it all fixes itself. Why is it OK to have a $300k 5 hour surgery? Why is it OK to pay $150 for a simple doctor visit? The entire system is flawed to it's core, so unless we are talking about how to fix this core, it's a moot point.

I'd be willing to bet that the bleeding hearts on here, if given the opportunity to put money where their mouth is, would not pay for someone else.
If Warpath decided to sponsor a family that can't afford the $600+ for insurance on a monthly basis, how many would actually pay? Or does it just sound better to argue for it and not come through? Every one of you complaining about it here maybe you should cancel some of your luxuries (like internet) and give it to those "less fortunate".

LOL...hell will freeze over before that happens.

Let's talk about something a little more realistic. Obviously I couldn't afford to pay someone else's insurance at $600/month. But I do give generously when I can and I'm always be willing to give more for worthy causes.

people that cannot afford health care live a life of hope. the hope that nothing happens to them or a family member. to a hard working family that just cant make it, to begrudge them something that might be able to give them a little pleasure in an otherwise sucky life is ridiculous

Officially the most asinine thing I've read this week.

Officially the most asinine thing I've read this week.

I think what he said makes sense. If you think that's the most asinine thing on the board this week you haven't been reading very much.

I think what he said makes sense. If you think that's the most asinine thing on the board this week you haven't been reading very much.

No, I stand by my statement. And that includes a lot of reading in general this week, not just The Warpath.

Hell, I've heard arguments that the 'Skins will beat the Pats 50-3 that are more cogent.

Let's talk about something a little more realistic. Obviously I couldn't afford to pay someone else's insurance at $600/month. But I do give generously when I can and I'm always be willing to give more for worthy causes.

I said warpath, not you. There are a good at least 10 people that agree with you...that would be about $60 per month for each.

Now let's talk about medicare...there are a TON of people on medicare that can physically work, but aren't, and they are taking away from those that physically can't. Why do we not have a police system for this...these people are sucking off our system.
I'd be much more inclined to jump on board with all these ideas if it wasn't abused the way it is.
I'd be willing to help a WWII vet that can't work in heartbeat, but not so much the woman that has 5 kids from 5 fathers. It's too easy to cheat the system, and there is no one validating it.