Canadian health care system???

[Rtruth]

I heard Alex on with a guest just the other day talking about the Canadian health care system, which he was wrong about. And I don't often hear anything I disagree with.

Okay I agree with most everything I've ever heard from Alex. He's amazing. But you wanna talk propaganda???

I don't understand this but people in the US have been totally brainwashed about our healthcare system. It's totally insain. All I hear are these totally goofy reports about how inadequate our system is making it sound like communist.

so I'm just here to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT..... It's not like that at all.

Don't believe all this propaganda about socialist health care. Maybe in some communist and poor countries, ya it might be messed up. But we're a very wealthy country. In the annual world study on countries living standards last year we ranked 6th best in the world. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index ) The US placed 4th. And stricted in terms of health care we were ranked by the World Health Organization as higher standard of care than the US.  http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

So please stop with the bashing Canada's health care. Most other stuff isn't great up here. But that's one thing we actually do have very well done. If you need treatment at anytime you can go to either a clinic or to the hospital and get help. Clinics you wait about 20 minutes on average. Hospital wait is about an hour for non serious, and under 20 minutes for serious issues. But there's tons of clinics in every city and town to address most small matters. You never pay for the clinic or hospital visit. And it covers most everything, even if you need surgery. All you pay for are prescription drugs if you don't have coverage. And even if you don't have coverage the cost of medicine is dirt cheap. Like maybe 2 dollars a pill on average. Any treatments, testing, stay, or medicine given in the hospital is free. Same with at clinics.

Like watch the movie Sicko, that was dead on how our system is. If you cut a finger off they'll sow it back on. None of this BS that you have to fork out "any money" or pick which digit you'd like to save. We don't work like that. I was born here and our system is fantastic. I've never had a problem with them ever. The funding to provide the socialized health care comes out of our taxes. The advantage being that if we have any serious problem it's not gonna bankrupt us to get treatment.

However, that being said I don't trust the medical industry as a whole as anyone who knows the system knows that they should only be used for trama care. I still go in for little things too but I excersice my own descretion as to what I feel about any diagonosis as you have to be very careful whether you're being treated in the US or Canada as they're very similar systems in terms of the treatments offered.

But anyway the point being that please get it out of your head that our socialized medicine is terrible. What a bunch of BS. That's all propoganda you're hearing down there. Our system is probably one of the very best in the world. Again that's one of the few things our government actually has done right.

The key advantage is that they're FREE TO USE whenever you need help in any way.

One of the many clinics that you can walk to which are in every neighborhood.

Topographic view of one of the major hospitals in my city UofA hospital. And we have 4 major hospitals this size in our city. Several medium sized facilities, and many small clinics. Enough to easily handle the volume.

[All4truth]

I completely agree with you about our (Canada) health care.  I can relax and know that if me or my children have to go see a doctor or go to the hospital, we aren't coming out with a huge medical bill, that we can never pay off.  I like that everyone pays for it through taxes, which also means that even homeless people if they need help could come in off the street and receive care. 

It's no at all like the Obamacare.  We don't have to have medical insurance to see a doctor or go to the hospital.  some people buy insurance and it covers their meds.  But, if you tell the doctor you don't have insurance they will prescribe you something that works just as good, but cheaper.  Or they may turn around and give you what you need from their supply.

[Geolibertarian]

I heard Alex on with a guest just the other day talking about the Canadian health care system, which he was wrong about. And I don't often hear anything I disagree with.

Okay I agree with most everything I've ever heard from Alex. He's amazing. But you wanna talk propaganda???

I don't understand this but people in the US have been totally brainwashed about our healthcare system. It's totally insain. All I hear are these totally goofy reports about how inadequate our system is making it sound like communist.

so I'm just here to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT..... It's not like that at all.

Don't believe all this propaganda about socialist health care.

I think part of the problem is the tendency many people have to oversimplify a given issue into either/or extremes. The result of this tendency is to confuse the language in which we communicate our ideas to one another. And where there is confused language, there is confused thought.

For instance, Thomas Paine was a deist, yet was often falsely accused of being an atheist (even though atheism is the literal opposite of deism). Why? Because he openly rejected all "revealed" religions -- including Christianity. Outraged by Paine's harsh criticism of their religion, many Christians responded by attacking the messenger, and their primary method of doing so was to employ the guilt by association fallacy:

"All atheists reject Christianity. Thomas Paine rejects Christianity. Therefore Paine is an atheist."

A similar lack of discernment (and consequent confusion of thought) can be seen in the decades-old debate over health care.

From the point of view of many well-meaning conservatives and libertarians, if you don't advocate the all-out "privatization" of health care, then by definition you advocate the all-out "socialization" of health care.

Yet as the following excerpt explains, it's not only possible but quite common to be an advocate of neither:

------------------------

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

[Continued...]

------------------------

And then there's the ridiculously false gold money-vs.-debt money paradigm, which has deceived countless people into falsely believing that the only alternative to enslaving mankind within a prison of debt is to crucify mankind upon a cross of gold, and that you therefore cannot oppose the latter without endorsing the former.

[jofortruth]

I agree! This is one topic AJ is not informed on! Not a criticism, just a fact! If he wants to see a socialist system, look at the UK and others! He talked recently about Paul Watson having to wait a long time to get a doctors appointment! His story was unacceptable and how social medicine works!

Canada's healthcare system does have problems (wait times for some procedures, not enough doctors in rural areas,etc) but it's not socialized medicine! Some call it socialized insurance! There's a difference!

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=670

[Celebrome]

Being from Canada Quebec i can tell you that our health care systeme really really suck !!!! You want to go wait 6-7 hours without anyone giving you any treatement ? come visit our hospital, you'll see how fun it is to wait sitting on the floor next to someone whose been waiting for 12hours.  I had an accident once, a piece of glass went right trough mi hand and had lost 1.5 liters of blood and after 4h hours i was about to collaps and they finaly decided too give me some medical attention because other patient were getting scared and worryed for me. Mi mother had breast cancer, it took 2 years for them too find it because the governement doctor were too lazy to actualy look at the X-ray. Her cancer was so advanced that she had to be treated right away or she would die but since you cant be treated right away, it was certain death for mi mother. Lucky for her, her boss for whome she worked for over 25 years is Jewish and knew lots of board member from the General jewish hospital. He donated 45 000$ in donation to the hospital so she could be treated right away. Yes we might now end up broke but chance to end up dead when you have something serious are really high and you are certain to come out with a huge list of drugs and treatement but hey, our inssurance pays for it. Has long has you pay your 50 $ a week too your insurance.  Mi Girlf friend is pregnant and since day 1 they have been trying too scare us into taking lots and lots of drugs  claiming that if we didnt take them, we would lose our baby or mi girlfriend would be seriously sick. We didnt take anything and guess what she is doing extremely well.

Ho yeah, lets not forget that lots of people are not choosing to go the United State, Cuba, India or other destination to get treated because they know that here they will only get basic treatement when you can actualy get them. 

Canada is ranked 28 for there health systeme amongst the 34 most industrialised country. We are also at the 28th rank for Child mortality  but the United state is at rank 34. Human and Experimental Toxicology had a study showing that the more vaccine you give to children the higher the death rate was.

[Celebrome]

Ho yeah, i also forgot to mention that in Canada a Doctor does not have the right to his own opinion. He has to follow everything that Health Canada says or can face cancelation of is right to practice and can even be charged with prison time. You do not have the right to say that Vaccine can be dangerous or useless, you have to push them on people and if someone argue with you, you are oblige to say that Health Canada does not say this and that they are absolutely right.

[Geolibertarian]

Although written a decade ago, the following is as relevant and insightful now as it was then:

-----------------------------------

http://www.progress.org/archive/fold129.htm

The Paradox of Government-Monopoly Medicine

by Fred E. Foldvary
The Progress Report
2000

Why in the USA is health care a federal case? The nature of health care is that it is something you need at random, and when you need it, you've got to have it even at a high price. We also need food, but that we get on a regular basis, with no big surprises.

But while a health emergency can strike you at any time, like a tiger pouncing out of the dark, what appears random to the sufferers is a regularity for the population. We know that some regular percentage of folks will have injuries and illnesses during a year. That's why we can insure for it, just like we have life, home, and car insurance. So why don't folks just buy insurance privately?

In the USA, many do, only it's often done through the employer, since the boss gets a tax deduction and the worker does not. But many people are considered too poor to get insurance, so the federal government insures the poor with Medicaid and the old folks with Medicare. Now they want to expand the benefits to drugs. It is the nature of medicine that we can never have enough if it's user-free, so the push is to ever expand government coverage.

In Great Britain they decided that since everyone needs insurance, the national government may as well provide it to all. According to a poll by the Times of London, 46 percent of Britons regard their National Health Service as the greatest achievement of the British government in the 20th century (NCPA Policy Digest 2-10-00).

Is it not wonderful to get free health care? But it is not free - the British pay for it from taxes. As for the poor, government could instead give them health vouchers for private medical care. So the great benefit of government-provided medicine must be its monopolization, since if it is just a problem of money, then transfers or the redistribution of income would solve it.

The facts indicate that British health care is a wee bit short of utopian. The British NHS has 1.1 million patients on its hospital waiting lists, and half as many doctors per capita as the U.S.(1).

In cancer treatment, problems in the NHS include a chronic lack of funds, specialists, and treatment centers; unequal treatment throughout the country; and in some cases the postponement of aggressive treatment until it is too late. According to the World Health Organization, 25,000 Britons die of cancer unnecessarily each year. Britons are not provided with drugs that are routinely administered in the U.S. for colon cancer, leaving British subjects with a survival rate of 41% versus 64% for Americans. For women with breast cancer, the five-year survival rate is 67% in Britain compared to 84% in the U.S.A.

As for the totality of health care, the United Kingdom spends about 6.8% of its gross domestic product on health care, versus 14% in the USA. In the UK, some 500 people a year die while on the national waiting list for heart operations (2).

Evidently just making medicine a government monopoly does not improve service. Why then do so many Britons regard nationalized medicine as their country's crowning achievement? Partly it may be ignorance of how their system compares with that of the US, where the government provides subsidies rather than direct service. But mainly it may be that subsidies, vouchers, and income transfers are politically more volatile and subject to cuts than the outright entrenched provision of the service by government.

So it seems the British want security in medical provision, even at poorer service, and at the root of their insecurity is poverty. It is not the abject poverty of being hungry and homeless, but the middle-class privation of insufficient purchasing power and the fear of losing employment.

Nationalized medicine treats the symptoms of middle-class privation, but at a cost of substandard care. The cause of middle-class privation is the poison of taxation and economic restriction. The effective remedy is true free trade and the removal of the poison by totally untaxing wages and shifting public revenue to the rent of land. Wages would gush up by eliminating the hemorrhage of taxation, removing blocks from circulation, and making the economy ever so much more productive by the better use of space.

With high wages and the security that comes from a high demand for labor, Britons would be able to scrap their nationalized health monopoly and would well afford a full choice of insurance, mutual aid, and fee-paid plans. Ultimately nationalized medicine is kept in power by the greed of those who profit from land and the ignorance of the public that does not see the economic reality behind the superficial money transactions of daily life.



References

1. Paul R. McGinn, "Brits Rate NHS as Top Achievement," American Medical News, January 31, 2000.

2. Sarah Lyall, "In Britain's Health Service, Sick Itself, Cancer Care is Dismal," New York Times, February 10, 2000.

-----------------------------------

I think the key point made by economist Fred Foldvary in the above article is that the health care issue is, at bottom, really about the unjust concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a relative few, since the varying degrees of poverty and privation that this concentration imposes on everyone else is what makes government assistance programs in general seem necessary in the first place.

To paraphrase Harry Browne, what ruling-class oligarchs and the corporate whore politicians who lovingly serve them essentially do is cripple people economically, hand them a crutch, and then say: "See? You couldn't walk if it weren't for us!"

That's why the health care reform measures called for here must go hand-in-hand with the economic reforms called for here.

[sentinelscout]

The problem is in America we believe in personal liberty, as an individual I want the right to say no to purchasing non sense like "health insurance" or "car insurance" for that matter.

If I want to take a risk , it should be my choice.

That being said , I have been driving for 6 years, no accidents, no nothing and insurance bill gets higher and higher, so for the past 6 years its just been essentially a waste of money.


For people who are awake and dont have "accidents" these things are socialist.
To accident prone idiots , these things are "essential".

When you take the responsible peoples money to pay for the irresponsible peoples accidents, all you are doing is keeping the dangerous idiots on the road.

If they had been bankrupted by their ignorance, they wouln't be able to afford a car... if they couldnt afford a car, the roards would be less congested and less dangerous... (because you wouldn't have a bunch of raving lunatics on the road).

Your less inclined to drive "safe" when you know "someone else will pay for it".
So in a way insurance promotes dangerous driving habits.


Likewise, "free" healthcare promotes bad personal health habits, your more inclined to pick up that cig, or drink that soda, or partake in risky behavior that could damage your health... because you know that you have that safety net.

Which really just takes the fun out of it all if you ask me.


People only live once, theres no point in keeping them alive longer, your visit to earth is temporary and its meant to be temporary.... this body is a shell to be used up , exhausted and throw away.

As far as propaganda, IDK how your system works, Im forced to pay for enough useless shit as it is.


Honestly they shouldnt even call it insurance, they should call it a structured health care payment plan... and it should be optional.
People who want health insurance dont want it because of "o just in case I get sick".
They want it so that they can spread the cost of visiting the doctor out into the future.

We could simply solve that by charging doctors visits to a Credit Card (would probably be cheaper) and the doctor would get paid more.

we pay tons of money a month for a "family plan" health insurance junk, the doctor gets something like 10$ a visit per person on health insurance  . . . its a joke! if I was a doctor i would have a huge sign outside "No Insurance Accepted" and charge 100$ a visit, people would be lined up outside.


Most dentists/doctors "game" the system by stating that they performed extra procedures, like one dentist I know, he will slap extra shit on the bill and bill the insurance for it... because its the only way he can stay profitable to the point where it makes sense to even keep his doors open.
(Ie perform a cleaning and bill the insurance for a root canal) (which results in him getting like 40 ~ 50$ out of the insurance instead of 10 ~12$.
When you would be charged probably 200$ for a root canal "without insurance".


In the end, insurance or no insurance the cost per year for health care to the individual would probably be cheaper if he / she just paid upfront IMO.

[freedom_commonsense]

That being said , I have been driving for 6 years, no accidents, no nothing and insurance bill gets higher and higher, so for the past 6 years its just been essentially a waste of money.

The problem is the people without money who cause third party damage\injury\death, and that would mean no payouts for this damage if everyone took your attitude. What makes you think those people would disappear if there was no vehicle insurance requirement?

Geolibertarian has already discussed the healthcare issue at length here:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=52952.0

[MonkeyPuppet]

Here is how a healthcare system should work in a Republic:

No compulsory insurance.  Insurance is and should remain a private product with ZERO interference from government except for ONE thing... doctors and hospitals are barred from charging inflated rates due to a patient having insurance and insurance companies are barred from denying claims unless there is clear evidence of manipulation.  These would be the only regulatory controls on an otherwise private industry.

With the PROPER application of FEDERAL taxation (in lieu of the only "fair" system, LVT) where the federal government relies solely upon fees for utilizing it as a service and international trade (which has the added benefit of promoting domestic production), any surplus collected beyond the limited Constitutional authority and responsibility of the government would go to fund social services... such as maintaining funds for indigent patients.  If a hospital or doctor is found to be gaming this social benefit, it gets fined in a most heinous fashion... and the collected fines go to pay for indigent patients.

Oh, and Congress can't touch that surplus for any other purpose.  It is NOT a "general" fund.  If members of Congress or committees arranging budgets are found to be spending revenues frivolously to avoiding allowing what would otherwise be a surplus to fund social services (such as awarding needless contracts for military purposes, $10K toilet seats, etc), they are instantly removed from office.  Any other measures for deterring malfeasance are totally welcome... the more the better.

The states are also welcome to have independent funds fueled by similar measures.  For instance, only corporations organized in a different state with a physical presence in your state are supposed to charge sales tax (bet you didn't know that!!), which is a source of funding for state-domestic government services.  Any surplus can go to fund social services such as reimbursing hospitals and doctors for indigent patients.

We have to remember, governments do not produce anything and any benefit comes at a price.  How that cost is covered must also fall in line with the fundamental principle of liberty as well as the limited scope of authority granted to the government via a Constitution.  If you cannot steal from your neighbor to pay for others' healthcare, neither can the government.  Furthermore, the fruits of your labor are YOURS and no part of it is somehow owed to the government.  The only gains that fall within the scope of taxing authority AND respect the principle of liberty are those from foreign sources (those capitalizing on domestic markets for their own benefit).

You can disagree with this all you want, but then you'd also be disagreeing with the Founders (namely Jefferson and Madison, but many others as well).  The only detractor I can find among them is that douchebag Hamilton.

Canada's healthcare system is just find and dandy... for Canadians.  There is no point for those in the US to "bash" their system.  Canada's system of government is not based upon the principle of individual unalienable rights, so you're comparing apples and oranges from the very start.  Same goes for anywhere else in the world.

[freedom_commonsense]

Canada's healthcare system is just find and dandy... for Canadians.  There is no point for those in the US to "bash" their system.  Canada's system of government is not based upon the principle of individual unalienable rights, so you're comparing apples and oranges from the very start.  Same goes for anywhere else in the world.

It's not really "socialist" in the sense that the UK healthcare system is (which is run top-down, rather than just being funded that way). Even the UK one has some contracted services - my local clinic is run and staffed by Greenbrook Healthcare, contracted to follow government rules on provision of said services. I'm not sure how they're paid, it seems like a fixed payment because more registered patients hasn't improved their wait times. Could be someone greedy siphoning it off, of course.

[MonkeyPuppet]

It's not really "socialist" in the sense that the UK healthcare system is (which is run top-down, rather than just being funded that way). Even the UK one has some contracted services - my local clinic is run and staffed by Greenbrook Healthcare, contracted to follow government rules on provision of said services. I'm not sure how they're paid, it seems like a fixed payment because more registered patients hasn't improved their wait times. Could be someone greedy siphoning it off, of course.

I wasn't calling it "socialist" or anything else.  I just pointed out that the one key thing that makes the U.S. different from any other sovereign body (or group of bodies, as it were) is the recognition and respect for individual unalienable rights.  This is kind of a big deal when discussing what the U.S. government can do while most other places in the world are arguing about what their government(s) should do.  It's quite the distinction.

The bigger point I should make is that I really couldn't care less (honestly!) about what other countries do with regard to healthcare (or what they allow their governments to do).  Americans that argue for or against other countries' systems of government or healthcare systems have not quite grasped my earlier point regarding individual unalienable rights.  The public school fool system is to blame for that one.  Some eventually come around, and when they do, they stop being nosy in an international sense... which is, from my observations, what most of the rest of the world wishes ALL Americans would do.

[freedom_commonsense]

I wasn't calling it "socialist" or anything else.  I just pointed out that the one key thing that makes the U.S. different from any other sovereign body (or group of bodies, as it were) is the recognition and respect for individual unalienable rights.

On paper. Is it the case in reality? Not really. Someone has to defend them at the state and national level for those rights to be effective in practice across the US.

Also, the US Constitution and associated documents were inspired by the British version of the Bill of Rights, which predates it by about 100 years. Thanks for the lecture, now can we discuss the topic at hand?

[MonkeyPuppet]

On paper. Is it the case in reality? Not really. Someone has to defend them at the state and national level for those rights to be effective in practice across the US.

Quite the defeatist attitude.  Sure, there is a conflict between the lovers of liberty and those who either hate it or have been duped into believing TPTB's perversion of it, but that doesn't make the founding principle itself any less important.

Also, the US Constitution and associated documents were inspired by the British version of the Bill of Rights, which predates it by about 100 years.

The British don't have rights.  They have privileges bestowed by the government.  A rose by any other name and all that jazz.

... and the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were inspired by John Locke.

Thanks for the lecture

You're welcome

now can we discuss the topic at hand?

What's that?  Extolling the awesomeness of Canada's healthcare system and how stupid Americans have it all wrong?  By all means, continue.

I was only pointing out how ridiculous it is to educate Americans on the subject of Canada's approach to healthcare when it is 100% incompatible with the one founding principle that makes the U.S. different from any other system of government on the planet.  Sure, most Americans are f**king retarded on the subject, but that doesn't mean they simply need to understand the wrong approach... for the U.S., I mean.

[freedom_commonsense]

Quite the defeatist attitude.  Sure, there is a conflict between the lovers of liberty and those who either hate it or have been duped into believing TPTB's perversion of it, but that doesn't make the founding principle itself any less important.

Understatement of the century. You only need to look around on this forum to see a fraction of the problems that suggest otherwise.

The British don't have rights.  They have privileges bestowed by the government.  A rose by any other name and all that jazz.

Did you read the 1689 Bill of Rights before posting that?

... and the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were inspired by John Locke.

So it's not possible for them to have multiple inspirations?

What's that?  Extolling the awesomeness of Canada's healthcare system and how stupid Americans have it all wrong?  By all means, continue.

No. The American system certainly has it's fair share of problems, but the Canadian one would only be a marginal improvement without much more significant changes. I've already linked to a relevant thread. Geolibertarian's posts here cover the rest.

I was only pointing out how ridiculous it is to educate Americans on the subject of Canada's approach to healthcare when it is 100% incompatible with the one founding principle that makes the U.S. different from any other system of government on the planet.  Sure, most Americans are f**king retarded on the subject, but that doesn't mean they simply need to understand the wrong approach... for the U.S., I mean.

I didn't promote the Canadian system as some beacon of progress, I'm just getting tired of people with a black and white view.

[Rtruth]

I think everyone should read this booked called "Confessions of a medical hieratic". You'll be astonished by what this leading DR reveals in the book. 

[sentinelscout]

The problem is the people without money who cause third party damage\injury\death, and that would mean no payouts for this damage if everyone took your attitude. What makes you think those people would disappear if there was no vehicle insurance requirement?
Lets say the guy hit you with a car, and you needed him to pay 10,000 to pay for the doctor/hospital.
That guy could be forced by a court to sell his car to pay for your doc....
Geolibertarian has already discussed the healthcare issue at length here:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=52952.0

They would be held personally liable.... the person who was injured could lay claim to all the perpetrators assets and earnings (garnishments).
The lack of insurance would , wipe out bad drivers , lower road congestion, lower wear on our roads decreasing city maintenance costs, lower traffic, DID I MENTION LOWER TRAFFIC? <<-----, More parking spaces.... , cheaper tickets/fines/violations..... , more people car-pooling/taking the bus because they can no longer afford to take the risk of driving. . . .

Insurance causes reckless driving.... Insurance is directly responsible for instant deaths. . . you have rich pompous assholes driving around like maniacs because they have insurance and can "afford" to run over people.
... if that jerks lively hood was on the line they would be inclined to take caution/drive carefully.


If I had no insurance, I would probably drive a bike.... 90% of the time I sleep while I drive.... im just a good driver It doesn't take that much of my concentration and I have really good vision (i freaking dodge nails on the road ) XD only 1 flat tire in my history of driving and it was a slow leak.....

People aren't willing to exercise personal responsibility.

Also, its not really "insurance" when its mandated... its more like socialization of damages..... I pay so that some other jerk can run someone over and not lose his shirt... pretty stupid system if you ask me.


If there was no insurance... not everyone could "afford" health care, then guess what? the cost of healthcare WOULD DROP to match demand..... instead now you have a system where you spend thousands for a family just to be able to see the doctor.... then you feel obligated to waste the doctors time to get your moneys worth out of your insurance... that makes every visit to the doctors office TAKE FOREVER because theres a line full off assholes doing the same thing... getting that one tooth fixed before their insurance runs out... or getting that last 6 month re-fill of that prescription before the insurance runs out.


My family hops around insurance companies so much because our favorite doctors DO THE SAME(they stop taking certain insurance/start taking another) you never know if your doctor that you have been using for 10 years will take your insurance on the next visit, because the insurance companies SUCK they pay the doctors NOTHING / SHIT and you sit there and pay 3 G's a month for a full family plan... ITS STUPID.
A doctors visit used to cost 100$ WTF happened to that?

Guess what, we sit there pay insurance and half the time the doctors never take it....... so we pay cash out of pocket + insurance because its just a stupid system.

Insurance = ALWAYS a waste of money.


Insurance companies are there to "Gamble" that you wont ever need the insurance, meanwhile your there trying to get insurance to pay for shit that you just dont want to pay for upfront.

Insurance = More people going to the doctor = Higher health care costs = People without insurance cant afford the doctor = people who would otherwise be able to  pay for a doctors visit NOW CANT and have to pay the cost of that same visit OVER AND OVER each month (insurance premium) even though they probably only want to see the doc 2 ~ 3 times a year.

[Liberty Rising]

Well I can only speak for myself and people I know but our experiences with the Canadian Healthcare system have been horrible.. People have to wait so long for surgeries they decide to just go down to the USA and pay for it. There's never enough rooms or staff so people have to wait around in the hallways.. The doctors don't give a shit about you and usually just want to write a quick prescription based on 30 seconds of facts and move on.. My mothers experiences going through cancer treatment were absolutely atrocious.. The staff may as well have been from the Dark Ages.. I like not having to pay for anything (even though you do in taxes) but if we have one of the highest rated health care systems that really sucks.. The system works fine but the employees need to be held to much higher standards.

[sentinelscout]

^ Health Care imo is a joke in and of itself.
The only one that can care for your health is... you.

People live horrible lifestyles (smoking, eating bad, poor diet, poor nutrition, drugs, excessive drinking) and then "woops" im "sick" or "injured" because of something "stupid I did while drunk"....

"So Mr. Anderson, you were drinking and you thought it would be a good idea to drive your lawn mower 20 miles an hour off a ramp you and your friends constructed out of duct tape and scrap lumber".

It seems that you have severed 3 fingers, and you managed to also break your nose.... no worries your "insurance" will pay for everything.

(Everyone in that county just had their insurance premium just go up)...

^^ thats canadian health care, it makes for good youtube videos and television atleast!

America isn't far behind.

They should focus more on health education, rather than managing the aftermath.

[jofortruth]

^ Health Care imo is a joke in and of itself.
The only one that can care for your health is... you.

People live horrible lifestyles!

They should focus more on health education, rather than managing the aftermath.

That is the key! The people don't get educated about their own health, and doctors are allowed to conduct 10 min office visits to push drugs and then do nothing but manage the fallout from those drugs. And we wonder why things are so expensive?

Keep padding the pockets of bad doctors (Doctors have proven they are not gods) and their big pharma bosses, and you will never get well! Start taking responsibility (including getting educated about your own health) and that can change!

THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM BEGINS WITH EACH ONE OF US! TELL YOUR DOCTOR IT IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE TO JUST PUSH DRUGS ON YOU, BUT THAT YOU WANT TIPS ON HOW TO BE HEALTHY. IF HE CAN'T DO THAT, THEN FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL PROMOTE HEALTH, AND NOT SICKNESS, AND WHO IS NOT OWNED BY BIG PHARMA! UNTIL PEOPLE STAND UP, NOTHING WILL CHANGE!

A place to start getting educated about health, and taking responsibility: (I own most of these books, and have been using many of the nutrients she suggests, and THEY WORK!) This doctor came out of retirement to help educate the sheeple about their health. It's up to you to help yourself with this information! You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink!
http://prestigepublishing.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/apps/cartcompanion/category.html

[sentinelscout]

^ Exactly, the key is not "figuring out a way to make it affordable for everyone to go to the doctor", the key to victory is to teach everyone HOW TO AVOID EVER NEEDING TO GO TO THE DOCTOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.




But how would Big Pharma and the doctors become rich then? :p


Doctors and pharmaceutical companies want to constantly have you in a "manageable condition of sickness" healthy enough to be productive and keep paying them, but sick enough where you need the addictive drugs they keep charging you for.
Insurance needs enough people to be sick where it makes the public afraid of being sick (war on sickness AKa War on terror aka War that you can never win because its a war against an ideal that is impossible to avoid).

Keep fighting UN-winnable battles, OR avoid the battles altogether.

The key to winning the game, is never to play.

[jofortruth]

The key to winning the game, is never to play.

In this game, that's right!

[Geolibertarian]

The key to winning the game, is never to play.

So the key to overpriced health care is to never get sick.

By that logic, the key to world hunger is to never get hungry; the key to unemployment is to never get laid off; and the key to poverty is to never be poor.

Implicit in this reasoning is that it's always the victims of economic terrorism who are to blame, not the terrorists themselves:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=196128.0

[sentinelscout]

So the key to overpriced health care is to never get sick.

By that logic, the key to world hunger is to never get hungry; the key to unemployment is to never get laid off; and the key to poverty is to never be poor.

Implicit in this reasoning is that it's always the victims of economic terrorism who are to blame, not the terrorists themselves:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=196128.0

The victims of economic terrorism are to blame.
You cant blame the robber for robbing 1000s of people, if he knows that the 1000s of people wont do anything about it.
The actions of a few, destroy the many.
The many by complacency and acquiescence have allowed the few to destroy them.
It is no different than a room full of people standing in line and allowing an individual with a hammer to bash their heads in one by one.

Now one would say "well there is force, government and banks use the threat of force and violence to enforce their will and defraud the public".

They can only kill so many of the public before they themselves feel the repercussions of their actions.

Nothing happens to a person without them having made the decision to let it happen to them.

Cause and effect brought on by poor decisions, or lack of making a decision at all... because doing nothing is still doing something.

That being said, there are always certain extremes that make it appear that the above is not a valid view point.
Lets take armed robbery.

You walk to the bank, take out money from the atm, walk down the block and get robbed at gun point.
Who is to blame?

The average person would argue, well the robber is to blame.

I could make the argument that the individual being robbed is also to blame.

Perhaps the individual being robbed voted a certain way, and the candidate that got into power as a direct result put into motion economic policies that drove the other individual to a life of crime?

Perhaps the individual being robbed injured the other individual somehow intentionally or not in the past, and the robber had a grudge.

Perhaps the individual being robbed spilled his coffee on the floor, causing someone to trip and the robber stopped to help that person and as such was late for an important meeting and then got fired, then had to rob someone...

The butterfly effect as it were.

Now in regards to "the solution to hunger is to not be hungry".... its completely valid.
Hunger is a state of being, and as such everyones state of being is a result of personal choice.

If you are poor, it is your decision to be poor, to escape poverty you only need to will it.
If there is no work for you where you live, move.... find work somewhere else.

Being poor and complaining about it is like living in the desert and complaining about the heat, if you choose to stay there, then you are choosing to stay in the heat which you are complaining about.

Choice is the answer to all problems.
Choose what you want.
And if you fail at getting what you want....
Failure is a result of poor decisions.


Freedom begins with personal choice.


I know I might be treading on a thin line of reason with this post, but its only for the sake of discussion and argument....  to bring up ideas and to stimulate new thoughts.

I don't intend to upset or anger anyone... only to stimulate discussion I just wanted to throw that in there, because on the internet people are easily offended.

[freedom_commonsense]

The victims of economic terrorism are to blame.
You cant blame the robber for robbing 1000s of people, if he knows that the 1000s of people wont do anything about it.
The actions of a few, destroy the many.

Read the thread Geolibertarian linked you to, and you'll find your arguments have been made before and discredited.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the following threads which address the poverty issue:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.0 (Land Value Tax, and rebuttals to common objections)

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160459.0 (How do we eliminate the paradox of poverty & privation amid plenty & abundance?)

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=161315.0 (Bureaucracy-Ridden Welfare System vs. Guaranteed Income)

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=111088.0 (America's Socialism for the Rich)

If that isn't enough to convince you that your pointless blame-the-victim argument is a waste of time around here, nothing will.

[jofortruth]

I believe that if people would educate themselves and stop eating so much garbage, many could improve their health!

I believe that if Big Pharma was put on a leash and stopped from doling out dangerous drugs like candy (meaning we had an FDA that had some integrity and wouldn't dole out fast track dangerous drugs and tell them they must prove  they are safe in 3 years, in the meanwhile killing people but making huge profits) or thinking that Drugs are the answer to every ailment, that people would be healthier and medical costs would come down.

I believe that if Doctors would man up and stop following the mandates of Big Pharma (who sits on the Protocol boards that send down mandates to doctors) which is about keeping us sick, rather than making us healthy, the costs could come down.

I believe if we didn't have such WOOSY Congressmen who pass legislation (without reading it and understanding it) written by these same entities who love control, that people would have choices and BIG PHARMA wouldn't have total control of the healthcare system which is not a healthcare system, but a deathcare and sickness system.

Yes, there is much people could do for themselves, if they chose to get educated and not just think their Doctors are gods who are looking out for them. Some may be good, but others just do as they're told and their answer is DRUGS for everything, even though I know for a fact that eating healthy, taking good nutrients and taking care of oneself is the FIRST ANSWER TO HEALTH!

Imagine a world where we had choices, where people took responsibility for their own health, and BIG PHARMA wasn't allowed to Rule! THAT WOULD BE A MORE HEALTHY WORLD AND WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE CURRENT MESS WE ARE IN!

WE NEED SOME PEOPLE AT THE HELM WITH INTEGRITY AND COMMON SENSE FOLKS! UNTIL THE HOUSE IS CLEANED, THE DIRT WON'T GO AWAY!

[Geolibertarian]

The victims of economic terrorism are to blame.

The Rothschilds and Rockefellers of the world agree with you. At least you're honest about whose side you're on.

The Austrian School propaganda machine has obviously done its job all too well:

-------------------------

"For the first years of Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.”

-- Richard M. Ebeling, “The Life and Works of Ludwig von Mises,” The Independent Review, Summer 2008

“The Austrian School came into existence when a bunch of Viennese rent-gouging landlords didn’t want rent control on the rents they could gouge out of their tenants in old Vienna, so they hired a bunch of scribblers--and that’s the Austrian School.”

-- Webster Tarpley, World Crisis Radio broadcast, 9/27/08, 1st hour

-------------------------

You cant blame the robber for robbing 1000s of people, if he knows that the 1000s of people wont do anything about it.

Again, that is exactly the line of reasoning that the ruling-class parasites who compose the NWO use to justify their predatory behavior.

The many by complacency and acquiescence have allowed the few to destroy them.

So the Jews in Nazi Germany had it coming (due to their "complacency and acquiescence"), and Hitler was therefore innocent of wrongdoing, is that it?

Like it or not, that's exactly what this blame-the-victim argument of yours leads to when taken to its logical conclusion.

It is no different than a room full of people standing in line and allowing an individual with a hammer to bash their heads in one by one.

That is a ridiculously false analogy, because the masses are being preyed upon by the pyschopathic, eugenics-obsessed ruling elite practically from the time they're born, and a small child is obviously unable to defend himself.

For instance, a toddler can't say "no" to being injected with mercury. But according to blame-the-victim-firsters, it's still his fault for being autistic -- or at least magically becomes his fault once he reaches adulthood.

Elementary school children can't say "no" to compulsory school attendance laws. But according to blame-the-victim-firsters, it's still their fault that they're dumbed down -- or at least the fault of their parents, even though the parents were themselves victimized in childhood by the same intellect-destroying system.

       "They who have put out the people’s eyes, reproach them of their blindness." -- John Milton

Nothing happens to a person without them having made the decision to let it happen to them.

Go parrot this ruling-class mantra at a rape clinic -- or better yet at a Holocaust museum -- and see what response you get. Don't be surprised if they're not impressed with your intellectual prowess.

That being said, there are always certain extremes that make it appear that the above is not a valid view point.

Lets take armed robbery.

You walk to the bank, take out money from the atm, walk down the block and get robbed at gun point.

Who is to blame?

The average person would argue, well the robber is to blame.

I could make the argument that the individual being robbed is also to blame.

Unless, of course, the individual being robbed is you. Or do you have so much contempt for the intelligence of the people of this forum that you actually expect them to believe that you'd continue to apply this blame-the-victim argument even if you were the one being robbed at gunpoint?

Perhaps the individual being robbed voted a certain way, and the candidate that got into power as a direct result put into motion economic policies that drove the other individual to a life of crime?

Perhaps the individual being robbed injured the other individual somehow intentionally or not in the past, and the robber had a grudge.

Perhaps the individual being robbed spilled his coffee on the floor, causing someone to trip and the robber stopped to help that person and as such was late for an important meeting and then got fired, then had to rob someone...

Or perhaps you're just twisting yourself into a pretzel in a tortured attempt to justify shifting blame from where it most belongs to where it least belongs.

The butterfly effect as it were.

Call it whatever you want, it's still blaming the victim, and it's still the very same bullshit argument that the globalists use to justify their crimes against humanity.

Now in regards to "the solution to hunger is to not be hungry".... its completely valid.
Hunger is a state of being, and as such everyones state of being is a result of personal choice.

You hear that, folks? The little guy you see below had only himself to blame for his state of being:

    

Why? Duh! Because blame-the-victim-firsters say so.

If you're trying to make yourself look like a self-obsessed sociopath, you're doing an awfully good job.

[sentinelscout]

Im not trying to say that the actions of the elite are just or fair, im just saying it how it is.

If Millions of people let one individual steal everything, who is really to blame?


The problems we face today go deeper than right or wrong.

It's not a cut and dry issue as to say "well they stole everything so its their fault", everyone shares atleast some blame for the current state of things.

It's easy to sit there and point fingers and say "that man stole everything hes bad and evil and should be punished".

It's hard to look in a mirror and say "why did I let him doit? why did I stand by and do nothing but watch?"

The problem is that in our current society the majority of people are just sitting by and watching the theft occur.... most of them don't even care or just don't have the mental capacity to recognized whats going on around them.

The general population is so domesticated and so bogged down with other issues and concerns (like how to put food on the table) that they can only see the world in 2Dimensions.
When you scale things out and "zoom out" everything that has occurred and that will occur is a result of poor choices and cause + effect.
The reason people don't see this is, that our poor decisions branch out and impact everyone around us, so one persons poor judgement can have a drastic impact on another.
For example, a drunk driver causing an accident.
The drunk driver chose to drink, get in the car and drive, the outcome of that decision was disaster, everyone who was involved in that accident was impacted.


Now imagine if everyone all at the same time decided to follow that drunk driver off a cliff? (the followers were not drunk, just numb like everyone in society, easily influenced).
Who is to blame?
The drunk driver is driving off the cliff , the sober passengers are following him for no reason.
Who is to blame for the death of the followers? Certainly not the drunk driver, the people lacked common sense and judgement.


The human condition is suffering from a lack of common sense and good judgement.


The picture of the starving child you posted is an outcome of a chain of events, people chose a political figure to secure the resources of that child for themselves (to steal it), the outcome is that one dies so that many can live a better life.

Im not trying to justify it, im not trying to condone it, its just how the machine seems to me to be operating.

The human condition is almost cannibalistic.

Do not call me sick for pointing out the disease.


Maybe using the words blame/fault is too harsh, its not really the victims fault, its more or less a result of a mental condition that the victim has which allows them to be .... taken advantage of.

This is borderline a philosophical view point, and philosophical view points are never "air tight" arguments.

The child being born into poverty is not responsible for his condition, but if that child lives to adult hood and develops a sense of reason where he / she can recognize the condition and circumstances, it is up to that child to dig himself out.

Man kind only has control over the forces around him, the only laws that need apply are the laws of nature , and physics, everything else is man-made and only serves to comfort us.

You say I can not blame the child for being poor and starving, you are right in that regard, but I say that the childs circumstances are a result of the decisions of someone around him (parents) who brought that child to life in that state, the parents could of left the region for areas that are more fertile.

If someone decides to give birth to a child in the middle of a desert, and that child dies , the child is a victim of poor judgement, you cant place blame on the child because the child is not yet capable of reason beyond that of an animal (hunger, pain, pleasure).

Note, that I am actually Pro-Life and against abortion and I still maintain that view point.



I wish the world was a perfect place where everyone played by the same set of rules and everyone was accountable.
but the sad truth is, 99% of the population is well... for lack of a better set of words . . . too gullible/obedient and too easy to take advantage of that the people who are in the best position to take advantage of them are so tempted by the idea that they eventually break down their moral ideals for securing a better life for themselves and their family/friends.


The problem is education , the educational systems are so poor that they essentially program the population to become drones ripe for exploitation.


We are on the same side, we just have different ways of looking at the sickness that plagues humanity.... we have no cure to "fix" the mental imbalances that make people too submissive.

[sentinelscout]

Continued from above

(please note I think the holocaust/ww1/ww2/all wars/were/was/is horrible before reading), and note that the below is just my philosophical view point.... I try to leave emotion out of my arguments and just look at things from a cause/ effect /choice relationship, which makes my arguments sound somewhat cruel.
------------------------------------------------------

I don't like the idea of tackling the issue of the Jews in Nazi germany, but I would be bold enough to say that ... the Jews lacked good judgement in the sense that they could of left before the conditions got as bad as they did.

The problem is ... that most of the jewish population probably had no where to go, they felt locked in place because everything they had known / lived/all their friends/family/personal property was locked down inside germany... (leaving your entire life behind is a tough decision, and usually by the time you decide such actions are necessary its probably too late to act).

That being said, if you scale things out an look at the broader picture, Jews are a people who follow a religeon, they aren't really a race of people, so the idea that it was "genocide" doesn't really apply, its probably closer to "ethnicocide" if that word even exists.
The nazi attack on the jewish people was an attack on a class of people that were acting parasitic to the greater whole.

I know that sounds harsh and maybe even disturbing, but im not trying to call the jewish people parasites, im trying to put it into context that needs further explanation, that being said I dont blame you for forming a biased opinion on that comment because its easy to lock oneself into the state of rejecting an argument based on its wording, never the less I will attempt.

Jewish people are very proud people, they like to do business within their social groups, so one jew will do business with another jew and will usually give that jew a better deal than he would a non-jew.
That being said, just like the chinese do, I wouldn't be surprised if this lead to the jewish people becoming very wealthy in the german society.

When you form a social network, and you only buy things from within your social network, it has the effect of drawing in wealth from the outside and distributing it to your social network.
So a jew would buy from another jew, and a jew would sell to a non-jew, but a jew would not buy from a non jew.
Eventually if the rest of the population is not following a similar game plan, they will be poorer and the jews will be richer.
I suspect this is what was going on in Germany at the time, and the result was that it led to a lot of resentment amongst the non- jewish german citizens because essentially the entire point of becoming a citizen of a state is to work together.


This is no different than 10 of your friends forming a club and then 3 of the friends in the club taking advantage of the other 7.

The result was resentment built up, and the system tried to balance itself out. . . you have two options usually when things get out of balance..... solve the problem with reason and logic, or violence and destruction.


Personally, I think they chose the wrong method (obviously) because it was a destructive violent method that did not better the whole but rather destroyed the part of the whole that was healthy.

They should of tried to incorporate the jews more into their society and homogenize the people (in the sense of commerce and commerce alone). . . by making it more attractive for everyone to actively play a fair role in the economy.


Resentment caused the attack on the jews, the resentment was a result (effect) of the jewish business model, thus the jews put into motion a chain of events that lead to the holocaust.



I hate wording it like that, but im attacking the problem philosophically/logically.... although perhaps I have taken too much liberty with my assumptions, which are based on my own perception of jewish business practices.... which I completely think is the smartest way for a people to "get ahead".

That being said, that business model is no different than the banks drawing off wealth from a nation, its the same net-outcome and results in classes (poor , middle, rich).

The only real way for everyone to be equal, is for everyone to be a slave to socialism... (assuming the rules applied to everyone equally).
The problem with socialism is, it destroys the human competitive spirit , and the human condition is ripe for exploitation, greed, and the EGO tends to get out of control for the central planners.

Thats why capitalism and free markets and democratic republics usually tend to make the most amount of people rich with the least amount of poverty, because free people create prosperity while enslaved people create and perpetuate the condition of mediocrity and poverty.

[sentinelscout]

PS:
In regards to twisting myself into a pretzel to shift blame from where it belongs....

You are right, but im not really trying to shift blame, im more likely trying to state that the victim SHARES the blame more often than not.... it goes without saying that someone doing something like stealing, killing, etc... is to blame for their actions and is to blame for the harm done on another.

But the victim AND bystanders who sat and watched as it occurred are ALSO LIABLE and their hands are dirty as it were because they let it happen.



Who is responsible for the current state of affairs?
The public.

Who is responsible for the harm done?
The perpetrators.

Who is responsible for not preventing the harm from being done?
The public, bystanders and the victim who let it happen.



You say the victim is innocent and that the bystanders are innocent, im not so quick to absolve them of guilt, and really what it comes down to is... a case by case basis where guilt really needs to be decided case by case...

You can always formulate an argument to find someone guilty, the true test is ... to determine if that argument is honest and truthful or even applicable to the given situation.


Well, thats how I see it.


I think I may have worded my arguments too bluntly , but it was a quick and dirty attempt at reasoning, I tend to blurt out my arguments with a shotgun opposed to a pen, which often could offend people... but I rarely get into a discussion on topics like this.


On that note, I need to sleep on the questions you popped into my head, you have caused me to have .....stirrings.
Maybe I should adjust my reasoning to be more anger based, and just start advocating the point fingers and ask questions later method.... But I feel like thats the quick and dirty approach, sure it gets results but I feel like you lose out on a learning opportunity for the masses when the masses/public/victim/bystanders dont get to share in the blame.

If people felt guilty about not doing something that one time they noticed someone being robbed or... someone getting beat up on the side walk, then they might do something next time.
And really, to me a social learning experience (where the masses learn and develop better moral codes of conduct) is too valuable to pass up.

[MonkeyPuppet]

I see where you're coming from with this sentinelscout, and to a point I agree.  There are, however and obviously, those upon whom harm has been inflicted who can bear no blame... the picture above from Geo is a good example of that.  And yes, there are others that, while we may sympathize with their situation, it is not a stretch by any means to find the folly in their decisions which either led to this circumstance or allowed others to exploit those decisions to their detriment.

The picture showing the former, an example of the latter would be... let's say the 2nd victim in a shooting at a restaurant (assuming an adult for argument's sake).  While the 1st is hardly at fault having probably never seen the violent criminal with the gun, the 2nd (and beyond) not only heard the first shot(s), but also can see the manifest intent of the shooter with the falling body... that of the 1st victim.  One could easily argue that, if these subsequent victims felt no need or desire to look after their own personal safety when leaving their home, they share some responsibility for their own fate as well as all those that fall after them during this incident.  If they had instead chosen to arm themselves to some degree, they would have had a fighting chance and thus shed that shared liability for the subsequent deaths.

Recognizing this in no way diminishes the wickedness of the wicked for their crimes.

However, to expand this concept to the more generalized modern evils of TPTB...

"Our brethren are already in the field! [That's us, educating ourselves and each other, btw.] Why stand we here idle? [And they do, some even fighting us with their ignorance!] What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

After all, it has been said here many times over... don't waste time on those who are unwilling to be awoken from their blissful slumber as they will get what they deserve in due time.  Are those, the target of such remarks, "victims" in the end?  Yes, but more than that, they indeed play an actively passive role in whatever evil is dealt against them by others.

[Rtruth]

I should mention I'd only go to a clinic or hospital for trama care. Anything else is complete stupidity.

[sentinelscout]

I see where you're coming from with this sentinelscout, and to a point I agree.  There are, however and obviously, those upon whom harm has been inflicted who can bear no blame... the picture above from Geo is a good example of that.  And yes, there are others that, while we may sympathize with their situation, it is not a stretch by any means to find the folly in their decisions which either led to this circumstance or allowed others to exploit those decisions to their detriment.

The picture showing the former, an example of the latter would be... let's say the 2nd victim in a shooting at a restaurant (assuming an adult for argument's sake).  While the 1st is hardly at fault having probably never seen the violent criminal with the gun, the 2nd (and beyond) not only heard the first shot(s), but also can see the manifest intent of the shooter with the falling body... that of the 1st victim.  One could easily argue that, if these subsequent victims felt no need or desire to look after their own personal safety when leaving their home, they share some responsibility for their own fate as well as all those that fall after them during this incident.  If they had instead chosen to arm themselves to some degree, they would have had a fighting chance and thus shed that shared liability for the subsequent deaths.

Recognizing this in no way diminishes the wickedness of the wicked for their crimes.

However, to expand this concept to the more generalized modern evils of TPTB...

"Our brethren are already in the field! [That's us, educating ourselves and each other, btw.] Why stand we here idle? [And they do, some even fighting us with their ignorance!] What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

After all, it has been said here many times over... don't waste time on those who are unwilling to be awoken from their blissful slumber as they will get what they deserve in due time.  Are those, the target of such remarks, "victims" in the end?  Yes, but more than that, they indeed play an actively passive role in whatever evil is dealt against them by others.

This captures my thoughts fairly well, really it's my fault for failing to articulate the idea that just because the victim may potentially share blame, that the perpetrator is no less guilty for his / her actions.

More or less I wanted to also emphasize that doing nothing is the same as doing harm yourself sometimes, guilt by acquiescence or passive guilt, someone who walks by a stranger being beaten up by a mob is just as guilty as the mob doing the beating, but one would be stuck in a paradox of sorts almost because say if that person stopped to help and he himself was injured or killed along with the intended victim he too would share in the blame of his own fate because he is responsible for angering the crowd/mob against his own person, so in a sense if you do nothing you are guilty of doing nothing, and if you do something, you are responsible for your own fate because you gambled against the odds (1 vs. many).
The interesting thing is, that currently the elitist vs. masses is quite the opposite you have a mob of sheep being eaten by a few lone wolves.... there are a few sheep or rams in the population willing to contest the power and force of the wolves but they lack the support of the crowd and as such the crowd is responsible for any losses because they fail to help their potential leaders.

This would be comparable to lets say... Ron Paul lacking support, because the sheep are afraid of losing what is already lost (socialist benefits) that will potentially be acquired by allowing government to continue to grow out of control.

Fate as it seems is a double edged sword, you can lose if you take the moral high ground, and you can loose to a lesser extent if you do nothing.
But often in terms of government, society and political activism, it seems that in the long run the outcome can be just as bad as the short term path of taking the moral high ground.... oppression now, or oppression later as the mob grows out of potential restraint.
I try to push the argument to an exaggerated level to convey the idea clearly but this more than often fails to do so and only serves to anger the reader, something i need to work on fixing.
Its a slippery subject, but a thought engaging one.

I should mention I'd only go to a clinic or hospital for trama care. Anything else is complete stupidity.

I solve most of my health issues with water, chicken soup, duct tape and crazy glue , I do not partake in risky behavior which could result in broken bones or fractures as such I have been incident free for 18 years (with the exception of a bike accident 7 years ago).... and I have yet to break a bone, the most I have ever accomplished is a dis-located knee and ankle (Bmx / mountain bike accident), I fixed it myself although the swelling was quite a sight to be had.

[Rtruth]

This is a true story....

My best friend in college had a 4 yr old son. The son was fine for the most part. But the kid had hunched or scrunched shoulders. But the kid was 100% mobile. But my friend being only 24 at the time and totally naive and moronic brings his kid in to get that checked like any good parent might.

The Dr refers the child to a specialist. The specialist recommends and operation. They decide to do it. They do the operation and the kid is left paralyzed from the neck down for life! TALK ABOUT SICKOS. Freakin nazi phychopaths! So they made there 100k or whatever the 1 day operation costed. They also didn't compensate my friend even 1 dime because he had signed off on all the legal waivers. So they just sent them home.

Then I saw the kid one last time about 4 years later. He was in a motorized wheel chair. Honestly that's one of the reasons why I'd never ever ever go to any clinic other than for trauma care. Even the dr who wrote "Confessions of a Medical Hieratic" says the same thing. Broken arms and stuff like that ONLY! Cuz there out to make money, and they will find something wrong with you almost guaranteed! How sad is that, it's okay for them to play with peoples lives. It's just sick