There are other reasons, Ridgerunner: serving as a staging area without our huge gravity well, to name just one.
Also, building a sustainable habitat and developing the associated technologies will undoubtedly yield new scientific discoveries (aka., “the serendipity effect”). For past serendipitous examples of how the space program has benefited mankind, please see the links that I provided earlier in the thread.
If you would PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE look North of the Border, you would discover that Canadas socialist medicine pays for sex-change operations, IVF, and breast augmentation, but it does NOT pay for dental care, vision care, nutrition and dietition or chiropractic.
May God save us from the selfish, short-sighted me-generation that asks only what their country can do for them. Such investments in space are a necessary step in raising* everyone’s* standard of living by increasing technological knowledge. No, we will not all be equal. Ever. However, such programs are a boon to the economy for those willing to work. For the rest, I will agree with St. Paul to let those who will not work not eat.
You show me where I can contribute to a private enterprise moon base and I will do so. One of my great unfulfilled desires is to look at the Earth from space. When I was 10 I thought that by the time I reached 18 they would have built a base on the Moon. Now I am 61 and all I hear is whining about how We should pay for your childs dental care instead. In 1958 everybody was digging into science and math because we all wanted to go to the Moon. Now some of you seem to want to be carried on someone elses back to the washroom.
By the way, I already contribute to a couple of private enterprise dental charities, and I know a dentist who helps run a racing team whose winnings go entirely to charity, including Remote Area Medical that takes volunteer dentists to areas in the USA that you probably could not find on a map. How many do YOU contribute to? Or do you simply believe it is the duty of somebody to do it, but you need your money to download ringtones?
I’ve heard of a few groups but none that seem to have a serious chance of success. Space exploration is expensive and without government involvement, it would not be possible. I support the development of a moon base by the American government.
I’d like to see the Earth from space, too. And when I was a ten years old, I thought we’d be on Mars today. That didn’t happen, either.
You should make clear which posters you’re addressing because it seems as though you’re addressing me with this comment. I have not whined about government-provided dental care, which I DO NOT support, nor do I want anyone to carry me around.
I have no problem with geography or maps. I don’t even own a cell phone. Perhaps you should read all my posts on this thread before making assumptions about me.
As to my comment that seems to have set you off, it is not the American government’s job to do a lot of things, as its role in the Constitution is quite limited. However, the idea of a government limited to its constitutional role lost any chance of succeeding a long, long time ago. Therefore, I don’t think the “its not the government’s job” argument serves no purpose because every American, in the end, supports the government doing something that it wasn’t originally intended for.
Yes actually, not the lack of housing on the moon, but for a party that claims to be so ‘progressive’ and forward thinking, you certainly put yourselves in a contradiction when you claim we should limit our populations because there are simply too many of us and we take up too much space, but then adamately refuse to expand for the sake that those ‘too many of us’ have to fill out more space on the Earth first. Because everyone body has the right to a home… right? But not enough homes? Well, we’ll just abort those in line to get one.
But on second thought, I guess it wouldn’t be a contradiction for you if you were to arbitrarily set standards on what demographic is actually ‘human enough’ to be ‘poor.’ Touche.
Canadian universal health care does NOT pay for breast augmentation,or any other cosmetic surgery.Don’t be so disingenuous in your rush to ingratiate yourself.You also realise or you should(before making sweeping comments)that the cost of srs surgery is minimal.
"Smitherman says surgery for `very serious medical condition’ will cost health plan $200,000 yearly
May 16, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (1)
Queen’s Park Bureau
The small number of Ontarians hoping for sex-change operations will soon see the surgery covered by provincial health insurance again.
The decision is expected to cost a total of $200,000 a year because just “eight to 10” people annually are expected to pass the “very rigorous” psychological evaluation required before sex reassignment surgery, Health Minister George Smitherman said yesterday.
“It’s a very serious medical condition that affects a very small number of people,” he told reporters, noting that other provinces including Alberta pay for the surgery.
Smitherman acknowledged the coverage could be controversial in some circles, given the heavy demands on Ontario’s health-care system from people with rare, life-threatening diseases, for example.
“I think that people should be careful not to use what is $200,000 on a $40.2 billion health budget as an excuse to try a bit of a `them and us’ conversation,” he said.
It was 10 years ago that the previous Progressive Conservative government declared the operations were no longer eligible under the taxpayer-funded Ontario Health Insurance Plan, which had covered the surgery since 1971."Toronto Star,may 16,2008.
That’s 8-10 sex reassignment surgeries PER YEAR.200,000 out of a 40.2B budget.Hardly the horrible situation that you imply.
The reason that private insurance is not allowed is that it would create a two-tier health care system,and destroy the public one as unscrupulous organisations have been doing for years.Strange also the amount of “medical tourism” Canada experiences from our American neighbours.Even as American medical tourists must pay the full cost of their treatment in Canada it does not approach the astronomical sums they must pay in the States due to the profit factor built into the U.S. system.
No one gets carried on anyone’s back to the bathroom in this country bubba.WE pay for our marvelous Health Care System through our taxes.Why else do you think beer,booze and smokes cost so much,and yes I’m ssure we pay more personal taxes but no one is bankrupted or loses their home because of medical emergency.Or worse,dies because of inability to pay.
Archive for Monday, February 23, 2004
In health, Canada tops U.S.
By Judy Foreman
February 23, 2004 in print edition F-3
Want a health tip? Move to Canada.
An impressive array of data shows that Canadians live longer, healthier lives than we do. What’s more, they pay roughly half as much per capita as we do ($2,163 versus $4,887 in 2001) for the privilege.
Exactly why Canadians fare better is the subject of considerable academic debate. Some policy experts say it’s Canada’s single-payer, universal health coverage system. Some think it’s because our neighbors to the north use fewer illegal drugs and shoot each other less often with guns (though they smoke and drink with gusto, albeit somewhat less than Americans).
Still others think Canadians are healthier because their medical system is tilted more toward primary care doctors and less toward specialists. And some believe it’s something more fundamental: a smaller gap between rich and poor.
Perhaps it’s all of the above. But there’s no arguing the basics.
“By all measures, Canadians’ health is better,” says Dr. Barbara Starfield, a university distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Canadians “do better on a whole variety of health outcomes,” she says, including life expectancy at various ages.
According to a World Health Organization report published in 2003, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S. (Japan’s is 81.9.)
“There isn’t a single measure in which the U.S. excels in the health arena,” says Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. “We spend half of the world’s healthcare bill and we are less healthy than all the other rich countries.”
“Fifty-five years ago, we were one of the healthiest countries in the world,” Bezruchka continues. “What changed? We have increased the gap between rich and poor. Nothing determines the health of a population [more] than the gap between rich and poor.”
Gerald Kominski, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, puts the Canadian comparison this way: “Are they richer? No. Are they doing a better job at the lower end of the income distribution? For lower-income individuals, they are doing a better job.”
At a meeting last fall of the American Public Health Assn., Dr. Clyde Hertzman, associate director of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, analyzed data showing that Canadian women outlive American women by two years and men, by 2 1/2 years.
We’re healthier and we live longer yet we come from the same stock.Strange,no?No.
In a weird way, this reminds me of the arguments that Protestants make about the Catholic Church being too rich, and that it shouldn’t have such fancy churches. All of that “extra money” should go to charity. :rolleyes: Surely our country has money to deal with social problems AND exploration.