Mandatory paternity testing at birth?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, didn't realize you were Canadian. How long is the line these days for getting your cholesterol checked?

My dad gets his cholesterol checked a couple of times a year and there is no line up, he just goes to his GP
I also get an ultrasound for my heart every year, no charge, no lineup
Don't listen to your media's portrayal of our system
The biggest problem it has had is Americans coming up and gaming it by borrowing Canadian family member's cards. Doesn't work anymore though, as they now have photos on them

Why have I heard from Canadians horror stories about the Canadian Healthcare system? For that matter it is kinda easy to find horror stories on google too.

stomach started to hurt last week, he figured it was just because of something he ate.

So the 21-year-old Gatineau student went to bed, thinking he'd feel better by the morning. But when he woke up the next day, the pain was still there, and it was getting worse.

He headed to Gatineau Memorial Hospital, thinking that doctors would soon figure out what was ailing him and take care of it.

He never imagined the ordeal that would follow: The young man was turned away from five hospitals, got lost in an ambulance and, 28 hours after he was diagnosed, he had a burst appendix removed -- in Montreal.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/new ... =15068&p=1

Also isn't the Canadian Health Care system going broke and is unsustainable?
Soaring costs could force most provinces to spend more than 50 per cent of their revenue on health care by 2036, says a new report, which urges Canadians to consider alternatives to the status quo if they "want a sustainable, high-quality health-care system."

"Over the past 10 years, health-care spending in nine out of 10 provinces has grown at an unsustainable rate," says Brett Skinner, the lead author of the Fraser Institute report. "Unless governments find a better way to finance health care, then provincial governments will likely be looking at tax hikes, further rationing of medical goods and services or ugly tradeoffs with other important spending areas."

According to the study - Paying More, Getting Less - provincial spending on health care is growing faster than revenues with six of 10 provinces projected to disburse more than 50 per cent of all available revenue on health care by 2036.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/stor ... b87feb5c0b

I'm no friend of the MSM, but that's not why I oppose universal healthcare. Collectivism as a philosophy is a corrupt ideology, it serves only to create slaves of the productive at the hands of the non-productive.

You hear a couple of horror stories like this and you dismiss a system entirely? The horror stories in the US are much, much worse and also much, much more serious
The Health care system going broke? No, I don't think so.



It's not collectivism, it's respecting human dignity. I suppose neither of you have that though, so I really could care less. But I think you both deserve treatment, regardless of however uninformed and mislead you are. Medicine and profit should not be tied together.

If medicine and profit should not be tied together, then why would anyone become a doctor? No profit = no paycheck = nothing to eat. There is nothing dignified about not paying your own way.

Doctors make money here, a lot more then the average person. The good pay is certainly an incentive. It would be completely ridiculous to suggest medical professionals not get paid

Turning people away from the help they need because they cannot afford it is what I mean. Or having to sell your house or get a second mortgage because your little boy has cancer. Your system is based on squeezing money out of everybody for events that are out of their control. Is that ethical?
Just to be clear, I am against collectivism. I don't view health care and collectivism as one and the same and you guys would do well to remove this connection as well, because Canada is not a collectivist country

I've come to the conclusion that Universal Health Care is impossible in the United States. I think twenty years ago it might have been accomplished if the support could be found, but given the attitude and financial condition of the country now; it seems unattainable. Even a public option seems unlikely any time in the future.

My comment was more directed at the concerns that have been raised that the IRS is having problems fulfilling their current mission and how the additional mission of collecting the penalties for failing to purchase insurance may further hinder their ability to fulfill their current mission. It is a concern but measures are being taken to hire additional IRS employees to keep the system working

I don't think the court system could handle the additional workload generated by National paternity tests. A driving force to justify the usage of marijuana it to lighten this load that is already evident from minor drug cases.

Universal health care is collectivism. All forms of government entitlement are. The only way Canadian doctors make a decent pay is through the exorbitant taxes charged by the government. Universal health care is not free health care. It is simply paid for by money stolen from the taxpayers collectively. The U.S. system is flawed; there is far too much government involvement which drives up prices. Canada, like the U.S., is not a collectivist country; it is a mixed economy. Both countries economies' have elements of Capitalism and collectivism without strict adherence to either philosophy. The underlying issue is that no one has the right to the products of someone else's labor, ie there is no such thing as a right to health care.

The best way to ensure your Randroid individualism can actually take place is to take the burden of medical care off of your immediate shoulders
You talk about other people's labor but really, you guys just don't have your financial priorities in the right places. Simply by garnishing the wages of pro-Athletes you could probably pay for health care. Are they laboring harder then you? What about the guy on top of the company who got there not by hard work but by playing the financial markets? You guys really need to realize hard work and labor will never get you to the top, so defending these people is against your own interests. I'm not suggesting that the rich should have all their money taken from them, but look at the situation from a realistic standpoint.

There is nothing realistic/humanitarian/good about taking from someone, by force, what is rightfully theirs. If they can take from pro athletes and CEO's then they can take from you and I as well. "The government that gives you everything you need can take away everything you own." -Ayn Rand

I prefer a small government that is only concerned with infrastructure building/maintenance and the physical well being of it's citizens. Skewed priorities are the problem with your country, and Ayn Rand is the antithesis to dignity and progress

The only proper function of any government is to protect the rights of it's citizens, anything beyond that involves violating the rights of one group in order to benefit another group. You contradict yourself by claiming that you prefer a small gov't., while promoting collectivist policies such as universal healthcare. Let me make one thing clear to you: you do not understand the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I really don't care about Ayn Rand, man, her views are irrelevant to me and in general come off as holier then thou
I don't contradict myself, I believe health care is a right, thus what you state about it securing the rights of its citizens is not contradictory. Big government is not necessary to engage in universal health care. There are a lot more viewpoints then the run of the mill philosophy about collectivist healthcare you seem to think I subscribe to

Just stating she does not have a background or interest in futuristic scenarios of mankind. Not something she cares to think about. She also didn't read 1984; I'm guessing you also read this. Me too.

Eh no, my sister recommended it but It didn't seem very appealing to me.

I do understand these are real problems with real consequences for men and women; but there are real pros and cons of fixing the problem with what may be a larger problem.

Maybe but my argument isn't based on practicality.

Easier said than done. The courts are already crowded and do not have the capacity to deal with the number of paternity cases that would be generated. Lots of these guys don't have jobs, and can't afford a court fight or a paternity test; if the government doesn't pay for it; there are circumstances here above and beyond what already exists to potentially ruin innocent peoples lives who weren't responsible for the pregnancy.

Then the government can pay for it, there are enough resources to pay for such things, and if enough facilities don't exist they can be created. I don't really understand this point, what innocent lives are at stake here? Knowledge does not ruin someones life, it can be ignored if they wish, if you are suggesting that the child's life would be ruined, well its real genetic ties can be looked for and if it fails it fails, not everyone gets to have a perfect life. Also what courts are overcrowded? Our courts have not stopped functioning so they are not overcrowded, there is no limit to exceed so the crowd can not be over anything.


I know you don't want to argue the point, but if the government foots the bill, it means an even larger deficit or hike in taxes. The costs would be huge and the program would have to be administered by the government in reimbursing the legal costs and health care costs for the paternity test

Maybe.

Are you saying she can't get support from the state? Aid for dependent children & food stamps? Low income housing? Or are you just stating that she can't get support from the father? Many women already support their children in this manner. Take the support away and they are homeless and starve to death. Many also know the unemployed fathers are not going to provide child support anyway, and don't even bother to name someone. This is already the scenario so there is no penalty unless you take state support away. Then the child suffers. If this is what you are talking about, it would never happen in the US. We don't normally take actions to starve children.

No? You said that the woman wouldn't or couldn't name the father, I said she wouldn't be able to get support from that father, unless of course he declared himself and tried to prove paternity. I said nothing about government aid.

The difference is the decisions on paternity tests now are only done when there is a concern of paternity. An intervention in this proposed law would be when the government gets involved in people's private lives and impose a paternity test. The negative results of this action are very real. Divorce, additional state support for children, domestic violence, fatherless children; given the potential consequences, some people are better off not knowing and given a choice would not want to know. People make personal mistakes that affect others, but this certainly could be seen as an invasion of privacy by many

? No it requires a paternity test to name a father on the certificate. A father named on the certificate is not required so there is no forcing anything. Again you fail to understand my point, men have the right to the genetic assurance that women have. If you are not arguing against this you are not arguing at all. Knowledge is dangerous but that is no reason to hide in the shadow of ignorance. But your argument that these factors would increase are just guesses. And there are already fatherless children, how would this increase that at all? They are giving the choice if they don't want to know they can go to court and get the father named without a paternity test.



I disagree, some people don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, because they believe it is an invasion of their right not to purchase it. If you force people to pay for paternity tests, it is much the same thing. It also can be considered an invasion of privacy. In this case you are suggesting legal penalties for failure to comply with a paternity test mandate. As stated before the courts do not have the capacity to deal with a private issue like this on a nation wide basis. Legal penalties have been taken out of the insurance mandate, so it is not an issue there. I think the overall human costs outweigh the benefits of such a proposal.

Again I am not forcing anyone to take a paternity test, if someone wants the father named it will require a paternity test(unless they go to court to avoid the test). It is not a mandate at all it is a requirement to name a father, its not even a requirement that the father match the child genetically. And again this is not a matter of practicality.

Last edited by ikorack on 01 Mar 2011, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I repeat: There is no such thing as a right to the product of someone else's labor. Rights only concern freedom of action. If you don't care about Ayn Rand, then why did you bring her into the discussion?