Discussion:
Kerry Wants To Bring Soviet Canuckistan's Healthcare Nightmare To The US
(too old to reply)
Gactimus
2004-09-17 11:38:30 UTC
Permalink
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine. Just imagine all the new regulations they could use
to boss people around, all the new government workers who'd probably vote
Democratic, how much they could raise taxes, and the enormous growth of
government that'd result. It's like the holy grail of liberalism!

But socialized medicine isn't working out so well for our old buddies up
North in Soviet Canuckistan according to this article from Reuters....

"Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more
caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly, with
long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.

And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing to go
south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals --
institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up the
publicly funded system.

..."Few would dispute the prevailing reality of our time: people in this
country are increasingly anxious about their ability to get in to see the
right health professional at the right time," Prime Minister Paul Martin
said on Monday.

"Meanwhile, financial pressures are increasing as our population ages, as
medical knowledge...expands, and as beneficial but expensive new treatments
become available," he told a top-level meeting designed to rescue
medicare."

Boy, it really sounds like socialized medicine solved all of Canada's
health care problems doesn't it?

"Medicare eats up C$85 billion ($66 billion) a year in public funds alone
and the provinces continually demand more money, with no strings attached.
Ottawa says it is prepared to contribute more but insists the provinces
agree to benchmarks to ensure the funds are being spent properly."

Let's see, 66 billion dollars a year for what everyone admits is poor
service (more on how poor later in this post). Plus, you have to remember
that the US has roughly 9.5 times as many people as Canada. So if we spent
about the same amount per person as Canada, that means the government would
spend about $627 billion dollars a year on health care. Then toss in our
out of control, lawsuit happy culture, the fact that we don't have
presciption drug price controls like Canada, and the fact that it would
cost a little more to get a system like this started than it would after it
had been running a few years, and let's figure it would be about....
oh...$700 billion a year (and somehow, someway, knowing what I know about
how government programs work, I'd bet it would end up being a lot more).
Given that we're already running more than a 400 billion dollar deficit a
year, that would mean we'd have roughly a trillion dollars a year to make up
for somehow. That doesn't sound like such a great deal, especially when you
get this kind of service...

"As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A
study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average
waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in
2002.

...Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee
surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months
for surgery.

"When I started work 30 years ago it took three weeks to get a patient into
a specialist's office. Now it can take six months. There is a lot of
inhumanity built into the system," one unhappy family doctor told Reuters."

Just imagine having a severely injured knee. You're walking around on
crutches, you're slamming down Tylenol like tic-tacs just to take the pain,
and you have to wait TWO YEARS to get it fixed. You also have to keep in
mind that it's only going to get worse...

"Experts say the shortage of doctors will only get worse as an increasingly
elderly physician population starts to retire over the next decade. And as
medical expertise becomes ever more sophisticated, so will the demand and
the expense."

Don't let liberals snow you. Despite the problems with our current health
care system, socialized medicine would be a huge step backwards from what
we already have.
tsarkon
2004-09-17 13:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Canadian healthcare is horrible.
Amber
2004-09-17 17:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by tsarkon
Canadian healthcare is horrible.
Yours isn't? This week, we took some steps to try to fix it. All we've
been hearing is Bush's lies, how yours is getting worse and will keep doing
so unless you do somethng, and he isn't talking about doing anything. At
least Kerry IS talking about plans.
ADF
Gactimus
2004-09-17 19:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amber
Post by tsarkon
Canadian healthcare is horrible.
Yours isn't? This week, we took some steps to try to fix it. All we've
been hearing is Bush's lies, how yours is getting worse and will keep
doing so unless you do somethng, and he isn't talking about doing
anything.
You obviously didn't watch Bush's convention speech.
Post by Amber
At least Kerry IS talking about plans.
Kerry has't figured out what his plan is yet.
Gactimus
2004-09-17 17:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by tsarkon
Canadian healthcare is horrible.
Better some for everyone, than NONE for millions in the US
3.5 Million Canadians don't evn have a family doctor. That's, what,
12-13% of our population? Millions indeed.
However there are walk-in clinics and emerg rooms where those without a
regular family doctor can go to get care. What do you suppose those in
the US without any insurance at all do? Let me tell you what does
happen, 18,000 of them DIE each year due to lack of health care. Do you
really think not having a doctor to go to every time you have the
sniffles compares?
Let's see socialized health care equals shortages, long waiting periods,
poor quality, and no innovation. Just like every other socialist program
in the history of the world.

Try tort reform so doctors don't have to charge outrageous rates just to
cover their malpractice insurance. Works everywhere it's been tried...
Barney
2004-09-17 22:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
Let's see socialized health care equals shortages, long waiting
periods, poor quality, and no innovation. Just like every other
socialist program in the history of the world.
Try tort reform so doctors don't have to charge outrageous rates
just to cover their malpractice insurance. Works everywhere it's
been tried...
Let's see private care without money means don't go. Hmm! Quite an
improvement. Capitalism equals money comes first.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
Barney
2004-09-17 22:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Let's see private care without money means don't go.
No, it means go and don't pay.
In that case nobody pays and the medical system is %100 free. Wow now
that is a good system. I wonder then how the medical profession lives
without money.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
rad
2004-09-18 00:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by Barney
Let's see private care without money means don't go.
No, it means go and don't pay.
In that case nobody pays
No, the people who have money pay. The people don't have money don't
pay. Sounds kind of like a socialist system, huh? Except it's better
than a real socialist medical system, because it's not a stagnant,
inefficient, system full of government doctors who suck.
Barney
2004-09-18 00:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
No, the people who have money pay. The people don't have money
don't pay. Sounds kind of like a socialist system, huh? Except
it's better than a real socialist medical system, because it's not
a stagnant, inefficient, system full of government doctors who
suck.
No such thing as "Government Doctors" and what makes the am system
different is because you've decided what is or isn't socialist.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
rad
2004-09-17 22:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by Gactimus
Let's see socialized health care equals shortages, long waiting
periods, poor quality, and no innovation. Just like every other
socialist program in the history of the world.
Try tort reform so doctors don't have to charge outrageous rates
just to cover their malpractice insurance. Works everywhere it's
been tried...
Let's see private care without money means don't go.
No, it means go and don't pay.
Senator Palpatine
2004-09-22 14:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Lets see! USA has medicaid or Medi-Cal in California where poor people
get coverage. Tell me again about the millions and billions and
quatrillions of people that are without healthcare again?

Als0 - the bulk of people in Medi-Cal are illegal aliens! Aint it
grand????
Our tax dollars paying for non-citizens to get coverage because its
the
liberal "touchy feely" thing to do!!!!!
Post by Barney
Let's see private care without money means don't go. Hmm! Quite an
improvement. Capitalism equals money comes first.
Icono Clast
2004-09-23 09:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senator Palpatine
Our tax dollars paying for non-citizens to get coverage because its
the liberal "touchy feely" thing to do!!!!!
That statement is so idiotic it could be attributed to the President.

Someone goes into to a clinic concerned about a cough. The examiner
determines that it's not only highly contagious but also deadly. Of
what concern is the residence status of the infected?

When in Copenhagen, I awoke for breakfast to discover the hostel's
cafeteria closed. Confused, I went to the desk to enquire. The answer
was "We've called a doctor for you". Huh? I had slept through the
day; it was twelve hours later than I thought.

The doctor determined that I had Rubella and took me to hospital
where I spent two or three quite-pleasant days. On discharge, the
bill was waived with "We're protecting Danes from your dangerous
disease".

Should any less be done in the USA? Or anywhere?
________________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Senator Palpatine
2004-09-24 19:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Icono Clast
That statement is so idiotic it could be attributed to the President.
of course liberals like yourself would say that.
Post by Icono Clast
Someone goes into to a clinic concerned about a cough. The examiner
determines that it's not only highly contagious but also deadly. Of
what concern is the residence status of the infected?
most coughs are related to the common cold and are contagious, so
whats your point? Why should our tax dollars pay for someone who
doesnt pay taxes here?
send the illegal back.
Post by Icono Clast
When in Copenhagen, I awoke for breakfast to discover the hostel's
cafeteria closed. Confused, I went to the desk to enquire. The answer
was "We've called a doctor for you". Huh? I had slept through the
day; it was twelve hours later than I thought.
The doctor determined that I had Rubella and took me to hospital
where I spent two or three quite-pleasant days. On discharge, the
bill was waived with "We're protecting Danes from your dangerous
disease".
Should any less be done in the USA? Or anywhere?
the problem is people arent flooding copenhagen to get free healthcare
moron.
they care comming here and taking advatage of our tax dollars because
the
bleeding hearts dont know how to say no.
Post by Icono Clast
________________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan whose reverence for each god is equal.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
John F
2004-09-25 05:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senator Palpatine
Lets see! USA has medicaid or Medi-Cal in California where poor people
get coverage. Tell me again about the millions and billions and
quatrillions of people that are without healthcare again?
The care provided is basic for acute conditions but next to nonexistent
for long term chronic disease management and secondary prevention. It
also provides practice patients for training grade physicians and nurses
so it isn't such a wonderful deal after all.


John F
John F
2004-09-25 05:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senator Palpatine
Als0 - the bulk of people in Medi-Cal are illegal aliens! Aint it
grand????
Our tax dollars paying for non-citizens to get coverage because its
the
liberal "touchy feely" thing to do!!!!!
If it were not for illegal aliens working in sub-standard conditions
with few protections against workplace injuries agriculture would be in
big trouble.


John F
Nattering Nabob
2004-09-25 06:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
Post by Senator Palpatine
Als0 - the bulk of people in Medi-Cal are illegal aliens! Aint it
grand????
Our tax dollars paying for non-citizens to get coverage because its
the
liberal "touchy feely" thing to do!!!!!
If it were not for illegal aliens working in sub-standard conditions
with few protections against workplace injuries agriculture would be in
big trouble.
John F
Why is it that the American right wing reprobates (I'm a Canadian Tory,
BTW) seem to blame every problem with their HC system on "immigrants" or
"litigation, especially from the likes of John Kerry's friend John
Edwards"?
It can't be that the statistics show that the HMO system is inefficient,
using up thrice the money as Canada's administration system, it's got to be
THE TRIAL LAWYERS, but only if the TRIAL LAWYERS are DEMOCRATS.

What hooey! God! Are Americans Blind? Is that why the last election took
3 Months?

What is wrong with that picture?
John F
2004-09-25 20:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Why is it that the American right wing reprobates . . . .
seem to blame every problem with their HC system on "immigrants" . > . .
To be fair, I have a number of First Nations friends who feel that most
of their problems started with immigration too <g>.

The US and Canada would not be the places they are (mostly good, but
some bad) if it were not for immigration.



John F
Barney
2004-09-25 22:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
To be fair, I have a number of First Nations friends who feel that
most of their problems started with immigration too <g>.
Vey Good!

Barney
----
AlmostBob
2004-09-26 00:49:12 UTC
Permalink
one of the junk mails posted in my box
MessageIndian Wisdom
An old Indian Chief sat in his hut on a reservation, smoking a ceremonial
pipe and eyeing two U.S. government officials sent to interview him.
"Chief Two Eagles", asked one official, "You have observed the white man for
90 years. You've seen his wars and his material wealth. You have seen his
progress and the damage he has done."
The chief nodded in agreement.
The official continued, "Considering all these events, in your opinion,
where did the white man go wrong?"
The chief stared at the government officials for over a minute and then
No Taxes, No Debt, Plenty Buffalo, Plenty Beaver, women did all the work,
Medicine Man was free, Indian man spent all day hunting and fishing, all
night enjoying spouse."
Then the chief leaned back and smiled.
"Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that."
--
Ever wonder why Evian water is $3 for a half litre
Try spelling evian backwards

Computer chips are very small, Computers don't eat much.
_ _

"Barney" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message news:***@130.133.1.4...
| John F <***@sunshine.net> had
| writtennews:aZk5d.97770$***@edtnps89:
| >
| > To be fair, I have a number of First Nations friends who feel that
| > most of their problems started with immigration too <g>.
|
| Vey Good!
|
| Barney
| ----
E. Barry Bruyea
2004-09-26 11:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by John F
To be fair, I have a number of First Nations friends who feel that
most of their problems started with immigration too <g>.
Vey Good!
Barney
I'm quite sure the first, First Nations 'immigrants' felt the same way
about the second, First Nations 'immigrants' who by the very nature of
'immigration' 'pushed' them further from their original settlement
areas. The 'Apaches' of Arizona & New Mexico were originally from
what we now call Saskatchewan; I'm quite sure their move South was not
entirely voluntary.
Post by Barney
----
John F
2004-09-26 17:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by E. Barry Bruyea
I'm quite sure the first, First Nations 'immigrants' felt the same way
about the second, First Nations 'immigrants' who by the very nature of
'immigration' 'pushed' them further from their original settlement
areas.
I work with a Scotsman who has ideas along similar lines.

The big difference is when one side is equipped with the Weapons of Mass
Destruction (of the times) whiskey and a culture that can destroy
social structures that had existed for thousands of years.


John
E. Barry Bruyea
2004-09-26 11:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
Why is it that the American right wing reprobates . . . .
seem to blame every problem with their HC system on "immigrants" . > . .
To be fair, I have a number of First Nations friends who feel that most
of their problems started with immigration too <g>.
The US and Canada would not be the places they are (mostly good, but
some bad) if it were not for immigration.
John F
There is no question that immigration was the reason for the rapid and
successful economic growth of both the U.S. & Canada. But, IMHO, it
is the nature of immigration that has changed in recent decades. And
by that, I do not mean the ethnic or national makeup of the
immigrants, but the nature of their 'insertion' upon arrival. First,
it is primarily urban, rather than rural, which was the norm at the
beginning of the mass waves of immigration in the late 19th & early
20th century. A large % of the early immigrants where engaged in
agricultural, construction or resource employment which spurred the
economic (and helped create "space" for more immigrants) growth of
both the U.S. & Canada, whereas 'most' of the recent immigrants (last
4 or 5 decades of the 20th century) have moved into both the urban
environment and the urban economic area; in other words, areas that
are already built up with both a social structure and an economic
base, which to an unfortunate degree has created some ghettoizing of
the immigrants which is both the cause and effect of the drive for
multiculturalism; the latter causing some problems with 'established'
Canadians.
sonodude88
2004-09-27 14:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
Post by Senator Palpatine
Als0 - the bulk of people in Medi-Cal are illegal aliens! Aint it
grand????
Our tax dollars paying for non-citizens to get coverage because its
the
liberal "touchy feely" thing to do!!!!!
If it were not for illegal aliens working in sub-standard conditions
with few protections against workplace injuries agriculture would be in
big trouble.
Excellent point. People complain about "aliens" working here but they take
all the shit jobs and do them for peanuts. If people want unionized, salary
employees picking lettuce, get ready for $20 per head of lettuce.
Post by John F
John F
Bill Pittman
2004-09-17 23:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
Let's see socialized health care equals shortages, long waiting periods,
poor quality, and no innovation. Just like every other socialist program
in the history of the world.
Could you please describe to us, in a reasonable number of words, "every
other socialist program in the history of the world" so we can be sure
you know what you're talking about.
Post by Gactimus
Try tort reform so doctors don't have to charge outrageous rates just to
cover their malpractice insurance. Works everywhere it's been tried...
Where has it been tried?
--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated
Gactimus
2004-09-22 15:11:28 UTC
Permalink
That said, Bush could easily be drawn back
into the conversation.
Well, we could start with the fact that he wasn't elected.
He was voted for by 271 members of the electoral college. What part of
that makes him unelected?
E. Barry Bruyea
2004-09-22 15:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
That said, Bush could easily be drawn back
into the conversation.
Well, we could start with the fact that he wasn't elected.
He was voted for by 271 members of the electoral college. What part of
that makes him unelected?
A left liberal mindset, forgetting, of course, that is was the Gore
Camp that took to the courts in the first place and they lost. Now
they're doing it again. They've already tried to stop Nader in
Florida, and failed, now they're trying other states. Democrats love
the courts (Bedmates with the ABA)....when they win, when they lose,
whining is the way to go.
Gactimus
2004-09-23 01:58:42 UTC
Permalink
- you all messed up the Floriduhh election to the point where the
votes were uncountable.
- a politically appointed group of judges, knowing that their
decision would also decide the President, chose a "winner" for
Floriduhh.
Bottom line - the politically appointed judges took it upon
themselves to appoint the 'Floriduhh representative' _and_ the
'President of the USa' without reference to the voters wishes.
George Bush had already won the election before the Supreme Court ever
made their ruling.
Of course - but that had nothing to do with a democratic system.
The United States is not and never was a democracy.
a
2004-09-17 13:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine. Just imagine all the new regulations they could use
to boss people around, all the new government workers who'd probably vote
Democratic, how much they could raise taxes, and the enormous growth of
government that'd result. It's like the holy grail of liberalism!
But socialized medicine isn't working out so well for our old buddies up
North in Soviet Canuckistan according to this article from Reuters....
Nor is privatized health care working for you guys.
Post by Gactimus
"Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more
caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly, with
long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.
We may have long waiting lists but we don't have thousands of deaths a year
due to no health care at all.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
Post by Gactimus
And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing to go
south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals --
institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up the
publicly funded system.
..."Few would dispute the prevailing reality of our time: people in this
country are increasingly anxious about their ability to get in to see the
right health professional at the right time," Prime Minister Paul Martin
said on Monday.
"Meanwhile, financial pressures are increasing as our population ages, as
medical knowledge...expands, and as beneficial but expensive new treatments
become available," he told a top-level meeting designed to rescue
medicare."
Boy, it really sounds like socialized medicine solved all of Canada's
health care problems doesn't it?
"Medicare eats up C$85 billion ($66 billion) a year in public funds alone
and the provinces continually demand more money, with no strings attached.
Ottawa says it is prepared to contribute more but insists the provinces
agree to benchmarks to ensure the funds are being spent properly."
Let's see, 66 billion dollars a year for what everyone admits is poor
service (more on how poor later in this post). Plus, you have to remember
that the US has roughly 9.5 times as many people as Canada. So if we spent
about the same amount per person as Canada, that means the government would
spend about $627 billion dollars a year on health care. Then toss in our
out of control, lawsuit happy culture, the fact that we don't have
presciption drug price controls like Canada, and the fact that it would
cost a little more to get a system like this started than it would after it
had been running a few years, and let's figure it would be about....
oh...$700 billion a year (and somehow, someway, knowing what I know about
how government programs work, I'd bet it would end up being a lot more).
Given that we're already running more than a 400 billion dollar deficit a
year, that would mean we'd have roughly a trillion dollars a year to make up
for somehow. That doesn't sound like such a great deal, especially when you
get this kind of service...
It may cost more tax dollars, but as an average Americans spend alot more on
healthcare then Canadians. Health Care spending Per Capita in the US in 1998
was $4178, and in Canada it was a mere $2312.

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Post by Gactimus
"As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A
study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average
waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in
2002.
...Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee
surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months
for surgery.
"When I started work 30 years ago it took three weeks to get a patient into
a specialist's office. Now it can take six months. There is a lot of
inhumanity built into the system," one unhappy family doctor told Reuters."
Just imagine having a severely injured knee. You're walking around on
crutches, you're slamming down Tylenol like tic-tacs just to take the pain,
and you have to wait TWO YEARS to get it fixed. You also have to keep in
mind that it's only going to get worse...
"Experts say the shortage of doctors will only get worse as an
increasingly
Post by Gactimus
elderly physician population starts to retire over the next decade. And as
medical expertise becomes ever more sophisticated, so will the demand and
the expense."
Don't let liberals snow you. Despite the problems with our current health
care system, socialized medicine would be a huge step backwards from what
we already have.
Wait times are certainly a huge problem in Canada, but the picture is not
all bad. The infant mortality rate in Canada is MUCH lower than in the US
(7.2% in the US, and 5.2% in Canada). Average life expectancy in Canada is
higher, by two years (70 in the US, and 72 in Canada).

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Now don't get me wrong, alot of work needs to be done to the Canadian
system, but to compare it to the US and say that the US system is better is
assinine. Both systems have flaws, but the Canadian one over all is better.
The Canadian system could use some massive overhauls, and some of them could
significantly ease the wait time problems.
catchmerevisited
2004-09-17 16:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a
Post by Gactimus
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine. Just imagine all the new regulations they could use
to boss people around, all the new government workers who'd probably vote
Democratic, how much they could raise taxes, and the enormous growth of
government that'd result. It's like the holy grail of liberalism!
But socialized medicine isn't working out so well for our old buddies up
North in Soviet Canuckistan according to this article from Reuters....
Nor is privatized health care working for you guys.
Post by Gactimus
"Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more
caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly, with
long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.
We may have long waiting lists but we don't have thousands of deaths a year
due to no health care at all.
excellent point.
Post by a
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
Post by Gactimus
And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing to go
south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals --
institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up the
publicly funded system.
..."Few would dispute the prevailing reality of our time: people in this
country are increasingly anxious about their ability to get in to see the
right health professional at the right time," Prime Minister Paul Martin
said on Monday.
"Meanwhile, financial pressures are increasing as our population ages, as
medical knowledge...expands, and as beneficial but expensive new
treatments
Post by Gactimus
become available," he told a top-level meeting designed to rescue
medicare."
Boy, it really sounds like socialized medicine solved all of Canada's
health care problems doesn't it?
"Medicare eats up C$85 billion ($66 billion) a year in public funds alone
and the provinces continually demand more money, with no strings attached.
Ottawa says it is prepared to contribute more but insists the provinces
agree to benchmarks to ensure the funds are being spent properly."
Let's see, 66 billion dollars a year for what everyone admits is poor
service (more on how poor later in this post). Plus, you have to remember
that the US has roughly 9.5 times as many people as Canada. So if we spent
about the same amount per person as Canada, that means the government
would
Post by Gactimus
spend about $627 billion dollars a year on health care. Then toss in our
out of control, lawsuit happy culture, the fact that we don't have
presciption drug price controls like Canada, and the fact that it would
cost a little more to get a system like this started than it would after
it
Post by Gactimus
had been running a few years, and let's figure it would be about....
oh...$700 billion a year (and somehow, someway, knowing what I know about
how government programs work, I'd bet it would end up being a lot more).
Given that we're already running more than a 400 billion dollar deficit a
year, that would mean we'd have roughly a trillion dollars a year to make
up
Post by Gactimus
for somehow. That doesn't sound like such a great deal, especially when
you
Post by Gactimus
get this kind of service...
It may cost more tax dollars, but as an average Americans spend alot more on
healthcare then Canadians. Health Care spending Per Capita in the US in 1998
was $4178, and in Canada it was a mere $2312.
yep. how conveniently this guy, and John Galt, ignore that.
Post by a
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Post by Gactimus
"As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A
study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average
waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in
2002.
...Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee
surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months
for surgery.
"When I started work 30 years ago it took three weeks to get a patient
into
Post by Gactimus
a specialist's office. Now it can take six months. There is a lot of
inhumanity built into the system," one unhappy family doctor told
Reuters."
Post by Gactimus
Just imagine having a severely injured knee. You're walking around on
crutches, you're slamming down Tylenol like tic-tacs just to take the
pain,
Post by Gactimus
and you have to wait TWO YEARS to get it fixed. You also have to keep in
mind that it's only going to get worse...
"Experts say the shortage of doctors will only get worse as an
increasingly
Post by Gactimus
elderly physician population starts to retire over the next decade. And as
medical expertise becomes ever more sophisticated, so will the demand and
the expense."
Don't let liberals snow you. Despite the problems with our current health
care system, socialized medicine would be a huge step backwards from what
we already have.
Wait times are certainly a huge problem in Canada, but the picture is not
all bad. The infant mortality rate in Canada is MUCH lower than in the US
(7.2% in the US, and 5.2% in Canada). Average life expectancy in Canada is
higher, by two years (70 in the US, and 72 in Canada).
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Now don't get me wrong, alot of work needs to be done to the Canadian
system, but to compare it to the US and say that the US system is better is
assinine. Both systems have flaws, but the Canadian one over all is better.
The Canadian system could use some massive overhauls, and some of them could
significantly ease the wait time problems.
couldn't have said it better myself.
Amber
2004-09-17 17:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by a
Post by Gactimus
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine. Just imagine all the new regulations they could use
to boss people around, all the new government workers who'd probably vote
Democratic, how much they could raise taxes, and the enormous growth of
government that'd result. It's like the holy grail of liberalism!
But socialized medicine isn't working out so well for our old buddies up
North in Soviet Canuckistan according to this article from Reuters....
Nor is privatized health care working for you guys.
Yeah. George Bush has had this tem in office, it's worse, getting worse.
Then again, isn't everything? You won't here any admissions from Bush, it
easier to talk about how Kerry MIGHT mess things up. Especially since Bush
is a a slug who wouldn't know the truth if he fell over it.
ADF
Post by a
Post by Gactimus
"Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more
caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly, with
long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.
We may have long waiting lists but we don't have thousands of deaths a year
due to no health care at all.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
Post by a
Post by Gactimus
And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing to go
south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals --
institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up the
publicly funded system.
..."Few would dispute the prevailing reality of our time: people in this
country are increasingly anxious about their ability to get in to see the
right health professional at the right time," Prime Minister Paul Martin
said on Monday.
"Meanwhile, financial pressures are increasing as our population ages, as
medical knowledge...expands, and as beneficial but expensive new
treatments
Post by Gactimus
become available," he told a top-level meeting designed to rescue
medicare."
Boy, it really sounds like socialized medicine solved all of Canada's
health care problems doesn't it?
"Medicare eats up C$85 billion ($66 billion) a year in public funds alone
and the provinces continually demand more money, with no strings attached.
Ottawa says it is prepared to contribute more but insists the provinces
agree to benchmarks to ensure the funds are being spent properly."
Let's see, 66 billion dollars a year for what everyone admits is poor
service (more on how poor later in this post). Plus, you have to remember
that the US has roughly 9.5 times as many people as Canada. So if we spent
about the same amount per person as Canada, that means the government
would
Post by Gactimus
spend about $627 billion dollars a year on health care. Then toss in our
out of control, lawsuit happy culture, the fact that we don't have
presciption drug price controls like Canada, and the fact that it would
cost a little more to get a system like this started than it would after
it
Post by Gactimus
had been running a few years, and let's figure it would be about....
oh...$700 billion a year (and somehow, someway, knowing what I know about
how government programs work, I'd bet it would end up being a lot more).
Given that we're already running more than a 400 billion dollar deficit a
year, that would mean we'd have roughly a trillion dollars a year to
make
Post by a
up
Post by Gactimus
for somehow. That doesn't sound like such a great deal, especially when
you
Post by Gactimus
get this kind of service...
It may cost more tax dollars, but as an average Americans spend alot more on
healthcare then Canadians. Health Care spending Per Capita in the US in 1998
was $4178, and in Canada it was a mere $2312.
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Post by Gactimus
"As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A
study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average
waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in
2002.
...Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee
surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months
for surgery.
"When I started work 30 years ago it took three weeks to get a patient
into
Post by Gactimus
a specialist's office. Now it can take six months. There is a lot of
inhumanity built into the system," one unhappy family doctor told
Reuters."
Post by Gactimus
Just imagine having a severely injured knee. You're walking around on
crutches, you're slamming down Tylenol like tic-tacs just to take the
pain,
Post by Gactimus
and you have to wait TWO YEARS to get it fixed. You also have to keep in
mind that it's only going to get worse...
"Experts say the shortage of doctors will only get worse as an
increasingly
Post by Gactimus
elderly physician population starts to retire over the next decade. And as
medical expertise becomes ever more sophisticated, so will the demand and
the expense."
Don't let liberals snow you. Despite the problems with our current health
care system, socialized medicine would be a huge step backwards from what
we already have.
Wait times are certainly a huge problem in Canada, but the picture is not
all bad. The infant mortality rate in Canada is MUCH lower than in the US
(7.2% in the US, and 5.2% in Canada). Average life expectancy in Canada is
higher, by two years (70 in the US, and 72 in Canada).
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Now don't get me wrong, alot of work needs to be done to the Canadian
system, but to compare it to the US and say that the US system is better is
assinine. Both systems have flaws, but the Canadian one over all is better.
The Canadian system could use some massive overhauls, and some of them could
significantly ease the wait time problems.
Gactimus
2004-09-17 17:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a
It may cost more tax dollars, but as an average Americans spend alot
more on healthcare then Canadians. Health Care spending Per Capita in
the US in 1998 was $4178, and in Canada it was a mere $2312.
It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access
to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family
pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much
more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.
Constantine
2004-09-21 01:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
Post by a
It may cost more tax dollars, but as an average Americans spend alot
more on healthcare then Canadians. Health Care spending Per Capita in
the US in 1998 was $4178, and in Canada it was a mere $2312.
It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access
to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family
pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much
more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.
You need to re-work your numbers. More than 50% of your federal income tax
goes to health care. That means if you make $100,000 per year, about
$43,000 goes to Ottawa. Of that, about 50% is allocated to health care, or
about $22,000. It follows then, if you make around $50,000 then you are
paying about $10,000 into the health care system. This is some big bucks we
are talking about here.

Now, things might be different in Quebec, and with all due respect, I
wouldn't be surprised if your province is benefittng from an asymetrical
federal funding system. So perhaps, as an Ontarian, my $22,000 is
offsetting your $1,200. I don't know.

In any regard, all this begs the question: Are we getting our money's
worth?
Gactimus
2004-09-17 17:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by a
Post by Gactimus
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine. Just imagine all the new regulations they could
use to boss people around, all the new government workers who'd
probably vote Democratic, how much they could raise taxes, and the
enormous growth of government that'd result. It's like the holy grail
of liberalism!
But socialized medicine isn't working out so well for our old buddies
up North in Soviet Canuckistan according to this article from
Reuters....
Nor is privatized health care working for you guys.
Post by Gactimus
"Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more
caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly,
with long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.
We may have long waiting lists but we don't have thousands of deaths a
year due to no health care at all.
What good is free health care if you die before you can see a doctor?
rad
2004-09-17 22:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
What good is free health care if you die before you can see a doctor?
What good is a pay for system if you can't afford to go.
That shouldn't stop anybody from going. Just don't pay. Sure, you'll
probably get sued, but if you really don't have the money then that
won't matter (nobody can force you to fork over money that you don't
have).
rad
2004-09-18 00:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
That shouldn't stop anybody from going. Just don't pay. Sure,
you'll probably get sued, but if you really don't have the money
then that won't matter (nobody can force you to fork over money
that you don't have).
Thats the system you claim is better!
What system? All I did was explain who people cannot afford health care
can get it anyway. Idiot.
L. J. Peterson
2004-09-18 00:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
Post by rad
That shouldn't stop anybody from going. Just don't pay. Sure,
you'll probably get sued, but if you really don't have the money
then that won't matter (nobody can force you to fork over money
that you don't have).
Thats the system you claim is better!
What system? All I did was explain who people cannot afford health care
can get it anyway. Idiot.
If you get Cancer and don't have insurance, how do you get treatment in the USA?
If you need a new Kidney and don't have insurance, how do you get treatment in the
USA?

Do you just walk into the emergency ward of a hospital and get taken care of? It's
not a bruised knee or a gunshot wound.
rad
2004-09-18 00:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. J. Peterson
Post by rad
Post by rad
That shouldn't stop anybody from going. Just don't pay. Sure,
you'll probably get sued, but if you really don't have the money
then that won't matter (nobody can force you to fork over money
that you don't have).
Thats the system you claim is better!
What system? All I did was explain who people cannot afford health care
can get it anyway. Idiot.
If you get Cancer and don't have insurance, how do you get treatment in the USA?
Ask for it.
Post by L. J. Peterson
If you need a new Kidney and don't have insurance, how do you get treatment in the
USA?
Ask for it.
Post by L. J. Peterson
Do you just walk into the emergency ward of a hospital and get taken care of? It's
not a bruised knee or a gunshot wound.
Only a moron (or an asshole) would go to an ER for a bruised knee. The
gunshot wound they would probably treat.
L. J. Peterson
2004-09-18 01:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
Post by rad
Post by rad
That shouldn't stop anybody from going. Just don't pay. Sure,
you'll probably get sued, but if you really don't have the money
then that won't matter (nobody can force you to fork over money
that you don't have).
Thats the system you claim is better!
What system? All I did was explain who people cannot afford health care
can get it anyway. Idiot.
If you get Cancer and don't have insurance, how do you get treatment in the USA?
Ask for it.
Post by L. J. Peterson
If you need a new Kidney and don't have insurance, how do you get treatment in the
USA?
Ask for it.
Post by L. J. Peterson
Do you just walk into the emergency ward of a hospital and get taken care of?
It's
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
not a bruised knee or a gunshot wound.
Only a moron (or an asshole) would go to an ER for a bruised knee. The
gunshot wound they would probably treat.
So, I guess it's not true that 45 million people in the USA are without health
care!

Ah! The system works! I wonder who started that lie?
rad
2004-09-18 11:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. J. Peterson
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
Do you just walk into the emergency ward of a hospital and get taken care of?
It's
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
not a bruised knee or a gunshot wound.
Only a moron (or an asshole) would go to an ER for a bruised knee. The
gunshot wound they would probably treat.
So, I guess it's not true that 45 million people in the USA are without health
care!
Those are probably just morons such as yourself who think they ought to
get treated for bruised knees in the ER, as if a bruised knee is going
to cause them to drop dead at any moment.
L. J. Peterson
2004-09-18 12:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
Do you just walk into the emergency ward of a hospital and get taken care of?
It's
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
not a bruised knee or a gunshot wound.
Only a moron (or an asshole) would go to an ER for a bruised knee. The
gunshot wound they would probably treat.
So, I guess it's not true that 45 million people in the USA are without health
care!
Those are probably just morons such as yourself who think they ought to
get treated for bruised knees in the ER, as if a bruised knee is going
to cause them to drop dead at any moment.
Stop acting like a child and stick to facts, asshole. Is this the way you dumbass
Americans try to win friends and influence people?
rad
2004-09-18 12:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by L. J. Peterson
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
Do you just walk into the emergency ward of a hospital and get taken care
of?
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
It's
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
not a bruised knee or a gunshot wound.
Only a moron (or an asshole) would go to an ER for a bruised knee. The
gunshot wound they would probably treat.
So, I guess it's not true that 45 million people in the USA are without health
care!
Those are probably just morons such as yourself who think they ought to
get treated for bruised knees in the ER, as if a bruised knee is going
to cause them to drop dead at any moment.
Stop acting like a child and stick to facts, asshole.
You first.
Post by L. J. Peterson
Is this the way you dumbass Americans try to win friends and influence people?
This is the way we deal with ignorant people such as yourself, with whom
nobody wants to be friends.
Sven Zallmann
2004-09-18 14:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
Post by L. J. Peterson
Stop acting like a child and stick to facts, asshole.
You first.
Kindergarten.

If you REALLY need to pick on each other like 4-year-olds, please
do that by private e-mail.


Followup-To limited to soc.culture.canada and soc.culture.usa
--
Sven Zallmann | "Binaries may die but source code lives forever"
52072 Aachen | www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.php
Germany | "Men do not need religion. They need Christ."
ICQ# 170594816 | www.hisremnant.org/eby/articles/kingdom/ac1.html
Barney
2004-09-18 01:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
Thats the system you claim is better!
What system? All I did was explain who people cannot afford
health care can get it anyway. Idiot.
As you can see I'm not into name calling and leave that to you. In
Canadas system your way is not necessary.
At this point I find no purpose in responding to someone who ONLY
posts to read the reponse.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and
Idiots"
rad
2004-09-18 11:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barney
Post by rad
Thats the system you claim is better!
What system? All I did was explain who people cannot afford
health care can get it anyway. Idiot.
As you can see I'm not into name calling and leave that to you. In
Canadas system your way is not necessary.
At this point I find no purpose in responding to someone who ONLY
posts to read the reponse.
Then shut up, idiot.
Barney
2004-09-17 23:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by rad
That shouldn't stop anybody from going. Just don't pay. Sure,
you'll probably get sued, but if you really don't have the money
then that won't matter (nobody can force you to fork over money
that you don't have).
Thats the system you claim is better! Very responsible of you!
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
Barney
2004-09-17 22:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
What good is free health care if you die before you can see a
doctor?
What good is a pay for system if you can't afford to go. Of course
there are shorter waiting lists if you can't afford to be on it in the
first place.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
John F
2004-09-21 14:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
What good is free health care if you die before you can see a doctor?
That can happen anywhere. In Canada the urgent stuff generally gets
handled promptly. It is in the less urgent categories that the
inconvenient waits happen.


John F
Barney
2004-09-17 22:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by a
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Now don't get me wrong, alot of work needs to be done to the
Canadian system, but to compare it to the US and say that the US
system is better is assinine. Both systems have flaws, but the
Canadian one over all is better. The Canadian system could use
some massive overhauls, and some of them could significantly ease
the wait time problems.
What American system? No $$ no go seems not a system at all.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
Constantine
2004-09-21 01:38:22 UTC
Permalink
"a" <***@spamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:yq6dndkpeo57dtfcRVn-***@golden.net...

<snip>
Post by a
It may cost more tax dollars, but as an average Americans spend alot more on
healthcare then Canadians. Health Care spending Per Capita in the US in 1998
was $4178, and in Canada it was a mere $2312.
Do the US stats account for all the illegals that are using the system?
Remember that states like California, Texas and Florida are paying through
the nose to keep up tax funding of hospitals and facilities that are
overwhelmed with illegals and others.

Besides, per capita statistics are misleading because not all Canadians pay
into the health care system, only tax-payers and corporations do. It makes
people think that everyone is equally paying into it (a myth Liberals and
Democrats love to perpetuate). In Canada, more than have of all federal
income tax collected by Ottawa goes to the health care system. So do the
math: take you gross income, slice about 40% off as income tax and then
take half of that and that is what you pay into health care. Thus if you
make $100,000/year, you are paying about $22,000/year into the health care
system. If you make $50,000 you are paying $10-11,000.

Is the average American who pays for private health care (on top of the
percentage of their income tax that goes to federally funded health care)
kicking up 20-25% of their gross income? I don't know. Would any of our
brethren south-of-the-border care to provide some info here?

<snip>
Icono Clast
2004-09-21 09:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constantine
Is the average American who pays for private health care (on top of the
percentage of their income tax that goes to federally funded health care)
kicking up 20-25% of their gross income? I don't know. Would any of our
brethren south-of-the-border care to provide some info here?
I'm retired now. Social Security keeps about $80 for Medicare and I
pay about $75 to my HMO plus $20 per visit and a pittance for
medications. The percentage of my gross income that goes directly to
medical costs is probably less than 5%.

When I was working, we were paying about $20 per shift for medical
coverage, obviously far more than I'm paying now.
catchmerevisited
2004-09-17 16:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine. Just imagine all the new regulations they could use
to boss people around, all the new government workers who'd probably vote
Democratic, how much they could raise taxes, and the enormous growth of
government that'd result. It's like the holy grail of liberalism!
But socialized medicine isn't working out so well for our old buddies up
North in Soviet Canuckistan according to this article from Reuters....
"Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more
caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly, with
long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.
And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing to go
south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals --
institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up the
publicly funded system.
..."Few would dispute the prevailing reality of our time: people in this
country are increasingly anxious about their ability to get in to see the
right health professional at the right time," Prime Minister Paul Martin
said on Monday.
"Meanwhile, financial pressures are increasing as our population ages, as
medical knowledge...expands, and as beneficial but expensive new treatments
become available," he told a top-level meeting designed to rescue
medicare."
this is precisely why a Social hc is needed in Canada: the aged cannot
afford to look after themselves, and thier offspring are fewer in number
than that of the population nearing retirement.
These same 30-40 somethings likely have kids to support, and therefore
cannot afford to meet their parents and grandparents' medical needs.
Therefore the Social model is the ONLY way to go.
Post by Gactimus
Boy, it really sounds like socialized medicine solved all of Canada's
health care problems doesn't it?
"Medicare eats up C$85 billion ($66 billion) a year in public funds alone
and the provinces continually demand more money, with no strings attached.
Ottawa says it is prepared to contribute more but insists the provinces
agree to benchmarks to ensure the funds are being spent properly."
cheaper by far, than having to fork it out alone. How much per year does
your medical industry generate off the private citizen, the 'purchaser' of
health?
Post by Gactimus
Let's see, 66 billion dollars a year for what everyone admits is poor
service (more on how poor later in this post). Plus, you have to remember
that the US has roughly 9.5 times as many people as Canada. So if we spent
about the same amount per person as Canada, that means the government would
spend about $627 billion dollars a year on health care. Then toss in our
out of control, lawsuit happy culture, the fact that we don't have
presciption drug price controls like Canada, and the fact that it would
cost a little more to get a system like this started than it would after it
had been running a few years, and let's figure it would be about....
oh...$700 billion a year (and somehow, someway, knowing what I know about
how government programs work, I'd bet it would end up being a lot more).
Given that we're already running more than a 400 billion dollar deficit a
year, that would mean we'd have roughly a trillion dollars a year to make up
for somehow. That doesn't sound like such a great deal, especially when you
get this kind of service...
"As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A
study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average
waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in
2002.
its less of a funding issue, than one of whether the funds are going to
where in health care it is needed.
that, and that the public is being held hostage everytime the Provinces ask
the Federal Government for a greater allocation for social payments.
Post by Gactimus
...Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee
surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months
for surgery.
"When I started work 30 years ago it took three weeks to get a patient into
a specialist's office. Now it can take six months. There is a lot of
inhumanity built into the system," one unhappy family doctor told Reuters."
Just imagine having a severely injured knee. You're walking around on
crutches, you're slamming down Tylenol like tic-tacs just to take the pain,
and you have to wait TWO YEARS to get it fixed. You also have to keep in
mind that it's only going to get worse...
This never occurs in BC; i cannot say whether this is a regular occurrence
in Ont.
Post by Gactimus
"Experts say the shortage of doctors will only get worse as an increasingly
elderly physician population starts to retire over the next decade. And as
medical expertise becomes ever more sophisticated, so will the demand and
the expense."
the shortage accumulates as doctors reach retiring age- same as nursing
staff. There is significant demand for these staff positions to be filled,
and yet at Privatised EDUCATION Facilities, there is a cap on the amount of
students which can learn Medical Sciences, etc.
Post by Gactimus
Don't let liberals snow you. Despite the problems with our current health
care system, socialized medicine would be a huge step backwards from what
we already have.
all hc models are currently in distress, at least from a deficit in trained
medical staff.
there exists areas which we can improve, granted- but its far too soon to
write off our model.
Gactimus
2004-09-17 19:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Its an easy comparison to the US where more people have NO medical
coverage.
Canada may have a creaking system but better that than ZERO unless you
are rich enough.
Recent figures from the US itself suggest that the amount of people who
will be WITHOUT medical coverage is set in increase steeply.
Compare that to recent announcements in Canada for increased health care
spending and it is easy to see why so many americans come to CANADA to
get prescriptions for drugs that are monopolised in the US.
There is no perscription drug monopoly in the US. The drugs in Canada are the
same drugs in the US except that Canadian tax dollars pay for the drugs
Americans buy there.
TNSAF
2004-09-17 21:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
Its an easy comparison to the US where more people have NO medical
coverage.
Canada may have a creaking system but better that than ZERO unless you
are rich enough.
Recent figures from the US itself suggest that the amount of people
who will be WITHOUT medical coverage is set in increase steeply.
Compare that to recent announcements in Canada for increased health
care spending and it is easy to see why so many americans come to
CANADA to
get prescriptions for drugs that are monopolised in the US.
There is no perscription drug monopoly in the US. The drugs in Canada
are the same drugs in the US except that Canadian tax dollars pay for
the drugs Americans buy there.
Wrong, there is no subsidies to the drug companies here (in Canada), only
legislation that holds prices to affordable (for patient) yet profitable
(for maker) level.
Icono Clast
2004-09-18 11:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by TNSAF
there is no subsidies to the drug companies here (in Canada),
only legislation that holds prices to affordable (for patient)
yet profitable (for maker) level.
That's too fair and sensible for the current US Administration to
understand.
____________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Sam
2004-09-17 19:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine.
Agreed! One of many reasons why people try to immigrate to Canada.

http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/immigration.html

When you factor in US health insurance costs and property taxes,
Canada's tax system is comparatively quite affordable.

http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/taxesen.html

Of course, per capita, Americans spend _more_ on helth care. Are they
any healthier? That said, Canadians would spend more if they could
afford it.

http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/popen.html

A point should be made that Canadian health care isn't all tax based.
Many things are not free (including drugs taken at home).

http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/immigration.html#-Health%20Care

Sam

http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/feedback.html
Gactimus
2004-09-17 19:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam
Post by Gactimus
There are few things that get liberals more excited than the idea of
socializing medicine.
Agreed! One of many reasons why people try to immigrate to Canada.
http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/immigration.html
When you factor in US health insurance costs and property taxes,
Canada's tax system is comparatively quite affordable.
That is if you don't include the oppressive taxes used to pay for it. Also
factor in the lack of quality and innovation that plagues the Canadian
system.
John F
2004-09-21 15:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
That is if you don't include the oppressive taxes used to pay for it.
Canadian taxes are about in the middle for the G8.
Post by Gactimus
Also factor in the lack of quality and innovation that plagues the
Canadian system.
You seem to be falling into the common trap of thinking that innovation
= more technology and bigger machines. However much of this high cost,
low yield stuff makes little difference to ultimate outcomes (although
it is good marketing for profit driven delivery systems). When it comes
to innovative delivery of health care to the people who need it most,
Canada does very well.


John F
BruceB
2004-09-18 12:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Does anyone know if there is a way to set Outlook Express to include ANY
cross-posted items in a killfile??
L. J. Peterson
2004-09-18 13:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceB
Does anyone know if there is a way to set Outlook Express to include ANY
cross-posted items in a killfile??
No, but if you're really irritated by crap and are losing your head over it, you
should download a more effective newsreader with superior filtering capabilities,
try Microplanet Gravity. It's FOC.

http://www.microplanet.com/
Miguel Cruz
2004-09-18 13:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceB
Does anyone know if there is a way to set Outlook Express to include ANY
cross-posted items in a killfile??
I don't know how Outlook Express's kill mechanism works, but if there is a
comma in the "Newsgroups:" header then the article is cross-posted.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 30 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Ack
2004-09-18 13:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceB
Does anyone know if there is a way to set Outlook Express to include ANY
cross-posted items in a killfile??
Set up a filter to kill anything with the character "@" in the "from"
line, that will certainly eliminate those pesky cross-posters from your
sensitive little world.
HTH
Charles Hawtrey
2004-09-18 16:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceB
Does anyone know if there is a way to set Outlook Express to include ANY
cross-posted items in a killfile??
You mean like yours, which was posted to 7 newsgroups?
John F
2004-09-21 14:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
Don't let liberals snow you. Despite the problems with our current health
care system, socialized medicine would be a huge step backwards from what
we already have.
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.


John F
Doug McDonald
2004-09-21 22:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.

In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.

When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.

Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.

Doug McDonald
Paul
2004-09-21 22:43:21 UTC
Permalink
CIA World Factbook, December 2003:

Infant Mortality
U.S. 41st place at 6.69 per 100,000
Canada 21st place at 4.95 per 100,000

Life Expectancy at Birth
U.S. 48th place at 77.14 years
Canada 11th place at 79.83 years

Sure sounds like something's working.
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.
In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.
When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.
Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.
Doug McDonald
Rob Lowry
2004-09-21 22:46:03 UTC
Permalink
It can't be true, that one report of Doug McDonald's says so.

Americans are not brainwashed, ignorant peckerheads with their head stuck in the
sand when not shoved up their asses, everyone knows that.
Post by Paul
Infant Mortality
U.S. 41st place at 6.69 per 100,000
Canada 21st place at 4.95 per 100,000
Life Expectancy at Birth
U.S. 48th place at 77.14 years
Canada 11th place at 79.83 years
Sure sounds like something's working.
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.
In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.
When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.
Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.
Doug McDonald
Paul
2004-09-21 23:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Actually I did make an error, infant mortality is per 1,000 not per 100,000.

Check out this incredibly cool site for stats: www.nationmaster.com

One wonders what is the source of his "a report yesterday".
Post by Rob Lowry
It can't be true, that one report of Doug McDonald's says so.
Americans are not brainwashed, ignorant peckerheads with their head stuck in the
sand when not shoved up their asses, everyone knows that.
Post by Paul
Infant Mortality
U.S. 41st place at 6.69 per 100,000
Canada 21st place at 4.95 per 100,000
Life Expectancy at Birth
U.S. 48th place at 77.14 years
Canada 11th place at 79.83 years
Sure sounds like something's working.
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.
In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.
When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.
Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.
Doug McDonald
Bosco
2004-09-21 23:34:05 UTC
Permalink
How about

murder

US 24th place at .04 per 1000
Canada 44th place at .01 per 1000

Military Expenditures

US 3rd place at $953.01 per person
Canada 30th at $244.07

Taxes

US 27th at $6702 per person
Canada 38th at $5545 per person

another myth shot down.
Post by Paul
Actually I did make an error, infant mortality is per 1,000 not per 100,000.
Check out this incredibly cool site for stats: www.nationmaster.com
One wonders what is the source of his "a report yesterday".
Post by Rob Lowry
It can't be true, that one report of Doug McDonald's says so.
Americans are not brainwashed, ignorant peckerheads with their head stuck in the
sand when not shoved up their asses, everyone knows that.
Post by Paul
Infant Mortality
U.S. 41st place at 6.69 per 100,000
Canada 21st place at 4.95 per 100,000
Life Expectancy at Birth
U.S. 48th place at 77.14 years
Canada 11th place at 79.83 years
Sure sounds like something's working.
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.
In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.
When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.
Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.
Doug McDonald
sonodude88
2004-09-22 14:24:30 UTC
Permalink
"Bosco" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>
Post by Bosco
Taxes
US 27th at $6702 per person
Canada 38th at $5545 per person
What are these numbers as a percent of wage? Plus, when they say "tax" what
tax are they refering to? Just income? Or income and sales? Do you have a
link? I would like to read further.

Besides, per capital stats are somewhat misleading because not everyone pays
taxes. I make close to $80K per year. After *ALL* the taxes I'll pay
(federal income tax, EI, CPP, provincial income tax, provincial health
premium tax, municipal taxes, property taxes, GST, PST, gas tax, liquour
tax, drivers licence, car registration, pet registration, user fees, etc,
etc, ), I will consider myself darn lucky if I keep 40% of my gross income
(or $32,000). So I know I pay around $48,000 a year in *total* taxes.

I guess the Candian government considers me a member of the wealthy
aristocratic elite or something.

Anyway, I really find the tax numbers suspect.

<snip>
Greg Macdonald
2004-09-22 18:36:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:24:30 GMT, "sonodude88"
Post by Constantine
<snip>
Post by Bosco
Taxes
US 27th at $6702 per person
Canada 38th at $5545 per person
What are these numbers as a percent of wage? Plus, when they say "tax" what
tax are they refering to? Just income? Or income and sales? Do you have a
link? I would like to read further.
Here's some for government revenue and expenditures as a share of GDP,
which can be helpful

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2000/fiscbal_e.html
(only goes up to 1999, but shows federal plus provincial revenues as
about 40% of GDP in 1999 for Canada)

http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-04bud.htm

Which shows the US with a 27% share of GDP for all levels of
government.
Post by Constantine
Besides, per capital stats are somewhat misleading because not everyone pays
taxes. I make close to $80K per year. After *ALL* the taxes I'll pay
(federal income tax, EI, CPP, provincial income tax, provincial health
premium tax, municipal taxes, property taxes, GST, PST, gas tax, liquour
tax, drivers licence, car registration, pet registration, user fees, etc,
etc, ), I will consider myself darn lucky if I keep 40% of my gross income
(or $32,000). So I know I pay around $48,000 a year in *total* taxes.
Since I make roughly the same as you, I consider your 40% figure a
little overblown.
sonodude88
2004-09-22 19:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Macdonald
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:24:30 GMT, "sonodude88"
Post by Constantine
<snip>
Post by Bosco
Taxes
US 27th at $6702 per person
Canada 38th at $5545 per person
What are these numbers as a percent of wage? Plus, when they say "tax" what
tax are they refering to? Just income? Or income and sales? Do you have a
link? I would like to read further.
Here's some for government revenue and expenditures as a share of GDP,
which can be helpful
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2000/fiscbal_e.html
(only goes up to 1999, but shows federal plus provincial revenues as
about 40% of GDP in 1999 for Canada)
http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-04bud.htm
Great links. Thanks!
Post by Greg Macdonald
Which shows the US with a 27% share of GDP for all levels of
government.
Post by Constantine
Besides, per capital stats are somewhat misleading because not everyone pays
taxes. I make close to $80K per year. After *ALL* the taxes I'll pay
(federal income tax, EI, CPP, provincial income tax, provincial health
premium tax, municipal taxes, property taxes, GST, PST, gas tax, liquour
tax, drivers licence, car registration, pet registration, user fees, etc,
etc, ), I will consider myself darn lucky if I keep 40% of my gross income
(or $32,000). So I know I pay around $48,000 a year in *total* taxes.
Since I make roughly the same as you, I consider your 40% figure a
little overblown.
Yeah, I think its closer to 50/50, but its only a matter of time. Tax
freedom day seems to move in just one direction (at least in Ontario).
Whenever I look at the price tag of something I figure I have to "earn"
twice as much in order to buy it. Its rather depressing but it does keep my
impulse buying to a minimum.

Now, if only it would work on the Mrs. . . .
TNSAF
2004-09-29 16:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bosco
How about
murder
US 24th place at .04 per 1000
Canada 44th place at .01 per 1000
Military Expenditures
US 3rd place at $953.01 per person
Canada 30th at $244.07
Taxes
US 27th at $6702 per person
Canada 38th at $5545 per person
another myth shot down.
The same site shows Canada the 5th (going by memory here) largest nation,
behind the US in total land mass...

This is probably because the site is US based and the US does not officially
recognize some of the arctic areas that most of the world knows belongs to
Canada.

I am not yet convinced all the numbers at this site are 100% factual.
Dave Smith
2004-09-29 16:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by TNSAF
The same site shows Canada the 5th (going by memory here) largest nation,
behind the US in total land mass...
This is probably because the site is US based and the US does not officially
recognize some of the arctic areas that most of the world knows belongs to
Canada.
I am not yet convinced all the numbers at this site are 100% factual.
They are pretty close. I found this site:
http://www.indexmundi.com/

It breaks down the area of countries by total area, land area and water area.
It shows Canada as having a total area of of 9.984.670 sq. km. compared to the
US with 9,631,418. But there are a lot of lakes in Canada and 891,107 sq.km. of
the total area is covered in water, compared to 469,495 in the US. That leaves
the US with a little more land area than Canada.


http://www.indexmundi.com/

Norm Soley
2004-09-22 13:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
One wonders what is the source of his "a report yesterday".
http://tinyurl.com/6zxjy


If you acttually read the article the difference is 2% not 17%
and you may not leap to the same conclusion about the root causes
of the difference. Also worth noting is that Candaian doctors have
already adjusted practises and are doing more revascularizations then
they used to.

I have some personal expereince here, I had an acute MI (exactly the
kind of heart attack we are talking about here) and was given an
angioplasty and a stent within 4 hours of the attack (would have been
faster but that included 1 hour ambulance transport from the rural
hospital where I presented to the nearest heart centre). Cardiologist
told me that a year ago they would have used clot busters and put me on
a waiting list for angioplasty but they have more cath lab slots
available now and are treating more aggressively as a result. The
bottleneck is not on the cath lab itself, or on cardiac surgeons, but on
nurses to staff the CCU step down ward for people coming out of the cath
lab.
John F
2004-09-22 16:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Americans are not . . . . .
No, I'm sure they have their share, but don't think they have any more
of those things than the rest of us.

To understand attitudes in the US, you have to know a few things. It
is the first society in the world that has succeeded in uniting 200+
million people under one leadership which is quite an achievement when
you think about it especially as the process of immigration selects in
favour of people who believe that all problems are solvable by
individuals given freedom and hard work, and think that collective
activity of any kind is suspect and probably evil. If you want to do
that, you do it by 1) believing that you have a society that runs the
best way and the only way and 2) that there is a serious external threat
so everyone had better pull together in spite of their differences.
Know that and just about everything else falls into place.




John
Rob Lowry
2004-09-21 22:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.
In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.
When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.
Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.
Doug McDonald
Propaganda is using anecdotal report pertaining to one area of health care to claim
an entire system is faulty, as you have done.

You're argument has no feet to stand on except for that one report. You lose
(again).

Why are you so narrow minded and gullible as to accept the propaganda that you have
been fed?
Clark Brockman
2004-09-22 22:48:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Shel Scott
<WellDone> says...
Socialised medicine in the U. S. will result in the typical American
paying CONSIDERABLY MORE for health care and receiving LESS HEALTH
CARE in return.
Post by Rob Lowry
Propaganda is using anecdotal report pertaining to one area of health care to claim
an entire system is faulty, as you have done.
DO NOT GO TO SOCIALISED HEALTH CARE.
IT DOESN'T WORK. DON'T YOU *DARE* FOLLOW THE STUPIDITY OF CANADA.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Scott knows the health care system intimately because he spends time in-
and-out of asylums. He also ignores the facts and is a right wing
extremist blowhard who rarely makes sense, even to people on The Right.
Bosco
2004-09-22 23:08:18 UTC
Permalink
tell that to the 45 million Americans who have NO health insurance.
Socialised medicine in the U. S. will result in the typical American
paying CONSIDERABLY MORE for health care and receiving LESS HEALTH
CARE in return.
Post by Rob Lowry
Propaganda is using anecdotal report pertaining to one area of health care to claim
an entire system is faulty, as you have done.
DO NOT GO TO SOCIALISED HEALTH CARE.
IT DOESN'T WORK. DON'T YOU *DARE* FOLLOW THE STUPIDITY OF CANADA.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
John F
2004-09-22 23:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Socialised medicine in the U. S. will result in the typical American
paying CONSIDERABLY MORE for health care and receiving LESS HEALTH
CARE in return.
Spoken like a good supporter of the highly profitable private healthcare
corporations.

In fact most physicians in Canada are self employed and function as
private professionals. The main difference from the US is that there is
only one insurance company per province - hence no costs of duplicated
bureaucracy, no money wasted on marketing, no shareholders looking for
dividends . . .
This is not "socialized medicine" as practiced in other parts of the
world. In fact the physician is more accountable to the patient than in
the US where he/she must satisfy an insurance company that is trying to
cut costs and stay competitive.


John F
Clark Brockman
2004-09-23 00:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
Socialised medicine in the U. S. will result in the typical American
paying CONSIDERABLY MORE for health care and receiving LESS HEALTH
CARE in return.
Spoken like a good supporter of the highly profitable private healthcare
corporations.
In fact most physicians in Canada are self employed and function as
private professionals. The main difference from the US is that there is
only one insurance company per province - hence no costs of duplicated
bureaucracy, no money wasted on marketing, no shareholders looking for
dividends . . .
This is not "socialized medicine" as practiced in other parts of the
world. In fact the physician is more accountable to the patient than in
the US where he/she must satisfy an insurance company that is trying to
cut costs and stay competitive.
John F
Shel Scott doesn't know what socialist is. He's a right wing extremist
clueless bastard who spends his days whining and groaning because he's weak
and has no say or control, being too gutless to understand the situation
and make positive change. He's a clown.
John F
2004-09-23 02:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Shel Scott doesn't know . . . .
I am not in a position to know much about any of his personal qualities,
but however extreme and inflexible his views may or may not be, my
replies will also be read by others who have not yet made up their minds
and may find something to think about.


John F
Bill Pittman
2004-09-21 23:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Typical false propaganda.
In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.
When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.
Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.
Unless, of course, you happen to be poor enough that US superior medical
care is beyond your means, as many in the US are.
--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated
Amber
2004-09-24 21:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Pittman
Unless, of course, you happen to be poor enough that US superior medical
care is beyond your means, as many in the US are.
Exactly. Why is it that studies say that Canadians are still better off.
We live longer, per capita. We're leaders when it comes to medical
research.
We're actually taking steps to improve what we have. We've provided sources
for what we say, maybe it's time to have some sources that say we're wrong.
:)
ADF
Post by Bill Pittman
--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated
Bill Pittman
2004-09-24 23:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amber
Post by Bill Pittman
Unless, of course, you happen to be poor enough that US superior medical
care is beyond your means, as many in the US are.
Exactly. Why is it that studies say that Canadians are still better off.
We live longer, per capita. We're leaders when it comes to medical
research.
"We"? Who is "We", white man?

Are you US or Canadian? If you're US, you completely missed the thrust
of my message which was that lots of your fellow citizens are NOT better
off, nor do they live longer.
Post by Amber
We're actually taking steps to improve what we have.
How? When?

We've provided sources
Post by Amber
for what we say, maybe it's time to have some sources that say we're wrong.
What sources? Where?
--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated
catchmerevisited
2004-09-25 08:36:46 UTC
Permalink
in article
Post by Bill Pittman
Post by Amber
Post by Bill Pittman
Unless, of course, you happen to be poor enough that US superior medical
care is beyond your means, as many in the US are.
Exactly. Why is it that studies say that Canadians are still better off.
We live longer, per capita. We're leaders when it comes to medical
research.
"We"? Who is "We", white man?
Are you US or Canadian? If you're US, you completely missed the thrust
of my message which was that lots of your fellow citizens are NOT better
off, nor do they live longer.
Post by Amber
We're actually taking steps to improve what we have.
How? When?
We've provided sources
Post by Amber
for what we say, maybe it's time to have some sources that say we're wrong.
What sources? Where?
you confuse me; you are posting from new york capital, new york and yet you
flame your fellow americans?
this behaviour is so typically....CANADIAN!!!
Bill Pittman
2004-09-25 14:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by catchmerevisited
you confuse me; you are posting from new york capital, new york and yet you
flame your fellow americans?
this behaviour is so typically....CANADIAN!!!
Well, what can you do when your fellow Americans have been, in large
numbers, stupid enough to vote for the currrent president, and look like
they might make the same mistake again?

By the way, "new york capital, new york" is more generally known
(outside of the RoadRunner world) as Albany - or, in my case, nearby
Schenectady.
--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated
catchmerevisited
2004-09-25 21:41:04 UTC
Permalink
in article
Post by Bill Pittman
Post by catchmerevisited
you confuse me; you are posting from new york capital, new york and yet you
flame your fellow americans?
this behaviour is so typically....CANADIAN!!!
Well, what can you do when your fellow Americans have been, in large
numbers, stupid enough to vote for the currrent president, and look like
they might make the same mistake again?
By the way, "new york capital, new york" is more generally known
(outside of the RoadRunner world) as Albany - or, in my case, nearby
Schenectady.
....and email addresses which bear the suffix "ca" usually refer to
Canada....mr. Rochester, AND "ny capital", NY.

"my" fellow americans indeed.
we may have things in common, but we don't share the same leadership.
Bill Pittman
2004-09-25 23:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by catchmerevisited
"my" fellow americans indeed.
we may have things in common, but we don't share the same leadership.
OK, I stand corrected. I'm using "American" in the chauvinistic way
those of the US have adopted; no one else in this hemisphere is an
American!
--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated
John F
2004-09-22 16:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.
From the CIA World Fact Book (or is that false propaganda?).


(I have included Greece because it is an example of a country that is
not very wealthy).


CANADA:

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 79.96 years

Infant mortality rate:
total: 4.82 deaths/1,000 live births




USA:

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.43 years

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births



GREECE:

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.94 years

Infant mortality rate:
total: 5.63 deaths/1,000 live births



Also see http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Your comment is an example of "Argument by Selective Observation".


John
catchmerevisited
2004-09-23 04:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by John F
Don't let right wing scare mongers snow you. When it comes to the
important numbers like life expectancy and infant mortality, the US is
way behind. In spite of the inconveniences (and there are any) the
Canadian system still works better.
Typical false propaganda.
In fact there was a report just yesterday: the death rate
from second heart attacks i 17% greater in Canada than in
the US.
When normalized by type of treatment and promptness of
treatment, however, the result was that the Canadian
care was the same. The difference was that Canadians had
to wait too long for treatment, and frequently were given
treatments with poorer outcomes, all the result of
socialized medicine.
Other studies always show the same thing, that is, socialized
medizine has a poorer outcome.
Doug McDonald
i would think too that the thinly spread population in our Nation might pose
difficulties to the distribution of adequate health care services-
particularly with significant geographical formations imposing between
population centres.
John F
2004-09-23 07:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by catchmerevisited
i would think too that the thinly spread population in our Nation might pose
difficulties to the distribution of adequate health care services-
particularly with significant geographical formations imposing between
population centres.
In fact 79% of Canadians live in major urban centres so most are close
to good health care. This is somewhat offset by huge practical
difficulties getting people to health care in the North.


John F
America the Beautiful
2004-09-23 09:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
Post by catchmerevisited
i would think too that the thinly spread population in our Nation might pose
difficulties to the distribution of adequate health care services-
particularly with significant geographical formations imposing between
population centres.
In fact 79% of Canadians live in major urban centres so most are close
to good health care. This is somewhat offset by huge practical
difficulties getting people to health care in the North.
And 80% of them live within 20 miles of the US border. Hummm, I wonder why.
--
Chris F.
Long Island.
catchmerevisited
2004-09-23 16:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by America the Beautiful
Post by John F
Post by catchmerevisited
i would think too that the thinly spread population in our Nation might pose
difficulties to the distribution of adequate health care services-
particularly with significant geographical formations imposing between
population centres.
In fact 79% of Canadians live in major urban centres so most are close
to good health care. This is somewhat offset by huge practical
difficulties getting people to health care in the North.
And 80% of them live within 20 miles of the US border. Hummm, I wonder why.
our politicians drew the line too far north- though the 54-40 advocates
likely disagreed.
Stuart Brook
2004-09-23 16:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by catchmerevisited
Post by America the Beautiful
And 80% of them live within 20 miles of the US border. Hummm, I wonder why.
our politicians drew the line too far north- though the 54-40 advocates
likely disagreed.
Could be something to do with the lakes, transportation and climate.
After all, at the time when most of the Canadian settlements that are so
close to the US border were founded, there was no US border. So to
claim it's to be near the US is kind of a false sense of importance of
the USA.
John F
2004-09-22 16:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gactimus
And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing to go
south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals --
institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up the
publicly funded system.
THAT works both ways. Some Canadians go south for surgery, but many
come up from the US for cheaper primary care and medicines.


John F
Mike Wilcox
2004-09-22 17:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John F
Post by Gactimus
And far from criticizing the United States, some people are choosing
to go south of the border to pay for operations in private hospitals
-- institutions that are forbidden in Canada by the law that set up
the publicly funded system.
THAT works both ways. Some Canadians go south for surgery, but many
come up from the US for cheaper primary care and medicines.
John F
Another thing that's seldom mentioned, the majority of Canadians getting
healthcare in the USA are Snowbirds in the USA for six months at a time.
They have to have hospitalization insurance to stay down there and use
local hospitals rather than fly home.
Loading...