"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
But who the hell wants to move to Canada?
Lots, including numerous intelligent Americans. We only accept between
180,000 and 250,000 per year.
No gas happy, gun tottin 'mericans need apply. Some wacko from the
Carolinas came over on the Yarmouth ferry and lied to
the customs people, saying he had no firearms. They searched his
motorhome
and found a shotgun and a 9mm pistol.
Now he's 2 guns and $ 5K lighter. Just to show we're a forgiving
people
we
let him continue his vacation in Nova Scotia
He's lucky he didn't get nailed in NY or Massachusetts on his way North.
Let's see. Most Canadians have lifestyles similar to most U.S. folks,
they have the benefits of democracy, they have health care, they have a
diverse population, they have no death penalty, they have fewer guns per
capita, and far fewer gun deaths per capita. Naw, there's no
relationship between the number of guns in a country and the number of
gun deaths.
--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.
A minute or so of google searches proves you wrong on the quality of gun
control and health care programs in Canada. I can certainly provide many
more articles if you like.
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windso...f-7175fc35fdae
Friday, July 23, 2004
OTTAWA - Canada's $1-billion gun registry is being used by a U.S.
project-management centre for senior corporate executives as a case study in
incompetence and financial mismanagement.
Baseline, a New York-based management centre that conducts case studies on
information technology for business leaders, has published an analysis of
the gun registry entitled: Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery.
The U.S. study examines how the gun registry developed from a simple
$119-million system to track firearm ownership into a large and complex
electronic database with a billion-dollar price tag.
"What was supposed to be a relatively modest information technology project
ballooned into a massive undertaking. At last count, the program had amassed
more than $1 billion in costs, and the system has become so cumbersome that
an independent review board recommended that it be scrapped," Baseline's
analysis said on its website.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politics...alhealth.shtml
Canada has had socialized medicine for 20 years, and the same pattern of
deteriorating facilities, overburdened doctors, and long hospital waiting
lists is clear. A quarter of a million Canadians (out of a population of
only 26 million) are now on waiting lists for surgery. 12 The average
waiting period for elective surgery is four years. Women wait up to five
months for Pap smears and eight months for mammograms. 13 Since 1987, the
entire country spent less money on hospital improvements than the city of
Washington, D.C., which has a population of only 618,000. 14 As a result,
sophisticated diagnostic equipment is scarce in Canada and growing scarcer.
There are more MRIs (magnetic resonance imagers) in Washington State, which
has a population of 4.6 million, than in all of Canada, which has a
population of 26 million. 15
In Canada, as in Britain under socialized medicine, patients are denied
care, forced to cope with increasingly antiquated hospitals and equipment,
and can die while waiting for treatment. Canada controls health care costs
the same way Britain and Russia do: by denying modern treatment to the sick
and letting the severely ill and old die. 16
Despite standards far below those of the United States, when variables such
as America's higher crime and teenage pregnancy rates are factored out, and
when concealed government overhead costs are factored in, Canada spends as
high a percentage of its GNP on health care as the United States. 17 Today a
growing chorus of Canadians, including many former champions of socialized
medicine, are calling for return to a market-based system.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p01s04-wogi.html
TORONTO - When Bill Clinton attempted to reform US healthcare in 1994, his
administration often touted Canada's publicly funded, universal access
system as a model to be emulated. As it turns out, the Canadian system may
be crumbling under its own weight.
Despite spending nearly C$100 billion (US$64 billion) per year on
healthcare - the most per capita among countries that run a similar system -
a study released last week by the Fraser Institute, a public-policy think
tank in Vancouver, shows that Canada ranks only slightly higher than
Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in the quality of service its citizens receive.
Canada is the last industrialized nation to rely solely on government funds
for its core healthcare system. There's an emerging view that it, too, may
abandon a system that has long been a symbol of its national identity.
"We are no longer the model," says Michael Walker, executive director of the
Fraser Institute. "When you consider that equal access in a country as
spread out as Canada would require a greater number of physicians and
diagnostic equipment, we're clearly headed in the wrong direction."
Two issues in particular plague the Canadian system, which forbids any form
of user payment or private care for core services: the number of doctors and
access to high technology.
Canada fields 1.8 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants, which places it 17th on a
list of 20 countries with universal access (the list does not include the
US). To leap into first place, Canada would need to add 48,000 doctors to
its current roster of 57,000.
Canada lags even further behind in access to high-tech equipment, including
machines used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial
tomography (CAT) scans. This shortage affects wait time for diagnostic
assessments, which in provinces such as Saskatchewan can run well over three
months.