BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/28/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/27/05 7:46 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott, commenting on many (most) in Canada getting immediate ca
==================
Yup. While at the same time, teenagers who need knee surgery have to
wait
three years.
==================

Notwithstanding the protestations of rick, several of us from Canada
have commented on, and admitted, that one of the consequences of our
style of healthcare is that, for some procedures, there are waiting
lists. That's a fact. But it's a price we're willing to pay,

I doubt you speak for everyone, or even a substantial number of Canadians,
given how much dissatisfaction there is in Canada now and how many calls for
privatization and reform.

There is a much stronger desire for universal health care in the US than the
dismantling of universal health care in Canada.

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4798058/

Why can't the richest nation in the world provide health-care coverage to
all its people?

Because we understand the evils of socialized medicine, having watched other
nations struggle and fail at it.

The answer: It's not that Americans don't want to cover the 41 million
uninsured . And the cost, pegged by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid & the
Uninsured at less than $69 billion a year, isn't insurmountable, adding just
6 percent to annual health spending.

It's just that no consensus exists -- in the public, among politicians, or
in the health industries -- about how best to get the job done. And because
the vast majority of voters have health insurance (85 percent of the
population is insured, but 92 percent of those who participated in the 2000
election were covered), political leaders have little incentive to overcome
that impasse.

Nor should they feel compelled to do so. It is not government's job to
supply health care.

That's not to say Americans don't wish that health care was available to
all. Some 62 percent support universal coverage, according to an October,
2003, Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

Sure, if someone could wave a magic wand and give everybody free health care
without all the awful things that happen under socialized medicine, who
wouldn't think it's a good idea. But asking people if they like the idea of
free health care is in itself a "push poll" question. When people find out
the actual costs involved, and the inevitable waste, fraud and
unavailability of socialized health care, they strongly reject it, which is
why the Democrats aren't able to hornswoggle people into pushing Congress
into such a disaster.

We intuitively understand, based on long experience, that government-run
monopolies are ALWAYS wasteful, inefficient and rarely provide even a
fraction of the promised benefits. The VA is a classic example of "socialize
medicine," and it's a dismal failure even for the relatively small number of
ex-soldiers who were promised a lifetime of free health care for their
service. And anybody on Medicare can tell you that even such cash-subsidy
government programs are a failure too.

Fact is that most Americans would rather pay more and have immediate access
to the best health care system on the planet, without government
intervention, than get the nothing-for-something that inevitably results
from socialized medicine.

We'll see.