On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:28:51 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:44:28 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:



It's a lot easier to *care* for 4.5M than 300M people.

You do know that every "first world" country in the world except the
U.S.has universal health care, don't you?
No sense dwelling on 4.5M when the real number is many hundreds of
millions. None of those many countries are going bankrupt as far as I
know.
My wife wasn't too happy about the value of the dollar on her recent
trip to Poland though.
Anyway, you can google universal health care, and find that wiki has a
pretty good overview of the different systems.
Pick what suits you.

--Vic

But what is the quality of the universal health care offered in other
countries? I personally know several Canadians that come to the US for
treatment that they would have to wait what they consider an inordinate
length of time for in their home country.


Don't know since I don't live in any of all the other first world
countries that have universal health care.
I suppose they could revolt and get rid of it if it isn't up to snuff.
Most have had it for decades and I haven't heard about any
revolutions.
Personally, I don't care how long Canadians have to wait.
More concerned about Americans without insurance losing their
life savings and homes because of a major medical event.
Quite a few bankruptcies are due to medical costs.
I've read up to half, but that was before this mortgage mess.
And I'm concerned about how other countries beat our ass because their
industries are subsidized on health care, lowering their operating
costs.
Maybe Don White knows about how it works in Canada.

--Vic