wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:41:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:19:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What is the model you want to follow then? UK? Germany? Japan? Taiwan?

I'd like us to find/create our own model that actually works. None of
those
cited would work well in our system. It will need to be some sort of
hybrid.

The first thing that all of those other countries have and we are not
very comfortable with is rationing. Unfortunately as the entitlements
start to overwhelm the GDP, we will all have to get used to that.

As I've said before, SS and Medicare are fixable, and we have time to do
that, even if Chick Little's don't think so!


There is nobody willing to even talk about reform. That means it won't
get fixed until it crashes. A few politicians suggest we might have to
look at the retirement age and get suddenly tagged as wanting to kill
SS. They quickly say they were misquoted.
(I am watching one of those ads as we speak)

That's completely untrue. Perhaps it's true in an election year, but after
that's over, the serious people talk about it and try to do something.
Please show us some serious people from the far right.

I bet this announcement that we are not getting a COLA this year is
really going to hurt incumbents. I saw that ad last night. "Your
congressman voted himself a raise but he won't let you have one".

Well, inflation is pretty low, so it should be much of an actual hardship,
but you're right. Nobody in Congress should get a raise until the people get
a raise. Sounds like Socialism to me!

We are just proving the Alexander Tyler prophecy. People have
discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the
public treasury.

Whatever.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:10:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You've described anecdotal evidence. That's a bit limited.

I just did a Google search on "Canadian health care treatment delay",
4,380,000 results.

Perhaps you'll find this anecdotal evidence more compelling. It's
about half way down the first page of results:

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7441/660.2.extract


Doing a search to get a number of results isn't much of an argument. If I
google Obama is Hitler, I'm sure I'll get a substantial number also...
fairly meaningless.

Ok. Good link. Next time, use some stats vs. one-ofs. Of course, what you
identified is a lawsuit, which means it hasn't been settled, but clearly
that is, at least, a starting point for a rational discussion.

So, now tell me if you think there's any serious discussion about having the
US move to a Canadian-style scheme? Most people realize will need a uniquely
American program, which will be a hybrid of several systems.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 13/10/2010 9:42 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?


You have a cite for the "fractures" comment? I find it hard to believe
anyone would be turned away if they've broken an arm/leg.

Happens all the time. Good part is they are liberal with the prescribed
medications that you will have to pay for.

The biggest problems are waiting lists, some as long as 2 1/2 years.

In my wife's case she had an ovarian cyst and had to wait 6 months not
knowing if it was cancerous or not. Fortunately it was not but no tests
were done on it until it was extracted. At 4 months there was a
cancellation so she got in early. I suspect if it was the US, she would
have been in and out in 2 weeks or less.

They have two schedules, one for workers and one for non-workers. Workers
get service much faster. Especially if they can legitimately say they
will be on sick leave or off because of it. If not enough workers need
the time, they offer it to the non-workers.

Rationing is practiced.

The Canadian system isn't as perfect as Obama would have you believe, as
the idea is really to get the cash flow going to government so they can
skim the proceeds and then justify it to raise taxes. Perhaps a 8%
national VAT.

The only strong part of the Canadian system is that all resident people
can get. While basic it is there.

I believe a hybrid system would be best. A head tax on people, refundable
if you have minimum insurance. That would cut down the many who don't
have insurance because their priorities are not to pay for it. For the few
remaining, medicade already exists. Just some fine tuning of the laws.

In any case, Canadian or US, maximum liabilities need to be used. Not
everyone can go out costing $30 million unless they average contribution
is $30 million.

But in your case, you just want others to pay for it.
--
In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around.

I don't know about your assessment of who should and shouldn't get
treatment, but basically, I agree with you. Owww... my head hurts from
typing that. You must be back on your meds!

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government.

and here it's rationed by price. if you're 90 years old, have a 2 week
life expectancy, and can pay, you get the best medical care

if you're a 1 year old with asthma whose parents work but cant afford
medical insurance, you die.


Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?

wrong. almost no canadians come to the US for healthcare. and about
165,000 americans yearly go overseas for healthcare because ours costs
too much


Of course it is... the right wingers don't realize that until they can't
afford to pay.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/2010 5:54 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?


Depends on what you mean by "right away".
I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged
handsome' appearance. ;-)
It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with
liquid nitrogen.
This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny.
Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger
marks remained.
I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling
back in case he has cancellations between now & then.
I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in
Florida, but the price is right.

Funny, I had an ingrown hair on my eyelid once. He asked is this cosmetic
for billing purposes. I said no, I don't want eyelid troubles later on --
covered.

Took me 4 months from the time I got the referral to done.

--
In Alberta, Liberals are like rats, not many of them around.

I'm betting that if it was infected, you would have gotten it done faster.
Sounds gross in any case.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?

If we get government care like a lot of people seem to want we will
have a two tier system. (like the brits) We already have that with
Medicare. There are plenty of places that won't accept new medicare
patients.

You mean our system isn't perfect??? That's a shocker!

"Secular Humouresque" wrote in message
m...
On 10/14/10 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:38:41 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?

If we get government care like a lot of people seem to want we will
have a two tier system. (like the brits) We already have that with
Medicare. There are plenty of places that won't accept new medicare
patients.

Easy to fix...don't renew the licenses of practitioners who turn down
medicare patients. Further, the comment about Canadian health care/waiting
for treatment for serious injuries is nonsense. I've been to any number of
discussions about health care in the U.S. and Canada, especially as they
relate to injuries sustained on the job. Canadians aren't waiting for
treatment. I'm sure,though, that you can find some anecdotal bit that you
believes proves your posit.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

I liked Wayne's link. At least there's a point of discussion. I also don't
believe it's a common problem, at least not as common as some here would
claim.

All the Canadians I know (quite a few actually - some snowbirds) seem to
like their system just fine.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:37:42 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Well, there are several groups that look at that. They have a great way
to
evaluate it. They look at dollars spend vs. outcome. It's pretty
straightforward. Read up.

Dollars spent is a horrible way to judge that as long as we are
including all of the cosmetic procedures in the total and all of the
unnecessary tests done to cover the doctor's ass from the lawyers.

medical malpractice insurance cost payments are about 1% of all
medical costs....insignificant.

Thus we should limit the payouts... it makes sense... if you're from the
moon.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:47:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You can't cut any existing programs because it is
politically unacceptable. I already stated that.

Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things
in
order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability.

If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not
happen.
If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's
possible.


I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will
admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that
person is going to lose.

Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are
unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done.

Untrue... there are several ways to fix the deficit. The best approach
would
be to reduce military spending significantly, end some of the more
outrageous subsidies, and address the fraud issues. At the moment, the
"entitlements" are deficit neutral. They'll be a problem at some point,
but
not now.


Bull**** Social Security is upside down this year and Medicare has
been upside down for several years. (not close to revenue neutral) The
boomers have not really even hit the system yet in any significant
numbers. There are some in SS at the age 62 level but they don't get
to medicare until next year.

It's not upside in the sense of impacting the deficit now and is adequately
funded until 2040 (?). It's right wing nuttiness to imagine otherwise.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:29:14 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:44:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You can't cut any existing programs because it is
politically unacceptable. I already stated that.

Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things
in
order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability.

If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not
happen.
If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's
possible.


I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will
admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that
person is going to lose.

Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are
unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done.

SS can be fixed relativiely quickly by taking the cap off salaries

That is not true at all. There are not that many rich people and the
real rich people don't get salaries.


Read some actual, real-world, thoughtful proposals he

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html