A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==========================
Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating
=================

Could it be that you're describing people in the USA who cannot afford
medical coverage?

Exactly.

Hell, as you describe Canada, at least we've
acknowledged their illness and pain.

And then string them along with false hope, only to abandon them in the end
because they've become hopeless cases.

In the US, you are responsible for yourself, and you can't lay the blame off
on anyone else, like the government. That's personal responsibility and
that's the way things ought to be. The rule is: "Sometimes you die."

I'm guessing these people aren't
even statistics in the USA because they can't afford to see a doctor to
figure out what's bothering them in the first place.

Perhaps, but if they want help, they can get it.


Weiser says:
===============
But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and
often
doesn't happen.
=============

Precisely the opposite is the case. Because EVERYONE is entitled to
treatment, everyone goes to see the doctors before conditions worsen.

Not if their condition is not sufficiently grave at first exam to move them
up on the list.

Thus, prophylactic care is administered to all who need it -- very
EARLY in the process.

Doubtful.


Weiser says:
=============
My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal
responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem
of
taxpayers.
==============

And, of course, that is your decision to make. Most other western
nations take the view that the health of their citizens is likely
(along with their education) their most valuable resource (of strategic
national import). Without a smart, healthy, populace, a nation can't
compete in economic (or military) battles.

And yet we have the best medical care system on the planet and thus the
greatest likelyhood that a sick person will be made well.

Valuing people as a resource does not infer that the government is required
to nanny them 24/7. The cool thing about humans is that we keep making more
of us.


Clear philosophical differences.

Not really. The US does not devalue its citizens because it does not choose
to provide government-run health care. It tries to find ways to make the
economy provide health care even to the indigent within the capitalist
system because as a nation we generally recognize that government run
programs are tremendously inefficient and generally poorly run, no matter
what nation they occur in.

The vast majority of workers (not non-producing indigents) in this country
enjoy the finest health care in the world and are thus quite healthy as
compared to many citizens in socialized medicine systems. That they have to
pay for their health care only serves to stimulate them to remain healthy
and take care of themselves.

Those in socialized medical care systems have no impetus to take care of
themselves because they don't have to pay to get care.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser