|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ...
Government control, pure and simple. I never said it wasn't. -Paul |
Scotty, sounding positively obtuse by now:
=================== But, each hospital is required to abide by the prioritization guidelines set by the government, are they not? ================= FOR THE LAST F#CKING TIME: NO! NO! NO! Sheeesch! frtzw906 |
Scotty gets the picture... perhaps
================ Parse it any way you please, but if the government IN ANY WAY sets policy for admitting or serving patients, even in a general guidelines document or by so much as saying something to the effect of "doctors shall treat patients according to the priority of the illness", as to what the priority of treatment is, the whole system is "government controlled." ================== And the government IN NO WAY does any of what you suppose above. Whether you do or do not get what you need medically, depends on the resources available at that time. Sometimes, when you've been more lucid, you've alluded to that, and, I think, everyone has agreed with you on that point. If you can stick with that point, and stay away from your boogey-man, the state-controlled, socialist, bureaucrat waving a state-mandated priority list, you'll be well on your way to understanding the system. frtzw906 |
On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of the federal government? It is to laugh You know nothing about Canadian politics. But that's no surprise. And that occurs because the system is centrally controlled and is not a free market. Bull**** - a free market would _reduce_ service in some of those rural areas, since it is sell profitable than urban. In Canada, the governments are willing to maintain more service in rural areas since it is necessary, not because it is profitable. Exactly. The government controls and rations health care in Canada. That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks for confirming it! No dickhead - it's the right-wing freemarketeers that have ****ed everything up. You don't get anything. Yeah...when it was a free market system... It was a "free market" back in the early sixties and before. It worked very poorly. |
On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care and when. Prove it. And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. The roles of the provincial government are defined in the constitution. Opting out is not an option. This has nothing to do with the federal government having control. You're ignorance is showing, as usual. Not according to the AP. I believe the AP, not you. Only because you're stupid enough to believe everything you read without checking the facts. You claimed that you checked the facts, but since you refused to provide any reasonable reference to what it is you checked, it is clear that you lied about that. I'm not surprised. Did the nephew require hospitalization and surgery? If not, your anecdote is irrelevant Yes - torn retina. Mike |
On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the federal government up there. What an ignoramus. Ours is a confederation of provinces. The separation of powers is defined in the constitution. The provinces have _more_ political power than do states in the US. That's been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you're too stupid to get it. If you think otherwise - prove it. Post the relevant sections of the Canadian and US constitutions that show otherwise. For example, here in the US, we don't have any "national police" equivalent to the RCMP. FBI. Mike |
On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: each hospital is required to abide by the prioritization guidelines set by the government, are they not? What guidelines? Please post a reference to these guidelines. Prove they exist. As long as you keep living in your own fantasy world, we'll keep gonig around this argument. When you choose to look at the facts, things get much simpler. Perhaps you should take advantage of your supposedly superior health care system and get your doctor to adjust your antipsychotic prescription. Mike |
On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Nah. You just evade the issues with pettifoggery And you have evaded every demand that you actually prove your claims. You lie and make things up and then try to accuse others of the same thing. You're the one living in a dream world. Mike |
Scott:
============= And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. =============== Allow me to help you tear another page out of your encyclopaedia of ignorance: [source: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com..._%28Canada%29] "The term medicare (in lowercase) (French: assurance-maladie) is the unofficial name for Canada's universal public health insurance system. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the provinces provide all residents with health insurance cards, which entitle the bearer to receive free medical care for almost all procedures. Patients are free to choose their own doctor, hospital, etc. Health institutions are either private and not-for-profit (such as university hospitals) or state-run (such as Quebec's CLSC system). Doctors in private practice are entrepreneurs who bill the medicare system for their fees." Does that help? frtzw906 |
Scott allow me to continue your education:
http://www.civitas.org.uk The Canadian Health Act of 1984... denies federal support to provinces that allow extra-billing within their insurance schemes and effectively forbids private or opted-out practitioners from billing beyond provincially man-dated fee schedules. The 1984 Act also defines and solidifies the principles of medicare, including: *comprehensiveness (provinces must provide medically necessary hospital and physician services), *universality (100 per cent of provincial residents are entitled to the plan), *accessibility (there should be reasonable access to services, not impeded by user charges or extra billing), *portability (protection for Canadians travelling outside of their home province), and *public administration (provinces must administer and operate health plan on a non-profit basis) (Klatt, 2002)... Healthcare providers are predominantly private [SCOTT, PLEASE NOTE!], but are funded by public monies via provincial budgets. Hospital systems are largely private non-profit organizations with their own governance structures (usually supervised by a community board or trustees)... that receive an annual global operating budget from the provinces... Physicians are mostly in private practice and remunerated on a fee-for-service basis [SCOTT: NOTE] (with an imposed cap to prevent excessive utilization and costs) by the provincial health plan...However, physicians that choose to opt out of the system cannot procure any public monies, and are forbidden from billing above negotiated "Schedule of Benefits" pricing which the "opted in" physicians are subject to. In other words, private physicians cannot bill above the fee schedules for medicare physicians. Therefore, opting out is risky for physicians and uptake is low. Scott, there you have it. Please stop making things up, OK. frtzw906 |
Mike! Mike!
According to my news client, you posted responses to SW at 1:51, 1:56, 1:59, 2:03, and 2:08. And that's just so far this afternoon. After the dozens (hundreds?) of these exchanges, do you see any change at all in SW? It's said that one of the hallmarks of insanity is to keep repeating the same behavior in the belief that the results will change. Odds are against you, man. Give it up while you still have some sanity to cling to. Of course, since SW, wilf, and TnT are already in my bit bucket, if you stop there won't be any r.b.p coming into my computer at all. -- Steve Cramer Athens, GA |
Steve Cramer wrote: Mike! Mike! According to my news client, you posted responses to SW at 1:51, 1:56, 1:59, 2:03, and 2:08. And that's just so far this afternoon. After the dozens (hundreds?) of these exchanges, do you see any change at all in SW? It's said that one of the hallmarks of insanity is to keep repeating the same behavior in the belief that the results will change. Odds are against you, man. Give it up while you still have some sanity to cling to. Of course, since SW, wilf, and TnT are already in my bit bucket, if you stop there won't be any r.b.p coming into my computer at all. -- Steve Cramer Athens, GA Hey wilf, I see you and I are in this guys bucket with SW. That ought to be real cozy, as if we care about his bucket to begin with. Especially if Mike joins us. Of course I don't recall seeing him posting any kayaking stuff either. Sounds to me like someone who likes to set and complain about what's for dinner at a potluck, and he brought canned beets. TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott states: ============= And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. ================= Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national healthcare system? Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that opts out (or tries to opt out). I hear Jeopardy music in the background..... Scotty, your time is running out!!!! Well, let's hear it. Clearly there is a national policy regarding this issue, so once again we have central control. That the central government may choose to allow a province to opt out doesn¹t deny the existence of a federal program. Nor would the fact that the government-controlled health care program is run by the provincial government in any way damage my assertion. Government is government, whatever the level, and if it controls and rations health care, the result is the same, irrespective of whether it's done provincially (pun intended) or at the federal level. It's not the free market, which is what counts. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott explains: =============== For example, here in the US, we don't have any "national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own system, and some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and others, like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the primary law enforcement official of the county. ================= Can you say FBI? Is that not a "national" police agency? No, it's not. The FBI is a federal investigative agency, not a police force. Furthermore, it's agents don't have authority to enforce state or local laws, they can only investigate and enforce federal crimes and laws and have no general police jurisdiction. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ============= More students, more tuition, more alumni donations, more government subsidies. No students, no tuition, no alumni donations, no government subsidies. Pretty simple, really. =========== But WHY med schools?! They're so damned expensive to set up and run! But there's profit to be made nonetheless. And please, forget about "alumni donations". Yeah! Right! We'll rely on donations to fund our med school. GOOD LUCK! You're losing it Scotty! Hey, the CU med school gets millions and millions and millions from alums. And as to "Our government doesn't mandate anything." Are you quite sure? Are you saying that although the government funds Whazzits State University and the University of Whazzit State, this state government exercises "no" control over what happens there? How positively generous. Well, if you had heard about the Ward Churchill scandal (among others) at CU Boulder, you would know that the state legislature's control over CU is tenuous at best. CU receives less than 7 percent of its funding from the state. The rest is tuition, donations and some research/patent income. Believe me, if the legislature had any effective control over CU, Ward Churchill would have been fired long ago. While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges, CU (including the med school) Regents are elected officials, and as such, have nearly plenary power. -- 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 |
Scott on RCMP vs FBI:
============= The FBI is a federal investigative agency, not a police force. Furthermore, it's agents don't have authority to enforce state or local laws, they can only investigate and enforce federal crimes and laws and have no general police jurisdiction. ================= semantics! frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ================ Well, somebody's getting an education anyway. ================== No thanks required. Think nothing of it. You're quite welcome anyway. Don't forget what my purpose here is. It's to stimulate debate, and by doing so, cause people to think. I don¹t much care *what* they think, so long as they exercise some mentation. That's why I'm very, very hard to insult and I don't really mind being wrong (though I seldom am). I never take it personally because I know that sometimes it necessary to pierce the Usenet persona to get to the real truths involved, and sometimes that takes vigorous and even contumacious debate to get beyond the sneering veneer and to sort out the Netwits (of whom there are many) from those with some modicum of wit and intelligence (who can be quite hard to find). And most of my intended audience are the lurkers, of whom there are also many, if my private email is any indicator, who enjoy the give and take. -- 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 |
Scott argues (incorrectly):
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D That the central government may choose to allow a province to opt out doesn=B9t deny the existence of a federal program. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D What was at issue was whether or not provinces had the freedom to opt out. You suggested not. It was a question of having that freedom. They do. frtzw906 |
Scott decides:
============ Government is government, whatever the level, and if it controls and rations health care, the result is the same, irrespective of whether it's done provincially (pun intended) or at the federal level. =========== Provincial governments do not ration health care. It is rationed exactly as it is rationed in the USA: at the level of the individual doctor or hospital (are they currently available to attend to your needs?) frtzw906 |
In discussing the finances of Whazzits State Univ, Scott asserts:
====================== But there's profit to be made nonetheless. ================ Profits!!!! Profits!!!???? A public university makes a profit! Surely you jest. Help me with this. Point me to a source. Scott: ================ While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges, ==================== OK, and then you presume to tell me that the government exercises NO control over the affairs of the universities and colleges?! Sounds like a direct link from the governor's mansion into the university president's office. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/31/05 12:19 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US, schools are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share." Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters. The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly low property taxes. You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools. Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect of the issue. No, you don't get it. The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that does not exist. Well, that's rather my point. It's not the properties that are being unfairly taxed, it's the residents of the community who are being unfairly taxed. You haven't established this, and I still don't see your point. Fortunately, I don't know that it really matters. You appear to be deliberately misapprehending the point. I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with funding for schools coming from income tax. Well, thanks. Finally, consensus. If you'd just skipped the weird crap about landlords and renters, we could have cut to this chase many moons ago. What fun would that be? I enjoy such peregrinations and perambulations off into the back-roads of philosophy. I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." You don't argue very effectively for not doing so. I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly. And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm talking about. You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share. Sure I have. Not in this thread. Well, I do admit that you are unable to admit that I have, probably because you actually do like sticking it to "rich" landowners and you don't mind a bit that non-landowners pay far less than their fair share of the burden. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility. Then I'm as ethical as can be. So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than shoving those costs off on others! You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way. Why not? ? We do it all the time. Society doesn't pay for someone's car repairs. We require people to be personally responsible for obeying the law. What's to stop us from "mandating" personal responsibility? Are you going to install spy cameras at the donut shop? Depends. To prevent burglaries, certainly. To prevent obesity, probably not. But then again, the reason society eschews donut-cams is because it (ours, don't know about yours) does place the burden for the consequences of excessive donut consumption on the donut consumer. If do a Homer, gain 400 pounds and your health fails, why, you deserve everything you get and the rest of society doesn't have to pay for it. However, in a socialized medicine culture, it's far more likely that donut-cams will be use, or that donuts will simply be outlawed entirely, because the whole premise of such systems is that everyone pays for everyone else's medical care, so when the individual engages in risky or unhealthful behavior, it directly impacts government spending on health care. This is a very strong motivator for socialistic governments to mandate "healthy lifestyles" through bans, forcible examinations and health-control measures and other central-planning, communistic control of the individual. This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and is well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun control and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws. Or develop extensive new pre-admittance hospital tests to decide if someone has been eating too many salted cured meets and evaluate whether this cause their heart problems? The whole thing is ridiculous. No, in socialized medicine, it's almost inevitable, provided the whole thing doesn't crash immediately. This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No wonder you feel the need to carry a gun! You forgot to take your anti-paranoia and reality-basing medication today. I'm not the one carrying the gun! LOL. Which makes you simply stupid. That's not something we can fix with medication. Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be ridden out of town on a rail! Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer goods industry. I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart. But I'm talking about Wal-Mart specifically. Why? You are propsing a tax on all consumer goods which would obviously affect all producers and sellers of consumer goods, not just Wal-Mart. True, but I'm talking quite specifically about Wal-Mart, which was the specific context in which the issue came up. While other consumer goods companies might object, the depth of their objection is usually proportional to how big they are and where their products fall in the "luxury" classification scheme. Wal-Mart, however, makes it's living by providing "Always low prices" to cater specifically to those who are under economic pressure and have limited disposable income. Wal-Mart's business model *depends* on the vast, unwashed middle-class and the poor, who want "stuff" but can't afford the high-priced consumer "stuff" the upper crust can afford. What they can afford is "stuff" that looks something like what the affluent have, but which costs far, far less because Wal-Mart forces suppliers to cut production costs, often to the point that the supplier ends up bankrupt. So, the more economic pressure Wal-Mart's customers are under, the better Wal-Mart likes it, because they have a lock on low-priced consumer goods. That's why they are the largest, richest company on the planet. -- 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 |
Scott says:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D Don't forget what my purpose here is. It's to stimulate debate, and by doing so, cause people to think. I don=B9t much care *what* they think, so long as they exercise some mentation. That's why I'm very, very hard to insult and I don't really mind being wrong (though I seldom am). I never take it personally because I know that sometimes it necessary to pierce the Usenet persona to get to the real truths involved, and sometimes that takes vigorous and even contumacious debate to get beyond the sneering veneer and to sort out the Netwits (of whom there are many) from those with some modicum of wit and intelligence (who can be quite hard to find). And most of my intended audience are the lurkers, of whom there are also many, if my private email is any indicator, who enjoy the give and take. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I think that's Scott's way of saying, "Whoops! I was wrong on that issue. frtzw906 was right." Thanks, Scott. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote: Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the federal government up there. For example, here in the US, we don't have any "national police" equivalent to the RCMP. Each state has its own system, and some have "state police" with statewide criminal jurisdiction, and others, like Colorado, don't, and rely instead upon the county sheriff as the primary law enforcement official of the county. Same in Canada. The RCMP only has national jurisdiction in some areas, like narcotics, and crimes in airports. (I'm sure there are a few more.) Really a very narrow jurisdiction. In some places, the RCMP do highway patrol and even city policing, but in those places, the provincial and/or municpal governments have hired the RCMP to be their police forces. And if they wanted to, they could form their own and be rid of the mounties. Well, I believe the RCMP does also enforce federal and province laws in the vast largely uninhabited areas of Canada, including Indian reservations. So tell me, does the RCMP have jurisdiction to take control of a major case in the event the locals aren't (or can't) handle it? Moreover, I suspect that in those areas where the locals do not have local cops, the RCMP maintains jurisdiction to enforce, at the very least, federal and province laws. When I lived in Ontario, the only place I ever saw RCMP was at airports. Ontario has its own provincial police for highway patrol (as does Quebec), and small towns that don't want to form their own police hire the OPP rather than the mounties. That happens a lot with sheriff's departments down here. Strangely, the model I would like to see in the US is the original Canadian/British model where the police are hired, trained and supervised by the federal or state government. Having been a cop in a small town, I know precisely how hard it is to do good police work on a limited budget with limited training and equipment budgets while being under constant pressure to play favorites in enforcement based on who's friends with the town council and Mayor. For a long time I've thought that, at least at the state level, all police officers should be hired, supervised and trained by the state, so that they meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as well as pay, and that local communities should have local officers appointed to them from the state police pool, and should have to provide a share of the funding through taxes. In Britain, as I understand it, when you get a British police officer, you get a *British Police* officer, not someone hired and supervised by the local town fathers, which too often results in poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly supervised police officers who are subject to the personal biases of the town administrators. -- 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 |
Scott fears:
============== This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and is well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun control and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws. ============= Yes! Smoking bans in public places are a good thing. The air belongs to all of us -- THE PEOPLE. You have no right to foul it. frtzw906 - I must admit I was ticked when they banned the backyard burning of leaves in the autumn GRIN |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ...
A Usenet persona calling itself Paul Skoczylas wrote: Well, I believe the RCMP does also enforce federal and province laws in the vast largely uninhabited areas of Canada, including Indian reservations. In all provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, that would be correct. ON and QC have their own police forces which enforce the laws in the remote parts of their territories. None of the other provinces have chosen to form their own police forces, though they do have the authority to do so. Many Indian reservations have their own police forces. Those that don't would hire the RCMP in most provinces, or the provincial police in ON and QC. It says on the RCMP website: "We provide a total federal policing service to all Canadians and policing services under contract to the three territories, eight provinces, approximately 198 municipalities and, under 172 individual agreements, to 192 First Nations communities." Note that it specifically says "under contract" for provinces, territories and municpalities, and "under...agreements" for the reservations. Contracts and agreements can be terminated. So tell me, does the RCMP have jurisdiction to take control of a major case in the event the locals aren't (or can't) handle it? My understanding is that they would NOT have such jurisdiction in the vast majority of cases. There would be likely be some exceptions (I believe smuggling across international borders is RCMP's exclusive jurisdiction, for example). Enforcing the national criminal code (including murder, kidnapping, etc) is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces. Note that municipalities exist at the pleasure of the provinces (not the feds), and are not enshrined in the constitution, so the *provincial* solicitor general would have the authority to grant jurisdiction in any specific case to a different police force (which could be the RCMP, or the provincial force where there is one, or it could be a force from a neighbouring municipality) if he/she feels a municpal police force was not up to the task for that case. The RCMP does not have the authority to make that decision themselves. Moreover, I suspect that in those areas where the locals do not have local cops, the RCMP maintains jurisdiction to enforce, at the very least, federal and province laws. Where there is no local force, the provincial force prevails. Outside ON and QC, that means the RCMP, but at the pleasure of the provinces, which do have the authority to form their own forces if they wanted to. -Paul |
Scott, sounding strangely... well.... "Canadian":
================= Strangely, the model I would like to see in the US is the original Canadian/British model where the police are hired, trained and supervised by the federal or state government. Having been a cop in a small town, I know precisely how hard it is to do good police work on a limited budget with limited training and equipment budgets while being under constant pressure to play favorites in enforcement based on who's friends with the town council and Mayor. For a long time I've thought that, at least at the state level, all police officers should be hired, supervised and trained by the state, so that they meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as well as pay, and that local communities should have local officers appointed to them from the state police pool, and should have to provide a share of the funding through taxes. ================= And you know what, Scott, I've always though that was a good model for education. All teachers should be hired, supervised and trained by the state, so that they meet uniform standards for qualification, equipment and supervision, as well as pay, and that local communities should have teachers appointed to them from the state teacher pool, (and should have to provide a share of the funding through taxes). Which, btw, is sort of the way it happens in Germany. Education is a state responsibility there, hence teachers are hired and paid by the state. See, Scott, I acknowledge when you've got some really good ideas. [And, yes, I agree with you on the police issue.] frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/31/05 12:19 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/30/05 11:40 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: This has nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the revenues need to pay the property taxes. Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US, schools are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share." Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters. The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly low property taxes. You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools. Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect of the issue. No, you don't get it. The renters are paying their fair share as part of their rent. Unless rental properties are not being fairly taxed, you are searching for a problem that does not exist. Well, that's rather my point. It's not the properties that are being unfairly taxed, it's the residents of the community who are being unfairly taxed. You haven't established this, and I still don't see your point. Fortunately, I don't know that it really matters. You appear to be deliberately misapprehending the point. Nope. I really don't know what you are trying to say. I don't know that there is a fair share issue, you certainly haven't demonstrated to me that there is one, but sure, I'd have no problem with funding for schools coming from income tax. Well, thanks. Finally, consensus. If you'd just skipped the weird crap about landlords and renters, we could have cut to this chase many moons ago. What fun would that be? I enjoy such peregrinations and perambulations off into the back-roads of philosophy. I can tell. I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners." You don't argue very effectively for not doing so. I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly. And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm talking about. You haven't established that renters don't pay their fair share. Sure I have. Not in this thread. Well, I do admit that you are unable to admit that I have, probably because you actually do like sticking it to "rich" landowners and you don't mind a bit that non-landowners pay far less than their fair share of the burden. No, I really don't see your point. What I mean is, I don't know what you are trying to say, so I don't know whether I agree or not. If everybody in the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law. Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own selfish needs is not what I would call ethics. That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility. Then I'm as ethical as can be. So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than shoving those costs off on others! You can't "mandate" responsibility in this way. Why not? ? We do it all the time. Society doesn't pay for someone's car repairs. We require people to be personally responsible for obeying the law. What's to stop us from "mandating" personal responsibility? Are you going to install spy cameras at the donut shop? Depends. To prevent burglaries, certainly. To prevent obesity, probably not. Then your plan is screwed. snip nonsense Or develop extensive new pre-admittance hospital tests to decide if someone has been eating too many salted cured meets and evaluate whether this cause their heart problems? The whole thing is ridiculous. No, in socialized medicine, it's almost inevitable, provided the whole thing doesn't crash immediately. ? This is some scary stuff you believe in Scotty. No wonder you feel the need to carry a gun! You forgot to take your anti-paranoia and reality-basing medication today. I'm not the one carrying the gun! LOL. Which makes you simply stupid. That's not something we can fix with medication. It's the people who think that guns make for a better world that need meds. Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be ridden out of town on a rail! Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer goods industry. I'm talking about the entire consumer goods industy and avoiding an irrellevant side argument about the particulars of Wal-Mart. But I'm talking about Wal-Mart specifically. Why? You are propsing a tax on all consumer goods which would obviously affect all producers and sellers of consumer goods, not just Wal-Mart. True, but I'm talking quite specifically about Wal-Mart, which was the specific context in which the issue came up. You really do like picking corn out of poo. While other consumer goods companies might object, the depth of their objection is usually proportional to how big they are and where their products fall in the "luxury" classification scheme. Wal-Mart, however, makes it's living by providing "Always low prices" to cater specifically to those who are under economic pressure and have limited disposable income. Wal-Mart's business model *depends* on the vast, unwashed middle-class and the poor, who want "stuff" but can't afford the high-priced consumer "stuff" the upper crust can afford. What they can afford is "stuff" that looks something like what the affluent have, but which costs far, far less because Wal-Mart forces suppliers to cut production costs, often to the point that the supplier ends up bankrupt. So, the more economic pressure Wal-Mart's customers are under, the better Wal-Mart likes it, because they have a lock on low-priced consumer goods. That's why they are the largest, richest company on the planet. Yes, well, aside from helping me understand what you think about when you pleasure yourself, I'm not sure about the point of this drool. |
On 31-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:
Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national healthcare system? Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that opts out (or tries to opt out). Actually, there are a couple of ways out. However, ol' snotty could never muster up that much understanding of any issue, let alone Canadian politics, to know what they are. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scotty, sounding positively obtuse by now: =================== But, each hospital is required to abide by the prioritization guidelines set by the government, are they not? ================= FOR THE LAST F#CKING TIME: NO! NO! NO! Sheeesch! Um, you're wrong. You're trying to tell us that there are no national standards for treatment and care in Canada, and that the federal government just accepts whatever some doctor decides is the proper priority? Sorry, I don't believe it. Here's some proof showing why I don't believe it, and neither should anybody else: (I've posted the extracts as quotes to visually separate them from my comments. They are extracts, not the complete documents, but the source of each is provided for those who want to look further into the issue.) Here we go! From the Canada Health Act website: The Canada Health Act defines for the provinces and territories the criteria and conditions that they must satisfy in order to qualify for their full share of the federal transfers under the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) cash contribution." The five criteria of the Canada Health Act a 1. public administration: the administration of the health care insurance plan of a province or territory must be carried out on a non-profit basis by a public authority; The health care insurance plan is a government operation that MUST be carried out by the government. Private insurance is not allowed for "medically necessary" care. As we will see, it's a federally-imposed system that the provinces are *required* to participate in. They CANNOT "opt out" of the system, because the Act specifies that ALL Canadians are ENTITLED to government-funded health care, no matter where they live, and the provinces are obligated to provide it to them. 2. comprehensiveness: all medically necessary services provided by hospitals and doctors must be insured; And IF a "medically necessary service" is insured, then access to that service is directly controlled by the government. It is rationed and priority lists are created and people are not allowed to "jump the queue" to get better or faster care. 3. universality: all insured persons in the province or territory must be entitled to public health insurance coverage on uniform terms and conditions; Everybody's covered...except a few excluded categories like the RCMP, the military and, interestingly, prison convicts. The latter category is interesting because of all Canadians, THEY are the ONLY civilians who CAN seek better, faster private treatment at their own expense. Of course, getting out of prison to obtain that care is another matter entirely... 4. portability: coverage for insured services must be maintained when an insured person moves or travels within Canada or travels outside the country; and Good thing the US doesn't recognize extraterritoriality, otherwise Canada would be demanding that US hospitals provide Canadian tourists care under Canadian rules. As it is, it's ambiguous how the Canada Health system pays for care in the US. 5. accessibility: reasonable access by insured persons to medically necessary hospital and physician services must be unimpeded by financial or other barriers. Number 5 is a trap, as we will see below, that pretty much prohibits private enterprise from getting around the system, even by opting out entirely. It's not just that people cannot be "impeded" by financial barriers, they cannot get *better service* because they are rich, either. Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/home.htm Epp Letter. (NOTE: This is not the full text, I've extracted pertinent quotes.) [The following is the text of the letter sent on June 18, 1985 to all provincial and territorial Ministers of Health by the Honourable Jake Epp, Federal Minister of Health and Welfare. (Note: Minister Epp sent the French equivalent of this letter to Quebec on July 15, 1985.)] Public Administration This criterion is generally accepted. The intent is that the provincial health care insurance plans be administered by a public authority, accountable to the provincial government for decision-making on benefit levels and services, and whose records and accounts are publicly audited. Government-operated health care, no doubt about it at all. Comprehensiveness Within these broad parameters, provinces, along with medical professionals, have the prerogative and responsibility for interpreting what physician services are medically necessary. As well, provinces determine which hospitals and hospital services are required to provide acute, rehabilitative or chronic care. Note who has *primary* authority to "interpret" what services are "medically necessary." The Provinces. Not the Doctor, the Provinces. And you can bet your ass that in a dispute between government bureaucrats and doctors, the bureaucrats will always win. Government control without any doubt. Reasonable Accessibility I want to emphasize my intention to respect provincial prerogatives regarding the organization, licensing, supply, distribution of health manpower, as well as the resource allocation and priorities for health services. Provinces have pretty much plenary authority in the areas listed above, BUT, if they don't provide it to the satisfaction of the federal government, the federal government will WITHOLD federal payments. And, there is a provision for additional PENALTIES against the province too. That's the leash of the federal government. "Do it our way or you don't get paid." Moreover, as we will see later, opting out is not an option for the provinces, because the Act itself MANDATES universal health insurance and imposes the mandate on the provinces, subject to enforcement by the federal government. Regulations As you know, the Act provides that there must be consultation and agreement of each and every province with respect to such regulations. Note the "every province" part. This makes the national plan mandatory. The feds have to "consult and agree" with the provinces, but push comes to shove, the feds can shove the plan down the province's throat by withholding required funds and imposing penalties. I imagine even more force would be used if a recalcitrant province still refused. ...[T]he Act provides for regulations concerning hospital services exclusions and regulations defining extended health care services. Thus, the FEDERAL government (in the person of the Governor in Council) can define what is covered and what is not and who gets it. Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/Epp.htm Marleau Letter [The following is the text of the letter sent on January 6, 1995 to all provincial and territorial Ministers of Health by the Federal Minister of Health, the Honourable Diane Marleau.] For reasons I will set out below, I am convinced that the growth of a second tier of health care facilities providing medically necessary services that operate, totally or in large part, outside the publicly funded and publicly administered system, presents a serious threat to Canada's health care system. This is the primary policy statement that makes private enterprise pretty much illegal and "queue jumping" impossible, even when private enterprise chooses to provide the service outside the system entirely by billing willing patients directly. In Canada, there IS NO "outside the system." Participation is MANDATORY, and that is enforced by the provinces under the thumb of the federal government which will withhold money if unauthorized "extra payments" are made. That's what happened in BC, and BC then wrote a law restricting private clinics and how much they could charge, as you will see below. Private clinics raise several concerns for the federal government, concerns which provinces share. These relate to: € weakened public support for the tax funded and publicly administered system; Governments don't like competition because it makes them look bad, because they are universally wasteful and inefficient. This statement absolutely proves this. Even the possibility of free-market competition scares the **** out of the bureaucrats. They know if they allow private competition, people will bail out of the public system by the millions, and then they will demand that the taxes they pay for the wasteful, inefficient, bureaucratic nightmare of a health care system they are being forced to pay for be returned to them. The bureaucrats in charge would like to keep their jobs, so they make private competition essentially illegal. It's really pretty typical for government-controlled monopolies. We had lots of them down here, but we got rid of most of them because they didn't work well, and private free-market enterprise worked quite well. € the diminished ability of governments to control costs once they have shifted from the public to the private sector; The government gets to set the price, and thus the level of expertise and care a person receives, no matter what. So, if you want a *really* good heart surgeon, you can't get one that isn't willing to work for what the PROVINCE has set as "reasonable compensation" for the surgeon's work. That's why the best Canadian (and British, as it happens) surgeons come to the US. € the possibility, supported by the experience of other jurisdictions, that private facilities will concentrate on easy procedures, leaving public facilities to handle more complicated, costly cases; and Once again, free-market competition is deliberately quashed BECAUSE it's more efficient and economical. If the government were really interested in people, they would be happy to take on the more complicated, costly cases that private enterprise doesn't want to deal with. So long as they can collect taxes to cover the costs, which they can, all this does is benefit the taxpayers, who DON'T have to pay for the "easy stuff." This concern is particularly illogical and typical of the bureaucratic mindset. € the ability of private facilities to offer financial incentives to health care providers that could draw them away from the public system - resources may also be devoted to features which attract consumers, without in any way contributing to the quality of care. The federal government knows what's best for you, and doesn't want sick people to be privy to information that might be of use to them in getting the very best care. God forbid that a hospital might advertise more comfortable beds, semi-private rooms and free TV...what a disaster for socialistic egalitarianism that would be! Even worse, the government cannot allow private enterprise to woo hospitals away from the government teat, because if that happens, there won't be any government-funded hospitals at all. Of course, they have to stick some asinine excuse like "without in any way contribution to the quality of care" into the paragraph to scare people and expound on their socialist ideology. Who says a private room, private full-time nurses, good food and cable TV don't contribute to the quality of care and enhance healing? Socialist swine, that's who. The only way to deal effectively with these concerns is to regulate the operation of private clinics. And there it is, the death-blow to quality health care in Canada in favor of egalitarian, socialistic, "share the pain" and "die-if-you-get-too-sick" health care. Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/Marleau.htm From the Act itself: Purpose of this Act 4. The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made. This is the Big Stick. If provinces don't comply, both by kowtowing to the feds, and by quashing private enterprise to prop up the government monopoly and control of health care, the feds not only don't pay, they can actually impose financial SANCTIONS on the provincial governments. The Governor in Council may issue regulations: (b) prescribing the services excluded from hospital services; There's one of those "government bureaucrats" I was referring to. I imagine he/she has a name, but I couldn't find it right off the bat, not that it really matters which bureaucrat occupies the seat. From the Canada Health Act website: With respect to private payment for insured health services, Health Canada is concerned that any trend toward privatization that results in a two-tiered system, where individuals can pay for quicker access to medically necessary hospital or physician services represents a threat to the fundamental principles of the CHA, and therefore to the overall health care system. Access to insured services must be based on need, not the ability to pay. This cuts both ways. While the implication is that those who cannot pay ought to have access to adequate "medically necessary" care, it ALSO says that those who CAN pay CANNOT be allowed to get better health care than those who have less money. That's the "queue jumping" referred to. The threat of private enterprise is so scary that the provinces have been bullied into regulating private clinics so that they can't even opt out of the system and provide service strictly to those who are willing and able to pay. Some jurisdictions have recently questioned the definition of the term ³medically necessary² in the Act. As noted by former federal Health Minister Jake Epp in his 1985 interpretation letter to all provincial and territorial health ministers, provinces and territories, along with their medical professionals, have the prerogative and responsibility for interpreting what physician services are medically necessary. Again we see that it is the government bureaucrats who are controlling what care people can get. Thus, the government SETS THE PRIORITY LIST by dictating what is covered and what is not, and who may provide the service, and at what price. In July 2003, former federal health minister Anne McLellan wrote to the four provincial health ministers concerned to communicate her objection to the queue jumping that results in provinces that allow private clinics to sell quicker access to medically necessary diagnostic services. That's why you can't get an MRI, even from a private provider, without waiting your turn. That's why you can't get a hospital room or surgeon without waiting your turn, even if you can afford the very best private care. That's why rich Canadians come to the US for medical care. Patient charges by specialty referral centres and for self-referrals to physician specialists Since 2002, two specialist referral clinics in Vancouver have been offering expedited consultations with physician specialists for a fee for individuals who choose to bypass their family physicians to seek specialized treatment. Charges to insured persons for insured services contravene the CHA. Please read this again, it's important! Charges to insured persons for insured services contravene the CHA. And that means ANY CHARGES, by ANY medical practitioner, ANYWHERE in Canada, even if the patient himself wants to pay, can pay and indeed DOES pay for the service. It's ILLEGAL to CHARGE an "insured person," which means EVERY CITIZEN OF CANADA (with a few exceptions) for an "insured service," which means EVERY MEDICALLY NECESSARY SERVICE that Canada has so defined, irrespective of where the service is performed, by whom, or who pays for it. If you're Canadian, you're insured, and you CANNOT pay for private care for anything the government already provides under the Act, which is every kind of "medically necessary" treatment. This practice is also a concern from a CHA perspective because it encourages queue jumping for insured health services. That's why the girl with the bad knee has to wait three years for treatment, because she's forbidden from seeking out a private clinic and paying more for faster service. That's undeniably government priority setting and list making. During a meeting between British Columbia Ministry of Health Services and Health Canada officials in 2003, the province indicated that Medical Services Plan (MSP) policy allows specialists to bill self-referred patients for the difference between the fee paid by MSP and the fee charged to self- referred patients. Health Canada officials informed the province that this practice constitutes extra-billing under the CHA and further bilateral consultations are required on this issue. See the extract of the BC code below where they made private clinics financially infeasible by limiting the amount they can charge a patient to the amount the government would pay under the insurance plan. The government has ruled that even the act of charging a willing and able patient more for quicker, better service is illegal, even though adequate service is *required* for all persons, regardless of their ability to pay. This simply penalizes those who can afford better medical care while not providing any better service to those getting care on the cuff. Swinish, socialistic "we don't give a damn about the individual" dogma. Patient charges for bone density scans In April 2002, the press reported that a Saskatchewan physician was providing preferred access to bone density scans to patients in return for a donation of $95 to a research foundation incorporated by the physician in 1995. Charges to insured persons for insured services contravene the CHA. This practice is a concern from a CHA perspective because it encourages queue-jumping for insured health services Which means ALL "medically necessary" services. If it's "medically necessary," it's "insured," and if it's insured, it comes under the Health Act, and if it comes under the Health Act, you, the patient, CANNOT opt out, CANNOT seek better, faster private service at a clinic by paying more, CANNOT pay more for a better surgeon, even if you can afford it, and CANNOT get the very best care available...in Canada. You can, however, come to the US, where your dollars will get you the very best treatment you can afford as quickly as you can afford it. The Canada Health Act, which came into force April 1, 1984, reaffirmed the national commitment to the original principles of the Canadian health care system, as embodied in the previous legislation, the Medical Care Act and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. By putting into place mandatory dollar-for-dollar penalties for extra-billing and user charges, the federal government took steps to eliminate the proliferation of direct charges for hospital and physician services, judged to be restricting the access of many Canadians to health care services due to financial considerations. This is mostly bull****. It didn't just eliminate over-billing, which would have been fine, what it actually did was utterly eliminate the ability of a patient to pay for BETTER care if they can afford it, while still providing ADEQUATE care for everyone. As a result of a dispute between the British Columbia Medical Association and the British Columbia government over compensation, several doctors opted out of the provincial health insurance plan and began billing their patients directly. Some of these doctors billed their patients at a rate greater than the amount the patients could recover from the provincial health insurance plan. This higher amount constituted extra-billing under the CHA. Including deduction adjustments for prior years, dating back to fiscal year 1992-1993, deductions began in May 1994 until extra-billing by physicians was banned when changes to British Columbia¹s Medicare Protection Act came into effect in September 1995. The federal government withheld money from the province because private physicians had the temerity to opt out of the system and serve people who could afford to pay for better care until the province passed legislation restricting the amount ANY physician could charge to that amount the government would pay. YOU CANNOT GET BETTER, FASTER MEDICAL CARE IN CANADA FOR "MEDICALLY NECESSARY" TREATMENTS NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN IS WILLING TO GO THE EXTRA MILE FOR YOU! That's the fact, Jack. Because of those restrictions, doctors have become de facto government employees. Their compensation is strictly limited to what the government feels is "reasonable," and they can't set up a private practice to make more, not even on the side, from willing patients. So, as a result, there is little impetus for highly qualified doctors to stay in practice in Canada, and there's less reason for people to spend a decade of their lives in med school just so they can work for government wages. Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/CHAadmin.htm From: British Columbia Medicare Protection Act 18 (1) If a medical practitioner who is not enrolled renders a service to a beneficiary and the service would be a benefit if rendered by an enrolled medical practitioner, a person must not charge the beneficiary for, or in relation to, the service an amount that, in total, is greater than Since every Canadian is a "beneficiary" of a nationalized health care plan, the only people who can get better care by paying for it are tourists, the RCMP and the military...oh, and prison convicts. (a) the amount that would be payable under this Act, by the commission, for the service if rendered by an enrolled medical practitioner, or (b) if a payment schedule or regulation permits or requires an additional charge by an enrolled medical practitioner, the total of the amount referred to in paragraph (a) and the additional charge. (2) Subsection (1) applies only to a service rendered in (a) a hospital as defined in section 1 of the Hospital Act, or (b) a community care facility as defined in section 1 of the Community Care Facility Act. (3) If a medical practitioner described in section*17*(2)*(c) renders a benefit to a beneficiary, a person must not charge the beneficiary for, or in relation to, the service an amount that, in total, is greater than (a) the amount that would be payable under this Act, by the commission, for the service, or (b) if a payment schedule or regulation permits or requires an additional charge, the total of the amount referred to in paragraph (a) and the additional charge. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat....htm#section18 There it is, folks, the proof positive that Canada centrally controls and rations health care. It's even worse than I thought, too. Because the bureaucrats don't like competition, they have crushed private enterprise entirely in their socialistic, egalitarian zeal. Boy, am I glad I live in the US, where I can get the very best medical care I can afford. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scotty gets the picture... perhaps ================ Parse it any way you please, but if the government IN ANY WAY sets policy for admitting or serving patients, even in a general guidelines document or by so much as saying something to the effect of "doctors shall treat patients according to the priority of the illness", as to what the priority of treatment is, the whole system is "government controlled." ================== And the government IN NO WAY does any of what you suppose above. Yes, it does. See my rather long post on the subject. Whether you do or do not get what you need medically, depends on the resources available at that time. Sometimes, when you've been more lucid, you've alluded to that, and, I think, everyone has agreed with you on that point. If you can stick with that point, and stay away from your boogey-man, the state-controlled, socialist, bureaucrat waving a state-mandated priority list, you'll be well on your way to understanding the system. Sorry, but you're just entirely wrong. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of the federal government? It is to laugh You know nothing about Canadian politics. But that's no surprise. I know enough to know that even in Canada, the provinces are political subdivisions of the federal government, not sovereign nations. And that occurs because the system is centrally controlled and is not a free market. Bull**** - a free market would _reduce_ service in some of those rural areas, since it is sell profitable than urban. So what? That's free enterprise for you. In Canada, the governments are willing to maintain more service in rural areas since it is necessary, not because it is profitable. Nothing wrong with the government providing services where private industry won't. What's wrong is that Canada in effect turns private enterprise into a government agency by controlling the prices private physicians can charge. Exactly. The government controls and rations health care in Canada. That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks for confirming it! No dickhead - it's the right-wing freemarketeers that have ****ed everything up. You don't get anything. I get the very best health care in the world whenever I want it, while you get to wait till your government tells you it has room for you, ****wit. Yeah...when it was a free market system... It was a "free market" back in the early sixties and before. It worked very poorly. Nah, it's just that the socialists took over. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care and when. Prove it. I've done so, in a rather long post I won't repeat here. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott: ============= And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government. Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They can't. =============== Allow me to help you tear another page out of your encyclopaedia of ignorance: [source: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com..._%28Canada%29] "The term medicare (in lowercase) (French: assurance-maladie) is the unofficial name for Canada's universal public health insurance system. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the provinces provide all residents with health insurance cards, which entitle the bearer to receive free medical care for almost all procedures. Patients are free to choose their own doctor, hospital, etc. Health institutions are either private and not-for-profit (such as university hospitals) or state-run (such as Quebec's CLSC system). Doctors in private practice are entrepreneurs who bill the medicare system for their fees." Does that help? Nope, because it's not the case, as I've shown in a rather long post which I won't repeat here. The entire health care system is tightly controlled by the feds, who bully the provinces, who bully the private doctors. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott allow me to continue your education: http://www.civitas.org.uk The Canadian Health Act of 1984... denies federal support to provinces that allow extra-billing within their insurance schemes and effectively forbids private or opted-out practitioners from billing beyond provincially man-dated fee schedules. The 1984 Act also defines and solidifies the principles of medicare, including: *comprehensiveness (provinces must provide medically necessary hospital and physician services), *universality (100 per cent of provincial residents are entitled to the plan), *accessibility (there should be reasonable access to services, not impeded by user charges or extra billing), *portability (protection for Canadians travelling outside of their home province), and *public administration (provinces must administer and operate health plan on a non-profit basis) (Klatt, 2002)... Healthcare providers are predominantly private [SCOTT, PLEASE NOTE!], but are funded by public monies via provincial budgets. Hospital systems are largely private non-profit organizations with their own governance structures (usually supervised by a community board or trustees)... that receive an annual global operating budget from the provinces... Physicians are mostly in private practice and remunerated on a fee-for-service basis [SCOTT: NOTE] (with an imposed cap to prevent excessive utilization and costs) by the provincial health plan...However, physicians that choose to opt out of the system cannot procure any public monies, and are forbidden from billing above negotiated "Schedule of Benefits" pricing which the "opted in" physicians are subject to. In other words, private physicians cannot bill above the fee schedules for medicare physicians. Therefore, opting out is risky for physicians and uptake is low. Scott, there you have it. Please stop making things up, OK. I've analyzed all this in another post...and debunked your arguments too. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Steve Cramer wrote:
Mike! Mike! According to my news client, you posted responses to SW at 1:51, 1:56, 1:59, 2:03, and 2:08. And that's just so far this afternoon. After the dozens (hundreds?) of these exchanges, do you see any change at all in SW? It's said that one of the hallmarks of insanity is to keep repeating the same behavior in the belief that the results will change. Odds are against you, man. Give it up while you still have some sanity to cling to. Of course, since SW, wilf, and TnT are already in my bit bucket, if you stop there won't be any r.b.p coming into my computer at all. That's okay, because you haven't the wit to need it. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott argues (incorrectly): =========== That the central government may choose to allow a province to opt out doesn¹t deny the existence of a federal program. ================= What was at issue was whether or not provinces had the freedom to opt out. You suggested not. It was a question of having that freedom. They do. No, they don't, as I explain in detail elsewhere. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott decides: ============ Government is government, whatever the level, and if it controls and rations health care, the result is the same, irrespective of whether it's done provincially (pun intended) or at the federal level. =========== Provincial governments do not ration health care. Yes, they do. It is rationed exactly as it is rationed in the USA: at the level of the individual doctor or hospital (are they currently available to attend to your needs?) Nope. Provincial governments set the policies for their provincial plans, which must comport with the federal plan. Moreover, the feds have absolute power to dictate what services are covered. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
In discussing the finances of Whazzits State Univ, Scott asserts: ====================== But there's profit to be made nonetheless. ================ Profits!!!! Profits!!!???? A public university makes a profit! Surely you jest. Help me with this. Point me to a source. No, the hospitals and clinics who hire med school graduates make the profits. They support the med schools so they have graduates to hire. Scott: ================ While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges, ==================== OK, and then you presume to tell me that the government exercises NO control over the affairs of the universities and colleges?! Other than appointing the Regents, no. Sounds like a direct link from the governor's mansion into the university president's office. He may have persuasive power, but no legal authority except over a very small portion of the budget. And the CU president is well known for not giving a damn what a conservative Governor has to say, since the president is appointed by the CU Regents, not the governor. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott says: ================= Don't forget what my purpose here is. It's to stimulate debate, and by doing so, cause people to think. I don¹t much care *what* they think, so long as they exercise some mentation. That's why I'm very, very hard to insult and I don't really mind being wrong (though I seldom am). I never take it personally because I know that sometimes it necessary to pierce the Usenet persona to get to the real truths involved, and sometimes that takes vigorous and even contumacious debate to get beyond the sneering veneer and to sort out the Netwits (of whom there are many) from those with some modicum of wit and intelligence (who can be quite hard to find). And most of my intended audience are the lurkers, of whom there are also many, if my private email is any indicator, who enjoy the give and take. ======================= I think that's Scott's way of saying, "Whoops! I was wrong on that issue. frtzw906 was right." Thanks, Scott. No, it's my way of saying it doesn't matter to me who is wrong or right. It's the journey that's important, not the destination. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott fears: ============== This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and is well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun control and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws. ============= Yes! Smoking bans in public places are a good thing. The air belongs to all of us -- THE PEOPLE. You have no right to foul it. Hey, it's my air too. If you don't like it, then stand somewhere else. Actually, I agree with you, but I do at least admit that it's ethically inconsistent to do so. frtzw906 - I must admit I was ticked when they banned the backyard burning of leaves in the autumn GRIN I still get to burn my ditches and fields, thank God. -- 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com