in article .net, rick at
wrote on 3/20/05 10:25 PM:


"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Frederick submits:
===================
Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our
monthly
mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most
expensive
monthly expense, and
that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay
before
insurance kicks in.
===================

I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out
across the
USA. [rhetorical question]

What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott
and rick
on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for
Scott to
cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular
healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN,
Michael, or
BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have
had
admirable care.
=======================
Who said it wasn't? The problem with kman was that he made a
statement that was proven to be a lie. That some people in
Canada recieve proper care was not the issue. I'm sure there are
millions that recieve adequate care. The sites I posted
presented data about people that died while waiting for
treatment. Be it one or tens of thousands makes no difference
to the claim kman made that no one is dying. He was proven to be
lying. Are you now saying that no one ever dies while waiting
for treatment?


More to the point, I know of not one person in my
circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary
procedure.
=================
Again, that doesn't refute the data that people HAVE died while
waiting, and are you now claiming that no one is even waiting for
treatment at all?

Every single health care system in existence has people who die while they
are waiting for treatment.

No health care system is perfect.

If you look at the sample of people in this newsgroup, of those who have
personal experience with the Canadian system and US system, it seems clear
to me that the Canadian system is vastly preferred.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Frederick submits:
===================
Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly
mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive
monthly expense, and
that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before
insurance kicks in.
===================

I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out across the
USA. [rhetorical question]

What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott and rick
on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for Scott to
cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular
healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN, Michael, or
BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have had
admirable care. More to the point, I know of not one person in my
circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary procedure.

But what I find interesting about Frederick's story is that KMAN,
Michael, and BCITORGB don't know what it is like being denied insurance
coverage because of diabetes or cholesterol issues. We have no idea
about the trauma or stress one might feel as the insurance companies
jack up the premiums or outright deny coverage.

I do. It sucks. So what? Nobody said life was easy or fair. Now I find a way
to pay for my own health care, I don't expect anyone else to pay for it in
my stead.


Frederick states that "health insurance is our single most expensive
monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles". I
don't have the figures at hand; perhaps the taxes I pay in Canada, and
the portion thereof that goes to healthcare, are equal to or greater
than Frederick's monthly premiums (somehow I doubt it). However, I do
know that I'll always have that coverage.

Don't bet on it. Government programs have a tendency to go bankrupt. Just as
the VA, and the people who try to get care from the VA who are "entitled" to
that care.


And, as we ponder Frederick's premiums, we might wish to ask why the
USA spends more (significantly more) on healthcare per capita, but is
unable to match Canada and most western European nations on issues such
as infant mortality and life expectancy. Now there's a healthcare
scandal worth writing newspaper articles about.

Why? Infant mortality is nature's way of limiting populations.

--
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 Frederick Burroughs wrote:

BCITORGB wrote:

Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?


My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my
employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her
employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped
around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the
entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't
cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for
herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was
taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance
payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us,
health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and
that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before
insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A.

Wah.

I can't get health insurance either (for the same reason as you) and had to
give up my company health insurance after the COBRA period expired because I
couldn't afford (nor could I justify) the $385 per month in premiums plus
the $200+ per month in prescription co-pays. So what? Big deal. It's my
life, and my responsibility. If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves, and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care (not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the government's.

Like I have, you need to figure out how to save for a medical emergency and
not try to foist your inability to budget and save off on everyone else.

Perhaps you could forego that new playboat and SUV, drive a ten-year-old
car, cut back on the beer and cigarette allotment, wear last season's
clothes and quit going to the movies and put that money aside into an
interest-bearing savings account for emergencies. Or, you could get a
catastrophic health care policy with a large (like $10,000) deductible that
costs far less each month and forego the "convienence medicine" premium
inherent in HMO coverage and put the balance of what you're paying now into
a savings account to pay, in cash, for minor medical issues. It's entirely
up to you, but nobody said it was going to be easy.

The good news is that *I* don't have to pay for *your* health care problems
like they do in Canada. That's good, because I see no reason on earth why I
should be required to do so.
--
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

Weiser, puffing up his macho chest, blusters:
=================
If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is
just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves,
and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care
(not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the
government's.
================

But very CLEARLY, if you'd bothered to respond to ALL the data I
provided (not just the stuff convenient to you), you'd also realize
that, in your attitude lies the answer to lower life expectancies and
higher infant mortality rates in the USA. Very obviously, people in the
USA do NOT take responsibility for their health or, more likely, many
can't afford to.

Thank god there's not many like you up here!

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser, puffing up his macho chest, blusters:
=================
If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is
just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves,
and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care
(not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the
government's.
================

But very CLEARLY, if you'd bothered to respond to ALL the data I
provided (not just the stuff convenient to you),

I believe I responded line by line to each cite...or was that somebody
else's post. I lose track of which Netwit I'm debating with, you're all so
much the same.

you'd also realize
that, in your attitude lies the answer to lower life expectancies and
higher infant mortality rates in the USA. Very obviously, people in the
USA do NOT take responsibility for their health or, more likely, many
can't afford to.

So what? That's their free choice, isn't it? The idea that the government
has some duty or obligation to provide universal medical care is an
extremely dangerous one because it's a direct path down the slippery slope
of government regulation of behavior and conduct it deems "too dangerous" or
"too likely to result in unnecessary medical costs."

When you let government go there, the result is the ultimate Nanny State in
which you are not allowed to do or own anything that might be deemed harmful
to you because it might end up costing the government money. That would
likely include dangerous sports like, oh, kayaking. You want proof? Try
"mandatory seat belt laws" on for size.

Time for the class to discuss the issue of government boating bans based on
"unnecessary risks to rescuers" rationales.

Anyone? Anyone?

I'd rather live in a free society where I'm free to injure or kill myself in
whatever way pleases me because my government doesn't think it's going to
cost the taxpayers money if I do.

Thank god there's not many like you up here!

Be careful what you wish for.

--
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 Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


BCITORGB wrote:


Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?


My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my
employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her
employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped
around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the
entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't
cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for
herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was
taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance
payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us,
health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and
that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before
insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A.


Wah.

I can't get health insurance either (for the same reason as you) and had to
give up my company health insurance after the COBRA period expired because I
couldn't afford (nor could I justify) the $385 per month in premiums plus
the $200+ per month in prescription co-pays. So what? Big deal. It's my
life, and my responsibility. If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves, and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care (not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the government's.

Like I have, you need to figure out how to save for a medical emergency and
not try to foist your inability to budget and save off on everyone else.

Perhaps you could forego that new playboat and SUV, drive a ten-year-old
car, cut back on the beer and cigarette allotment, wear last season's
clothes and quit going to the movies and put that money aside into an
interest-bearing savings account for emergencies. Or, you could get a
catastrophic health care policy with a large (like $10,000) deductible that
costs far less each month and forego the "convienence medicine" premium
inherent in HMO coverage and put the balance of what you're paying now into
a savings account to pay, in cash, for minor medical issues. It's entirely
up to you, but nobody said it was going to be easy.

The good news is that *I* don't have to pay for *your* health care problems
like they do in Canada. That's good, because I see no reason on earth why I
should be required to do so.


You make a whole lot of typically incorrect assumptions. No one in my
family smokes, or drinks in excess of healthy moderation. Our newest
car is 5 years old. My canoe and kayak were bought having recreation
and exercise equally in mind.

As you know, exercise is especially important for diabetics. Along
with hiking up and down the mountains around our home, I paddle. There
are two wonderful rivers just a 10 minute's drive, and paddling is a
quick, enjoyable, effective and addictive form of exercise. Hell, I
don't even know I'm exercising except for slightly sore muscles at the
end of the day. I will also utilize the kayak to fish. If I limit my
fish take to the river free of mercury & pcb pollution, and to the
local ponds, these will be a healthy addition to my diet. (Thanks to
government monitoring for alerting the public to this health concern.)

If I was healthy, and lived alone in the woods, and didn't give a ****
about others, your health care suggestion might be an option worth
consideration. However, family obligations and demanding health
conditions make insurance the prudent choice. There are others besides
myself involved in the calculations.

Also, I'm happy that a small percentage of my local and state taxes go
to support our local hospital, and supply our local emergency medical
volunteers, and help to distribute vaccines and medicines to the
community. Bizarre that any one would object to the socialization of
health care since much of it works and is already based on a
socialized, community-based model.


--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


BCITORGB wrote:


Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?


My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my
employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her
employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped
around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the
entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't
cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for
herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was
taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance
payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us,
health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and
that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before
insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A.


Wah.

I can't get health insurance either (for the same reason as you) and had to
give up my company health insurance after the COBRA period expired because I
couldn't afford (nor could I justify) the $385 per month in premiums plus
the $200+ per month in prescription co-pays. So what? Big deal. It's my
life, and my responsibility. If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves, and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care (not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the government's.

Like I have, you need to figure out how to save for a medical emergency and
not try to foist your inability to budget and save off on everyone else.

Perhaps you could forego that new playboat and SUV, drive a ten-year-old
car, cut back on the beer and cigarette allotment, wear last season's
clothes and quit going to the movies and put that money aside into an
interest-bearing savings account for emergencies. Or, you could get a
catastrophic health care policy with a large (like $10,000) deductible that
costs far less each month and forego the "convienence medicine" premium
inherent in HMO coverage and put the balance of what you're paying now into
a savings account to pay, in cash, for minor medical issues. It's entirely
up to you, but nobody said it was going to be easy.

The good news is that *I* don't have to pay for *your* health care problems
like they do in Canada. That's good, because I see no reason on earth why I
should be required to do so.


You make a whole lot of typically incorrect assumptions. No one in my
family smokes, or drinks in excess of healthy moderation.

I was being allegorical, not literal.

Our newest
car is 5 years old. My canoe and kayak were bought having recreation
and exercise equally in mind.

As you know, exercise is especially important for diabetics. Along
with hiking up and down the mountains around our home, I paddle. There
are two wonderful rivers just a 10 minute's drive, and paddling is a
quick, enjoyable, effective and addictive form of exercise. Hell, I
don't even know I'm exercising except for slightly sore muscles at the
end of the day. I will also utilize the kayak to fish. If I limit my
fish take to the river free of mercury & pcb pollution, and to the
local ponds, these will be a healthy addition to my diet. (Thanks to
government monitoring for alerting the public to this health concern.)

There's no need to justify your lifestyle. I wasn't intending to actually
impugn your lifestyle, I merely wished to make a general point about
personal responsibility.


If I was healthy, and lived alone in the woods, and didn't give a ****
about others, your health care suggestion might be an option worth
consideration. However, family obligations and demanding health
conditions make insurance the prudent choice. There are others besides
myself involved in the calculations.

I understand the analysis, and I don't disagree with your conclusions,
however, the point remains that such planning is YOUR responsibility, as is
the responsibility of paying for it. It's not MY responsibility (in the
abstract sense) to help you fund your medical insurance needs, nor should
the government act as your proxy in extracting such funding.


Also, I'm happy that a small percentage of my local and state taxes go
to support our local hospital, and supply our local emergency medical
volunteers, and help to distribute vaccines and medicines to the
community.

And you are perfectly free to be happy. You're free to gladly pay those
taxes. You can even give the government MORE than you "owe" in taxes or
direct donations to your local hospital. There's nothing at all wrong with
that. But it's immoral of you to demand that ANYONE ELSE do the same,
particularly when the Mace of State is used to enforce compliance.

Bizarre that any one would object to the socialization of
health care since much of it works and is already based on a
socialized, community-based model.

It's coercive socialism, no matter how you look at it. Coercive socialism is
evil. Profoundly, ineluctably evil in its every manifestation, no matter how
glossily covered, prettily dressed up or facilely excused. It always and
inevitably ends in oppression, tyranny and terror.

--
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

BCITORGB, don't waste yer time arguing with Weiser on this. The rag he
is quoting is obviously some wing-nut publication, because they don't
even have a fact-checker to read the article for internal consistency.

I mean, consider this: the author asserts that Canadians pay (on
average) 48% of their income in taxes, "partly for health care". Then
she asserts that the Ontario gubmint spends 40% of tax revenues on
health care. Then she expostulates: "Wow! Forty-eight percent of
income for health care that you can't get when you need it. What a
bargain!"

I mean, gee-Zeus, that is just too ****ing inumerate for words! 40% of
48% is about 19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care, not 48%!
This idiot author is arguing from completely baseless figures. And the
publication may very well be deliberately ignoring the arithmetical
stupidity, deliberately skewing the facts of the story, in order to
make some kind of right-wing partisan point.

And Scott is moron enough to read and believe this ****.

Please, trust me: don't waste yer time arguing with a narrow-minded
Tory(who evidently cannot even perform the simple mathematical
calculation needed to expose his sources as bogus) and non-boater (who
is exercising his legal right to be a rude mother-****er by intruding
on a newsgroup dedicated to a sport he does not even participate in)
like Sadder-Butt Weiser. He's a pathetic little man with no life
beyond trolling newsgroups, and you merely diminish yerself by allowing
yerself to be sucked into his personal obsessions.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

PS, I was quite pleased with the Canadian hospital that stitched up my
chin after an unpleasant *contretemps* on the Rouge river in Quebec a
few years ago. The locals advised me to drive across the Ottawa river
into Refrew, ONT for medical treatment, since (they said) Ontario
hospitals pay their physicians more, and thus get the cream of the Med
school grads. Service was quick (the waiting room was empty, unlike
several American emergency rooms I have visited, which always seem to
be packed with people waiting eternally for treatment), treatment was
good, and though they were unable to bill my healthcare plan directly,
they provided me with all the documentation I needed to recover my
costs. -R

--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

Oci-One submites, re Weiser:
================
He's a pathetic little man with no life
beyond trolling newsgroups, and you merely diminish yerself by allowing
yerself to be sucked into his personal obsessions.
================

You're right.

I've given hm data to chew over. I'll let the data speak for itself.

frtzw906

On 21-Mar-2005, "Oci-One Kanubi" wrote:

Then she expostulates: "Wow! Forty-eight percent of
income for health care that you can't get when you need it. What a
bargain!"

Actually, when I read the post, it seems that this is weiser's text -
it is not quoted. So _he's_ the idiot that's math challenged - or
as I've proven already - truth challenged.

Mike