Scott fails to get the point:
==================
Nope. She can seek out medical care wherever and whenever she likes.
All she
has to do is find a provider willing to provide the care for what she
can
(or cannot) pay in return. That she can't walk into her corner hospital
and
*demand* service is not important. What's important is that she can
choose
freely from among tens of thousands of hospitals and hundreds of
thousands
to millions of doctors and specialty clinics and obtain immediate
treatment
from any who are willing to serve her. In Canada, she isn't allowed to
even
seek out a hospital or surgeon willing to treat her, perhaps pro bono,
because her position in the queue is dictated by the government.
===============

Like I said, her "freedom" is illusionary.

And, wrong again, her position in the queue is NOT dictated by the
government but, rather, by her condition. And that, Scott, is
determined by the physicians.

BTW, you have yet to dentify for me who this government bureaucrat is;
who do you think determines her priority?

frtzw906

Scott asserts:
==============
If there is such a guy,
please give me his title. Where does he reside in the bureaucracy? Is
he federal? Provincial? Local?

Well, there's the hospital Admissions Director, to begin with.
================

Is this a title or position in CO hospitals?

frtzw906

Scott:
=============
Also an abysmal failure, which is why Bush wants to let ME keep MY
money and
put it away MYSELF for MY retirement.
============

As someone - perhaps in this forum - so astutely observed; "the average
American can't even find Europe on a map, and now Bush expects them to
be able to manage a stock portfolio..."

Interesting.... BTW, you must be under 55 then, eh Scott. As I
understand it (perhaps incorrectly), the Bush proposal affects only
those currebtly under 55.

frtzw906

Scott:
==============
Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in
both
use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while
the
mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every
five
years. There is no direct link between the income the property
generates
from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the
renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes
===============

Semantics.

frtzw906

in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 3/28/05 7:09 PM:

Scott:
==============
Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in
both
use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while
the
mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every
five
years. There is no direct link between the income the property
generates
from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the
renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes
===============

Semantics.

frtzw906

It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are property
owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the rents
they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of
revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't
paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are not
paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or responsibility
of the renters.

KMAN:
===============
It would seem so. Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords are
property
owners that must cover the cost of their property taxes through the
rents
they charge to tenants. Tenants pay rent which includes the portion of
revenues the landlord must pay in property taxes. If the renters aren't
paying their "fair share" that can only be the case if landlords are
not
paying sufficient taxes, which is clearly not the problem or
responsibility
of the renters.
=================

Brilliant, Holmes! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Watson

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
wrote:

I mean, consider this: the author asserts that Canadians pay (on
average) 48% of their income in taxes, "partly for health care".

Does anyone know what sources are being used to provide these
statistics?


Canada, being a modern country with a national, single-payer health
care system, is able to generate impressive and comprehensive health
care statistics; See:
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/splash.html

There's nothing on that website that supports the claim that
Canadians pay 48% of their income in taxes. Primarily because
it's not true.

sgallag... says:
===============
There's nothing on that website that supports the claim that
Canadians pay 48% of their income in taxes. Primarily because
it's not true.
==============

Well.... I suppose, if we add up ALL the taxes we pay (PST, GST,
property tax, water tax, garbage collection tax, sewer tax, drivers
licence fee, hidden "taxes" like fishing licences, etc, etc...) it
might come close to 48%, don't you think?

I'm not sure, so I'll leave it to the accountants to figure out.

frtzw906

On 28-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

In Canada, however, compensation for nurses and doctors outside of private
practices, particularly surgeons, is government controlled,

Exactly what percentage of doctors in Canada are not in private practice?

Mike

On 28-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, there's the hospital Admissions Director, to begin with...

And your proof that this person actually sets individual patient
priorities is...?

Mike