A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

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.

Darn that Associated Press, they are SUCH a fly-by-night organization...


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!"

Actually, that was me expostulating. Watch for the quote marks...

As for the statement, it's true, if somewhat ambiguous. Canadians pay 48
percent in income taxes, and for that 48 percent they get (in part) health
care they can't get when they need it. They do likely get other things like
roads and condoms too, but the point remains: They pay for universal health
care that they can't get timely access to because, well, it's socialized,
and as anyone with half a brain knows, socialism doesn't work, ever. It may
appear to work for awhile, but eventually the whole system fails because of
the "free rider" syndrome. If you can get it for free from the government,
why bother to work to earn it?

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 ****.

And you're too stupid to parse a post properly, much less comprehend the
finer points involved.

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)

Ah, but *participation* is not the metric for posting to RBP, "interest" in
paddling is. And I'm intensely interested in paddling (which, BTW, I have
"participated"in in the past), considering how often I have to personally
deal with rude mother-****ers like you who illegally intrude on my privacy
by trespassing on my private property.

--
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

On 21-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

considering how often I have to personally
deal with rude mother-****ers like you who illegally intrude on my privacy
by trespassing on my private property.

Hey dickhead - if you have a problem with trespassers, deal with them and
leave the rest of us out of it.

Mike

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? For instances what taxes are in this 48%. Is it just
income tax, or does it include all taxes that the average person pays
like sales tax, excise tax on gasoline, sin taxes, etc? Does it also
include Canada Pension Plan (the Canadian equivalent of FICA in the
US)?

I live in Ontario, with a pretty good income, and if you're talking
about tax on income including what I pay for CPP and EI (employment
insurance), it's nowhere near 48%. It's actually closer to 29%. It
almost sounds like they're quoting marginal tax rates, not average tax
rates, especially not for Ontario which is one of the lower taxed
provinces.

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 inumerate for words! 40% of
48% is about 19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care, not 48%!

That's not 100% accurate either, because the provincial governments, in
this case Ontario, don't receive all of the tax revenue paid by a
person. They only receive the provincial income tax, and sales tax,
plus some transfers from the federal government. In other words, even
if the 48% paid were true, you can't say that 40% of 48% is spent by
Ontario for health care because Ontario wouldn't receive all of that
alleged 48% of a residents income. Most income tax goes to the federal
government.

The US health care system has problems. The Canadian system has
problems. They're just different problems, and the opponents and
proponents of each of those systems will emphasize the negative points
of the other system, in their arguments.

As far as waiting times go, there's no visible difference in the time
required to wait for general care. In Canada, if you're sick and you
need to see your doctor, you call the office and you'll see your
doctor. Similarly in the US. The biggest difference that I've seen is
that in Canada there's a longer wait to see a specialist or for
services that are not provided by a general practitioner. So, if your
doctor says that you need to see a neurologist, and you call for an
appointment, you might have to wait seven weeks for an opening. But,
if your situation is so severe that you need to see a neurologist that
day then they'd send you to an emergency room where you'd see a
neurologist. If a person slips and hits his head, but doesn't develop
any symptoms the doctor may order a MRI, and he'll probably have to
wait a few weeks for it. If he doesn't regain consciousness, he'll get
an MRI that day. Does that mean that someone won't fall through the
net. It does happen sometimes, but it's not the norm.

Nobody is saying that the system in Canada is perfect, far from it.
But opponents of it seem to give the impression that Canadians wait
weeks for everything, and that's not true, either.

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.

Of course Renfrew is a pretty low populated area. I went into an
emergency room in Melbourne, Florida last summer and had equally quick
service when I needed stitches. The bill when all was done was
US$2,000. You mention that you've been to crowded US emergency rooms
and I agree that some places are crowded (my dad spent 12 hours in one
in New York). But, you can also spend that amount of time in an
emergency room in Toronto.

As I said, both systems have problems, just different problems. Do you
prefer a net that will always be underneith everybody, but with bigger
holes in the net, or a net with really small holes but which is only
under a percentage of the population?

Stephen Gallagher

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






--
"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.

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.

A Usenet persona calling itself 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?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits. Nor do you have to
pay for mine. That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.


But more to the point, it would be useful if you just put out the
comparative data, without an editorial, so that people could reac
decisions based on data alone.

Doing so might violate copyrights. It's the commentary that makes the
excerpts fall under the Fair Use exception. Besides, I like to comment, and
nothing prevents you from reaching a decision independent of my commentary
based on the data provided.


Here's my source: Social and Cultural Planning Office, The Hague,
September 2004

NOTE: The SCP used primarily OECD and World Bank data.

Let's check out the data, and then reach a conclusion based on data,
shall we? In each category, Canada is mentioned first, then the USA (as
in, Canada vs USA).

Total current expenditure on health ca percentage of GDP, 2000: 8.5%
vs 13%

Americans spend more on better, more available health care, and they do it
voluntarily.

Total current health expenditure per capita, 2000: 2400€ vs 4100€

Cheapskate Canadian health care system.

Out-patient expenditure as percentage of gdp: 2.7% vs 5.9%

Americans get better care on demand.

In-patient expenditure as percentage of GDP: 2.8% vs 3.9%

Canadians get shorted when they go into the hospital because funds are
short.

Inpatient ca beds per 1000 inhabitants, 2000: 3.9 vs 9.8

Three times as many beds available in the US.

Total health employment per 1000 inhabitants, 2001 (FTE): 37 vs 38

U.S. Healthcare is much more efficient, as it provides much better, more
available service with virtually the same percentage of health care workers.
Canadian health care is stuffed with straphangers and sinecured government
employees.

Physicians: number per 1000 inhabitants, 2001: 2.1 vs 2.8

More, and more efficient physicians available in the US to anyone who cares
to seek them out. Canadians get stuck in the waiting line for years.

Nurses: number per 1000 inhabitants, 2001: 9.8 vs 8.1

More nurses required in Canada because there are fewer doctors and more
inefficient health care.

Inpatient ca admissions per 1000 inhabitants, 2000: 100 vs 125

Fewer Canadians are able to get inpatient care, and often have to wait years
to get it at all.

Acute ca number of patient days per capita, 2000: 0.85 vs 0.68

U.S. Hospitals treat acute illnesses aggressively and cure their patients
more quickly. Canadians don't get acute care as easily, thus they get sicker
and take longer to treat.

Non-acute inpatient ca number of patient days per capita, 2000: 0.15
vs 2.25

Canada kicks out anybody who isn't deathly ill to make room for other,
sicker people.

Outpatient consultations of physicians: number per capita, 2001: 6.1 vs
6.0

If Canadians live long enough...no data on the delays is provided.

General practitioners per 1000 inhabitants: 1.0 vs 0.8

We have lots of specialists down here, which results in better, more focused
care.

Acute ca occupancy rate: 87% vs 68%

You have to get really damned sick in Canada before they'll admit you, and
by then, you end up staying a lot longer.

Number of consultations per practising physician, 2000: 3050 vs 2020

Doctors in Canada are overworked and underpaid.

Life expectancy at birth, 2001: 80 vs 78
Healthy life expectancy: 70 vs 67.5
Infant mortality in deaths per 1000 live births, 2001: 5 vs 6.5

Sometimes you die. Sometimes Canadians die waiting for treatment.

Health status index, 2001: 5.6 vs 4.7 (higher is better)
Cost-effectiveness of health care, 2001: Compare health status index
with expenditure per person (Canada wins)
Rankings of countries by type of health index -
*Health status index 2001: 8th vs 19th
*SCP composite index 2001: 13th vs 18th
*WHO composite - index 1997: 4th vs 12th


On some fairly critical factors such as life expectancy, healthy life
expectancy, infant mortality, and a variety of health indices, Canada
out-performs the USA. At substatially less expenditure.

Until you get sick. In Canada, you're stuck waiting for treatment and the
government won't even allow you to find and pay for your own treatment.
Canadians who are really sick and need care come to the US where they can be
treated immediately.


So, Scott, instead of dealing in editorials from newpapers, why not
deal in real data. What do you make of this data?

None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance and forces them into the public
system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism.

I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever
health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the
government.

--
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 in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself 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?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.

BWAHAHAHAHA

That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting
your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate
based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips.

That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they
can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging my
liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the
government health plan!!!

That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.

That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity has
been all but eliminated there.

None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance

That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well
here. I wonder how they stay in business?

and forces them into the public
system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism.

Yup, very uncaring, trying to ensure that everyone has access to good
quality health care.

I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever
health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the
government.

We are all (at least those of us up north) thrilled to hear that!

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.
That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.
That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.
None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance
and forces them into the public
system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism.
I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever
health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the
government.

What a MAROON!

Mark

A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.
That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.
That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.
None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance
and forces them into the public
system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism.
I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever
health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the
government.

What a MAROON!

Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the Spanish.
--
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 KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself 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?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.

BWAHAHAHAHA

That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting
your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate
based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips.

Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking."


That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they
can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging my
liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the
government health plan!!!

Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which
is bad for your liver.



That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.

That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity has
been all but eliminated there.

I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only
that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every
person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose.
What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to
heal them when they screw up.


None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance

That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well
here. I wonder how they stay in business?

By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised
to put in the bank.


and forces them into the public
system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism.

Yup, very uncaring, trying to ensure that everyone has access to good
quality health care.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just ask Stalin's victims.


I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever
health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the
government.

We are all (at least those of us up north) thrilled to hear that!

I thought you might be.
--
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