Scott Weiser:
==============
"The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from
province
to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent
of
every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation."
================

This is perhaps an interesting basis for discussion. While I'm not sure
how accurate these figures are, let's just accept them, for the time
being, and try to establish a discussion around healthcare costs.

By those figures, a Canadian earning $50,000 per year pays $800 per
month for full coverage (no deductible) medical care (for his/her
entire family -- let's assume a family of 4). Now we need to know how
much a family of 4, in the USA, would pay for full medical coverage.

What we know from Frederick is that it is, from his perspective, an
onerous amount (greater than his mortgage). Perhaps Scott can provide
us with this information and others can confirm the veracity.

frtzw906

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

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we
care what
KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too"
stance over
there...
========================
Because you ailed to stay on-topic of the off-topic post. You
are the one that mentioned the thead, and continued you 'side' of
it.
And, in case you failed to notice, I replied to kman after he
responded to me. Do try to keep up.


You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better
alternative
to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none?

Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING!

frtzw906

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what
KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over
there...
========================
Because you ailed to stay on-topic of the off-topic post. You are the one
that mentioned the thead, and continued you 'side' of it.
And, in case you failed to notice, I replied to kman after he responded to
me.

LOL. After I hit him first he hit me back and all I was doing was hitting
him back!

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

Wilf, have a look he

http://www.bright.net/~retter/

HTH...

Wilko

BCITORGB wrote:
rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what
KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over
there...

You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better alternative
to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none?

Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING!

frtzw906


--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

NB: Obviously there's enough for him to like about Canada to want to
keep on going there from Ohoho...

:-)

Wilko

Wilko wrote:

Wilf, have a look he

http://www.bright.net/~retter/

HTH...

Wilko

BCITORGB wrote:

rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what
KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over
there...

You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better alternative
to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none?

Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING!

frtzw906



--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"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!