A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


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?

Doesn't matter. What's government controlled is the compensation provided by
the national health service for in-hospital care and surgery, irrespective
of whether the doctor is a government employee or a private contractor.

--
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 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...?

Oh, he/she is merely a cog in the rationed health care machine that's the
whole basis of socialized medicine.

--
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 submits:
==============
In this case, HE chose his surgeon and HE chose
the hospital and he got his wishes.

Only because at that moment, the capacity was available and his heart
condition jumped him up the queue.
=====================

Which is what I've been saying all along: it is medical condition which
determines priority. But please note also: there is no "national"
priority list. In some (most) cases, each doctor will have his/her own
waiting list. If you're holding out for the surgeon with the best
reputation, you can take your chances on his waiting list. You are NOT
obliged to take the first surgeon who comes available. In fact, you are
free to shop around for a surgeon whoes list is shorter (or
nonexistent).

So, once more, Scotty, there is no monolithic, socialist, bureaucracy
which determines when and where your surgery is done. That the best
surgeons have waiting lists ought not to come as a surprise. I'm
willing to bet that you'll also wait to get to be seen by the top
surgeon in Boulder. Surely that's not some socialist conspiracy. That's
the market. No different that in BC.

What's curious, Scott, is that you suggest anecdotal evidence of
success is irrelevant because you, Mr. Weiser in CO, have concluded
that the system doesn't work. Come on up and give us a try.

frtzw906

Scott:
============
Like I said, her "freedom" is illusionary.

As I said earlier, you confuse equality of outcome with equality of
opportunity.
==================

In this case, again a matter of semantics. What good is equality of
opportunity if I can't really exercise it? It just makes cynics of
those you promise it to.

frtzw906

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

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.

It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed
and
collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be
paying
more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the
renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an
obligation to support the schools as the property owner.

Not at all.

Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of
story.

That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for
children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs
are
paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and
thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's
nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich
consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming.

So are you only taxing luxury goods?

Take that money and dole it out to the STUDENT (not the school district),
to
be used to pay for private schooling, and you have a much better, more
effective, efficient and financially sound school system.
--
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 submits:
==============
In this case, HE chose his surgeon and HE chose
the hospital and he got his wishes.

Only because at that moment, the capacity was available and his heart
condition jumped him up the queue.
=====================

Which is what I've been saying all along: it is medical condition which
determines priority.

Indeed. If your medical condition is not high on the priority list, you
can't get a room or have surgery.

But please note also: there is no "national"
priority list.

But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority
is there not? If doctors are free to admit whomever they please whenever
they please and do surgery on them, how is the system "socialized?" If
things are as you imply, it's a free market economy. Obviously, it's not,
because many people are complaining about their inability to get served
because the government won't allow them to see a doctor or go to a hospital.

Can you explain this evident dichotomy between reality and your perceptions?

In some (most) cases, each doctor will have his/her own
waiting list. If you're holding out for the surgeon with the best
reputation, you can take your chances on his waiting list. You are NOT
obliged to take the first surgeon who comes available. In fact, you are
free to shop around for a surgeon whoes list is shorter (or
nonexistent).

Evidently not. Why does a teenager who need knee surgery have to wait three
years if she can "shop around" for a surgeon?

So, once more, Scotty, there is no monolithic, socialist, bureaucracy
which determines when and where your surgery is done.

It sure sounds that way, given the long delays for surgery people have to
endure.

That the best
surgeons have waiting lists ought not to come as a surprise.

I'm willing to bet that the teenager with the bad knee would take just about
any surgeon. Care to explain why she can't get surgery?

I'm
willing to bet that you'll also wait to get to be seen by the top
surgeon in Boulder. Surely that's not some socialist conspiracy. That's
the market. No different that in BC.

It's either a free market system or it's socialized. It can't be both. Which
is it?


What's curious, Scott, is that you suggest anecdotal evidence of
success is irrelevant because you, Mr. Weiser in CO, have concluded
that the system doesn't work. Come on up and give us a try.

Actually, I'm merely echoing the huge number of complaints and criticisms
I've seen in the press and on the Web put forward by experts.

If your system works so well, why can't the teenager get knee surgery and
why are so many people complaining?
--
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:
============
Like I said, her "freedom" is illusionary.

As I said earlier, you confuse equality of outcome with equality of
opportunity.
==================

In this case, again a matter of semantics. What good is equality of
opportunity if I can't really exercise it?

It's called "freedom" and "personal responsibility." You can exercise it any
time you want to. All you need is the gumption to go out and seize it. If
society just gives gifts to anyone who wants them, there is no incentive to
excel and no motivation to succeed.

Freedom is not an easy or comfortable thing. It requires hard work, personal
sacrifice and occasionally your blood to achieve and maintain, but it's all
the more valuable for that investment.

Chain a dog up long enough and you break its spirit, so that when you
unchain it, it is unable to comprehend freedom and cannot seize it. It will
continue to pace around and around in the same circle it did when it was
chained.

Entitlements and welfare have much the same effect on humans, and it's worse
because it's often a generational debility. It's better to suffer in freedom
that to be mired in comfortable slavery. Entitlements inevitably lead to
obesity of the spirit that chains people to their poverty.

It just makes cynics of
those you promise it to.

Then they don't understand the nature of freedom. That's not my problem.

--
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" wrote in message
oups.com...
sgallag surmises:
==============
I still don't think it's that high. Of course, if you did do that,
then you'd
have to do a calculation of ALL taxes on both sides of the border to
do a comparison. Canada's income taxes are higher in comparison
to US income taxes. But in Canada, CPP and EI (payroll taxes) are
lower than the US's FICA and Medicare contributions, which evens it
out some. You'd also have to include whatever amounts are being paid
in health insurance premiums by people in the US. When all is added
together the difference in taxes between Canada and the higher taxed
US states is not as wide as what many people believe.
============

I think you may be right. One way or another, the piper wants to be
paid.

frtzw906

Wants to be paid? ---Demands to be paid! Not paying taxes will usually get
you locked up faster than many items. Just ask organised crime. More of them
go down to taxes than anything. At least the ones at the top. They did not
get to the top being stupid. They can carefully cover most law breaking but
showing wealth as legitimate and properly taxed is where they tend to get
tripped up.

Ken

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

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.

It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed
and
collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be
paying
more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the
renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an
obligation to support the schools as the property owner.

Not at all.

Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End of
story.

Not quite. It's interesting to see your inconsistency however. You want
everyone to pay for health care in proportion to their income, while you
want landowners to pay more, proportionally, than renters for education. Why
is that?


That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for
children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs
are
paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods and
thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers. There's
nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich
consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming.

So are you only taxing luxury goods?

"Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in
that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for recreation,
pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as
food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike
necessities.

--
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 KMAN wrote:


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

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.

It is indeed inherent in the manner in which property taxes are assessed
and
collected, and you're quite right that to be fair, renters should be
paying
more for schools. To say it's not the problem or responsibility of the
renters is sophistry, however, because they have just as much of an
obligation to support the schools as the property owner.

Not at all.

Taxes are paid on the property. The owner of the property pays them. End
of
story.

Not quite. It's interesting to see your inconsistency however. You want
everyone to pay for health care in proportion to their income, while you
want landowners to pay more, proportionally, than renters for education.
Why
is that?

Uh. The landlord will charge the rent he needs to generate the profit margin
he wants, and one of his expenses will be taxes. As long as the property tax
paid by the landlord is appropriate, then so is the share the tenants are
paying through their rent.



That's why a national sales tax on consumer goods to fund education for
children is a much more fair way of doing things. By doing so the costs
are
paid based on the ability to pay. Rich consumers buy more luxury goods
and
thus pay a larger portion of the school costs than poor consumers.
There's
nothing wrong with this because consumption is voluntary, and any rich
consumer who doesn't want to fund schools need only stop consuming.

So are you only taxing luxury goods?

"Consumer goods" is the usual term used. It applies to "luxury" goods in
that "luxury" goods are generally defined as items that are for
recreation,
pleasure or quality-of-life enhancement. It excludes necessities such as
food, most clothing, heating and electrical costs and other suchlike
necessities.

I have a feeling it won't be a very popular idea, and I think Wal-Mart is
going to fight you pretty hard to make sure as many goods as possible aren't
in your luxury class.