"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ...
Government control, pure and simple.

I never said it wasn't.

-Paul

Scotty, sounding positively obtuse by now:
===================
But, each hospital is required to abide by the prioritization
guidelines set
by the government, are they not?
=================

FOR THE LAST F#CKING TIME: NO! NO! NO!

Sheeesch!

frtzw906

Scotty gets the picture... perhaps
================
Parse it any way you please, but if the
government IN ANY WAY sets policy for admitting or serving patients,
even in
a general guidelines document or by so much as saying something to the
effect of "doctors shall treat patients according to the priority of
the
illness", as to what the priority of treatment is, the whole system is
"government controlled."
==================

And the government IN NO WAY does any of what you suppose above.

Whether you do or do not get what you need medically, depends on the
resources available at that time. Sometimes, when you've been more
lucid, you've alluded to that, and, I think, everyone has agreed with
you on that point. If you can stick with that point, and stay away from
your boogey-man, the state-controlled, socialist, bureaucrat waving a
state-mandated priority list, you'll be well on your way to
understanding the system.

frtzw906

On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And you don't think the provincial governments are under the control of the
federal government? It is to laugh

You know nothing about Canadian politics. But that's no surprise.

And that occurs because the system is centrally controlled
and is not a free market.

Bull**** - a free market would _reduce_ service in some of those
rural areas, since it is sell profitable than urban. In Canada,
the governments are willing to maintain more service in rural
areas since it is necessary, not because it is profitable.

Exactly. The government controls and rations health care in Canada.
That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks for confirming it!

No dickhead - it's the right-wing freemarketeers that have ****ed
everything up. You don't get anything.

Yeah...when it was a free market system...

It was a "free market" back in the early sixties and before.
It worked very poorly.

On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care
and when.

Prove it.

And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government.
Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system. They
can't.

The roles of the provincial government are defined in the constitution.
Opting out is not an option. This has nothing to do with the federal
government having control. You're ignorance is showing, as usual.

Not according to the AP. I believe the AP, not you.

Only because you're stupid enough to believe everything you read
without checking the facts.

You claimed that you checked the facts, but since you refused to
provide any reasonable reference to what it is you checked, it
is clear that you lied about that. I'm not surprised.

Did the nephew require hospitalization and surgery? If not, your anecdote is
irrelevant

Yes - torn retina.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Unfortunately for Canadians, you don't have the same degree of separation of
powers that we do, so provinces are much more under the control of the
federal government up there.

What an ignoramus. Ours is a confederation of provinces. The separation
of powers is defined in the constitution. The provinces have _more_
political power than do states in the US. That's been pointed out to
you repeatedly, but you're too stupid to get it.

If you think otherwise - prove it. Post the relevant sections of the
Canadian and US constitutions that show otherwise.

For example, here in the US, we don't have any
"national police" equivalent to the RCMP.

FBI.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

each hospital is required to abide by the prioritization guidelines set
by the government, are they not?

What guidelines? Please post a reference to these guidelines.
Prove they exist.

As long as you keep living in your own fantasy world, we'll
keep gonig around this argument. When you choose to look
at the facts, things get much simpler. Perhaps you should
take advantage of your supposedly superior health care
system and get your doctor to adjust your antipsychotic
prescription.

Mike

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nah. You just evade the issues with pettifoggery

And you have evaded every demand that you actually prove
your claims. You lie and make things up and then try
to accuse others of the same thing. You're the one
living in a dream world.

Mike

Scott:
=============
And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government.
Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system.
They
can't.
===============

Allow me to help you tear another page out of your encyclopaedia of
ignorance:

[source: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com..._%28Canada%29]

"The term medicare (in lowercase) (French: assurance-maladie) is the
unofficial name for Canada's universal public health insurance system.
Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the provinces provide all
residents with health insurance cards, which entitle the bearer to
receive free medical care for almost all procedures. Patients are free
to choose their own doctor, hospital, etc. Health institutions are
either private and not-for-profit (such as university hospitals) or
state-run (such as Quebec's CLSC system). Doctors in private practice
are entrepreneurs who bill the medicare system for their fees."

Does that help?

frtzw906

Scott allow me to continue your education:

http://www.civitas.org.uk

The Canadian Health Act of 1984... denies federal support to provinces
that allow extra-billing within their insurance schemes and effectively
forbids private or opted-out practitioners from billing beyond
provincially man-dated fee schedules.

The 1984 Act also defines and solidifies the principles of medicare,
including:

*comprehensiveness (provinces must provide medically necessary hospital
and physician services),
*universality (100 per cent of provincial residents are entitled to the
plan),
*accessibility (there should be reasonable access to services, not
impeded by user charges or extra billing),
*portability (protection for Canadians travelling outside of their home
province), and *public administration (provinces must administer and
operate health plan on a non-profit basis) (Klatt, 2002)...

Healthcare providers are predominantly private [SCOTT, PLEASE NOTE!],
but are funded by public monies via provincial budgets. Hospital
systems are largely private non-profit organizations with their own
governance structures (usually supervised by a community board or
trustees)... that receive an annual global operating budget from the
provinces...

Physicians are mostly in private practice and remunerated on a
fee-for-service basis [SCOTT: NOTE] (with an imposed cap to prevent
excessive utilization and costs) by the provincial health
plan...However, physicians that choose to opt out of the system cannot
procure any public monies, and are forbidden from billing above
negotiated "Schedule of Benefits" pricing which the "opted in"
physicians are subject to. In other words, private physicians cannot
bill above the fee schedules for medicare physicians. Therefore, opting
out is risky for physicians and uptake is low.

Scott, there you have it. Please stop making things up, OK.

frtzw906