in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM:

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.

Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are
deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care!

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.

LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people
might care about each other.

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.

?

First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say
Canadians are paying to much for it?

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.

Ah, yes, clearly Canada is just a slip away from Stalinist Russia! You are
such a joke, LOL!

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.

Still dancing!

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=2E5%
vs 13%

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

Voluntarily? Like they have a lot of choice.

Total current health expenditure per capita, 2000: 2400=80 vs
4100=80

Cheapskate Canadian health care system.

Or a more efficient one.

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

Americans get better care on demand.


Quality of the care delivered is comparable.

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

The quality of the care delivered is comparable in both countries. And
the waiting times for primary care in both countries are also similar.
The differences are primarily in specialty care, which has longer
waiting times in Canada, on average.

more
available service with virtually the same percentage of health care
workers.
Canadian health care is stuffed with straphangers and sinecured
government
employees.

Canadian health care workers don't work for the government. The
government
is merely the insurance provider.

The US health care system also leaves 40 million people without health
insurance.

Stephen Gallagher

Scott Weiser wrote:
Interesting story today in the Boulder Daily Camera about the
Canadian
health care crisis. Page 4B.

It's by Beth Duff-Brown of the Associated Press.

"A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient
in need
of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three
months. It
added: 'If the person named on this computer-generated letter is
deceased,
please accept our sincere apologies.'"

The article says the patient wasn't dead, but this letter provides
cold
comfort to those who obviously do die before they get medical care in
Canada, evidently in sufficient numbers to persuade health care
workers to
apologize in advance.

"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."

Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't get
when
you need it. What a bargain!

"George Zeliotis told the court he suffered pain and became addicted
to
painkillers during a yearlong wait for hip replacement surgery, and
hsould
have been allowed to pay for faster service. His physician, Dr.
Jacques
Chaoulli, said his patient's constitutional rights were violated
because
Quebec couldn't provide the care he needed, but didn't offer him the
option
of getting it privately."

And then there's this:

"But tell that to the hospital administrators constantly having to
cut staff
for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she
would
have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee
ligament."

So much for the "I can get private health care whenever I want in
Canada"
argument...

"[A]ccording to experts on both sides of the debate, Canada and North
Korea
are the only countries with laws banning the purchase of insurance
for
hospitalization or surgery."

...and you can't buy supplemental insurance to protect yourself even
if you
want to. Talk about your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain"
bedfellows...Canada and North Korea don't care a fig if you, the
individual,
suffers, they only care that everyone suffers together in comradely
communistic solidarity, while paying 48% of income for the privilege.
Bleah.

It also seems that the average wait time between referral and
treatment has
risen from 9.3 days to 17.9 days since 1993.

What's more, the percentage of Canadians who had same-day access to a
doctor
when sick or needing medical attention is the lowest (27%) of all
when
compared to New Zealand (60%), Australia (54%), Britain (41%), and
the
USA (33%).

And, Canada has the lowest ratio of practicing physicians per 1000
persons
(2.1) of all when compared to Italy (4.4), Belgium (3.9), France
(3.3),
Australia (2.5), and the USA (2.4).

(Sources cited in the article: Fraser Institute; Organization for
Economic
Cooperation and Development; The Commonwealth Fund: Bank of Canada.)

--
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

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott, I can hear the reply already, consider the source; Fraser
Institue, right wing US backed mouth piece of the Anti-Canandian
socialized medical system SIG. We'll see if anyone will attempt to
refute the actual stats or anecdotal accounts.

But then when you bought the farm, it is hard to admit that the
chickens are not laying any eggs, the cow not giving the milk, and the
corn crop not yielding the corn. TnT

On 20-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't get when
you need it. What a bargain!

Bull**** from weiser once again. He obviously can't read or think.

...and you can't buy supplemental insurance to protect yourself even if you
want to. Talk about your socialistic, egalitarian "share the pain"
bedfellows...Canada and North Korea don't care a fig if you, the individual,
suffers, they only care that everyone suffers together in comradely
communistic solidarity, while paying 48% of income for the privilege. Bleah.

More bull****. You can buy supplemental health insurance. It's sold by
many insurance companies. Maritime Life is one of the bigger players in
supplemental health insurance.

Go back under your rock, weiser, we don't need any more of your
lies and BS on this newsgroup.

Mike

Michael says:
============
Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't get
when
you need it. What a bargain!

Bull**** from weiser once again. He obviously can't read or think.
==============

Further, Weiser has difficulty with math... even using his figures, I
reckon that's 40% of 48%.... but, hey, that wouldn't sound as dramatic.
What a twit!

But I just don't get the point of his post. He's living in paradise and
happy about it. And we're living with a system that we clearly like so
much that we voted (well, I didn't, but apparently many Canadians did)
Tommy Douglas the most important Canadian personage (living or dead),
on a TV poll. [Info for Scott: Tommy Douglas = father of Canadian
universal medicine]

Why does Scott worry about how much tax we pay? As far as I can tell,
Americans pay between 35% to 40% in taxes, depending on the state.
First, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it cost
much more money to govern 30+ million spread out over a huge country as
opposed to 300+ million spread over a merely big country. So likely our
tax bills ought to be somewhat higher. And look, on top of everything,
our guys throw in healthcare. What do the Yanks get thrown in?

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Michael says:
============
Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't
get
when
you need it. What a bargain!

Bull**** from weiser once again. He obviously can't read or think.
==============

Further, Weiser has difficulty with math... even using his figures, I
reckon that's 40% of 48%.... but, hey, that wouldn't sound as
dramatic.
What a twit!

But I just don't get the point of his post. He's living in paradise
and
happy about it. And we're living with a system that we clearly like
so
much that we voted (well, I didn't, but apparently many Canadians
did)
Tommy Douglas the most important Canadian personage (living or dead),
on a TV poll. [Info for Scott: Tommy Douglas = father of Canadian
universal medicine]

Why does Scott worry about how much tax we pay? As far as I can tell,
Americans pay between 35% to 40% in taxes, depending on the state.
First, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it cost
much more money to govern 30+ million spread out over a huge country
as
opposed to 300+ million spread over a merely big country. So likely
our
tax bills ought to be somewhat higher. And look, on top of
everything,
our guys throw in healthcare. What do the Yanks get thrown in?

frtzw906


Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch. I
am glad that you are so much better with number than I am! I still
maintain you are not an ENTP. Maybe an ESFJ, they like numbers and
everything in order, not very good inventors though, or working with
power tools. How's that rack coming along! But I don't want to
interfere here with this dance, so I will step aside! TnT

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system. And you know what, if the critique were coming from
someone in Australia, or Germany, or France or whereever we could lean
something about how to do things better, I wouldn't mind so much. But
what can we learn from the American system?

First, let's be clear: we tried the American system and rejected it.
it's not like Canada doesn't have experience with privatized medicine.
that's what we had before we went universal.

As to what we can learn; that's simple. America is good at providing
excellent care, quickly, if (and this is a huge IF), you can pay for
it.

I don't need to know much more about the American system than what
Frederick has outlined. That's enough to convince me that it needs
fixing in a bad way. There's no way a decent, hard-working, family
should have to live with such stress. What a stupid way to treat the
people who make your system work and make your country great. It's
dehumanizing. It's STUPID!

What about your personal case, Tink? How much of your monthly income
goes to medical premiums? Are you concerned about losing your coverage?

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and
someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to
watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous
of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to
discredit an
entire system.
==================
And just where was that done? Reporting on the fact that people
die while waiting must be news for you and kman. Think of it as
a public service. Knowledge is a good thing, putting your head
in the sand and pretending otherwise is dangerous in this case.




And you know what, if the critique were coming from
someone in Australia, or Germany, or France or whereever we
could lean
something about how to do things better, I wouldn't mind so
much. But
what can we learn from the American system?

First, let's be clear: we tried the American system and
rejected it.
it's not like Canada doesn't have experience with privatized
medicine.
that's what we had before we went universal.

As to what we can learn; that's simple. America is good at
providing
excellent care, quickly, if (and this is a huge IF), you can
pay for
it.

I don't need to know much more about the American system than
what
Frederick has outlined. That's enough to convince me that it
needs
fixing in a bad way. There's no way a decent, hard-working,
family
should have to live with such stress. What a stupid way to
treat the
people who make your system work and make your country great.
It's
dehumanizing. It's STUPID!

What about your personal case, Tink? How much of your monthly
income
goes to medical premiums? Are you concerned about losing your
coverage?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

And you know what, if the critique were coming from
someone in Australia, or Germany, or France or whereever we could lean
something about how to do things better, I wouldn't mind so much. But
what can we learn from the American system?

First, let's be clear: we tried the American system and rejected it.

Yeah, freedom and liberty are SO unnecessary...

it's not like Canada doesn't have experience with privatized medicine.
that's what we had before we went universal.

And that's what you'll have shortly, after your socialized system fails
completely. As it is, many Canadians are coming to the US to get immediate
medical care they can't get in Canada. I'll take expensive medical care I
can get on demand to cheap medical care I can't get when I need it. I'll
figure out how to pay for it later.


As to what we can learn; that's simple. America is good at providing
excellent care, quickly, if (and this is a huge IF), you can pay for
it.

Which makes it a good idea to stay healthy or save a lot of money against
future medical problems. Why should anyone else have to bail you out if you
don't use good judgment?


I don't need to know much more about the American system than what
Frederick has outlined. That's enough to convince me that it needs
fixing in a bad way. There's no way a decent, hard-working, family
should have to live with such stress.

Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for me?
Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat McDonalds till
they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with plaque? Isn't that
THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for their own health, and for
paying for fixing what's wrong with them? What justifies imposing that
financial burden on other people?

What a stupid way to treat the
people who make your system work and make your country great. It's
dehumanizing. It's STUPID!

It's life. Sometimes you die. So what? Big deal. There'll be another one
just like you along in a few years. Death comes to us all, eventually. Get
used to it.

--
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:

Michael says:
============
Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't get
when
you need it. What a bargain!

Bull**** from weiser once again. He obviously can't read or think.
==============

Further, Weiser has difficulty with math... even using his figures, I
reckon that's 40% of 48%.... but, hey, that wouldn't sound as dramatic.

You're nitpicking. Forty percent is still a lot to pay for somebody else's
health care.

What a twit!

Wassamatta, I **** you off again?


But I just don't get the point of his post. He's living in paradise and
happy about it. And we're living with a system that we clearly like so
much that we voted (well, I didn't, but apparently many Canadians did)
Tommy Douglas the most important Canadian personage (living or dead),
on a TV poll. [Info for Scott: Tommy Douglas = father of Canadian
universal medicine]

Why does Scott worry about how much tax we pay?

I don't. If you want to pay 48% of your income, with 40% going to socialized
health care so that you're paying for everybody else's bad health even if
you don't need it, that's fine with me. My argument is merely that it's a
stupid system that I don¹t want to see exported to the US because people
refuse to look at the warts and failures of socialized medicine. You're
entitled to ride your own petard just as high as it pleases you to fly.

Debunking the deliberate avoidance of the failures of socialized medicine
helps to keep such idiotic ideas from taking root down here.

As far as I can tell,
Americans pay between 35% to 40% in taxes, depending on the state.
First, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it cost
much more money to govern 30+ million spread out over a huge country as
opposed to 300+ million spread over a merely big country.

Well, that's a particularly silly statement, given the fact that the vast
majority of your "huge country" is uninhabited and uninhabitable.

So likely our
tax bills ought to be somewhat higher. And look, on top of everything,
our guys throw in healthcare. What do the Yanks get thrown in?

Freedom.

--
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