Scott opines:
==============
First you need to recognize that Canadians aren't paying for "full
coverage"
for themselves, they are paying for full coverage for everyone, whether
they
themselves ever need any medical care at all, whether they like it or
not,
and they have absolutely no choice in the matter.
===============

There you go! I think you've grasped the general nature of INSURANCE.
Well done, Scott!

frtzw906

Wilko, why do I not listen to you?!

I thought rick's instance on sticking to a dead issue was like baby
**** clinging to a blanket. Now we have a different thread, and he
brings the same old blanket, with the same old **** still stuck to it.

Wilf

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

Scott Weiser wrote:

Frederick Burroughs wrote:

BCITORGB wrote:

But what I find interesting about Frederick's story is that KMAN,
Michael, and BCITORGB don't know what it is like being denied insurance
coverage because of diabetes or cholesterol issues. We have no idea
about the trauma or stress one might feel as the insurance companies
jack up the premiums or outright deny coverage.

Frederick states that "health insurance is our single most expensive
monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles". I
don't have the figures at hand; perhaps the taxes I pay in Canada, and
the portion thereof that goes to healthcare, are equal to or greater
than Frederick's monthly premiums (somehow I doubt it). However, I do
know that I'll always have that coverage.

I could lose my health insurance at any time. If I were to change
jobs, any potential new employer would have to weigh the added burden
of putting a diabetic on their insurance policy. Thus, my job options
become much more limited. My present employer could decide to drop
insurance coverage (this happened to my wife). As I said before, most
insurance companies would deny me coverage. (Cherry-picking is the
vernacular for this common practice.) I would be **** out of luck, not
to mention the burden placed on a family where dad has serious medical
issues and can't get insurance. The threat of loss of insurance is a
constant and pervasive source of worry for me, despite the sizable
contributions I have paid into it over the years.

That was your first mistake. Instead of paying for insurance, which is
pretty much like throwing money down the sewer, you should have been taking
that money and investing it, or saving it under your mattress for that
matter, for a "rainy day" medical emergency, and paying for minor stuff out
of pocket. You'd be way ahead of the game if you had done so. Health
insurance is a mug's game. It's a massive fraud perpetrated on the people
and the only thing is does is make the insurance companies and their
investors rich.

Figure out some time how much you've paid in premiums over time versus how
much medical care you've actually *needed* (not the "convenience healthcare"
where you go in because you've got the flu just so the doctor can tell you
to go home and tough it out) and figure out exactly how much you *really*
paid for your essential health care. It's way too much, I guarantee it.

What's more, if you are an average working Joe, it's a complete waste of
money because if you get *really* ill, and require emergency life-saving
care in the US, you will get it. You can't be turned down by any
federally-funded hospital if it's a matter of life and death.

Of course, piles aren't a life or death matter, so you may have to stick
with Preparation H rather than getting surgery, but that's your problem, not
mine or the rest of society's.

And lest you think I'm being callous, I'm in *exactly* the same position you
are. I don't have, and can't get health insurance. But I don't whine about
it, I just figure out how to pay for it myself while not expecting others to
pay my bills for me. Personal responsibility is a very liberating thing.

Quit worrying and get to work figuring out how to cut expenses and start
putting money aside for emergencies. Try a catastrophic health care plan
that excludes anything related to diabetes and has a high deductible. Such
plans are available at very reasonable costs. Of course, it does mean you
don't get to run to the doctor every time you or your kids get the sniffles.
But that's a good thing. It forces you to work hard at staying healthy (like
teaching your kids to wash their hands and keep their fingers out of their
noses) and it encourages you to save money.

Or, suck it up and die if necessary. It happens to all of us eventually
anyway, and you'll be making room for somebody else with better genetics.


Most of our "savings" are going into my son's college fund. So, should
we short his education in order to stuff more into "my" rainy-day
health care mattress? If I require hospitalization and don't have
insurance, then I become indebted to the hospital and doctors for the
entire bill. There goes my son's education, again. And, what happens
if I lose a foot (or suffer some other debilitating complication from
diabetes; heart disease, kidney disease, stroke...), and am unable to
work because of a disability? I guess we can sell the house and other
personal property to help pay the bills. My wife can get a 2nd and 3rd
job, and my son can kiss college good-bye. Or, maybe my wife should
take the financially sound course and divorce me? Along with my choice
of being the recipient of bad genetics (or, was it the immunoglobulin
shot I got when I was 8 years old, to hyperactivate my immune system
against the measles going around the neighborhood at the time. [Should
I sue the doctor and/or the pharmaceutical company who manufactured
the immunoglobulin [[or, the donor(s) of the virus infected blood from
which the immunoglobulin was derived?]]]), there was my personal
decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country
that lacks a civilized health care system. I don't know, a
single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible,
manageable, efficient and affordable system.




--
"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.

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

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 BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser, puffing up his macho chest, blusters:
=================
If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is
just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves,
and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care
(not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the
government's.
================

But very CLEARLY, if you'd bothered to respond to ALL the data I
provided (not just the stuff convenient to you),

I believe I responded line by line to each cite...or was that somebody
else's post. I lose track of which Netwit I'm debating with, you're all so
much the same.

you'd also realize
that, in your attitude lies the answer to lower life expectancies and
higher infant mortality rates in the USA. Very obviously, people in the
USA do NOT take responsibility for their health or, more likely, many
can't afford to.

So what? That's their free choice, isn't it? The idea that the government
has some duty or obligation to provide universal medical care is an
extremely dangerous one because it's a direct path down the slippery slope
of government regulation of behavior and conduct it deems "too dangerous" or
"too likely to result in unnecessary medical costs."

When you let government go there, the result is the ultimate Nanny State in
which you are not allowed to do or own anything that might be deemed harmful
to you because it might end up costing the government money. That would
likely include dangerous sports like, oh, kayaking. You want proof? Try
"mandatory seat belt laws" on for size.

Time for the class to discuss the issue of government boating bans based on
"unnecessary risks to rescuers" rationales.

Anyone? Anyone?

I'd rather live in a free society where I'm free to injure or kill myself in
whatever way pleases me because my government doesn't think it's going to
cost the taxpayers money if I do.

Thank god there's not many like you up here!

Be careful what you wish for.

--
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:


Also interesting, he, like Scott, has not offerred an opinion of what
medical premiums for full medical coverage (no deductible) for a family
of 4 might be in the USA.

I have no idea. Nor do I care. I don't buy in to the fraud and I'm glad I
finally saw the light and got out.

--
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

Frederick summarizes:
===========
there was my personal
decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country
that lacks a civilized health care system. I don't know, a
single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible,
manageable, efficient and affordable system.
================

Frederick, I get the impression from Scott's posts that he has no
responsibilities for anyone other than himself. I suspect he can't even
begin to comprehend what it might be like putting children through
school and worrying about their health.

Many years ago, when I was in my early twenties, and well before I had
kids, I used to spout such nonsense too. I used to read Ayn Rand and
pontificate at length about personal responsibility, and "tough ****"
on those who can't fend for themselves, and "who asked you to have
kids" and everyone should pay their own way and blah, blah, blah.....

AND THEN I GREW UP!

And then I realised that we're all in this together and that we are all
interdependent. That we are only as strong as our weakest link (BTW, I
understand that's a basic tenet of military tactics -- how very
socialist!). I learned to make connections: perhaps if my neighbors
kids were well educated and healthy, I wouldn't have to worry about
them vandalizing the neighborhood. Perhaps if my neighbors could all go
to the doctor as required, I would have less to fear from contagious
diseases.

CONNECTIONS. I wish Scott could make the connections. Geez he must live
in a sad and lonely, heartless world!

Cheers,
Wilf

Scott thnks:
===========
I believe I responded line by line to each cite...or was that somebody
else's post.
============

Nope! What about the lines pertaining to life expectancies and infant
motality and measures of overall health system efficacy?

frtzw906