Scott objects:
=============
No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a
bunch
of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and
go to
Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has
its
own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it.
===============

OK, Scott, you need to decide, is it a "national" waiting list, or a
"city" list (obviously, in your mind, the provinces play no role in
this: or do they? What say you?)?

And, in Toronto, this "government-mandated" priority list: which
government are we talking about?

From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto
to another to improve my position?

Further, within one hospital, once I'm there, can I walk from one
surgeon's office to another to try to improve my position or exercise
some choice over who actually does my surgery?

We need answers Scott. These are very real, practical, dilemmas.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott objects:
=============
No, he just tells you you can't have heart surgery in Vancouver till a
bunch
of other people get surgery first. Nor can YOU simply board a bus and
go to
Toronto and walk in to a hospital and be admitted, because Toronto has
its
own government-mandated priority list, and you're not on it.
===============

OK, Scott, you need to decide, is it a "national" waiting list, or a
"city" list (obviously, in your mind, the provinces play no role in
this: or do they? What say you?)?

It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are
promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system.
That it may be administered at the provincial or local level changes
nothing. Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even
if no "central" list is kept.


And, in Toronto, this "government-mandated" priority list: which
government are we talking about?

Any government. All government.


From your analysis, could I, however, walk from one hospital in Toronto
to another to improve my position?

I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority. That a
different facility may not have the same number of people in line before you
is irrelevant. Moreover, I have my doubts that you would be allowed, once
assigned a priority at a hospital in your local community, to simply "venue
shop" in another city, thereby jumping the queue of those above you in your
original community. However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong. That
doesn't change the fundamental nature of the system, which is a
centrally-controlled, socialistic, rationed health care system.


Further, within one hospital, once I'm there, can I walk from one
surgeon's office to another to try to improve my position or exercise
some choice over who actually does my surgery?

I don¹t know. Nor do I care. The key question is who determines when you get
to go to the hospital in the first place. In Canada, it's the government.
Down here, it's the patient, or at worst the individual, free-market
hospital.

We need answers Scott. These are very real, practical, dilemmas.

--
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

On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are
promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system.

You are so ignorant. The federal government does not fund the sustem, nor
does it regulate it. It provides some funding and defines minimal standards.
However, health care is a provincial jurisdiction and most funding comes
from provincial governments.

Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even
if no "central" list is kept.

Canada's must not be socialized, since there's no central control.

Any government. All government.

You sound very paranoid.

I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority.

You are making this up as you go along. Too bad you don't care about
facts - the discussion would be a lot shorter if you did.

There is no priority list!

Priorities are set by the doctors and hospitals. You can get a different
result by dealing with a different doctor. Not all referring physicians
have equal access to all surgeons - they are a good old boy network and
some have better access to some than others.

Example - Toronto's top ophthalmologist is very hard to see. He specializes
in difficult cases. A friend of mine (a doctor) had a problem with his
nephew and could not get an appointment with the specialist in a timely
manner - his nephew ended up getting treatment with another specialist.
My doctor had a concern about me and got me an appointment with the
same top ophthalmologist in a week. It all depends on who you know.
No government involved. No list involved.

However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong.

No kidding - you're wrong more often than you're right. That doesn't
stop you from posting your bull****.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 30-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's "national" in that the rules under which hospitals must operate are
promulgated by the federal government, which funds and regulates the system.

You are so ignorant. The federal government does not fund the sustem, nor
does it regulate it.

Sure it does.

It provides some funding and defines minimal standards.

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

However, health care is a provincial jurisdiction and most funding comes
from provincial governments.

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


Socialized medicine is, by definition, centrally-controlled, even
if no "central" list is kept.

Canada's must not be socialized, since there's no central control.

Sure there is.


Any government. All government.

You sound very paranoid.

Nah, just realistic.


I doubt it. It's my guess that once you get assigned a priority, based on
the government-mandated priority criteria, you're stuck with it, and no
matter where you go, you end up behind others with higher priority.

You are making this up as you go along. Too bad you don't care about
facts - the discussion would be a lot shorter if you did.

Hey, I said it was my guess. You're the one who replied.


There is no priority list!

Of course there is, and the teenage girl and old guy with bad knees are on
the bottom of it.


Priorities are set by the doctors and hospitals. You can get a different
result by dealing with a different doctor. Not all referring physicians
have equal access to all surgeons - they are a good old boy network and
some have better access to some than others.

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


Example - Toronto's top ophthalmologist is very hard to see. He specializes
in difficult cases. A friend of mine (a doctor) had a problem with his
nephew and could not get an appointment with the specialist in a timely
manner - his nephew ended up getting treatment with another specialist.
My doctor had a concern about me and got me an appointment with the
same top ophthalmologist in a week. It all depends on who you know.
No government involved. No list involved.

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


However, this is a guess, and I could be wrong.

No kidding - you're wrong more often than you're right. That doesn't
stop you from posting your bull****.

Nor does it keep you from eating it up with some fava beans and a nice
Chianti.
--
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 states:
=============
And provincial governments are controlled by the federal government.
Otherwise, provinces could opt out of the national health care system.
They
can't.
=================

Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national
healthcare system?

Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To
answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that
opts out (or tries to opt out).

I hear Jeopardy music in the background..... Scotty, your time is
running out!!!!

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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

Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national
healthcare system?

Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To
answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that
opts out (or tries to opt out).

I hear Jeopardy music in the background..... Scotty, your time is
running out!!!!

Well, let's hear it. Clearly there is a national policy regarding this
issue, so once again we have central control. That the central government
may choose to allow a province to opt out doesn¹t deny the existence of a
federal program. Nor would the fact that the government-controlled health
care program is run by the provincial government in any way damage my
assertion. Government is government, whatever the level, and if it controls
and rations health care, the result is the same, irrespective of whether
it's done provincially (pun intended) or at the federal level. It's not the
free market, which is what counts.

--
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 argues (incorrectly):
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
That the central government
may choose to allow a province to opt out doesn=B9t deny the existence
of a
federal program.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D

What was at issue was whether or not provinces had the freedom to opt
out. You suggested not. It was a question of having that freedom. They
do.

frtzw906

Scott decides:
============
Government is government, whatever the level, and if it controls
and rations health care, the result is the same, irrespective of
whether
it's done provincially (pun intended) or at the federal level.
===========

Provincial governments do not ration health care. It is rationed
exactly as it is rationed in the USA: at the level of the individual
doctor or hospital (are they currently available to attend to your
needs?)

frtzw906

On 31-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national
healthcare system?

Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To
answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that
opts out (or tries to opt out).

Actually, there are a couple of ways out. However, ol' snotty could
never muster up that much understanding of any issue, let alone
Canadian politics, to know what they are.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 31-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Now, are you 100% sure that provinces can't opt out of the national
healthcare system?

Now be VERY careful when you answer this. This IS a trick question. To
answer it, you'll need to explain what would happen to a province that
opts out (or tries to opt out).

Actually, there are a couple of ways out. However, ol' snotty could
never muster up that much understanding of any issue, let alone
Canadian politics, to know what they are.

Not really. The provinces are firmly attached to the federal teat and depend
on it for health care money, and, the Health Care Act mandates certain
things that obligate the provinces to provide health care plans, and then
the feds set the standards for the provincial plans.

A province opting out would violate the rights of its citizens, which are
established by the Act, and the federal government would not allow it and
can issue financial sanctions against the province for failing to comply
with the requirements of the Act.

Now, I suppose a province could secede and join the US, but I imagine Ottowa
would have something to say about that too.

--
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