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

Scott argues:
===============
They're just like any other business. How ever much of a pain med
students
are, the university has a lot invested in the med school program, as
you
yourself admit, and the only way to pay for all that infrastructure is
to
have students in the programs.
==============


But surely you don't want to *increase* your investment in this
expensive program. Please! Explain to me why it is in a university's
best interests to increase the number of seats in med school (from a
purely free market perspective -- which is what you insist they're
responding to)?

If the increased admissions come because of a government (state
education department) directive -- by way of the regents -- then, of
course it will happen. But please explain the economics of increasing
med school admissions to me. How is that good for the university when
opening more seats in the executive MBA program will yield so much more
in terms of income.?

frtzw906

Mike comments to Scott:
=============
You're making this up as you go along.
==================

It's amazing isn't it. There's plenty wrong with our healthcare system
(and as we've also observed, all other healthcare systems), but Scott
has yet to identify the real issues.

Every time he's confronted by real, everyday, practical questions about
how he thinks the system works, he starts making stuff up. TOO FUNNY!

frtzw906

Scott asks:
==============
On
these things, I'm very much a "user pay" advocate (including, if
you'll
recall and earler thread, agriculture, which you seem to want to
support).

Why not for health care and schools too?
===============

Wow! That's a simple one. Because healthcare and schools are, in my
world, fundamental "rights". Further, on the water issue, while I'm in
favor of metering and user pay, I would provide some basic amount
"free". I'm interested in metering for purposes of reducing waste.

Ditto, garbage collection: a basic amount of garbage (for purposes of
public health and safety) collected for free, and then a user fee above
that amount. Again, I want to charge those being wasteful.

frtzw906

Scott informs:
=============
Well, down here, water belongs to whomever first diverts it and puts it
to
beneficial use.
===============

That may be the way it is in CO, but that doesn't make it "right".

IMHO, water, like air, belongs to the people (the state) and anyone who
wants to use it (or abuse it) ought to pay a fee (or a fine). And,
IMHO, anyone who "first diverts it" without permission ought to be
thrown in jail. Further, what is or isn't beneficial ought to be
determined by those who own the water -- the people!

That may not be the way it is in CO but, more's the pity!

frtzw906

I should know better than to get involved...

"Scott Weiser" wrote:


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.

You are wrong.

The number of people in front of you does matter. There is no "government-assigned" priority. Each hospital that you venue shop
into rates your priority and serves you as they can, with those they feel are more in need of treatment first. If you leave one
hospital after being told your wait will be X hours, and go to another hospital, a nurse or doctor there might think you've got
something more serious than the person who triaged you in the first hospital, you'll get a different priority. But even if they
give you the same priority, if the second hospital has fewer people lined up in front of you with equal or greater priority, you'll
get helped sooner.

A relative was driving long distance to a family function last week. He decided to seek treatment for an infection on the way at
the hospital in Clearwater BC. He was in and out in under an hour. Arriving at the family function he commented on that, and
another relative, who lives in Kamloops BC, a decent sized city about an hour's drive from Clearwater, said that people in Kamloops
would often drive to Clearwater to go to the hospital (for minor emergency room treatment), knowing that the two hour round trip dri
ve would save them more time than that waiting in the Kamloops emergency room.

For certain specialized treatments (available only at certain hospitals), you are closer to being correct. But for minor, routine
stuff, you can "venue shop" all you want to try to find the shortest wait time.

-Paul

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



This has
nothing to do with the poor guy paying his rent. If the property is taxed
appropriately, the landlord is going to charge the renter and collect the
revenues need to pay the property taxes.

Once again, the issue is the fairness and equitability of school funding
assessments. I'm merely pointing out that in most places in the US,
schools
are disproportionately funded by landowners, and that there are many "free
riders" who get substantial discounts on their "fair share."

Yes, but you are incorrect. The landowners pass on the cost to the renters.
The only issue of fairness would be if landlords are somehow paying unfairly
low property taxes.

You still don't get it. If public schools are supposed to be supported by
all the people, then all the people ought to pay equally to fund schools.
Renters don't pay their fair share, it's as simple as that. The inequity is
in how schools are funded. You seem to be deliberately avoiding this aspect
of the issue.



I'm not surprised at your inconsistent approach to funding medical care
and
schools, given the fact that it's landowners who get soaked for schools,
and
socialists don't like landowners because they are mostly "have nots" who
are
jealous of the "haves" of society and are willing to do anything to
bring
others down to their own level. That's what socialism is all about.

I'm a landowner. I'm not a socialist. I'm also not a selfish jerk.

So why the inconsistency in your positions in re health care and school
funding?

There is no inconsistency. I believe that universal health care and
universal education should be core foundations of any society, or at least a
goal they are striving to achieve.

But while you support income tax based funding for health care, you appear
to be supporting the disproportionate burden on landowners. Is that the
case, or do you support a change of plan for school funding to make everyone
pay their fair share?


I'm a landowner. I am not interested in "sticking it to landowners."

You don't argue very effectively for not doing so.

I don't think landowners are taxed unfairly.

And yet they pay more, proportionally, than renters do for schools, so why
do you see that as being "fair?" That's precisely the inconsistency I'm
talking about.


If everybody in
the country had ethics, we wouldn't need much by way of law.

Let me know when you get some. Advocating vociferously for your own
selfish
needs is not what I would call ethics.

That's because you confuse socialist dogma with ethics. It's hardly
unethical to advocate fairness and personal responsibility.

Then I'm as ethical as can be.

So you DO believe in people paying for their own bad health rather than
shoving those costs off on others!


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.

Nah. They don't care about the taxes, they don't pay them, the consumer
does.

LOL. You might want to find out a little more about how taxes affect
spending, which affects the bottom line of business.

Only when the business is marginal. Wal-Mart doesn't give a damn what the
local taxes are because they have a tremendous market dominance and know
that the higher the taxes, and the less discretionary funds that a family
has available, the MORE LIKELY they are to shop at Wal-Mart. It's a key
component of their business model.

Get together with all the consumer goods companies and ask them how they
would feel about the addition of a consumer goods tax. Heehee. You'll be
ridden out of town on a rail!

Sure, they like to carp about it because it reduces the total amount of
money available for consumer spending on their products, and they are happy
to side with consumers in fighting new taxes without making it clear that
they are only doing it so the consumer will have more disposable income, but
in reality, they don't care much about the tax rates because they know
people will buy more stuff at Wal-Mart when they have less disposable
income. Remember, we're talking about Wal-Mart here, not the entire consumer
goods industry.


This is why while elites don't like Wal-Mart, it's exceeding rare for a
Wal-Mart store to fail. You see, Wal-Mart's customers are the middle and
lower income brackets who *need* to save money on consumer goods and don't
have the luxury of being able to spend more on better quality goods.

"If you build it, they will come." is the catchphrase of
Wal-Mart...because
they do.

Ehuh. Wow, that's a brilliant catchphrase.

Kind of says it all, doesn't 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 Michael Daly wrote:


On 29-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

But there is a national system of classifying medical conditions by priority
is there not?

Medical care is a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one.

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

Your ignorance
continues to show every time you post.

Pot, kettle, black.


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.

Exactly who in the government won't allow them?

The reason that folks aren't being served is that the system is overloaded
in a specific area for a specific treatment.

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

It is not because the government
refuses to treat people.

No, they just cut funding so that the services are not available. Same
result though.

Providing unlimited resources in every area is not
efficient.

Indeed. Why not let the free market control that?

The taxpayers have indicated that they want to see better service
in many areas, but the politicians have been dragging their heels on getting
improvements in place.

Thus, the government IS "refusing to treat people" by denying funding for
the necessary improvements. Thanks for proving my thesis!

Most of the real problems in Canada's health care
system have been the result of right-wing politicians' meddling.

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

Folks
like Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell have done a lot of damage to a system
that used to work much better.

Yeah...when it was a free market 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 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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott argues:
===============
They're just like any other business. How ever much of a pain med
students
are, the university has a lot invested in the med school program, as
you
yourself admit, and the only way to pay for all that infrastructure is
to
have students in the programs.
==============


But surely you don't want to *increase* your investment in this
expensive program. Please! Explain to me why it is in a university's
best interests to increase the number of seats in med school (from a
purely free market perspective -- which is what you insist they're
responding to)?

The number of seats reflects the demand for doctors. Free market economics,
pure and simple.


If the increased admissions come because of a government (state
education department) directive -- by way of the regents -- then, of
course it will happen. But please explain the economics of increasing
med school admissions to me.

More students, more tuition, more alumni donations.

How is that good for the university when
opening more seats in the executive MBA program will yield so much more
in terms of income.?

Not everybody wants to be an MBA.
--
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