A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


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.

I know enough to know that even in Canada, the provinces are political
subdivisions of the federal government, not sovereign nations.


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.

So what? That's free enterprise for you.

In Canada,
the governments are willing to maintain more service in rural
areas since it is necessary, not because it is profitable.

Nothing wrong with the government providing services where private industry
won't. What's wrong is that Canada in effect turns private enterprise into a
government agency by controlling the prices private physicians can charge.


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.

I get the very best health care in the world whenever I want it, while you
get to wait till your government tells you it has room for you, ****wit.


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

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

Nah, it's just that the socialists took over.
--
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 defines more than "minimal standards." It defines who get medical care
and when.

Prove it.

I've done so, in a rather long post I won't repeat here.


--
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:
=============
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?

Nope, because it's not the case, as I've shown in a rather long post which I
won't repeat here.

The entire health care system is tightly controlled by the feds, who bully
the provinces, who bully the private doctors.

--
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 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.

I've analyzed all this in another post...and debunked your arguments 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

A Usenet persona calling itself Steve Cramer wrote:

Mike! Mike!

According to my news client, you posted responses to SW at 1:51, 1:56,
1:59, 2:03, and 2:08. And that's just so far this afternoon. After the
dozens (hundreds?) of these exchanges, do you see any change at all in
SW? It's said that one of the hallmarks of insanity is to keep repeating
the same behavior in the belief that the results will change. Odds are
against you, man. Give it up while you still have some sanity to cling to.

Of course, since SW, wilf, and TnT are already in my bit bucket, if you
stop there won't be any r.b.p coming into my computer at all.

That's okay, because you haven't the wit to need 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:

Scott argues (incorrectly):
===========
That the central government
may choose to allow a province to opt out doesn¹t deny the existence
of a
federal program.
=================

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.

No, they don't, as I explain in detail elsewhere.

--
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 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.

Yes, they do.

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?)

Nope. Provincial governments set the policies for their provincial plans,
which must comport with the federal plan. Moreover, the feds have absolute
power to dictate what services are covered.


--
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:

In discussing the finances of Whazzits State Univ, Scott asserts:
======================
But there's profit to be made nonetheless.
================

Profits!!!! Profits!!!???? A public university makes a profit! Surely
you jest. Help me with this. Point me to a source.

No, the hospitals and clinics who hire med school graduates make the
profits. They support the med schools so they have graduates to hire.



Scott:
================
While the Governor does appoint regents for all other colleges,
====================

OK, and then you presume to tell me that the government exercises NO
control over the affairs of the universities and colleges?!

Other than appointing the Regents, no.


Sounds like a direct link from the governor's mansion into the
university president's office.

He may have persuasive power, but no legal authority except over a very
small portion of the budget.

And the CU president is well known for not giving a damn what a conservative
Governor has to say, since the president is appointed by the CU Regents, not
the governor.

--
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 says:
=================
Don't forget what my purpose here is. It's to stimulate debate, and by
doing
so, cause people to think. I don¹t much care *what* they think, so
long as
they exercise some mentation. That's why I'm very, very hard to insult
and I
don't really mind being wrong (though I seldom am). I never take it
personally because I know that sometimes it necessary to pierce the
Usenet
persona to get to the real truths involved, and sometimes that takes
vigorous and even contumacious debate to get beyond the sneering veneer
and
to sort out the Netwits (of whom there are many) from those with some
modicum of wit and intelligence (who can be quite hard to find).

And most of my intended audience are the lurkers, of whom there are
also
many, if my private email is any indicator, who enjoy the give and
take.
=======================

I think that's Scott's way of saying, "Whoops! I was wrong on that
issue. frtzw906 was right."

Thanks, Scott.

No, it's my way of saying it doesn't matter to me who is wrong or right.
It's the journey that's important, not the destination.

--
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 fears:
==============
This is the Nanny State gone wild, and it's already started here, and
is
well on its way in Canada, Britain and Australia, starting with gun
control
and extending to smoking bans and mandatory seat belt laws.
=============

Yes! Smoking bans in public places are a good thing. The air belongs to
all of us -- THE PEOPLE. You have no right to foul it.

Hey, it's my air too. If you don't like it, then stand somewhere else.

Actually, I agree with you, but I do at least admit that it's ethically
inconsistent to do so.

frtzw906 - I must admit I was ticked when they banned the backyard
burning of leaves in the autumn GRIN

I still get to burn my ditches and fields, thank God.

--
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