|
Canada's health care crisis
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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott cites:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay? But more to the point, it would be useful if you just put out the comparative data, without an editorial, so that people could reac decisions based on data alone. 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: 8.5% vs 13% Total current health expenditure per capita, 2000: 2400=80 vs 4100=80 Out-patient expenditure as percentage of gdp: 2.7% vs 5.9% In-patient expenditure as percentage of GDP: 2.8% vs 3.9% Inpatient ca beds per 1000 inhabitants, 2000: 3.9 vs 9.8 Total health employment per 1000 inhabitants, 2001 (FTE): 37 vs 38 Physicians: number per 1000 inhabitants, 2001: 2.1 vs 2.8 Nurses: number per 1000 inhabitants, 2001: 9.8 vs 8.1 Inpatient ca admissions per 1000 inhabitants, 2000: 100 vs 125 Acute ca number of patient days per capita, 2000: 0.85 vs 0.68 Non-acute inpatient ca number of patient days per capita, 2000: 0.15 vs 2.25 Outpatient consultations of physicians: number per capita, 2001: 6.1 vs 6=2E0 General practitioners per 1000 inhabitants: 1.0 vs 0.8 Acute ca occupancy rate: 87% vs 68% Number of consultations per practising physician, 2000: 3050 vs 2020 Life expectancy at birth, 2001: 80 vs 78 Healthy life expectancy: 70 vs 67.5 Infant mortality in deaths per 1000 live births, 2001: 5 vs 6.5 Health status index, 2001: 5.6 vs 4.7 (higher is better) Cost-effectiveness of health care, 2001: Compare health status index with expenditure per person (Canada wins) Rankings of countries by type of health index - *Health status index 2001: 8th vs 19th *SCP composite index 2001: 13th vs 18th *WHO composite - index 1997: 4th vs 12th On some fairly critical factors such as life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, infant mortality, and a variety of health indices, Canada out-performs the USA. At substatially less expenditure. So, Scott, instead of dealing in editorials from newpapers, why not deal in real data. What do you make of this data? frtzw906 |
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 |
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? My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A. -- "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. |
Frederick submits:
=================== Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. =================== I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out across the USA. [rhetorical question] What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott and rick on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for Scott to cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN, Michael, or BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have had admirable care. More to the point, I know of not one person in my circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary procedure. 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. And, as we ponder Frederick's premiums, we might wish to ask why the USA spends more (significantly more) on healthcare per capita, but is unable to match Canada and most western European nations on issues such as infant mortality and life expectancy. Now there's a healthcare scandal worth writing newspaper articles about. frtzw906 |
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 |
This is not kayak related but here goes.
Last year I had a car crash. Totalled the car but the 3 kayaks on the roof were unhurt. Thank God . there was a Capella An NDK Exploere and a Sealution. My neck faired not so well and I had a little concussion. I drove to the hospital was looked at immediately and had a secondary assesment. Since then I have had xrays and a couple of visits to my GP. No cost to me.... ( taxes obviously ) The physio is an insurance thing but who cares, it needs done and If I had the time it would be free. ( In Hospital take a ticket and wait. ) There was never an issue in whether or not I could pay. I guess I am a commie. I truly believe the folks in public housing ( oh ,, We don't have a large homeless problem in my community. ) will get the same care. That is what reflects the values of my community. My father had some heart problems. He got help immediately. He passed away but it was not from lack of expertise, availability or hospital beds. In the end I believe we will be judged by how we treat the poorest in society, not the wealthiest. I am pleased with Canada. Our military is not the most powerfull ( I would like to see it better funded. ) But we have not fely a need to reach out and touch someone in the way GW has. Our medical system is fine. All the best to you and yours. Alex McGruer |
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 |
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. -- "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. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Frederick submits: =================== Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. =================== I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out across the USA. [rhetorical question] What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott and rick on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for Scott to cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN, Michael, or BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have had admirable care. ======================= Who said it wasn't? The problem with kman was that he made a statement that was proven to be a lie. That some people in Canada recieve proper care was not the issue. I'm sure there are millions that recieve adequate care. The sites I posted presented data about people that died while waiting for treatment. Be it one or tens of thousands makes no difference to the claim kman made that no one is dying. He was proven to be lying. Are you now saying that no one ever dies while waiting for treatment? More to the point, I know of not one person in my circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary procedure. ================= Again, that doesn't refute the data that people HAVE died while waiting, and are you now claiming that no one is even waiting for treatment at all? 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. And, as we ponder Frederick's premiums, we might wish to ask why the USA spends more (significantly more) on healthcare per capita, but is unable to match Canada and most western European nations on issues such as infant mortality and life expectancy. Now there's a healthcare scandal worth writing newspaper articles about. frtzw906 |
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... Interesting story today in the Boulder Daily Camera about the Canadian health care crisis. Page 4B. Not only pre-emptive letters, but it's enough of a problem that they have a "Western Canada Waiting list Project" http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/...urnalcode=cmaj great line is this report.. "...Overall, 109 patients (1.4%) had a major cardiac event, namely, death, myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure..." http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/...urnalcode=cmaj 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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
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 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article .net, rick at wrote on 3/20/05 10:25 PM: "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Frederick submits: =================== Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. =================== I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out across the USA. [rhetorical question] What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott and rick on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for Scott to cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN, Michael, or BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have had admirable care. ======================= Who said it wasn't? The problem with kman was that he made a statement that was proven to be a lie. That some people in Canada recieve proper care was not the issue. I'm sure there are millions that recieve adequate care. The sites I posted presented data about people that died while waiting for treatment. Be it one or tens of thousands makes no difference to the claim kman made that no one is dying. He was proven to be lying. Are you now saying that no one ever dies while waiting for treatment? More to the point, I know of not one person in my circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary procedure. ================= Again, that doesn't refute the data that people HAVE died while waiting, and are you now claiming that no one is even waiting for treatment at all? Every single health care system in existence has people who die while they are waiting for treatment. ============== Thanks for admitting then that you lied. That wasn't what you were saying before... No health care system is perfect. If you look at the sample of people in this newsgroup, of those who have personal experience with the Canadian system and US system, it seems clear to me that the Canadian system is vastly preferred. ======================= That was never the issue being discussed. You might like it to have been in an effort to devert the spotlight from your lies, though. |
in article , rick at
wrote on 3/20/05 11:08 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article .net, rick at wrote on 3/20/05 10:25 PM: "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Frederick submits: =================== Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. =================== I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out across the USA. [rhetorical question] What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott and rick on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for Scott to cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN, Michael, or BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have had admirable care. ======================= Who said it wasn't? The problem with kman was that he made a statement that was proven to be a lie. That some people in Canada recieve proper care was not the issue. I'm sure there are millions that recieve adequate care. The sites I posted presented data about people that died while waiting for treatment. Be it one or tens of thousands makes no difference to the claim kman made that no one is dying. He was proven to be lying. Are you now saying that no one ever dies while waiting for treatment? More to the point, I know of not one person in my circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary procedure. ================= Again, that doesn't refute the data that people HAVE died while waiting, and are you now claiming that no one is even waiting for treatment at all? Every single health care system in existence has people who die while they are waiting for treatment. ============== Thanks for admitting then that you lied. That wasn't what you were saying before... I never said otherwise. No health care system is perfect. If you look at the sample of people in this newsgroup, of those who have personal experience with the Canadian system and US system, it seems clear to me that the Canadian system is vastly preferred. ======================= That was never the issue being discussed. You might like it to have been in an effort to devert the spotlight from your lies, though. There weren't any lies. But you don't want to talk about the issues, that's why you are engaging in this childish and pathetic attempt to at personal petty attacks. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 3/20/05 11:08 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article .net, rick at wrote on 3/20/05 10:25 PM: "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Frederick submits: =================== Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. =================== I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out across the USA. [rhetorical question] What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott and rick on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for Scott to cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN, Michael, or BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have had admirable care. ======================= Who said it wasn't? The problem with kman was that he made a statement that was proven to be a lie. That some people in Canada recieve proper care was not the issue. I'm sure there are millions that recieve adequate care. The sites I posted presented data about people that died while waiting for treatment. Be it one or tens of thousands makes no difference to the claim kman made that no one is dying. He was proven to be lying. Are you now saying that no one ever dies while waiting for treatment? More to the point, I know of not one person in my circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary procedure. ================= Again, that doesn't refute the data that people HAVE died while waiting, and are you now claiming that no one is even waiting for treatment at all? Every single health care system in existence has people who die while they are waiting for treatment. ============== Thanks for admitting then that you lied. That wasn't what you were saying before... I never said otherwise. ================= ROTFLMAO You spent a few weeks saying differently before. No health care system is perfect. If you look at the sample of people in this newsgroup, of those who have personal experience with the Canadian system and US system, it seems clear to me that the Canadian system is vastly preferred. ======================= That was never the issue being discussed. You might like it to have been in an effort to devert the spotlight from your lies, though. There weren't any lies. ================ Yes, there were. First you claimed that no one dies waiting for treatment, and then you claimed no one waits for treatment. Do try to keep up. But you don't want to talk about the issues, that's why you are engaging in this childish and pathetic attempt to at personal petty attacks. ======================== LOL I have addressed the issues. YOU have tried to do everything you can to avoid them. Why is that? You now realize that you were lying? |
rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what
KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better alternative to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none? Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING! frtzw906 |
Scott Weiser:
============== "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." ================ This is perhaps an interesting basis for discussion. While I'm not sure how accurate these figures are, let's just accept them, for the time being, and try to establish a discussion around healthcare costs. By those figures, a Canadian earning $50,000 per year pays $800 per month for full coverage (no deductible) medical care (for his/her entire family -- let's assume a family of 4). Now we need to know how much a family of 4, in the USA, would pay for full medical coverage. What we know from Frederick is that it is, from his perspective, an onerous amount (greater than his mortgage). Perhaps Scott can provide us with this information and others can confirm the veracity. frtzw906 |
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. 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!" 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 ****. 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) like Sadder-Butt Weiser. He's a pathetic little man with no life beyond trolling newsgroups, and you merely diminish yerself by allowing yerself to be sucked into his personal obsessions. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty PS, I was quite pleased with the Canadian hospital that stitched up my chin after an unpleasant *contretemps* on the Rouge river in Quebec a few years ago. The locals advised me to drive across the Ottawa river into Refrew, ONT for medical treatment, since (they said) Ontario hospitals pay their physicians more, and thus get the cream of the Med school grads. Service was quick (the waiting room was empty, unlike several American emergency rooms I have visited, which always seem to be packed with people waiting eternally for treatment), treatment was good, and though they were unable to bill my healthcare plan directly, they provided me with all the documentation I needed to recover my costs. -R -- ================================================== ==================== Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters ================================================== ==================== |
Oci-One submites, re Weiser:
================ He's a pathetic little man with no life beyond trolling newsgroups, and you merely diminish yerself by allowing yerself to be sucked into his personal obsessions. ================ You're right. I've given hm data to chew over. I'll let the data speak for itself. frtzw906 |
On 21-Mar-2005, "Oci-One Kanubi" wrote: 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, when I read the post, it seems that this is weiser's text - it is not quoted. So _he's_ the idiot that's math challenged - or as I've proven already - truth challenged. Mike |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... ======================== Because you ailed to stay on-topic of the off-topic post. You are the one that mentioned the thead, and continued you 'side' of it. And, in case you failed to notice, I replied to kman after he responded to me. Do try to keep up. You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better alternative to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none? Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING! frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message k.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... ======================== Because you ailed to stay on-topic of the off-topic post. You are the one that mentioned the thead, and continued you 'side' of it. And, in case you failed to notice, I replied to kman after he responded to me. LOL. After I hit him first he hit me back and all I was doing was hitting him back! |
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. Nor do you have to pay for mine. 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. But more to the point, it would be useful if you just put out the comparative data, without an editorial, so that people could reac decisions based on data alone. Doing so might violate copyrights. It's the commentary that makes the excerpts fall under the Fair Use exception. Besides, I like to comment, and nothing prevents you from reaching a decision independent of my commentary based on the data provided. 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: 8.5% vs 13% Americans spend more on better, more available health care, and they do it voluntarily. Total current health expenditure per capita, 2000: 2400€ vs 4100€ Cheapskate Canadian health care system. Out-patient expenditure as percentage of gdp: 2.7% vs 5.9% Americans get better care on demand. 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, more available service with virtually the same percentage of health care workers. Canadian health care is stuffed with straphangers and sinecured government employees. Physicians: number per 1000 inhabitants, 2001: 2.1 vs 2.8 More, and more efficient physicians available in the US to anyone who cares to seek them out. Canadians get stuck in the waiting line for years. Nurses: number per 1000 inhabitants, 2001: 9.8 vs 8.1 More nurses required in Canada because there are fewer doctors and more inefficient health care. Inpatient ca admissions per 1000 inhabitants, 2000: 100 vs 125 Fewer Canadians are able to get inpatient care, and often have to wait years to get it at all. Acute ca number of patient days per capita, 2000: 0.85 vs 0.68 U.S. Hospitals treat acute illnesses aggressively and cure their patients more quickly. Canadians don't get acute care as easily, thus they get sicker and take longer to treat. Non-acute inpatient ca number of patient days per capita, 2000: 0.15 vs 2.25 Canada kicks out anybody who isn't deathly ill to make room for other, sicker people. Outpatient consultations of physicians: number per capita, 2001: 6.1 vs 6.0 If Canadians live long enough...no data on the delays is provided. General practitioners per 1000 inhabitants: 1.0 vs 0.8 We have lots of specialists down here, which results in better, more focused care. Acute ca occupancy rate: 87% vs 68% You have to get really damned sick in Canada before they'll admit you, and by then, you end up staying a lot longer. Number of consultations per practising physician, 2000: 3050 vs 2020 Doctors in Canada are overworked and underpaid. Life expectancy at birth, 2001: 80 vs 78 Healthy life expectancy: 70 vs 67.5 Infant mortality in deaths per 1000 live births, 2001: 5 vs 6.5 Sometimes you die. Sometimes Canadians die waiting for treatment. Health status index, 2001: 5.6 vs 4.7 (higher is better) Cost-effectiveness of health care, 2001: Compare health status index with expenditure per person (Canada wins) Rankings of countries by type of health index - *Health status index 2001: 8th vs 19th *SCP composite index 2001: 13th vs 18th *WHO composite - index 1997: 4th vs 12th On some fairly critical factors such as life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, infant mortality, and a variety of health indices, Canada out-performs the USA. At substatially less expenditure. Until you get sick. In Canada, you're stuck waiting for treatment and the government won't even allow you to find and pay for your own treatment. Canadians who are really sick and need care come to the US where they can be treated immediately. So, Scott, instead of dealing in editorials from newpapers, why not deal in real data. What do you make of this data? 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. -- 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 |
Wilf, have a look he
http://www.bright.net/~retter/ HTH... Wilko BCITORGB wrote: rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better alternative to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none? Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING! frtzw906 -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
NB: Obviously there's enough for him to like about Canada to want to
keep on going there from Ohoho... :-) Wilko Wilko wrote: Wilf, have a look he http://www.bright.net/~retter/ HTH... Wilko BCITORGB wrote: rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better alternative to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none? Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING! frtzw906 -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"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. 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!!! 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. 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? 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. 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! |
A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:
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? My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A. Wah. I can't get health insurance either (for the same reason as you) and had to give up my company health insurance after the COBRA period expired because I couldn't afford (nor could I justify) the $385 per month in premiums plus the $200+ per month in prescription co-pays. So what? Big deal. It's my life, and my responsibility. 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. Like I have, you need to figure out how to save for a medical emergency and not try to foist your inability to budget and save off on everyone else. Perhaps you could forego that new playboat and SUV, drive a ten-year-old car, cut back on the beer and cigarette allotment, wear last season's clothes and quit going to the movies and put that money aside into an interest-bearing savings account for emergencies. Or, you could get a catastrophic health care policy with a large (like $10,000) deductible that costs far less each month and forego the "convienence medicine" premium inherent in HMO coverage and put the balance of what you're paying now into a savings account to pay, in cash, for minor medical issues. It's entirely up to you, but nobody said it was going to be easy. The good news is that *I* don't have to pay for *your* health care problems like they do in Canada. That's good, because I see no reason on earth why I should be required to do so. -- 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:
Frederick submits: =================== Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. =================== I wonder if yours is a special case or if this is played out across the USA. [rhetorical question] What I find curious, and we've been down this road with Scott and rick on a previous thread, is why it is seemingly appropriate for Scott to cite a newspaper article, reporting on one particular healthcare-related anecdote, but inappropriate for KMAN, Michael, or BCITORGB to cite anecdotes about friends and relatives who have had admirable care. More to the point, I know of not one person in my circle of acquaintances who as had to wait for a necessary procedure. 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. I do. It sucks. So what? Nobody said life was easy or fair. Now I find a way to pay for my own health care, I don't expect anyone else to pay for it in my stead. 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. Don't bet on it. Government programs have a tendency to go bankrupt. Just as the VA, and the people who try to get care from the VA who are "entitled" to that care. And, as we ponder Frederick's premiums, we might wish to ask why the USA spends more (significantly more) on healthcare per capita, but is unable to match Canada and most western European nations on issues such as infant mortality and life expectancy. Now there's a healthcare scandal worth writing newspaper articles about. Why? Infant mortality is nature's way of limiting populations. -- 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 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. Take a pill, your blood pressure is spiking... ...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. Nope, not for hospitalization or surgery. It's sold by many insurance companies. Maritime Life is one of the bigger players in supplemental health insurance. Funny, a credible AP reporter says Canadians are prohibited from buying outside insurance for hospitalization and surgery. Canadians may be able to buy supplemental insurance for outpatient services, but if you get *really* sick, and need a hospital bed and surgery, you're ****ed. Go back under your rock, weiser, we don't need any more of your lies and BS on this newsgroup. Er...make me. -- 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 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! Mark |
|
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), 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. Thank god there's not many like you up here! frtzw906 |
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 donąt 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 |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... NB: Obviously there's enough for him to like about Canada to want to keep on going there from Ohoho... ================== Can you point me to a post where I ever said I didn't like Canada? All I did was reply to a lie made last month. I posted sites that backed up my assertion that they were lies. No one else has posted anything to refute those sites. All I've gotten is more lies. I never made any claims as to which system is better, or which is worse. Any number of other posters tried to make that the subject because they had nothing else. I go to Canada often. My daughter goes to school there. One of our main paddle partners is a Canadian orthopedic surgeon. Another is an ex-NHL hockey player from Canada. A couple of others that go off and on are current players, well, they would be if there was a season... :-) Wilko Wilko wrote: Wilf, have a look he http://www.bright.net/~retter/ HTH... Wilko BCITORGB wrote: rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... You have yet to contribute anything that suggests a better alternative to the Canadian system. Can I assume you know of none? Otherwise, whatever your contributions: BOOOORRRRRING! frtzw906 -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message k.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... ======================== Because you ailed to stay on-topic of the off-topic post. You are the one that mentioned the thead, and continued you 'side' of it. And, in case you failed to notice, I replied to kman after he responded to me. LOL. After I hit him first he hit me back and all I was doing was hitting him back! ======================= Fine, live with your delusions. I have the satisfaction of knowing that you have recanted your lies. Thanks or that little laugh... |
A Usenet persona calling itself 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. -- 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com