Cheers to everyone, I hope you're enjoying paddling in Colorado while you
can, because the gravy train may be coming to an end. But more about that
another time...

Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's some
important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News reports
that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private health
insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that the
prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and
psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly
true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights."

He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy
and has become a liability to health."

Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad
thing.
--
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:

Cheers to everyone, I hope you're enjoying paddling in Colorado while you
can, because the gravy train may be coming to an end. But more about that
another time...


Ahhh Scott! Trolling RBP again, I see! :-)


Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's some
important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News reports
that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private health
insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that the
prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and
psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly
true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights."

He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy
and has become a liability to health."

Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad
thing.

It's a very bad thing for people who can *afford* expensive private health
insurance, but a very very GOOD thing for those who cannot! ;-) And of course,
it's not like no one ever dies or suffers in a private health insurance system,
it just sounds speciously omniously grand to detractors thereof to say something
as above! ;-)

Don't worry, publicizing of the U.S. health system cannot be far away! I'm
studying for my RN now! I single-handedly brought down the entire IT industry in
the U.S. by getting into it and working in it for 7 years (1995 - 2002) , I
wonder if I can do the same to the healthcare systems profitability now? Hee
hee!

John Kuthe...

He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy
and has become a liability to health."

Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad
thing.

And we all know, of course, that Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News
is known worldwide as an expert on healthcare issues and Canadian healthcare
in particular ;-)

Everyone has the right to be wrong.
Every accused has the right to council.
every poor urchen has the right to die.

Medicine via insurance is an intrinsically more expensive program than
private medical care or social medicine.
Besides that my doctor friends have their own news group.

Medicine as a business so flies in the face of Hypocrites and his oath
as to be extortion of the most needy by the most wealthy.

Scott Weiser wrote:


He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy
and has become a liability to health."

Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad
thing.


There are liabilities in every system of health care. One liability
for a socialized health care system in a country with a relatively
healthy population (Canada) is it becomes a target for the private
insurance industry. I imagine a big concern for Canadians (and a
responsibility of the Canadian government) is to make sure private
insurance companies don't take unfair advantage and make unearned
profits in a system designed to be publicly funded.

It becomes a legislative and management nightmare to make sure the
health care burden is shared equivalently between the public and
private sectors. There is tremendous incentive for private insurers to
descend on a system where the public sector bears the bulk of the
burden, and the customer base will be among the most healthy and
wealthy in the population.





--
"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.

Re V. Carrol... I did not know that : I do know that the land mass
sserved ny The Canadian system is as a country one of the largest in
the world.
I don't delude myself into thinking I will get the same health care as
our prime minister, but I know that insurance has a better return for
investment than the lotery. ( that being from the bookies side, in this
case our government )
I will give you an insurance health care scenario,,, Mine.
A smalll accident last year injured my neck and shoulder. The other guy
rear ended me as i was stopped. He was in a large van and I had a VW
Golf. ( Tidy smack )
I have health coverage ( Section B ) in my car. I have Blue Cross for
drugs ( Company program )
I am in physio , Massage and now Chyro.
Before the guy that hit me pays a cent I have to run down my Blue
Cross. Then my own section B then his section B then his liability cuts
in.
I am right now out about $1,000 CDN for physio because I paid for it
and I have not jumped through all the hoops for Blue Cross which has
long since run out.
For simple medical expenses ( That have NEVER been used before this) I
pay for Blue Cross, Section B, Car insurance with full coverage andthe
guy that hit me has Secttion B so we have paid for 4 levels of
insurance for a band aid. The paper is worth more than the medical
help.
Private sector is largely insurance based and private clinics cherry
pick the procedures they are willing to do, Insurance companies cherry
pick the clients they take on, Clinics hire doctors for proffitability
what is left in a publicly in a private sector based system may not be
that good.
I may be wrong. But I am intitled top be wrong headed the odd time. : )

NDK and P & H make some fine kayaks though .

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:


He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy
and has become a liability to health."

Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad
thing.


There are liabilities in every system of health care. One liability
for a socialized health care system in a country with a relatively
healthy population (Canada) is it becomes a target for the private
insurance industry. I imagine a big concern for Canadians (and a
responsibility of the Canadian government) is to make sure private
insurance companies don't take unfair advantage and make unearned
profits in a system designed to be publicly funded.

Nope. It was explicitly designed to be a government monopoly for reasons of
socialistic egalitarianism and nothing more, by the admission of those who
created the system.


It becomes a legislative and management nightmare to make sure the
health care burden is shared equivalently between the public and
private sectors. There is tremendous incentive for private insurers to
descend on a system where the public sector bears the bulk of the
burden, and the customer base will be among the most healthy and
wealthy in the population.

The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be
"regulated."

--
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:

The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be
"regulated."

--
That is a popular saying, but it is meaningless. The truth is we do
not know.

Systems that self correct typically employ some form of feedback. When
the system is outside of the optimal setting, the difference from that
set point moves the system back toward that setpoint.

The problem with physical systems is that they exhibit inertia and this
complicates the response. The inertia of the system makes them slow to
respond. The lack of change in the output causes a greater correcting
force than is needed, resulting in overshoot and then undershoot.

Well modeled systems, (which free enterprise or any other economic
system are not), can be tuned for "good responses". But only if the
characteristics of the system are understood. For complex physical
systems like the Earth, we are only beginning to create the simpliest
of models. In climatic systems with time delays on the order of decades
or centuries, we may not ever see the results of our own corrective
forces, most of which are subject to political whim.

In social systems, we need to worry about the effects of time delay and
overshoot because they affect people. These system may ultimately
converge on the best solution, but the overshoot creates the forces of
political change (revolution, genocide) as well as physical change
(climate, famine).

Large scale systems are not the realm of the layman, nor political
administrations prone to dismissing views not in league with their
agendas as "Fuzzy Science". There is no avenue in today's broadcast
buzz word society for serious answers to serious questions. Audiences
are too tuned to receiving hollow platitudes in support of their
beliefs. Our attention spans are too short.

Paraphrasing Richard Feynman's response to a reporter who asked him
what he did to get the Nobel Prize: "Hey buddy, if I could explain it
to you in 3 minutes, it wouldn't be worth a Nobel Prize now would it?"

Only when Science is free to operate outside of political reach will we
even have a chance at gaining the understanding we need to live in
harmony with the world. Or, as some would say, save it.

Blakely

Blakely LaCroix
r.b.p clique member #86.
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
USA

"The best adventure is yet to come"

According to Scott:
"The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be
'regulated.' "

Assuming efficiency is your prime objective, then there might be a
modicum of truth therein. But suppose you had other objectives? Is the
free market necessarily the "best" (determined by whatever your
ojectives are) way to regulate?

Universally when it comes to forcing people to pay for other people's bad
health.


Your sense of humanity is touching. You'd probably stand there and watch a
guy drown on the river rather than trying to save him, too.