"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
news

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


But who the hell wants to move to Canada?

Lots, including numerous intelligent Americans. We only accept between
180,000 and 250,000 per year.
No gas happy, gun tottin 'mericans need apply. Some wacko from the
Carolinas came over on the Yarmouth ferry and lied to
the customs people, saying he had no firearms. They searched his
motorhome
and found a shotgun and a 9mm pistol.
Now he's 2 guns and $ 5K lighter. Just to show we're a forgiving
people
we
let him continue his vacation in Nova Scotia



He's lucky he didn't get nailed in NY or Massachusetts on his way North.



Let's see. Most Canadians have lifestyles similar to most U.S. folks,
they have the benefits of democracy, they have health care, they have a
diverse population, they have no death penalty, they have fewer guns per
capita, and far fewer gun deaths per capita. Naw, there's no
relationship between the number of guns in a country and the number of
gun deaths.

Actually, Harry, there does NOT seem to be a relationship between the two
things.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
news

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


But who the hell wants to move to Canada?

Lots, including numerous intelligent Americans. We only accept between
180,000 and 250,000 per year.
No gas happy, gun tottin 'mericans need apply. Some wacko from the
Carolinas came over on the Yarmouth ferry and lied to
the customs people, saying he had no firearms. They searched his
motorhome
and found a shotgun and a 9mm pistol.
Now he's 2 guns and $ 5K lighter. Just to show we're a forgiving
people
we
let him continue his vacation in Nova Scotia



He's lucky he didn't get nailed in NY or Massachusetts on his way North.



Let's see. Most Canadians have lifestyles similar to most U.S. folks,
they have the benefits of democracy, they have health care, they have a
diverse population, they have no death penalty, they have fewer guns per
capita, and far fewer gun deaths per capita. Naw, there's no
relationship between the number of guns in a country and the number of
gun deaths.


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

A minute or so of google searches proves you wrong on the quality of gun
control and health care programs in Canada. I can certainly provide many
more articles if you like.


http://www.canada.com/windsor/windso...f-7175fc35fdae


Friday, July 23, 2004

OTTAWA - Canada's $1-billion gun registry is being used by a U.S.
project-management centre for senior corporate executives as a case study in
incompetence and financial mismanagement.

Baseline, a New York-based management centre that conducts case studies on
information technology for business leaders, has published an analysis of
the gun registry entitled: Canada Firearms: Armed Robbery.

The U.S. study examines how the gun registry developed from a simple
$119-million system to track firearm ownership into a large and complex
electronic database with a billion-dollar price tag.

"What was supposed to be a relatively modest information technology project
ballooned into a massive undertaking. At last count, the program had amassed
more than $1 billion in costs, and the system has become so cumbersome that
an independent review board recommended that it be scrapped," Baseline's
analysis said on its website.



http://www.libertyhaven.com/politics...alhealth.shtml

Canada has had socialized medicine for 20 years, and the same pattern of
deteriorating facilities, overburdened doctors, and long hospital waiting
lists is clear. A quarter of a million Canadians (out of a population of
only 26 million) are now on waiting lists for surgery. 12 The average
waiting period for elective surgery is four years. Women wait up to five
months for Pap smears and eight months for mammograms. 13 Since 1987, the
entire country spent less money on hospital improvements than the city of
Washington, D.C., which has a population of only 618,000. 14 As a result,
sophisticated diagnostic equipment is scarce in Canada and growing scarcer.
There are more MRIs (magnetic resonance imagers) in Washington State, which
has a population of 4.6 million, than in all of Canada, which has a
population of 26 million. 15

In Canada, as in Britain under socialized medicine, patients are denied
care, forced to cope with increasingly antiquated hospitals and equipment,
and can die while waiting for treatment. Canada controls health care costs
the same way Britain and Russia do: by denying modern treatment to the sick
and letting the severely ill and old die. 16

Despite standards far below those of the United States, when variables such
as America's higher crime and teenage pregnancy rates are factored out, and
when concealed government overhead costs are factored in, Canada spends as
high a percentage of its GNP on health care as the United States. 17 Today a
growing chorus of Canadians, including many former champions of socialized
medicine, are calling for return to a market-based system.




http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p01s04-wogi.html

TORONTO - When Bill Clinton attempted to reform US healthcare in 1994, his
administration often touted Canada's publicly funded, universal access
system as a model to be emulated. As it turns out, the Canadian system may
be crumbling under its own weight.

Despite spending nearly C$100 billion (US$64 billion) per year on
healthcare - the most per capita among countries that run a similar system -
a study released last week by the Fraser Institute, a public-policy think
tank in Vancouver, shows that Canada ranks only slightly higher than
Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in the quality of service its citizens receive.

Canada is the last industrialized nation to rely solely on government funds
for its core healthcare system. There's an emerging view that it, too, may
abandon a system that has long been a symbol of its national identity.

"We are no longer the model," says Michael Walker, executive director of the
Fraser Institute. "When you consider that equal access in a country as
spread out as Canada would require a greater number of physicians and
diagnostic equipment, we're clearly headed in the wrong direction."

Two issues in particular plague the Canadian system, which forbids any form
of user payment or private care for core services: the number of doctors and
access to high technology.

Canada fields 1.8 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants, which places it 17th on a
list of 20 countries with universal access (the list does not include the
US). To leap into first place, Canada would need to add 48,000 doctors to
its current roster of 57,000.

Canada lags even further behind in access to high-tech equipment, including
machines used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial
tomography (CAT) scans. This shortage affects wait time for diagnostic
assessments, which in provinces such as Saskatchewan can run well over three
months.

A great post Harry......for a 10 year old.

My 9 year old nephew could have done better though. LOL!

JIm-- this line would be more effective if your nephew aged a little from time
to time. He's been 9 for 4-5 years now. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A great post Harry......for a 10 year old.

My 9 year old nephew could have done better though. LOL!

JIm-- this line would be more effective if your nephew aged a little from
time
to time. He's been 9 for 4-5 years now. :-)

Actually he has not. He is now 9. I also have a nephew who is now 14 and a
niece who is 15. I may have used them as examples in the past, or my son
who is now 16.

A minute or so of google searches proves you wrong on the quality of gun
control and health care programs in Canada. I can certainly provide many
more articles if you like.

Point.

Counterpoint:

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.



Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of
citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not
guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized
nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has
a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for
the United States.


Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in
1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from
1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from
1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations
depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery
disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a
wide variety of industrialized nations.


Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized
nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers
and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation


Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care
than any other industrialized country with universal health care


Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General
Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100
to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and
increasing health care benefits.


Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that
single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year
from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the
uninsured and increasing health care benefits


Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were
identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal
health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United
States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.


Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the
current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends
50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these
administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide
universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save
money


Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have
more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US


Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to
payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized
country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of
ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.


Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater
In The US Than Canada (see graph)


Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the
United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the
wealthy and the whites.


Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the
United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and
surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%


Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay.
Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no
lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our
providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States
to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And
Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single
payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in
which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain
medical benefits


Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal
health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates
insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and
taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer


Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are
currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees
unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board
rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind


Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would
be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers,
business and government. It would not be a government controlled system,
although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be
run by a public trust, not the government.


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public
health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our
current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining
benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and
medical decision making would be resolved

Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be
Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is
health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care
providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of
the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is
not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is
socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is
socialized defense.


Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75%
of Americans would like a publicly financed, universal health care system


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and
would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are
Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the
most efficient
Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of
health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and
profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on
administration.


Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion
from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more


Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United
States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation
with single payer universal health care


Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed
care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically
increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase
of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).


Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the
lowest of any industrialized nation.


Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has
caused quality of care to be compromised


Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems
because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of
care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is
to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition
managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted
the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.
Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer
universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most
efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why
does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral
system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a
vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?
Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign
finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health
care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for
delivering health care

What you can do about this through your state Green Party
Work to pass a single payer, universal health care bill or referendum in your
state. State level bills and referenda will be most effective because a federal
health care system might in fact be too bureaucratic, and because it is not
politically realistic at this time.


Bills or referendum must be written by and supported by health care providers
for the legislature to take them seriously. It is thus imperative to form an
alliance with provider groups. The most effective provider group to go through
is Physicians For A National Health Program which has chapters in every state
(see hand out for partial listing of contact people). A number of states
already have organized single payer efforts: Massachusetts, California,
Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Maryland. Join with them.


A first step is to contact state representatives from PNHP and offer to join
with them to write and support a bill bringing single payer, universal health
care to your state if this has not already been done. The Connecticut and
Massachusetts Bills can be used as models to make this task easier (email us at
and we will send you copies of the bills). A referendum is
another way to go, in which case the California referendum can be used as a
model.


A second step is to contact state legislators and find a group who are willing
to sponsor such a bill.


A third step is to create a coalition of groups to work together to support and
publicize this work, or to try to bring together existing groups to work
together on this project. Labor unions, progressive democratic groups,
Medicare/Senior Advocacy groups, the Labor Party, the Reform Party, UHCAN,
existing health care advocacy groups, and state health care provider groups are
all imporatnt to work with and get to join such a coalition. The state medical
society and state hospital association are critical to work with in order to
get any legislation passed. Try to get them to work with you to design a new
model for health care delivery. They will be particularly concerned about who
will control the system, and be very mistrustful of government. A public trust
model with participation by providers, hospitals, business, the public and
government is like to be much more acceptable to them than a pure government
system. Emphasize doing away with managed care, and get them to try and work
with you to find other ways to control costs (necessary to convince
politicians) such as quality assurance standards, which will also protect them
from malpractice


A fourth step is to give talks in support of your bill or referendum where ever
possible. Senior groups, medical staffs, church groups, high school assemblies,
and labor unions are particularly good sources. Excellent materials including
slides, a chart book and videos are available through PNHP.


A fifth step is to raise money through fund raisers, contributions and benefits
held by entertainers. Benefits are particularly useful in bringing out people
who you can inform about single payer, universal health care and your efforts.


A sixth step is to develop media access. The creation of videos that can be
shown on local cable access TV stations is very effective. Newspaper articles,
letters to the editor, and articles by the press are critical. Radio interviews
and radio talk shows are important.


Getting the public to write and call their state representatives in support of
a proposed bill is critical, as is coordinating testimony at a public hearing.


Because the data about single payer universal health care are so revealing of
the problems with corporate America, and because the US citizenry is so
concerned and dissatisfied with our health care system these efforts may yield
surprisingly positive results and be helpful in establishing the Green Party in
the US as a party of the people, by the people and for the people.
We would be happy to help you. Contact us by email at , by
phone at 860-354-1822, or by mail at 88 Cherniske Road, New Milford, CT 06776

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A minute or so of google searches proves you wrong on the quality of gun
control and health care programs in Canada. I can certainly provide many
more articles if you like.

Point.

Counterpoint:

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.



Why doesn't the United States have universal health care as a right of
citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does
not
guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28
industrialized
nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany)
has
a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed
for
the United States.


snip

Seems to me to be nothing more than a lot of opinion presented as facts. ;-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A minute or so of google searches proves you wrong on the quality of gun
control and health care programs in Canada. I can certainly provide many
more articles if you like.

Point.

Counterpoint:

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.



Name one (federal) government run program that is efficient and effective.

Seems to me to be nothing more than a lot of opinion presented as facts. ;-)

The facts that we rank no higher than 20th in infant survival (no smart remarks
about abortion), that our kids are only slightly better immunized than those in
Botswana, and that life expectancy for both men and women is lower here than in
most industrialized nations aren't "opinions." but rather statistics.

We do have the finest health care money can buy, if you are in the decreasing
percentage of the population with money enough to buy it. But why not? Why
shouldn't the average cough-and-sniffles pediatrician haul in $250,000 salary a
year
and actual "miracle workers" (oncologists, brain surgeons, etc) over 7-figures?
Our system is becoming one of the super-elite catering to the super-elite. It's
the middle class that gets screwed the worst- the dirt poor will be taken care
of by the state, the very rich get decent health care as a company perk, and
the middle class guy earning $1250 a week is hammered for 20% of his pre-tax
income to pay for a family's health insurance.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Seems to me to be nothing more than a lot of opinion presented as facts.
;-)

The facts that we rank no higher than 20th in infant survival (no smart
remarks
about abortion), that our kids are only slightly better immunized than
those in
Botswana, and that life expectancy for both men and women is lower here
than in
most industrialized nations aren't "opinions." but rather statistics.

We do have the finest health care money can buy, if you are in the
decreasing
percentage of the population with money enough to buy it. But why not? Why
shouldn't the average cough-and-sniffles pediatrician haul in $250,000
salary a
year
and actual "miracle workers" (oncologists, brain surgeons, etc) over
7-figures?
Our system is becoming one of the super-elite catering to the super-elite.
It's
the middle class that gets screwed the worst- the dirt poor will be taken
care
of by the state, the very rich get decent health care as a company perk,
and
the middle class guy earning $1250 a week is hammered for 20% of his
pre-tax
income to pay for a family's health insurance.

Blame the legal system for allowing multi million dollar settlements,
causing insurance rates for doctors and for families to skyrocket.

Fix that problem first.

"jim--" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Seems to me to be nothing more than a lot of opinion presented as
facts.
;-)

The facts that we rank no higher than 20th in infant survival (no smart
remarks
about abortion), that our kids are only slightly better immunized than
those in
Botswana, and that life expectancy for both men and women is lower here
than in
most industrialized nations aren't "opinions." but rather statistics.

We do have the finest health care money can buy, if you are in the
decreasing
percentage of the population with money enough to buy it. But why not?
Why
shouldn't the average cough-and-sniffles pediatrician haul in $250,000
salary a
year
and actual "miracle workers" (oncologists, brain surgeons, etc) over
7-figures?
Our system is becoming one of the super-elite catering to the
super-elite.
It's
the middle class that gets screwed the worst- the dirt poor will be
taken
care
of by the state, the very rich get decent health care as a company perk,
and
the middle class guy earning $1250 a week is hammered for 20% of his
pre-tax
income to pay for a family's health insurance.

Blame the legal system for allowing multi million dollar settlements,
causing insurance rates for doctors and for families to skyrocket.

Fix that problem first.



You WON'T fix that problem anytime soon. Meanwhile, the real reason you
object to universal health care is that it fits your 6th grade understanding
of socialism.