Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: dene on 6 Sep 2009 19:58 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4aa42a45$0$23968$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:52:42 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > > On 06 Sep 2009 20:08:35 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > > wrote: > >>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:51:04 +0000, assimilate wrote: > >>> On 6-Sep-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many > >>>>> expert witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if the > >>>>> greatest legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care > >>>>> system results in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or > >>>>> you for that matter, to disagree. > >>>> > >>>> I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh? > >>> > >>> And you accuse others of deflection? > >> > >>Jack visited Canada in the late 60's or early 70's, and I guess > >>because of that he imagines himself to be an expert on all things > >>Canadian. As someone who has actually lived there for 35 years, I beg > >>to differ. Why should I waste time on his endless bullshit? Because > >>you agree with him? > > > > Fact is that you don't have anything relevant to say about people > > dying on waiting lists in Canada or the fact that millions of > > Canadians have to buy private insurance, or pay out of pocket, to get > > life saving drugs that the government program wont pay for. You'd > > rather talk about my posts in another group. > > > > And, I've been to Canada many time since my first visits to Quebec > > Provence in the 60s and 70s when I stood with my French Canadian > > brothers against their oppression by the English. > > > > Vive le Quebec Libre! > > Just for you, just this once: there is obviously pressure on the > Canadian healthcare system because it is providing universal coverage at > less than cost 2/3 per capita of what the US system does. If you live in > a rural area, you could wait a long time for non-critical surgery. It is > hardly perfect and could certainly stand to be improved. > > However. The US system is much, much worse, as is blindingly obvious to > any rational person with experience with both systems. The profit-based > US system is ridiculously expensive while still denying coverage to > millions. Even many with insurance still do not get the care they need. Glad to see you admit there are flaws with your country's system. Now why would you want to impose the same system on my country, especially given the size of our population and the Federal gov't well deserved reputation for inefficiency. Wouldn't sensible insurance reform be more expedient? -Greg -Greg
From: dene on 6 Sep 2009 20:02 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4aa4173d$0$23981$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:34:51 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 10:49:41 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > > > >>Obama, FWIW, needs to come clean on these issues, and either deny > >>Holdren and Emanuel outright, or justify the value of their approaches > >>as potential policy. > > > > It's not an accident that Obama is surrounded by extreme left-wing > > radicals. I have no doubt that Obama was, and is, more inspired by > > Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson. > > You know, there are thousands of Usenet groups... Yes...but he brings interesting observations and citations. Scary, huh? -Greg
From: Carbon on 6 Sep 2009 20:06 On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:52:09 -0700, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4aa44318$0$4975$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:08:43 +0000, assimilate wrote: >> > On 4-Sep-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Will you explain what the difference is between "rationing" and >> >> the way things are done now? - >> > >> > Now coverage is a matter of contract: what the policy says it will >> > cover and if one party does not live up to the terms then in can be >> > brought before the authorities to settle. Rationing socialist style >> > is where one party is the state and who is going to arbitrate a >> > dispute between you and the state? Why the state. Wonder how that's >> > going to work out? >> >> "Rationing socialist style." I like that. Nice aroma. >> >> In your opinion, is more healthcare rationing done in Canada or the >> US? I'm always interested in the intersection between reality and >> ideology, so I'm genuinely curious if you'll be able to bring >> yourself to concede the obvious. > > Rationing is done more in Canada. What Bill describes as the contract > system is dead one straight....and it correlates to my 20 years in the > biz. Furthermore, there is accountability if the contract is broken. > Conversely, there is accountability if the contract/policy was > obtained on a fraudulent basis. Everyone in Canada has healthcare. Millions in the US do not. Just on that blindingly obvious fact alone, there is way more rationing in the States.
From: Carbon on 6 Sep 2009 20:07 On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:53:33 -0700, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4aa3e396$0$4943$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:32:46 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: >> > On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >> > wrote: >> >>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:18:28 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: >> >>> On 06 Sep 2009 02:38:47 GMT, Carbon >> >>> <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> In Canada if you're sick and you need expensive care, you get >> >>>> it, period. >> >>> >> >>> Canadians get it all right, but not the way they think. Canada's >> >>> health care rationing kills. >> >> >> >>Spare me the bullshit. >> > >> > From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005. >> > >> > "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious, >> > sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley >> > McLachlin and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have >> > life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay >> > in awaiting surgery." >> > >> > I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many >> > expert witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if the >> > greatest legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care >> > system results in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or you >> > for that matter, to disagree. >> >> I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh? > > Nice diversion, Carbs, but why don't you address Jack's cite. I have addressed Jack's bullshit ad nauseum in the past. Done with that.
From: Carbon on 6 Sep 2009 20:11
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:58:01 -0700, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4aa42a45$0$23968$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:52:42 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: >> > On 06 Sep 2009 20:08:35 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >> > wrote: >> >>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:51:04 +0000, assimilate wrote: >> >>> On 6-Sep-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many >> >>>>> expert witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if >> >>>>> the greatest legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health >> >>>>> care system results in people unnecessarily dying, then who am >> >>>>> I, or you for that matter, to disagree. >> >>>> >> >>>> I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh? >> >>> >> >>> And you accuse others of deflection? >> >> >> >>Jack visited Canada in the late 60's or early 70's, and I guess >> >>because of that he imagines himself to be an expert on all things >> >>Canadian. As someone who has actually lived there for 35 years, I >> >>beg to differ. Why should I waste time on his endless bullshit? >> >>Because you agree with him? >> > >> > Fact is that you don't have anything relevant to say about people >> > dying on waiting lists in Canada or the fact that millions of >> > Canadians have to buy private insurance, or pay out of pocket, to >> > get life saving drugs that the government program wont pay for. >> > You'd rather talk about my posts in another group. >> > >> > And, I've been to Canada many time since my first visits to Quebec >> > Provence in the 60s and 70s when I stood with my French Canadian >> > brothers against their oppression by the English. >> > >> > Vive le Quebec Libre! >> >> Just for you, just this once: there is obviously pressure on the >> Canadian healthcare system because it is providing universal coverage >> at less than cost 2/3 per capita of what the US system does. If you >> live in a rural area, you could wait a long time for non-critical >> surgery. It is hardly perfect and could certainly stand to be >> improved. >> >> However. The US system is much, much worse, as is blindingly obvious >> to any rational person with experience with both systems. The >> profit-based US system is ridiculously expensive while still denying >> coverage to millions. Even many with insurance still do not get the >> care they need. > > Glad to see you admit there are flaws with your country's system. Now > why would you want to impose the same system on my country, especially > given the size of our population and the Federal gov't well deserved > reputation for inefficiency. Wouldn't sensible insurance reform be > more expedient? Of course there are flaws. I have never claimed otherwise. What I have argued is that the Canadian system is way better than the US one. Which it quite obviously is. To be honest, I don't have much faith in government, especially the US one. If Obama does manage to push through meaningful healthcare reform I expect the implementation to be rife with incompetence and corruption. But it will still be way better than the corrupt BOHICA (bend over here it comes again) profit-based system that is in place now. |