From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 6, 6:17 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:08:43 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> > On  4-Sep-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)> 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.

Let's see. the University of Mississippi Medical Center is a full
service hospital. It has everything. There are few such hospitals in
Canada, but just counting state university hospitals, there are at
least 50 in the US (and many states have more than one university with
a big time medical center). Add in all the places like say John's
Hopkins and the plethora of top notch private medical centers across
the US, and then the high quality clinics like say the Mayo Clinic. On
top of that there are many regional hospitals, run of the mill
hospitals, but when you have a problem, like we did in the middle of
Missouri one time, it's nice to have them there. And add onto that all
the local clinics....compared to all that that we have here in the US,
health care is highly rationed in Canada, and nowhere near that in
level of medical services available because in Canada health care is
provided by the govt., and the govt simply cannot deliver that level
of service because of the gross inefficiency of govt services. In fact
Canada does ration the number of hospital beds per number of people,
as well as the number of doctors, among other things. In the US, the
public interacts to determine the number of beds, doctors and other
services; public health care vs govt health care. I trust the public;
you trust the govt, and that's the point of the debate!

Of course, if the US goes the single payer route, it will become like
Canada with respect to services available.
From: Carbon on
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:26:46 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2:31 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:19:19 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
>> > On Sep 6, 1:09 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:34:34 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
>> >> > Right now, insurance companies, individuals, health care
>> >> > providers and the sick people themselves make the decisions.
>> >> > What I really don't like about the system in Canada is it's a
>> >> > govt only thing. Even if you have the money to pay for the
>> >> > treatment, you can't get it in Canada if the govt says no. Right
>> >> > now a Canadian could go to the Us, but that could change.......
>> >> How do imagine that would happen? Armed guards at the borders?
>> > The facility simply will no longer be available
>> How do you imagine the facility simply will no longer be available?
> "Eliminate the waste"! The empty beads and unused facility will be
> eliminated, just as it has been in Canada. there will be enough to
> serve Americans...nothing for Canadians though. Sorry!

So, you're actually suggesting that wealthy Canadians, with wallets
open, would be turned away by hospitals in the US?

Rob, the secret to good trolling is to maintain some element of
believability. FYI.
From: Jack Hollis on
On 07 Sep 2009 00:11:41 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)>

>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.

In what way?
From: Jack Hollis on
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:24:04 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)>

>> I have addressed Jack's bullshit ad nauseum in the past. Done with that.
>Then don't criticize what he says.

All Carbon would have to say is that people don't die while on waiting
lists in Canada and all of the latest life saving drugs are
immediately available to all Canadians when they come on the market.
Or that Canada has a better survival rate for cancer than the US
because they have more advanced diagnostic equipment per capita than
the US. And that Canadian women don't have to come to the US for high
risk deliveries because Canada has plenty of beds in world class
neo-natal ICU's.

Of course, he can't say that because it all not true. So he attacks
me personally. Personal attacks are a sure sign that someone has
nothing convincing left to say.

The only thing you could possibly say in favor of Canada is that
everyone has coverage. However, as the Canadian Supreme Court has
said in their ruling "Access to a waiting list is not access to health
care." Finally, there is no doubt that Canada's health care is
cheaper than the US. Of course, you get what you pay for.
From: Jack Hollis on
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:58:27 -0400, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote:

>Are you asking about Obama's undergraduate transcripts? We would all
>like to see them. I'm sure Obama was a charity case when he was
>"accepted" at Harvard Law and Obama's undergraduate transcript from
>Columbia will provide the proof.

His SAT and LSAT scores would be very interesting. You can get a
pretty good idea of IQ from both of those scores. I wonder why he
hasn't released them.