The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd

[Paul Simon]

The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd
Like It Too Much

By Lindsay Beyerstein, The Media Consortium. Posted December 24, 2008.

That's right: Conservatives are terrified that a new system would be
so good we would never want to get rid of it.

A common thread is emerging in the right-wing response to health care
reform. Its opponents aren't claiming that public health care will be
bad. Rather, they are terrified that the new system will be so good
that no citizen would buy expensive private insurance -- or vote for
politicians who wanted to take public insurance away.

Barack Obama's team is sending clear signals that health care reform
is a core economic issue, and the health insurance industry is
becoming increasingly anxious by the future administration's
determination to bring health care costs under control. Some Americans
are seeing their health care premiums rising at four times the rate of
inflation, if they have insurance at all. Health care reform is a
pocketbook issue for all of us, according to the Obama team.

In tough economic times, it might be tempting to postpone health care
reforms, but Obama is adamant that delay would be a false economy. In
the American Prospect, Joanne Kenen and Sarah Axeen support claims
about the high cost of doing nothing:

A recent report by the New America Foundation's health-policy program
estimates that the cost of doing nothing about health care, including
poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured, is well above $200
billion a year and rising. That's enough to cover the uninsured and
still have some left over for other public-health needs.
If health care costs continue to rise at their current rates, it will
cost $24,000 a year to insure a family of four by 2016, an 84 percent
increase from today. At these rates, half of American households would
have to spend at least 45 percent of their income to be insured.

In the Nation, Willa Thompson describes how a bicycle crash made her
appreciate the connection between health care and politics. Thompson
was 21 years old when she suffered major injuries after a collision
with a truck. Luckily, she was covered by her parents' medical
insurance until she turned 22. She later realized that if she had been
just a few months older when the accident happened, she wouldn't have
been able to pay for her medical care.

We all agree that something needs to be done. Let's briefly review the
options that have been proposed so far: Obama wants to provide health
care for all by requiring private insurance companies to cover
everyone, and he wants to create a public health insurance plan to
compete with private insurers. The second part of his plan, the public
option, is what Republican opponents are so scared of.

Insurance companies love the idea that we will all be forced to buy
their expensive product; they're not so keen about competition from
the public sector.

Ezra Klein writes, "If you're looking for the coming fault line on the
left of health care politics, keep an eye on what happens to the
public-insurance option in the health reform bill." Will the public
plan survive? Not if the Republicans and the insurance lobby have
anything to say about it. As evidence, Klein cites this passage from a
recent article in Congressional Quarterly:

Mark Hayes, a Republican health policy adviser to the Senate Finance
Committee, said Republicans have concerns because the government plan
might have access to price controls and other tools not available to
private insurers. This could lead to lower premiums in the government
plan, which would cause most consumers to migrate out of the private
market, he said. "Over time, the effect the government option could
have [is an] erosion in the private market, [making] other choices not
available," Hayes said.
The consensus among progressives is clear, the public plan must
prevail. In fact, many advocate going all the way to single-payer
health insurance. Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee
argues in the Progressive that Obama and Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for
health and human services secretary, should opt for single-payer
health insurance. Now is no time for piecemeal solutions:

Such a path would perpetuate the crisis and deal a cruel blow to the
hopes of Americans for real reform. Those in Congress and liberal
policy organizations who are embracing caution or promoting more
insurance, not more care, are playing a risky game. It could
jeopardize the health security of tens of millions of Americans and,
in the process, fatally erode public support for the Obama
administration.
Klein links to a candid post from the blog of the right-wing Cato
Institute, wherein Michael F. Cannon argues that blocking Obama's
health plan is the key to GOP survival. Why? Because, history shows
that once people start getting good health care from the government at
a price they can afford, they want to keep re-electing the politicians
who make that possible. Cannon calls the phenomenon where people
re-elect governments that give them good health care "becoming
dependent on the government," we call it "voting our self-interest."

In other health care news, public-health advocates are not pleased
about rumors that Obama may ask Mark Dybul to stay on as U.S. Global
AIDS Coordinator for the first year of Obama's term. Dybul is
responsible for implementing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief, which funds AIDS prevention and treatment in 15 poor
countries. The advocates say that Dybul, a medical doctor, is too
focused on medical interventions and behavioral changes for
individuals and not sufficiently concerned with broader public-health
initiatives.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive
reporting about health care. Visit healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a
complete list of articles on health care, or follow us on Twitter. And
for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and immigration
issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and
Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of the Media Consortium,
a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by
NewsLadder.

[wulfenite]

Post by Paul Simon
The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd
Like It Too Much
By Lindsay Beyerstein, The Media Consortium. Posted December 24, 2008.
That's right: Conservatives are terrified that a new system would be
so good we would never want to get rid of it.

Hmmm...as good as the Canuckian's system?

Oh...that's right...they end up coming over here for surgeries...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL702.cfm

The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that
they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's
quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States.


In Manitoba, which is my former home province, the premier--the
political equivalent of a governor--concedes that his pledge to end
hallway medicine has fallen short. Hallway medicine is the phenomenon
where the emergency rooms are so filled with patients that people are
forced to lie on stretchers in hallways, often for days. Overcrowding is
a periodic problem. In fact, the overcrowding is worse than last year.
The community is rocked by the death of a 74-year old man who had waited
in the emergency room for three hours and had not been seen.


New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the
United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime
province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients
south. In the best health care system in the world, the vast majority of
provinces now rely on American health care to provide radiation therapy.
Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for
treatment is often badly exceeded. Ordinarily, oncologists suggest that
there should be a two-week gap between the initial consult by the family
doctor and the referral to the oncologist, and then two weeks more from
the oncologist to the commencement of radiation therapy. In most
Canadian provinces, we exceed that by one to two months, sometimes three.


In Alberta earlier this year, a young man dies because of the profound
emergency room overcrowding. He is 23. On a winter's night, he develops
pain in his flank and goes to the local emergency room. It is so crowded
that he grows impatient and goes to another. There, he waits six hours.
No one sees him. Exhausted and frustrated, he goes home. The pain
continues, so he finally decides to go to the local community hospital.
It's too late: His appendix ruptured. He dies from the complications
hours later.
Those are some of the examples of the cruelty of what goes on in Canada.





Or maybe the British system?

Crowded hospital wards and abominable waiting lists.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL702.cfm

Today, the National Health Service costs the taxpayers some £50,000
million. Over one million people are waiting for treatment and surgery
and often waiting reasonably lengthy times: months, and for some
surgery, years. There are probably another 300,000 to 400,000 people
waiting to get on the waiting list because, of course, there's a
definition about waiting lists. If you're on a waiting list, when you've
seen a consultant and you're waiting for surgery, you're not really on
the government waiting list when you're waiting to move from the GP to
see the consultant.

Today in the U.K., we're seeing a dramatic increase in the number of
people who are turning away from the NHS, and many people who have no
private medic insurance are simply self-funding. One in five people who
go into British private hospitals just take their credit card or cash,
or it's the family clubbing together to buy Mom a heart bypass or Dad a
hip replacement. Probably nearly 200,000 surgical procedures a year now
are done on that basis.


We're seeing a dramatic increase in number of people covered by the
health cash benefit schemes. Five years ago, 3 million people were
covered by those schemes. Today it's probably between 5 and 6 million.


We're seeing a continuation in the growth of private medical insurance,
probably about 2 percent a year in coverage.


We're seeing recently the launch of private prescriptions for even NHS
patients. For example, if you want Viagra, the NHS will no longer pay
for it. You have to go private in many instances.


We've seen the NHS independent-sector Concord Act. We're seeing the
continuation of contracting out of NHS work. I believe in the next few
months we're going to see the introduction of private management teams
into what will be called or deemed the failing of National Health
Service hospitals.

[MEG]

Post by Paul Simon
The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd
Like It Too Much
By Lindsay Beyerstein, The Media Consortium. Posted December 24, 2008.
That's right: Conservatives are terrified that a new system would be
so good we would never want to get rid of it.
A common thread is emerging in the right-wing response to health care
reform. Its opponents aren't claiming that public health care will be
bad. Rather, they are terrified that the new system will be so good
that no citizen would buy expensive private insurance -- or vote for
politicians who wanted to take public insurance away.
Barack Obama's team is sending clear signals that health care reform
is a core economic issue, and the health insurance industry is
becoming increasingly anxious by the future administration's
determination to bring health care costs under control. Some Americans
are seeing their health care premiums rising at four times the rate of
inflation, if they have insurance at all. Health care reform is a
pocketbook issue for all of us, according to the Obama team.
In tough economic times, it might be tempting to postpone health care
reforms, but Obama is adamant that delay would be a false economy. In
the American Prospect, Joanne Kenen and Sarah Axeen support claims
A recent report by the New America Foundation's health-policy program
estimates that the cost of doing nothing about health care, including
poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured, is well above $200
billion a year and rising. That's enough to cover the uninsured and
still have some left over for other public-health needs.
If health care costs continue to rise at their current rates, it will
cost $24,000 a year to insure a family of four by 2016, an 84 percent
increase from today. At these rates, half of American households would
have to spend at least 45 percent of their income to be insured.
In the Nation, Willa Thompson describes how a bicycle crash made her
appreciate the connection between health care and politics. Thompson
was 21 years old when she suffered major injuries after a collision
with a truck. Luckily, she was covered by her parents' medical
insurance until she turned 22. She later realized that if she had been
just a few months older when the accident happened, she wouldn't have
been able to pay for her medical care.
We all agree that something needs to be done. Let's briefly review the
options that have been proposed so far: Obama wants to provide health
care for all by requiring private insurance companies to cover
everyone, and he wants to create a public health insurance plan to
compete with private insurers. The second part of his plan, the public
option, is what Republican opponents are so scared of.
Insurance companies love the idea that we will all be forced to buy
their expensive product; they're not so keen about competition from
the public sector.
Ezra Klein writes, "If you're looking for the coming fault line on the
left of health care politics, keep an eye on what happens to the
public-insurance option in the health reform bill." Will the public
plan survive? Not if the Republicans and the insurance lobby have
anything to say about it. As evidence, Klein cites this passage from a
Mark Hayes, a Republican health policy adviser to the Senate Finance
Committee, said Republicans have concerns because the government plan
might have access to price controls and other tools not available to
private insurers. This could lead to lower premiums in the government
plan, which would cause most consumers to migrate out of the private
market, he said. "Over time, the effect the government option could
have [is an] erosion in the private market, [making] other choices not
available," Hayes said.
The consensus among progressives is clear, the public plan must
prevail. In fact, many advocate going all the way to single-payer
health insurance. Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee
argues in the Progressive that Obama and Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for
health and human services secretary, should opt for single-payer
Such a path would perpetuate the crisis and deal a cruel blow to the
hopes of Americans for real reform. Those in Congress and liberal
policy organizations who are embracing caution or promoting more
insurance, not more care, are playing a risky game. It could
jeopardize the health security of tens of millions of Americans and,
in the process, fatally erode public support for the Obama
administration.
Klein links to a candid post from the blog of the right-wing Cato
Institute, wherein Michael F. Cannon argues that blocking Obama's
health plan is the key to GOP survival. Why? Because, history shows
that once people start getting good health care from the government at
a price they can afford, they want to keep re-electing the politicians
who make that possible. Cannon calls the phenomenon where people
re-elect governments that give them good health care "becoming
dependent on the government," we call it "voting our self-interest."
In other health care news, public-health advocates are not pleased
about rumors that Obama may ask Mark Dybul to stay on as U.S. Global
AIDS Coordinator for the first year of Obama's term. Dybul is
responsible for implementing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief, which funds AIDS prevention and treatment in 15 poor
countries. The advocates say that Dybul, a medical doctor, is too
focused on medical interventions and behavioral changes for
individuals and not sufficiently concerned with broader public-health
initiatives.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive
reporting about health care. Visit healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a
complete list of articles on health care, or follow us on Twitter. And
for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and immigration
issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and
Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of the Media Consortium,
a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by
NewsLadder.

They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.. Our existing system is bad there is no doubt, it
should be fixed not trashed. Look at the grip the pharmaceuticals
have on our politicians now, they are still going to get the %1000 to
%2000 profit they are used to, even if they nationalize it. There is
too much money in it. If it is not "fixed" we are all screwed
""again"".

[Bill Z.]

Post by MEG
They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>

Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.

Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

If you want to get out the economic morass the U.S. is now in
after 8 years of Republican mis-management, you'll simply have
to accept measures that increase our productivity. Health care
is an obvious thing to fix given how poorly we are doing compared
to other countries. We are throwing a lot of money down the
tubes and getting little for it.

[Lobby Dosser]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MEG
They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They

In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.

If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do, just as the richest Americans
sometimes fly to Europe for surgery - when you are worth a billion,
you'll tend to pick a world-renowned expert regardless of which
country that expert lives in.

[Lobby Dosser]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do, just as the richest Americans
sometimes fly to Europe for surgery - when you are worth a billion,
you'll tend to pick a world-renowned expert regardless of which
country that expert lives in.

Funny how you never hear of somebody flying to Canada or Britain to get
treatment from a world-renowned expert.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do, just as the richest Americans
sometimes fly to Europe for surgery - when you are worth a billion,
you'll tend to pick a world-renowned expert regardless of which
country that expert lives in.

Funny how you never hear of somebody flying to Canada or Britain to
get treatment from a world-renowned expert.

Actually, you do every so often - but in most cases, it is simply not
newsworthy.

Oh, and don't forget to read this one:
<http://masscare.org/health-care-costs/overhead-costs-of-health-care/>.

[wulfenite]

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do, just as the richest Americans
sometimes fly to Europe for surgery - when you are worth a billion,
you'll tend to pick a world-renowned expert regardless of which
country that expert lives in.

Funny how you never hear of somebody flying to Canada or Britain to get
treatment from a world-renowned expert.

LOL!

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing nut incapable of a civil conversation because
the fool takes what he reads in right-wing publications seriously.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing nut incapable of a civil conversation because
the fool takes what he reads in right-wing publications seriously.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html

David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long wait
often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care system
came to him during a dinner party.

And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

This month, Canada's largest life insurance company, Manulife Financial,
began marketing AccelMD's tools to Canadian employers as an add-on
employee benefit. These employers buy group coverage to supplement the
doctor and hospital services sponsored by the government.

Manulife seems excited about AccelMD's product. "There's nothing like it
in Canada. It's a new concept," said Kim MacFarlane, product manager for
group benefits at Manulife's headquarters in Toronto. "We're optimistic
that it will do well."

The idea occurred to Le Penske several years ago as he was chatting at a
dinner party about a long-recognized problem: It can take a long time
for Canadians to see doctors for tests and procedures.

Statistics Canada, the government's data agency, in 2006 said the median
waiting times for all specialized services nationwide were between three
and four weeks. The agency concluded that "waiting times remain the No.
1 barrier for Canadians," especially those who sought specialized and
nonemergency care.

The Fraser Institute, a think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia,
recently said the national median waiting time was 9.1 weeks for
specialists.

The business idea that first sprang to Le Penske's mind was this: What
if Canadians were offered memberships, with discounted service prices,
to physician and hospital networks in the United States?

"I started speaking off the cuff about the health-care challenges and
wait times that Canadians face due to a one-tiered, socialized medical
system where private health insurance for physician and hospital
coverage is illegal," Le Penske said.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my case,
you..otoh...

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

That was not a press release, but it was a clear example of the free
market aiding the Canuckian socialized health system.

Now take your tepid denials and slackwitted rationalizing elsewhere.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They

(NOTE HOW THESE GUYS SNIP TEXT MID SENTENCE)

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my
case, you..otoh...

... provided statistics that backed up exactly what I said, while
you guys proceded to snip the URL in the replies.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.

ROTFLMAO. This is a "bizjournal" promoting a business. What else is
new?

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., someone thought there was something he could market.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

That was not a press release, but it was a clear example of the free
market aiding the Canuckian socialized health system.

No, it's pretty much the sort of releases that businesses put out all
the time for reporters to re-write into articles.

Post by wulfenite
Now take your tepid denials and slackwitted rationalizing elsewhere.

Idiot. See my other post. You simply don't know what you are
talking about.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They

(NOTE HOW THESE GUYS SNIP TEXT MID SENTENCE)

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my
case, you..otoh...

... provided statistics that backed up exactly what I said, while
you guys proceded to snip the URL in the replies.

Not I.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.

ROTFLMAO. This is a "bizjournal" promoting a business. What else is
new?

It's a business newspaper reporting a new business model.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., someone thought there was something he could market.

Turned out he was right, as I demonstrated.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

That was not a press release, but it was a clear example of the free
market aiding the Canuckian socialized health system.

No, it's pretty much the sort of releases that businesses put out all
the time for reporters to re-write into articles.

So your entire act is "shoot the messenger"?

That's it?

What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
Now take your tepid denials and slackwitted rationalizing elsewhere.

Idiot. See my other post. You simply don't know what you are
talking about.

Why yes, really I do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people
in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health
minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in
the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an
appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from
3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute,
a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an
appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks
from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment
range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery,
according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for
cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for
cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment
and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.



Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They

(NOTE HOW THESE GUYS SNIP TEXT MID SENTENCE)

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my
case, you..otoh...

... provided statistics that backed up exactly what I said, while
you guys proceded to snip the URL in the replies.

Not I.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.

ROTFLMAO. This is a "bizjournal" promoting a business. What else is
new?

It's a business newspaper reporting a new business model.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., someone thought there was something he could market.

Turned out he was right, as I demonstrated.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

That was not a press release, but it was a clear example of the free
market aiding the Canuckian socialized health system.

No, it's pretty much the sort of releases that businesses put out all
the time for reporters to re-write into articles.

So your entire act is "shoot the messenger"?

Nope - I just know marketing hype when I see it.

Post by wulfenite
That's it?
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public. You can start by
asking your mother to wash your mouth out with soap.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They

(NOTE HOW THESE GUYS SNIP TEXT MID SENTENCE)

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my
case, you..otoh...

... provided statistics that backed up exactly what I said, while
you guys proceded to snip the URL in the replies.

Not I.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.

ROTFLMAO. This is a "bizjournal" promoting a business. What else is
new?

It's a business newspaper reporting a new business model.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., someone thought there was something he could market.

Turned out he was right, as I demonstrated.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

That was not a press release, but it was a clear example of the free
market aiding the Canuckian socialized health system.

No, it's pretty much the sort of releases that businesses put out all
the time for reporters to re-write into articles.

So your entire act is "shoot the messenger"?

Nope - I just know marketing hype when I see it.

Post by wulfenite
That's it?
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

Do us all a favor and get your mommy to wash your filthy mouth out
with soap. You are not only a liar, but a potty mouthed one as
well.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

Do us all a favor a

OK:


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

One Vancouver-based company started a large for-profit family medical
clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last
November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics — in Toronto,
Ottawa and London, Ontario — next summer and nine more in several other
cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI
procedures are opening around the country.

Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American
system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million
people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private
health insurance and delivery systems.

Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people
in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health
minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in
the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an
appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from
3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute,
a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an
appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks
from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment
range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery,
according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for
cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for
cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment
and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

Do us all a favor a

More snipping mid-sentence . Here's what he snipped:

Do us all a favor and get your mommy to wash your filthy mouth out
with soap. You are not only a liar, but a potty mouthed one as
well.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

OK,

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>

Readers can decide between an article written by Karen Davis, Ph.D.,
Cathy Schoen, M.S., Stephen C. Schoenbaum, M.D., M.P.H., Michelle
M. Doty, Ph.D., M.P.H., Alyssa L. Holmgren, M.P.A., Jennifer L. Kriss,
and Katherine K. Shea (the one I cited) and a New York Times article
written by Clifford Krauss, a New York Times national business
correspondent based in Houston (the one you cited).

Let's see. A business correspondent with no obvious expertise in
health care reports on a business and writes a glowing report about
the business' long-term prospects. Meanwhile a report authored
by experts performing a multidimensional comparison finds that the
U.S. healthcare system is worse than the Canadian one, which is
worse than the ones in New Zealand and Australia, which are worse
than the one in Germany, which is worse than the one in the United
Kindom (which was at the top of scale in overall performance). No
system was ahead in all categories.

Basically, you are grasping at straws. The UK's system ranked first
and had a cost per capita of $2546 compared to $6102 in the U.S.
Explain how the UK system is outranking us (and the Canadian system)
in nearly every category and doing it at 42% of what we pay. The
Canadian system outranked us in more categories than we outranked
the Canadian system, and did that at 52 percent of our cost.

And in spite of "long waits", the Canadian system outranked us on
access - no surprise since access in the U.S. system depends on
your ability to pay, not how critical your medical condition is.

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

Do us all a favor a

Do us all a favor and get your mommy to wash your filthy mouth out
with soap. You are not only a liar, but a potty mouthed one as
well.

Bend double and blow yourself, you dishonest pile of dog shit.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

OK,
<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>
Readers can decide between an article written by Karen Davis, Ph.D.,
Cathy Schoen, M.S., Stephen C. Schoenbaum, M.D., M.P.H., Michelle
M. Doty, Ph.D., M.P.H., Alyssa L. Holmgren, M.P.A., Jennifer L. Kriss,
and Katherine K. Shea (the one I cited) and a New York Times article
written by Clifford Krauss, a New York Times national business
correspondent based in Houston (the one you cited).
Let's see. A business correspondent with no obvious expertise in
health care reports on a business and writes a glowing report about
the business' long-term prospects. Meanwhile a report authored
by experts performing a multidimensional comparison finds that the
U.S. healthcare system is worse than the Canadian one, which is
worse than the ones in New Zealand and Australia, which are worse
than the one in Germany, which is worse than the one in the United
Kindom (which was at the top of scale in overall performance). No
system was ahead in all categories.
Basically, you are grasping at straws. The UK's system ranked first
and had a cost per capita of $2546 compared to $6102 in the U.S.
Explain how the UK system is outranking us (and the Canadian system)
in nearly every category and doing it at 42% of what we pay. The
Canadian system outranked us in more categories than we outranked
the Canadian system, and did that at 52 percent of our cost.
And in spite of "long waits", the Canadian system outranked us on
access - no surprise since access in the U.S. system depends on
your ability to pay, not how critical your medical condition is.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS106384+30-Sep-2008+PRN20080930


TORONTO, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire/ - Canada's government monopoly, single-payer
health care system is one of the worst ways to achieve universal health
insurance coverage and Americans should avoid adopting a similar system,
concludes a new study from independent research organization the Fraser
Institute.
"Advocates of single-payer health care systems tend to promote the allegedly
lower monetary costs, but they ignore the lack of access to medical
resources," said Brett Skinner, Fraser Institute Director of Health,
Pharmaceutical and Insurance Policy Research and lead author of the study.
The peer-reviewed study, The Hidden Costs of Single Payer Health
Insurance: A
Comparison of the United States and Canada, compares some of the key aspects
of the health care systems in both the U.S. and Canada, including the supply
of medical resources, access to technology and effective health insurance
coverage.
"The point of the comparison is to show that all of the costs of a
single-payer health care system are not as obvious as the dollars spent,"
Skinner said.
The study shows that health care in Canada appears to cost less because
relative to the United States, Canadian public health insurance does not
cover
many advanced medical treatments and technologies, common medical resources
are in short supply, and access to health care is often severely delayed.
"On average, Americans spend more of their incomes on health care but
they get
better access to superior medical resources," Skinner said.
"If Canadians had access to the same quality and quantity of health-care
resources that American patients enjoy, the Canadian health-insurance
monopoly
would cost a lot more than it currently does."
According to the most recent data, the United States outscores Canada on
many
key indicators of available health care resources, including:

- Number of MRI units per million population in 2006: US: 26.5;
Canada: 6.2
- Number of MRI exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 83,200;
Canada: 25,500
- Number of CT Scanners per million population in 2006: US: 33.9;
Canada 12
- Number of CT exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 172,500;
Canada 87,300
- Number of inpatient surgical procedures per million population in
2004: US: 89,900; Canada: 44,700.


Even on health insurance coverage, the Canadian system does not perform much
better than the U.S. when it comes to actually delivering insured access.
"Access to a wait list is not the same thing as access to health care,"
Skinner said.
The study cites government data showing an estimated 1.7 million Canadians
(aged 12 and older) were unable to access a regular family physician in
2007.
And it points to other research showing that the actual number of
"effectively" uninsured Americans is less than half of the figure usually
reported and that being uninsured is usually only a temporary condition.
Based on these figures, the study estimates that the percentage of the
population that was "effectively" uninsured for non-emergency, necessary
medical services at any given time during 2007 was not significantly
different
between the two countries: 7.9 percent in the U.S. compared to six
percent in
Canada.
"When Canadians can't get access to health care because they can't find a
physician or wait so long that they are effectively uninsured, they are no
better off than uninsured Americans," Skinner said.
The study concludes that both Canada and the U.S. should look to countries
such as Switzerland or the Netherlands, where the government is not in the
business of providing health or drug insurance at all. Instead,
individuals in
those nations are required by law to purchase comprehensive health insurance
in a regulated pluralistic private-sector market. Access to health insurance
for low-income people is facilitated through a publicly-funded means-tested
subsidy that varies according to the income and assets of the insured
person.
"With Canada witnessing the failure of its own single-payer health insurance
system, why would Americans want to adopt such a system for themselves?"
Skinner asked.
"Making everyone eligible for government-administered medical benefits that
are fully subsidized by taxpayers is the worst way to achieve universal
health
insurance coverage."

MEDIA CONTACT:
Brett Skinner, Director, Health, Pharmaceutical and
Insurance Policy Research
The Fraser Institute
Tel: [phone], ext. 224
Email: ***@fraserinstitute.org


The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational organization
with locations across North America and partnerships in more than 70
countries. Its mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of
competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of
individuals.
To protect the Institute's independence, it does not accept grants from
governments or contracts for research. Visit http://am.eri.ca/

SOURCE The Fraser Institute

[Bill Z.]

Post by Arne Saknussen

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

Do us all a favor a

Do us all a favor and get your mommy to wash your filthy mouth out
with soap. You are not only a liar, but a potty mouthed one as
well.

Bend double and blow yourself, you dishonest pile of dog shit.

Another potty mouthed conservative (or is it just 'wulfenite' under a
new user name)? If these people want to be taken seriously, they can
engage in a civil converstation and come up with objective sources
instead of propaganda from some conservative/libertarian outfit.

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They

(NOTE HOW THESE GUYS SNIP TEXT MID SENTENCE)

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my
case, you..otoh...

... provided statistics that backed up exactly what I said, while
you guys proceded to snip the URL in the replies.

Not I.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.

ROTFLMAO. This is a "bizjournal" promoting a business. What else is
new?

It's a business newspaper reporting a new business model.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., someone thought there was something he could market.

Turned out he was right, as I demonstrated.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

That was not a press release, but it was a clear example of the free
market aiding the Canuckian socialized health system.

No, it's pretty much the sort of releases that businesses put out all
the time for reporters to re-write into articles.

So your entire act is "shoot the messenger"?

Nope - I just know marketing hype when I see it.

Post by wulfenite
That's it?
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

You're all alone again, Sam. The only US is these United States,
United to help you to leave.....bye now.

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They

(NOTE HOW THESE GUYS SNIP TEXT MID SENTENCE)

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my
case, you..otoh...

... provided statistics that backed up exactly what I said, while
you guys proceded to snip the URL in the replies.

Not I.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html
David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long
wait often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care
system came to him during a dinner party.

ROTFLMAO. This is a "bizjournal" promoting a business. What else is
new?

It's a business newspaper reporting a new business model.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

I.e., someone thought there was something he could market.

Turned out he was right, as I demonstrated.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
I.e., you are passing of the press releases of some business with an
interest in self promotion as something to take seriously.

That was not a press release, but it was a clear example of the free
market aiding the Canuckian socialized health system.

No, it's pretty much the sort of releases that businesses put out all
the time for reporters to re-write into articles.

So your entire act is "shoot the messenger"?

Nope - I just know marketing hype when I see it.

Post by wulfenite
That's it?
What a fucking deceitful pile of shit you are.
Now do me a favor, fuck off and dry up.

Do me a favor and learn how to behave in public.

Do us ALL a favor and DROP FUCKING DEAD!

You're all alone again,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

One Vancouver-based company started a large for-profit family medical
clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last
November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics — in Toronto,
Ottawa and London, Ontario — next summer and nine more in several other
cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI
procedures are opening around the country.

Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American
system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million
people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private
health insurance and delivery systems.

Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people
in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health
minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in
the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an
appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from
3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute,
a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an
appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks
from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment
range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery,
according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for
cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for
cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment
and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my case,
you..otoh...

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjour

Of course, why would you present the truth when it disagrees with your
bullshit? Haha, you provide coroborative sites all right. They
coroborate with your fears that we might do something great for
America. We get NHC in, and you and your ILK are done. You'll never
take that away or social security either.

There are entire Islands in Polynesia you can buy. Nice climate and
with all that money you want to pay US Doctors, you'll have them all
down there, pushing each other in the water to get on your island.

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.

No, you are the fool.

Funny thing is...I actually provide corroborative cites to make my case,
you..otoh...

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://seattle.bizjour

Of course, why would you present the truth when it

You snipped the facts - AGAIN!

Landru you truly are the lowest form of partisan scum on earth!

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html

David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long wait
often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care system
came to him during a dinner party.

And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

This month, Canada's largest life insurance company, Manulife Financial,
began marketing AccelMD's tools to Canadian employers as an add-on
employee benefit. These employers buy group coverage to supplement the
doctor and hospital services sponsored by the government.

Manulife seems excited about AccelMD's product. "There's nothing like it
in Canada. It's a new concept," said Kim MacFarlane, product manager for
group benefits at Manulife's headquarters in Toronto. "We're optimistic
that it will do well."

The idea occurred to Le Penske several years ago as he was chatting at a
dinner party about a long-recognized problem: It can take a long time
for Canadians to see doctors for tests and procedures.

Statistics Canada, the government's data agency, in 2006 said the median
waiting times for all specialized services nationwide were between three
and four weeks. The agency concluded that "waiting times remain the No.
1 barrier for Canadians," especially those who sought specialized and
nonemergency care.

The Fraser Institute, a think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia,
recently said the national median waiting time was 9.1 weeks for
specialists.

The business idea that first sprang to Le Penske's mind was this: What
if Canadians were offered memberships, with discounted service prices,
to physician and hospital networks in the United States?

"I started speaking off the cuff about the health-care challenges and
wait times that Canadians face due to a one-tiered, socialized medical
system where private health insurance for physician and hospital
coverage is illegal," Le Penske said.

What they could use, Le Penske realized, is a way to navigate their way
down to an abundance of diagnostic, specialist and treatment sources in
the United States.

As it turned out, though, this navigational tool is the second product,
not the first, that Le Penske created, and it will launch this spring.

His first product is an informational product private-labeled by
Manulife as the Health System Navigator. It is now available to
Manulife's group members as an additional benefit.

Canadians with this benefit can log onto the internet or phone a call
center to gain access to a wealth of information about Canadian doctors
and medical facilities, health conditions and prescription drugs. Also
included is a service providing second medical opinions in the United
States.

Among other features, the Health System Navigator has a huge database to
help members find health-care providers by province, postal code and
specialty.

For instance, Le Penske said, Toronto residents face waits of more than
14 weeks to get an MRI. Using the Health System Navigator, they can
search out MRI possibilities anywhere within the province.

"If they're willing to drive a few hours, they may be able to get an MRI
in four weeks," he said.

Manulife's MacFarlane said the Health System Navigator gives members "a
lot of information about how to better navigate resources that are
available to them."

Manulife's interest in the product, she said, was stirred by frequent
inquiries from members with disability coverage asking for help finding
doctors or information about some disease or condition.

"Our disability organization was always getting questions from clients,"
MacFarlane said.

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/

When you are looking for information about "A" ask "B" Whatever you
do, don't ask "A" you might hear something you don't want to hear,
Sam.

Oh, and never forget to call them names. You're good at that.

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

Must be why the Canucks are coming here for surgery....

Actually, the richest ones sometimes do,

No asshole liar, it's MAINSTREAM canucks coming here, piss off.

Another retarded right-wing

Say goodnight, moron.

Another retarded right-wing

Shut up, fool.
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/

When you are looking for information about

Why'd you snip the material presented, landru?

What a worthless shitbag you are.

[Lobby Dosser]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my
rellies live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer
here.

My Canadian friends told me that there are waits for very expensive
procedures like cardiac transplants but the most critical cases
move to the head of the queue and, of course, you can schedule them
well in advance in most cases. They
In the U.S., the wait can be infinite - people priced out of the
market and sent to an early grave.
If you have a very high income, you might prefer the U.S. system
as the cost doesn't matter to you. For everyone else ...

That's odd. Cost does matter and I'm quite happy.

[Curt]

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us.  The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.-

The grilf's mother was in Scotland and broke her ankle. They patched
her up for free and she didn't have to wait overly long at the ER. She
finished the trip in a wheelchair. Thanks, Your Majesty!

Curt

[lein]

Post by Curt

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us.  The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.-

The grilf's mother was in Scotland and broke her ankle. They patched
her up for free and she didn't have to wait overly long at the ER. She
finished the trip in a wheelchair. Thanks, Your Majesty!

So your grilf's didn't spend any money while she was there?

[Curt]

Post by lein

Post by Curt

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us.  The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.-

The grilf's mother was in Scotland and broke her ankle. They patched
her up for free and she didn't have to wait overly long at the ER. She
finished the trip in a wheelchair. Thanks, Your Majesty!

So your grilf's didn't spend any money while she was there?

Why, sure she did. About what she would have spent on an equivalent
trip in the US -- except that included in a trip in the US wouldn't
have been free medical care. How do they do that?

Curt

[lein]

Post by Curt

Post by lein

Post by Curt

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us.  The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.-

The grilf's mother was in Scotland and broke her ankle. They patched
her up for free and she didn't have to wait overly long at the ER. She
finished the trip in a wheelchair. Thanks, Your Majesty!

So your grilf's didn't spend any money while she was there?

Why, sure she did. About what she would have spent on an equivalent
trip in the US -- except that included in a trip in the US wouldn't
have been free medical care. How do they do that?

Did she mention about the labels on the prices that had the letters
"VAT"?

So how exactly did it come out to being free? Don't they pay their
doctors?

[Curt]

Post by lein

Post by Curt

Post by lein

Post by Curt

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us.  The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.-

The grilf's mother was in Scotland and broke her ankle. They patched
her up for free and she didn't have to wait overly long at the ER. She
finished the trip in a wheelchair. Thanks, Your Majesty!

So your grilf's didn't spend any money while she was there?

Why, sure she did. About what she would have spent on an equivalent
trip in the US -- except that included in a trip in the US wouldn't
have been free medical care. How do they do that?

Did she mention about the labels on the prices that had the letters
"VAT"?

I'm quite familiar with the VAT. Did you know that under some
circumstances you can get a refund on your VAT taxes if you're an
American tourist?

Post by lein
So how exactly did it come out to being free?   Don't they pay their
doctors?-

It was free because she didn't pay for it. That's generally what
"free" means. She didn't have to wait for treatment, either. How
awesome is that? Scotland seems to have it really nailed.

Curt

[lein]

Post by Curt

Post by lein

Post by Curt

Post by lein

Post by Curt

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us.  The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.-

The grilf's mother was in Scotland and broke her ankle. They patched
her up for free and she didn't have to wait overly long at the ER. She
finished the trip in a wheelchair. Thanks, Your Majesty!

So your grilf's didn't spend any money while she was there?

Why, sure she did. About what she would have spent on an equivalent
trip in the US -- except that included in a trip in the US wouldn't
have been free medical care. How do they do that?

Did she mention about the labels on the prices that had the letters
"VAT"?

I'm quite familiar with the VAT. Did you know that under some
circumstances you can get a refund on your VAT taxes if you're an
American tourist?

Post by lein
So how exactly did it come out to being free?   Don't they pay their
doctors?-

It was free because she didn't pay for it. That's generally what
"free" means. She didn't have to wait for treatment, either. How
awesome is that? Scotland seems to have it really nailed.

No, not really, between you and me, only one of us have actually spent
time in a Scottish Hospital.

[wulfenite]

Post by Curt

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision - Australia, Germany,
New Zealand, and the United Kindom - had costs that were less
than 50% of ours and outranked us. The UK came in as the
best, at a cost per capita that was 42% of our cost per capita.

And a 2 year wait for some procedures. And yes, I DO know. 90% of my rellies
live there. Some of them have even lived here and Prefer here.-

The grilf's mother was in Scotland and broke her ankle. They patched
her up for free and she didn't have to wait overly long at the ER. She
finished the trip in a wheelchair. Thanks, Your Majesty!
Curt

Sadly that was, by all reports, an exception, not the rule.

[Stan de SD]

They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it.  Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away.  There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

If you want to get out the economic morass the U.S. is now in
after 8 years of Republican mis-management, you'll simply have
to accept measures that increase our productivity.  

If you think that Amtrak and the Post Office are the paragons of
"productivity", I guess you would be stupid enought to believe that
government-run health care would be more efficient. How about if
spoiled metorosexuals with disposable income start paying their own
way for once?

[Bill Shatzer]

Stan de SD wrote:

-snip-

Post by Stan de SD
Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

'Cause money won't move you to the head of the line in Canada like it
does in the US?

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
If you want to get out the economic morass the U.S. is now in
after 8 years of Republican mis-management, you'll simply have
to accept measures that increase our productivity.

If you think that Amtrak and the Post Office are the paragons of
"productivity", I guess you would be stupid enought to believe that
government-run health care would be more efficient.

Compared to Bear Stearns, GM, and AIG, the productivity of Amtrak and
the USPS is pretty good.

'Least wise, I don't see anyone proposing a $700 gubmint bailout for
either of those institutions.

But check Medicare sometime when you get the chance. It operates on a 3%
margin for overhead and administrative expenses.

Private health insurance routinely siphons off 15-25%$ for that.

Medicare wins that productivity and efficiency contest hands down.

Peace and justice,

[Ockham's Razor]

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by Stan de SD
Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

'Cause money won't move you to the head of the line in Canada like it
does in the US?

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
If you want to get out the economic morass the U.S. is now in
after 8 years of Republican mis-management, you'll simply have
to accept measures that increase our productivity.

If you think that Amtrak and the Post Office are the paragons of
"productivity", I guess you would be stupid enought to believe that
government-run health care would be more efficient.

Compared to Bear Stearns, GM, and AIG, the productivity of Amtrak and
the USPS is pretty good.
'Least wise, I don't see anyone proposing a $700 gubmint bailout for
either of those institutions.
But check Medicare sometime when you get the chance. It operates on a 3%
margin for overhead and administrative expenses.
Private health insurance routinely siphons off 15-25%$ for that.
Medicare wins that productivity and efficiency contest hands down.
Peace and justice,

And Medicare covers pre-existing problems and does not turn anyone down.

[kujebak]

Post by Ockham's Razor

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by Stan de SD
Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

'Cause money won't move you to the head of the line in Canada like it
does in the US?

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
If you want to get out the economic morass the U.S. is now in
after 8 years of Republican mis-management, you'll simply have
to accept measures that increase our productivity.

If you think that Amtrak and the Post Office are the paragons of
"productivity", I guess you would be stupid enought to believe that
government-run health care would be more efficient.

Compared to Bear Stearns, GM, and AIG, the productivity of Amtrak and
the USPS is pretty good.
'Least wise, I don't see anyone proposing a $700 gubmint bailout for
either of those institutions.
But check Medicare sometime when you get the chance. It operates on a 3%
margin for overhead and administrative expenses.
Private health insurance routinely siphons off 15-25%$ for that.
Medicare wins that productivity and efficiency contest hands down.
Peace and justice,

And Medicare covers pre-existing problems and does not turn anyone down.

Medicare and Medicaid (taxpayer provided à la carte coverage to 40+
million Americans who contribute nothing to its financing) are also
one
of the principal reasons why health care costs so much in this
country.
Even Medicare provides only a fraction to funding for services
required
by millions of America's retirees. The remainder is picked up by the
fully insured, economically active Americans. What we need is a two
tier system, bare bones coverage, with no choice and nonessential
services, as a social entitlement program, and separate full service
care
for those who can pay for it. The only other universal health care
alternative
is health care industry government wage add price controls, and
rationing
of medical services. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize it is
not pos-
sible to lower health care costs by providing more care to everyone.
Ask any Canadian ;-)

Watch "Dead Meat" - a documentary about America's neighbor's
egalitarian
health care system:

http://tinyurl.com/24kkbx

Post by Ockham's Razor
--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts

[Curt]

Post by kujebak
for those who can pay for it. The only other universal health care
alternative
is health care industry government wage add price controls, and
rationing
of medical services. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize it is
not pos-
sible to lower health care costs by providing more care to everyone.
Ask any Canadian ;-)

Well, but if you were providing it earlier -- like preventive care,
checkups, neonatal etc -- rather than providing it at the ER when it's
usually too late, it seems like you probably could save a lot of
money. Yeah?

Curt

[kujebak]

Post by Curt

Post by kujebak
for those who can pay for it. The only other universal health care
alternative
is health care industry government wage add price controls, and
rationing
of medical services. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize it is
not pos-
sible to lower health care costs by providing more care to everyone.
Ask any Canadian ;-)

Well, but if you were providing it earlier -- like preventive care,
checkups, neonatal etc -- rather than providing it at the ER when it's
usually too late, it seems like you probably could save a lot of
money. Yeah?

This is just as non-sequitur a response as "wind and solar" as a
cure-all for America's current energy shortage. A shortage you
people created by throwing nuclear energy out with the bath water
thirty years ago. Anyway, isn't the most compelling argument for
government run health care its guarantee of universal coverage?
Including people with costly pre-existing health problems? I don't
know what country you've lived in the last 25 years, or what line
of business you're in (if any ;-), but let me tell you, preventive me-
dicine is the only way to stay in business nowadays for most
medical service providers. What difference is govenment involve-
ment going to make in this aspect?

Post by Curt
Curt

[Curt]

Post by kujebak

Post by Curt

Post by kujebak
for those who can pay for it. The only other universal health care
alternative
is health care industry government wage add price controls, and
rationing
of medical services. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize it is
not pos-
sible to lower health care costs by providing more care to everyone.
Ask any Canadian ;-)

Well, but if you were providing it earlier -- like preventive care,
checkups, neonatal etc -- rather than providing it at the ER when it's
usually too late, it seems like you probably could save a lot of
money. Yeah?

This is just as non-sequitur a response as "wind and solar" as a
cure-all for America's current energy shortage. A shortage you
people created by throwing nuclear energy out with the bath water
thirty years ago. Anyway, isn't the most compelling argument for
government run health care its guarantee of universal coverage?
Including people with costly pre-existing health problems? I don't
know what country you've lived in the last 25 years, or what line
of business you're in (if any ;-), but let me tell you, preventive me-
dicine is the only way to stay in business nowadays for most
medical service providers. What difference is govenment involve-
ment going to make in this aspect?

You tell me I'm non-sequituring then you go off on atomic power? Holy
smokes.

It's cheaper to take care of people before they get really sick.
People without insurance wait till they get really sick then they go
get treated at the ER. Which is the most expensive way to treat
people. Taxpayers still pay for their care, just taxpayers that were
unlucky enough to have to go to the hospital and have to pay $8 per
aspirin to cover the mandated free care the hospital's been giving.

Curt

[wulfenite]

Post by Curt

Post by kujebak

Post by Curt

Post by kujebak
for those who can pay for it. The only other universal health care
alternative
is health care industry government wage add price controls, and
rationing
of medical services. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize it is
not pos-
sible to lower health care costs by providing more care to everyone.
Ask any Canadian ;-)

Well, but if you were providing it earlier -- like preventive care,
checkups, neonatal etc -- rather than providing it at the ER when it's
usually too late, it seems like you probably could save a lot of
money. Yeah?

This is just as non-sequitur a response as "wind and solar" as a
cure-all for America's current energy shortage. A shortage you
people created by throwing nuclear energy out with the bath water
thirty years ago. Anyway, isn't the most compelling argument for
government run health care its guarantee of universal coverage?
Including people with costly pre-existing health problems? I don't
know what country you've lived in the last 25 years, or what line
of business you're in (if any ;-), but let me tell you, preventive me-
dicine is the only way to stay in business nowadays for most
medical service providers. What difference is govenment involve-
ment going to make in this aspect?

You tell me I'm non-sequituring then you go off on atomic power? Holy
smokes.
It's cheaper to take care of people before they get really sick.

Or old.

Yeah, that'll keep 'em from...er...getting...old...

Won't it?

[Curt]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Curt
You tell me I'm non-sequituring then you go off on atomic power? Holy
smokes.
It's cheaper to take care of people before they get really sick.

Or old.
Yeah, that'll keep 'em from...er...getting...old...
Won't it?-

Well, it's cheaper to care for old people before they get really sick,
too.

Curt

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Curt

Post by wulfenite

Post by Curt
You tell me I'm non-sequituring then you go off on atomic power? Holy
smokes.
It's cheaper to take care of people before they get really sick.

Or old.
Yeah, that'll keep 'em from...er...getting...old...
Won't it?-

Well, it's cheaper to care for old people before they get really sick,
too.

But they will in due time get old, sick, and die - that's how it works.

In fact the _longer_ you keep them alive the greater the number of bills
they will generate over time - duh!

[Justin Case]

Post by Ockham's Razor
And Medicare covers pre-existing problems and does not turn anyone down.

Non-Medicare Plans with which I'm familiar don't either.

--

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Justin Case

Post by Ockham's Razor
And Medicare covers pre-existing problems and does not turn anyone down.

Non-Medicare Plans with which I'm familiar don't either.

Heh! Try buying an individual health insurance policy if you're a cancer
survivor or have suffered a "cardiac event".

Heck, try it if you've got diabetes.



Peace and justice,

[Justin Case]

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heck, try it if you've got diabetes.

Heh, done it.

--

[Clave]

Post by Justin Case

Post by Bill Shatzer
Heck, try it if you've got diabetes.

Heh, done it.

Try it w/type I.

Jim

[wulfenite]

Bill Shatzer wrote:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure


You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.


It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.


Peace and justice,"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[the real dgs]

On 12/26/2008 10:20 AM wulfenite ignored two million years of human

Post by wulfenite
Bill Shatzer

... served his country in uniform. YOU DIDN'T, EVER!

spammie no-life is a gutless little America-hating coward who has NEVER
served the USA in uniform, EVER.

[wulfenite]

Post by the real dgs
On 12/26/2008 10:20 AM wulfenite ignored two million years of human

Post by wulfenite
Bill Shatzer

... served his country in uniform.

So did Tim McVeigh...

[Justin Case]

Post by wulfenite
So did Tim McVeigh...

as did Colin Powell. Your point is?



--

[wulfenite]

Post by Justin Case

Post by wulfenite
So did Tim McVeigh...

as did Colin Powell. Your point is?

Made.

[Paul Simon]

Post by Justin Case

Post by wulfenite
So did Tim McVeigh...

as did Colin Powell. Your point is?

Made.

You must mean the point on your head.

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by the real dgs
On 12/26/2008 10:20 AM wulfenite ignored two million years of human

Post by wulfenite
Bill Shatzer

... served his country in uniform.

So did Tim McVeigh...

Bet you never did. All you can do is critize your own country...or is
it really your own country? Could be you're a just a lying
Capitalist?

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by the real dgs
On 12/26/2008 10:20 AM wulfenite ignored two million years of human

Post by wulfenite
Bill Shatzer

... served his country in uniform.

So did Tim McVeigh...

Bet you never did.

Bet 90% of Americans never did.

Post by Paul Simon
All you can do is critize your own country...

Oh?

Where?

Post by Paul Simon
or is
it really your own country? Could be you're a just a lying
Capitalist?

Go back to Romania, you worthless partisan sniper.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by the real dgs
On 12/26/2008 10:20 AM wulfenite ignored two million years of human

Post by wulfenite
Bill Shatzer

... served his country in uniform.

So did Tim McVeigh...

Bet you never did.

You lose!


Peace and justice,

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sam with his xxxxx's again. Thanks for your help with the last
election. With your help, you might give Obama a second term before
he begins his first. Thanks again.

Bill should have added, "if we don't, some radical president with his
fear mongering will only send twice the number of lives killed to the
middle east and serve them up on a platter for the enemy. You must be
one of America's enemies, Sam. You certainly are an enema. Leave it
to you to bring out all the shit.

[Curt]

Sam with his xxxxx's again.  Thanks for your help with the last
election.  With your help, you might give Obama a second term before
he begins his first.  Thanks again.  

Oh, I think there's about sixty of us, total, out here on Usenet. No
one affects any elections here. It's just rambling. But hey, it beats
crack cocaine or bukakke sites as a way to pass time.

Curt

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Curt

Post by Paul Simon
Sam with his xxxxx's again. Thanks for your help with the last
election. With your help, you might give Obama a second term before
he begins his first. Thanks again.

Oh, I think there's about sixty of us, total, out here on Usenet. No
one affects any elections here. It's just rambling. But hey, it beats
crack cocaine or bukakke sites as a way to pass time.
Curt

You have odd passtimes...

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sam with his xxxxx's again.

Landru with his fraud act again.

Post by Paul Simon
Thanks for your help with the last
election. With your help, you might give Obama a second term before
he begins his first. Thanks again.

A snapback was a forgone conclusion.

High gas prices and the subprime debacle just lubricated the "change"
mantra.

If Obama and the Dems can successfully avoid FDRing the economy into
utter stagnation they'll have rightly _earned_ another term.

But before you start patting yourself on the back you'd best work on
making those stimuli free-market based, or disaster awaits, and bread
lines won't win any elections.

Post by Paul Simon
Bill should have added,

We already know he's a traitor, thanks for signing on for his "every 6
or 7 years" attack package, you despicable vermin.

[Ockham's Razor]

Post by Justin Case

Post by Ockham's Razor
And Medicare covers pre-existing problems and does not turn anyone down.

Non-Medicare Plans with which I'm familiar don't either.
--

You just are not too familiar.

The next time you fill out an application for one of those plans list
some prior medical problem. Your policy will come with a nice
statements of non-coverage.

[wulfenite]

Post by Ockham's Razor

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by Stan de SD
Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

'Cause money won't move you to the head of the line in Canada like it
does in the US?

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
If you want to get out the economic morass the U.S. is now in
after 8 years of Republican mis-management, you'll simply have
to accept measures that increase our productivity.

If you think that Amtrak and the Post Office are the paragons of
"productivity", I guess you would be stupid enought to believe that
government-run health care would be more efficient.

Compared to Bear Stearns, GM, and AIG, the productivity of Amtrak and
the USPS is pretty good.
'Least wise, I don't see anyone proposing a $700 gubmint bailout for
either of those institutions.
But check Medicare sometime when you get the chance. It operates on a 3%
margin for overhead and administrative expenses.
Private health insurance routinely siphons off 15-25%$ for that.
Medicare wins that productivity and efficiency contest hands down.
Peace and justice,

And Medicare covers pre-existing problems and does not turn anyone down.

And serves a narrow demographic, moron.

[Justin Case]

Post by Bill Shatzer
Medicare wins that productivity and efficiency contest hands down.

Doesn't provide much coverage either. Better analogy would be if the
Post Office charged postage but delivered your letter when and how they
felt like it.


--

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Justin Case

Post by Bill Shatzer
Medicare wins that productivity and efficiency contest hands down.

Doesn't provide much coverage either.

Medicare provides the money. Private hospitals and physicians provide
the coverage.

Essentially everything prescribed by a licensed physician, except
experimental procedures, is eligible for medicare payment.

If anything, medicare coverage is far superior to almost all private
insurance policies.

Post by Justin Case
Better analogy would be if the
Post Office charged postage but delivered your letter when and how they
felt like it.

Heh! You know not of what you speak - or rather of what you type.

Peace and justice,

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by Stan de SD
Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

'Cause money won't move you to the head of the line in Canada like it
does in the US?

Wrong.

Because people are in severe danger and get desperate and end up here, fool.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it.  Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away.  There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't in the Canadian health insurance system, for
one.

[Lobby Dosser]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't in the Canadian health insurance system, for
one.

A few go for work not covered by insurance. Seems it is less expensive in
Canada. But risking your sight to 'less expensive' doesn't seem like the
smartest play.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't in the Canadian health insurance system, for
one.

A few go for work not covered by insurance. Seems it is less expensive
in Canada. But risking your sight to 'less expensive' doesn't seem
like the smartest play.

The overhead rate (mindless paperwork) is way higher than elsewhere
<http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/>:

One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an
administrative overhead load that is huge by international
standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess
spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted
for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess
spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21
percent of excess spending on administration would amount to
about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It
would have been more than enough to finance universal health
insurance this year.

Paying less by eliminating paper pushers sounds like a net win to
me.

Also (from the reference cited above):

Two studies using more detailed bilateral comparisons of two
countries illustrate even more sharply the magnitude of our
administrative burden relative to that in other developed
countries.

One of these is an earlier McKinsey study explaining the
difference in 1990 health spending in West Germany and in the
United States. The researchers found that in 1990 Americans
received $390 per capita less in actual health care but spent
$360 more per capita on administration.

[Curt]

Post by Lobby Dosser

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't in the Canadian health insurance system, for
one.

A few go for work not covered by insurance. Seems it is less expensive in
Canada. But risking your sight to 'less expensive' doesn't seem like the
smartest play.-

I went to Canada for eye lasering something like ten years ago -- but
at the time, it was a new surgery in the US and the Canadian doc I
went to had done something like ten thousand Lasiks. There simply were
no US docs with experience like that.

Curt

[wulfenite]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by MEG
They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

Post by MEG
They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans. It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are
trying to move to Canada to get the coverage they cannot afford here:
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

Oh, and be sure to read
<http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/40/bayer.html>.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

Post by MEG
They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

Post by Bill Z.
It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

"For some U.S. citizens, moving to Canada has become the only feasible
option"

Care to quantify the "some" in that op-ed piece?

Post by Bill Z.
Oh, and be sure to read
<http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/40/bayer.html>.

More "alternative" med BS.

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/British-Columbia-sends-patients-to-Seattle-for-coronary-artery-surgery-bypassing-the-queue-in-Canada.html

In contrast to the United States, Canada has a program of universal
health insurance. But while the United States may look to the Canadian
program for lessons in providing health care for the nation, Canada also
looks to the US to provide some of its health care. The problem involves
the system of queuing for elective surgery. To provide for the orderly
delivery of services such as coronary bypass surgery, Canada instituted
a first-come, first-served system which keeps people ''in line'' waiting
for surgery to become available. The length of the wait has become so
long that some have suggested that the queues are in actuality a form of
rationing of services. The province of British Columbia on Canada's west
coast entered into agreements with four hospitals in Seattle,
Washington, to provide bypass surgery for 200 heart patients. An
investigation revealed that the cause of the inability of Canadian
hospitals to keep up with the demand for bypass surgery was not due to a
lack of funding for the surgical procedure itself. Rather, the hospitals
were not prepared to absorb an increase in the number of patients who
would place increased demands on the facilities, since these patients
would require not only surgery, but beds in the intensive care unit as
well as recovery beds. Furthermore, there were occasional shortages of
trained critical care nurses and technologists skilled in the necessary
techniques of heart perfusion (keeping up the blood supply to the heart
during the surgery). The situation reveals problems not in the funding
of surgical procedures but in the investment of capital and the
expansion of facilities. Another problem is revealed by the situation,
however. There is an underlying tension between physicians and surgeons,
on the one hand, and those who pay for their services on the other.
Physicians tend to regard the long queues of people waiting for surgery
as demand which is being unmet. In contrast, administrators may view the
same queues as indications that physicians will always expand the
delivery of health care until it meets the limits of facilities and
funding.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/02/25/story10.html

David Le Penske's epiphany for helping Canadians cope with the long wait
often needed to see a doctor under their national health-care system
came to him during a dinner party.

And it resulted in the formation of a new Seattle business, AccelMD,
which created a suite of online medical and health information tools.

This month, Canada's largest life insurance company, Manulife Financial,
began marketing AccelMD's tools to Canadian employers as an add-on
employee benefit. These employers buy group coverage to supplement the
doctor and hospital services sponsored by the government.

Manulife seems excited about AccelMD's product. "There's nothing like it
in Canada. It's a new concept," said Kim MacFarlane, product manager for
group benefits at Manulife's headquarters in Toronto. "We're optimistic
that it will do well."

The idea occurred to Le Penske several years ago as he was chatting at a
dinner party about a long-recognized problem: It can take a long time
for Canadians to see doctors for tests and procedures.

Statistics Canada, the government's data agency, in 2006 said the median
waiting times for all specialized services nationwide were between three
and four weeks. The agency concluded that "waiting times remain the No.
1 barrier for Canadians," especially those who sought specialized and
nonemergency care.

The Fraser Institute, a think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia,
recently said the national median waiting time was 9.1 weeks for
specialists.

The business idea that first sprang to Le Penske's mind was this: What
if Canadians were offered memberships, with discounted service prices,
to physician and hospital networks in the United States?

"I started speaking off the cuff about the health-care challenges and
wait times that Canadians face due to a one-tiered, socialized medical
system where private health insurance for physician and hospital
coverage is illegal," Le Penske said.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

Then bring it up with the person who asked.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

"For some U.S. citizens, moving to Canada has become the only feasible
option"
Care to quantify the "some" in that op-ed piece?

Post by Bill Z.
Oh, and be sure to read
<http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/40/bayer.html>.

More "alternative" med BS.

Calling it "BS" is a pretty weak way of addressing the point.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/British-Columbia-sends-patients-to-Seattle-for-coronary-artery-surgery-bypassing-the-queue-in-Canada.html

So what? The Canadian system is a health-insurance system, not
medical services, with the highest density in British Columbia located
just north of the border. If they send someone to Seattle, it is the
Canadian insurance system that is paying for it. It's really no
different than sending someone from Fresno to LA or San Francisco for
some medical procedure when the Fresno hospitals do not have enough
capacity.

Instead of complaining, you should simply note that they are managing
their resources carefully, and it doesn't hurt us - we probably have
excess capacity so it keeps people and facilities here from being idle.

Post by wulfenite
The business idea that first sprang to Le Penske's mind was this: What
if Canadians were offered memberships, with discounted service prices,
to physician and hospital networks in the United States?
"I started speaking off the cuff about the health-care challenges and
wait times that Canadians face due to a one-tiered, socialized medical
system where private health insurance for physician and hospital
coverage is illegal," Le Penske said.

I.e., you are quoting some guy who probably has a vested interest.
Canada does not have "socialized medicine". What the government is
providing rather is insurance.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!

Because it DID NOT work better.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

Then bring it up with the person who asked.

Yawn.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

"For some U.S. citizens, moving to Canada has become the only feasible
option"
Care to quantify the "some" in that op-ed piece?

Post by Bill Z.
Oh, and be sure to read
<http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/40/bayer.html>.

More "alternative" med BS.

Calling it "BS" is a pretty weak way of addressing the point.

It's a blanket statement, deal.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/British-Columbia-sends-patients-to-Seattle-for-coronary-artery-surgery-bypassing-the-queue-in-Canada.html

So what? The Canadian system is a health-insurance system, not
medical services, with the highest density in British Columbia located
just north of the border. If they send someone to Seattle, it is the
Canadian insurance system that is paying for it. It's really no
different than sending someone from Fresno to LA or San Francisco for
some medical procedure when the Fresno hospitals do not have enough
capacity.

More rationalizing.

Plenty of people are paying out of pocket too.

Post by Bill Z.
Instead of complaining, you should simply note that they are managing
their resources carefully, and it doesn't hurt us - we probably have
excess capacity so it keeps people and facilities here from being idle.

"Probably"?

I'll need a damned sight better than that level of fantasizing to take
anything you say seriously.'

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
The business idea that first sprang to Le Penske's mind was this: What
if Canadians were offered memberships, with discounted service prices,
to physician and hospital networks in the United States?
"I started speaking off the cuff about the health-care challenges and
wait times that Canadians face due to a one-tiered, socialized medical
system where private health insurance for physician and hospital
coverage is illegal," Le Penske said.

I.e., you are quoting some guy who probably has a vested interest.

And you're denying the facts again.

There's no sense talking to a closed mind.

Post by Bill Z.
Canada does not have "socialized medicine". What the government is
providing rather is insurance.

You're deep into your own delusions, parse them elsewhere, fool.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda. There's

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

Then bring it up with the person who asked.

Yawn.

Double yawn.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

"For some U.S. citizens, moving to Canada has become the only feasible
option"
Care to quantify the "some" in that op-ed piece?

Post by Bill Z.
Oh, and be sure to read
<http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/40/bayer.html>.

More "alternative" med BS.

Calling it "BS" is a pretty weak way of addressing the point.

It's a blanket statement, deal.

No, it is a copout on your part.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/British-Columbia-sends-patients-to-Seattle-for-coronary-artery-surgery-bypassing-the-queue-in-Canada.html

So what? The Canadian system is a health-insurance system, not
medical services, with the highest density in British Columbia located
just north of the border. If they send someone to Seattle, it is the
Canadian insurance system that is paying for it. It's really no
different than sending someone from Fresno to LA or San Francisco for
some medical procedure when the Fresno hospitals do not have enough
capacity.

More rationalizing.
Plenty of people are paying out of pocket too.

Nonsense. If the Canadian health insurance system sends someone to
Seattle (probably with an arrangement with a hospital located there),
then the Canadian health insurance system will pay for it.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Instead of complaining, you should simply note that they are managing
their resources carefully, and it doesn't hurt us - we probably have
excess capacity so it keeps people and facilities here from being idle.

"Probably"?

That's the usual reason. In the U.S., one thing that drives up costs
is that each hospital likes to have all the latest gizmos, lest some
business go somewhere else, which can lead to underutilization.

Post by wulfenite
I'll need a damned sight better than that level of fantasizing to take
anything you say seriously.'

You are the guy doing the fantasizing like claiming the Canadian
health care system is going away.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
The business idea that first sprang to Le Penske's mind was this: What
if Canadians were offered memberships, with discounted service prices,
to physician and hospital networks in the United States?
"I started speaking off the cuff about the health-care challenges and
wait times that Canadians face due to a one-tiered, socialized medical
system where private health insurance for physician and hospital
coverage is illegal," Le Penske said.

I.e., you are quoting some guy who probably has a vested interest.

And you're denying the facts again.
There's no sense talking to a closed mind.

No, you are quoting some guy speaking "off the cuff" and the article
you quoted mentioned some business with a related product to sell.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Canada does not have "socialized medicine". What the government is
providing rather is insurance.

You're deep into your own delusions, parse them elsewhere, fool.

Idiot. What the Canadians nationalized was insurance, not medical
care.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada>: "Health care in
Canada is funded and delivered through a publicly-funded health care
system, with most services provided by private entities." (It cites
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html>,
which makes a similar statement).

And

"The Canadian health care system is often compared to the US
system. The US system spends the most in the world per capita, and was
ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization in 2000,
while Canada's health system was ranked 30th. The WHO ranking has been
criticized by some for its choice of ranking criteria and statistical
methods, and the WHO is currently revising its methodology and
withholding new rankings until the issues are addressed.[54]" So
far, it appears that U.S. citizens are paying more and getting less.

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

Stop lying you fucking assbag:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

Then bring it up with the person who asked.

Yawn.

Double yawn.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

"For some U.S. citizens, moving to Canada has become the only feasible
option"
Care to quantify the "some" in that op-ed piece?

Post by Bill Z.
Oh, and be sure to read
<http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/40/bayer.html>.

More "alternative" med BS.

Calling it "BS" is a pretty weak way of addressing the point.

It's a blanket statement, deal.

No, it is a copout on your part.

You're losing this one cleanly, moron.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/British-Columbia-sends-patients-to-Seattle-for-coronary-artery-surgery-bypassing-the-queue-in-Canada.html

So what? The Canadian system is a health-insurance system, not
medical services, with the highest density in British Columbia located
just north of the border. If they send someone to Seattle, it is the
Canadian insurance system that is paying for it. It's really no
different than sending someone from Fresno to LA or San Francisco for
some medical procedure when the Fresno hospitals do not have enough
capacity.

More rationalizing.
Plenty of people are paying out of pocket too.

Nonsense. If the Canadian health insurance system sends someone to
Seattle (probably with an arrangement with a hospital located there),
then the Canadian health insurance system will pay for it.

And if they don't the person will pay on their own - seee how that works?

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Instead of complaining, you should simply note that they are managing
their resources carefully, and it doesn't hurt us - we probably have
excess capacity so it keeps people and facilities here from being idle.

"Probably"?

That's the usual reason.

No, that's an anecdotal ponderance.

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., one thing that drives up costs
is that each hospital likes to have all the latest gizmos, lest some
business go somewhere else, which can lead to underutilization.

You're right of course, we should stop being up to date, that's the
solution!

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
I'll need a damned sight better than that level of fantasizing to take
anything you say seriously.'

You are the guy doing the fantasizing like claiming the Canadian
health care system is going away.

Didn't say that specifically, stop misrepresenting my words, assbag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately
financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen
Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping
changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments
are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic
tests and treatment.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial
ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were
suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a
turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not
constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable
services," the court ruled.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
The business idea that first sprang to Le Penske's mind was this: What
if Canadians were offered memberships, with discounted service prices,
to physician and hospital networks in the United States?
"I started speaking off the cuff about the health-care challenges and
wait times that Canadians face due to a one-tiered, socialized medical
system where private health insurance for physician and hospital
coverage is illegal," Le Penske said.

I.e., you are quoting some guy who probably has a vested interest.

And you're denying the facts again.
There's no sense talking to a closed mind.

No, you are quoting some guy speaking "off the cuff" and the article
you quoted mentioned some business with a related product to sell.

The article fairly outlined a successful new health care business, you
lying vermin - drop dead.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Canada does not have "socialized medicine". What the government is
providing rather is insurance.

You're deep into your own delusions, parse them elsewhere, fool.

Idiot. What the Canadians nationalized was insurance, not medical
care.

Semantic nitwittery, nice to see you in knots, assbag.

Post by Bill Z.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada>: "Health care in
Canada is funded and delivered through a publicly-funded health care
system, with most services provided by private entities." (It cites
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html>,
which makes a similar statement).
And
"The Canadian health care system is often compared to the US
system. The US system spends the most in the world per capita, and was
ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization in 2000,
while Canada's health system was ranked 30th. The WHO ranking has been
criticized by some for its choice of ranking criteria and statistical
methods, and the WHO is currently revising its methodology and
withholding new rankings until the issues are addressed.[54]" So
far, it appears that U.S. citizens are paying more and getting less.

I believe you're done now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

One Vancouver-based company started a large for-profit family medical
clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last
November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics — in Toronto,
Ottawa and London, Ontario — next summer and nine more in several other
cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI
procedures are opening around the country.

Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American
system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million
people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private
health insurance and delivery systems.

Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people
in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health
minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in
the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an
appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from
3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute,
a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an
appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks
from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment
range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery,
according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for
cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for
cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment
and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted data from the WHO that showed the Canadian
system out performed ours at roughly half the cost. If the Canadians
decide they want shorter queues for medical procedures, they can
always increase their insurance premiums to pay for it and still be
ahead of us.
p

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
It's a blanket statement, deal.

No, it is a copout on your part.

You're losing this one cleanly, moron.

No, you are.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Nonsense. If the Canadian health insurance system sends someone to
Seattle (probably with an arrangement with a hospital located there),
then the Canadian health insurance system will pay for it.

And if they don't the person will pay on their own - seee how that works?

If they send the person somewhere, they have to pay for it.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Instead of complaining, you should simply note that they are managing
their resources carefully, and it doesn't hurt us - we probably have
excess capacity so it keeps people and facilities here from being idle.

"Probably"?

That's the usual reason.

No, that's an anecdotal ponderance.

Wrong.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
In the U.S., one thing that drives up costs is that each hospital
likes to have all the latest gizmos, lest some business go
somewhere else, which can lead to underutilization.

You're right of course, we should stop being up to date, that's the
solution!

You mean you think every hospital should have some million dollar gizmo
even if a nearby hospital has one that is underutilized.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
You are the guy doing the fantasizing like claiming the Canadian
health care system is going away.

Didn't say that specifically, stop misrepresenting my words, assbag.

You just claimed it. Now you are denying it. Make up your mind.

<snip>

(He's just spouting the "free markets ueber alles" propaganda.)

[wulfenite]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted

You snipped and defaced this exchange one too many times, LIAR!

DROP FUCKING DEAD!

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted

You snipped and defaced this exchange one too many times, LIAR!
DROP FUCKING DEAD!

You are the liar. Here's what you snipped:

No, I'm not lying I quoted data from the WHO that showed the
Canadian system out performed ours at roughly half the cost. If
the Canadians decide they want shorter queues for medical
procedures, they can always increase their insurance premiums to
pay for it and still be ahead of us.

I might add that my original post on the subject quoted a web site
giving a comparison of a number of countries (about 6). The U.S. came
out dead last.

You are simply another right-wing nut who won't accept the truth - that
we have considerable room for improvement. People like you are the
reason the U.S. is now in the mess it is in.

[wulfenite]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted

You snipped and defaced this exchange one too many times, LIAR!
DROP FUCKING DEAD!

I snipped nothing, fool, you got your ass handed to you, obsesor:


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

One Vancouver-based company started a large for-profit family medical
clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last
November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics — in Toronto,
Ottawa and London, Ontario — next summer and nine more in several other
cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI
procedures are opening around the country.

Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American
system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million
people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private
health insurance and delivery systems.

Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people
in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health
minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in
the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an
appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from
3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute,
a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an
appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks
from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment
range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery,
according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for
cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for
cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment
and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.

[Bill Z.]

Post by wulfenite

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted

You snipped and defaced this exchange one too many times, LIAR!
DROP FUCKING DEAD!

Yes you did snip something:

You are the liar. Here's what you snipped:

No, I'm not lying I quoted data from the WHO that showed the
Canadian system out performed ours at roughly half the cost. If
the Canadians decide they want shorter queues for medical
procedures, they can always increase their insurance premiums to
pay for it and still be ahead of us.

I might add that my original post on the subject quoted a web site
giving a comparison of a number of countries (about 6). The U.S. came
out dead last.

You are simply another right-wing nut who won't accept the truth - that
we have considerable room for improvement. People like you are the
reason the U.S. is now in the mess it is in.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

ROTFLMAO. You found one newspaper article, where the reporter may have
been fooled by U.S. vested interests putting out huge quantities of
propaganda. So what?

Here's my original link (somehow when you people "cite" it, you mangle the
URL, which prevents others from checking the original).
<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>:

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative
Performance of American Health Care

May 15, 2007 (updated May 16, 2007) | Volume 59

Authors: Karen Davis, Ph.D., Cathy Schoen, M.S., Stephen
C. Schoenbaum, M.D., M.P.H., Michelle M. Doty, Ph.D., M.P.H., Alyssa
L. Holmgren, M.P.A., Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea

Editor(s): Deborah Lorber


Overview

Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United
States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance,
relative to other countries. This report—an update to two earlier
editions—includes data from surveys of patients, as well as
information from primary care physicians about their medical practices
and views of their countries' health systems. Compared with five other
nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five
dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access,
efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The U.S. is the only country in
the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly
accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health
outcomes. The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the
U.S. lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses
to improve care coordination for the chronically ill.

<For the rest, including a comparison of various health-care systems,
see the article cited above>

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted

You snipped and defaced this exchange one too many times, LIAR!
DROP FUCKING DEAD!

No, I'm not lying I quoted data from the WHO that showed the
Canadian system out performed ours at roughly half the cost. If
the Canadians decide they want shorter queues for medical
procedures, they can always increase their insurance premiums to
pay for it and still be ahead of us.
I might add that my original post on the subject quoted a web site
giving a comparison of a number of countries (about 6). The U.S. came
out dead last.
You are simply another right-wing nut who won't accept the truth - that
we have considerable room for improvement. People like you are the
reason the U.S. is now in the mess it is in.

You are a partisan shitbag who can't come to terms with the fact that
socialized health care has FAILED!

http://redclaycitizen.typepad.com/redclay/2008/06/father-of-canad.html

"Father" of Canadian Health Care Admits its a Failure
Just yesterday, I wrote about how unpopular the British healthcare
system has become. Today comes news that the man largely responsible for
Canada's conversion to a single-payer health care system has admitted
the system's failure:

"Back in the 1960s, (Claude) Castonguay chaired a Canadian government
committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province
of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt
government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax
levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker:
"the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest;
Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until
eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast."

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing
Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in
"crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services
or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But
now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a
greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom
of choice."

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

ROTFLMAO. You found one newspaper article, where the reporter may have
been fooled by U.S. vested interests putting out huge quantities of
propaganda. So what?

So you had to snip it - HYPOCRITE!

You're detestable scum.

Post by Bill Z.
Here's my original link (somehow when you people "cite" it, you mangle the
URL, which prevents others from checking the original).

Oh, so now it's "yopu people" is it?

You're dishonest VERMIN!

Post by Bill Z.
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative
Performance of American Health Care
May 15, 2007 (updated May 16, 2007) | Volume 59
Authors: Karen Davis, Ph.D., Cathy Schoen, M.S., Stephen
C. Schoenbaum, M.D., M.P.H., Michelle M. Doty, Ph.D., M.P.H., Alyssa
L. Holmgren, M.P.A., Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea
Editor(s): Deborah Lorber
Overview
Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United
States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance,
relative to other countries. This report—an update to two earlier
editions—includes data from surveys of patients, as well as
information from primary care physicians about their medical practices
and views of their countries' health systems. Compared with five other
nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five
dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access,
efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The U.S. is the only country in
the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly
accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health
outcomes. The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the
U.S. lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses
to improve care coordination for the chronically ill.
<For the rest, including a comparison of various health-care systems,
see the article cited above>

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS106384+30-Sep-2008+PRN20080930

TORONTO, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire/ - Canada's government monopoly, single-payer
health care system is one of the worst ways to achieve universal health
insurance coverage and Americans should avoid adopting a similar system,
concludes a new study from independent research organization the Fraser
Institute.
"Advocates of single-payer health care systems tend to promote the allegedly
lower monetary costs, but they ignore the lack of access to medical
resources," said Brett Skinner, Fraser Institute Director of Health,
Pharmaceutical and Insurance Policy Research and lead author of the study.
The peer-reviewed study, The Hidden Costs of Single Payer Health
Insurance: A
Comparison of the United States and Canada, compares some of the key aspects
of the health care systems in both the U.S. and Canada, including the supply
of medical resources, access to technology and effective health insurance
coverage.
"The point of the comparison is to show that all of the costs of a
single-payer health care system are not as obvious as the dollars spent,"
Skinner said.
The study shows that health care in Canada appears to cost less because
relative to the United States, Canadian public health insurance does not
cover
many advanced medical treatments and technologies, common medical resources
are in short supply, and access to health care is often severely delayed.
"On average, Americans spend more of their incomes on health care but
they get
better access to superior medical resources," Skinner said.
"If Canadians had access to the same quality and quantity of health-care
resources that American patients enjoy, the Canadian health-insurance
monopoly
would cost a lot more than it currently does."
According to the most recent data, the United States outscores Canada on
many
key indicators of available health care resources, including:

- Number of MRI units per million population in 2006: US: 26.5;
Canada: 6.2
- Number of MRI exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 83,200;
Canada: 25,500
- Number of CT Scanners per million population in 2006: US: 33.9;
Canada 12
- Number of CT exams per million population in 2004/05: US: 172,500;
Canada 87,300
- Number of inpatient surgical procedures per million population in
2004: US: 89,900; Canada: 44,700.


Even on health insurance coverage, the Canadian system does not perform much
better than the U.S. when it comes to actually delivering insured access.
"Access to a wait list is not the same thing as access to health care,"
Skinner said.
The study cites government data showing an estimated 1.7 million Canadians
(aged 12 and older) were unable to access a regular family physician in
2007.
And it points to other research showing that the actual number of
"effectively" uninsured Americans is less than half of the figure usually
reported and that being uninsured is usually only a temporary condition.
Based on these figures, the study estimates that the percentage of the
population that was "effectively" uninsured for non-emergency, necessary
medical services at any given time during 2007 was not significantly
different
between the two countries: 7.9 percent in the U.S. compared to six
percent in
Canada.
"When Canadians can't get access to health care because they can't find a
physician or wait so long that they are effectively uninsured, they are no
better off than uninsured Americans," Skinner said.
The study concludes that both Canada and the U.S. should look to countries
such as Switzerland or the Netherlands, where the government is not in the
business of providing health or drug insurance at all. Instead,
individuals in
those nations are required by law to purchase comprehensive health insurance
in a regulated pluralistic private-sector market. Access to health insurance
for low-income people is facilitated through a publicly-funded means-tested
subsidy that varies according to the income and assets of the insured
person.
"With Canada witnessing the failure of its own single-payer health insurance
system, why would Americans want to adopt such a system for themselves?"
Skinner asked.
"Making everyone eligible for government-administered medical benefits that
are fully subsidized by taxpayers is the worst way to achieve universal
health
insurance coverage."

MEDIA CONTACT:
Brett Skinner, Director, Health, Pharmaceutical and
Insurance Policy Research
The Fraser Institute
Tel: [phone], ext. 224
Email: ***@fraserinstitute.org


The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational organization
with locations across North America and partnerships in more than 70
countries. Its mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of
competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of
individuals.
To protect the Institute's independence, it does not accept grants from
governments or contracts for research. Visit http://am.eri.ca/

SOURCE The Fraser Institute

[Bill Z.]

Post by Arne Saknussen

Post by Bill Z.
I might add that my original post on the subject quoted a web site
giving a comparison of a number of countries (about 6). The U.S. came
out dead last.
You are simply another right-wing nut who won't accept the truth - that
we have considerable room for improvement. People like you are the
reason the U.S. is now in the mess it is in.

You are a partisan shitbag who can't come to terms with the fact that
socialized health care has FAILED!
http://redclaycitizen.typepad.com/redclay/2008/06/father-of-canad.html
"Father" of Canadian Health Care Admits its a Failure
Just yesterday, I wrote about how unpopular the British healthcare
system has become. Today comes news that the man largely responsible
for Canada's conversion to a single-payer health care system has

That's why the British system works ended up with a higher
rating than elsewhere and why the U.S. system ended up in last place
at over twice the cost? Try reading
<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>
and look at the table comparing the various systems.

Sorry, but I simply won't believe your propaganda without some objective
data backing it up.

Post by Arne Saknussen
Brett Skinner, Director, Health, Pharmaceutical and
Insurance Policy Research
The Fraser Institute
Tel: [phone], ext. 224
The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational organization
with locations across North America and partnerships in more than 70
countries. Its mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of
competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of
individuals.
To protect the Institute's independence, it does not accept grants from
governments or contracts for research. Visit http://am.eri.ca/
SOURCE The Fraser Institute

ROTFLMAO! It's a conservative organ and not to be trusted as an objective
source of information because of its ideology-based agenda.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute>:

The Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian think
tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its
stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive
markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on
government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of
the public policy stands taken by the Institute include:
greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of
various government services, the freedom to own and acquire
firearms without controls, marijuana legalization, competition
in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement
in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. In terms
of present hot topics in public policy, the Institute opposes
government regulatory action as a possible solution to global
warming. They argue that regulations have "the potential to
impose high costs on Canadian citizens and drastically
increase the regulatory state, while providing little or no
environmental benefit."

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Arne Saknussen

Post by Bill Z.
I might add that my original post on the subject quoted a web site
giving a comparison of a number of countries (about 6). The U.S. came
out dead last.
You are simply another right-wing nut who won't accept the truth - that
we have considerable room for improvement. People like you are the
reason the U.S. is now in the mess it is in.

You are a partisan shitbag who can't come to terms with the fact that
socialized health care has FAILED!
http://redclaycitizen.typepad.com/redclay/2008/06/father-of-canad.html
"Father" of Canadian Health Care Admits its a Failure
Just yesterday, I wrote about how unpopular the British healthcare
system has become. Today comes news that the man largely responsible
for Canada's conversion to a single-payer health care system has

That's why the British system works ended up with a higher
rating than elsewhere and why the U.S. system ended up in last place
at over twice the cost? Try reading

Can you ever stay on point?

Don't hack into the middle of a discussion about Canada with crap about
Britain!

You are, as I noted, an intellectually DISHONEST shitbag.

Post by Bill Z.
<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>
and look at the table comparing the various systems.
Sorry, but I simply won't believe your propaganda without some objective
data backing it up.

Post by Arne Saknussen
Brett Skinner, Director, Health, Pharmaceutical and
Insurance Policy Research
The Fraser Institute
Tel: [phone], ext. 224
The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational organization
with locations across North America and partnerships in more than 70
countries. Its mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of
competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of
individuals.
To protect the Institute's independence, it does not accept grants from
governments or contracts for research. Visit http://am.eri.ca/
SOURCE The Fraser Institute

ROTFLMAO! It's a conservative organ

Is it, can't you read your own site for accuracy?

"Fraser Institute is conservative and *libertarian* think
tank based in Canada"

Post by Bill Z.
and not to be trusted as an objective
source of information because of its ideology-based agenda.

So really you can't refute it's findings point by point and choose
instead to impune it's reputation.

Predictable again.

Post by Bill Z.
The Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian think
tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its
stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive
markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on
government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of
greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of
various government services, the freedom to own and acquire
firearms without controls, marijuana legalization, competition
in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement
in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. In terms
of present hot topics in public policy, the Institute opposes
government regulatory action as a possible solution to global
warming. They argue that regulations have "the potential to
impose high costs on Canadian citizens and drastically
increase the regulatory state, while providing little or no
environmental benefit."

Maybe you should let them tell you what they believe and see if it's
sensible:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/aboutus/whatwethink.htm

Health Care
Canada has one of the world’s most expensive health care systems, with
poor access to health care services. Our system doesn’t allow patients
to fully benefit from new medical technologies and requires long waits
for care. This is because we lack the appropriate incentives for both
patients and providers to make the most efficient use of medical goods
and services.

Canada should adopt a system like Switzerland’s that offers universal
compulsory private health insurance that includes drug coverage. This
provides both the benefits of cost-efficiency and the broadest possible
access to advanced medicines and medical care.

Pharmaceuticals
Canadian public health insurance is not financially sustainable.
Patented drugs are too small a percentage of government health spending
to be blamed for this. The cost of drugs is only a problem with the
inflated price of generic drugs - something caused by government policies.

Canadians wait longer for new medicines than Americans and Europeans
because of slow government approvals. The lost health benefits for
patients are enormous.

Public drug programs are inferior to private sector drug insurance.
Public drug programs refuse or delay coverage for most new drugs that
are automatically and immediately covered under private drug insurance
plans.

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted

You snipped and defaced this exchange one too many times, LIAR!
DROP FUCKING DEAD!

And Sam eats with that mouth! Then, his Vice President uses that
language all the time, so now it's fair. Thanks to Dick and Sam.

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

No, I'm not lying I quoted

You snipped and defaced this exchange one too many times, LIAR!
DROP FUCKING DEAD!

And Sam eats with that mouth! Then, his Vice President uses that
language all the time, so now it's fair. Thanks to Dick and Sam.

Landru you have nothing to add to any subject, save for partisan spite,
bugger off.

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

http://www.nytimes.com/

Sam you just crapped out of your mouth again.

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!
Because it DID NOT work better.

ROTFLMAO. Don't believe right-wing propaganda.

http://www.nytimes.com/

Sam you just crapped out of your mouth again.

Landru, do you think _anyone_ believes a word you post?



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html

One Vancouver-based company started a large for-profit family medical
clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last
November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics — in Toronto,
Ottawa and London, Ontario — next summer and nine more in several other
cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI
procedures are opening around the country.

Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American
system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million
people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private
health insurance and delivery systems.

Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people
in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health
minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in
the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an
appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from
3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute,
a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an
appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks
from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment
range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery,
according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for
cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for
cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment
and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!

Heh, that's partly true. They see the need, they make changes unlike
you regressives. The only change you know is go backwards.

Post by wulfenite
Because it DID NOT work better.

If certainly does by your own bullshit you posted. What about all
those Americans you have going to Canada for health care?

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

Then bring it up with the person who asked.

Yawn.

You are already sleeping, wake up!

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

Are you serious? Canada previously had a "free market" system and
instituted national health insurance becuase that works better.

And now they're heaading right back the _other_ direction!

Heh, that's partly true. They see the need, they make changes unlike
you regressives. The only change you know is go backwards.

You have so little to add to any discourse landru, take your partisan
bullshit and bugger off.

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite
Because it DID NOT work better.

If certainly does by your own bullshit you posted. What about all
those Americans you have going to Canada for health care?

How many, CITE!

No, you won't of course.

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

Then bring it up with the person who asked.

Yawn.

You are already sleeping, wake up!

Bugger off scumbag.

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are

[Paul Simon]

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

Post by MEG
They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

After what your "Free Market" did to America, do you blame them?

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

They don't unless you are a traveler and something happens to you in
Canada. They take care of you first, then worry about how they get
paid. Why should they? They care. You don't give a dam about anyone
but yourself, Sam so you can't see it.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

"For some U.S. citizens, moving to Canada has become the only feasible
option"

You helping to make a point that we need National Health Care, Sam? We
already know that. The only way you get care in Canada is to be a
traveler. So again, if we can't afford, how the hell do you think
Canadians can come here to afford ours? Sam's lying again, his lips
are moving.....

[Arne Saknussen]

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.

Post by wulfenite

Post by Stan de SD

Post by MEG
They got one 'so good' in Canada they can't get rid of it. Just hope
to f**k you don't need anything done right away. There are people in
Canada makeing money hooking up Canadians with US doctors for
something that needs to be done right away, you know; cancer, gall
bladder etc.

<http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?do...>
Currently the UK's health care system is performing the best at
costs less than half of those in the U.S., which ranked last.
We are paying in most cases over twice what other countries pay
and are getting worse results.
Canada had a better ranking than we did at 52% of our cost
(the other countries in the comparision -

Then why are there more Canadians coming to the US for health care
than the other way around

Because Americans aren't\

Shut up, liar.

What this liar snipped: "Because Americans aren't in the Canadian
health insurance system, for one."

Because Canuckia doesn't have much free market care yet.

After what your "Free Market" did to America, do you blame them?

Why yes I can.

The CDO and sub prime mess hasn't the slightest comparison to health
care, you intellectual trollop.

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
Think about it: compare the populations of both countries and ask if
Canada could possibly afford to provide free health care to uninsured
Americans.

A better question is why should they?

They don't unless you are a traveler and something happens to you in
Canada. They take care of you first, then worry about how they get
paid. Why should they? They care. You don't give a dam about anyone
but yourself, Sam so you can't see it.

Guess what we do for all those MILLIONS of illegals who come here?

Oh, that rather destroys your mincing little personal attack, doesn't it?

Post by Paul Simon

Post by wulfenite

Post by Bill Z.
It's not that some Americans aren't trying - some are
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121147/canada_health_act_why_uninsured_americans.html>.

"For some U.S. citizens, moving to Canada has become the only feasible
option"

You helping to make a point that we need National Health Care, Sam?

You lying and misrepresenting again landru?

You don't mind if I call you by your real nym, do you?

Post by Paul Simon
We already know that.

Who's "we"?

Post by Paul Simon
The only way you get care in Canada is to be a
traveler. So again, if we can't afford, how the hell do you think
Canadians can come here to afford ours? Sam's lying again, his lips
are moving.....

Afford has nothing to do with it, but surely Canucks are coming here in
droves for care they can't get at home, liar.

http://www.komonews.com/news/10216201.html

SEATTLE -- A problem in Canada's hospitals is sending scores of pregnant
women south of the border to have their babies.

Carri Ash of Chilliwack, B.C. was sent to the U.S. to have her baby
after her water broke on Sunday, ten weeks ahead of schedule.

"And they came in and said 'you're going to Seattle,'" she said.

Ash's hospital couldn't handle the high-risk pregnancy. Doctors searched
for another hospital bed, but even hospitals in Vancouver, B.C. didn't
have a neo-natal bed.

"So two provinces didn't have enough room, so I have to go to another
country," said Ash.