"Natiional Health Service"?

Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians

-----------

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives won 167
seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal Party fell to
3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history (NDP socialists came
in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The Quebec separatist party lost
ALL its seats in Quebec!

Anyway, Good Show, Canada.

I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with the
national health service not far behind.

On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:50:08 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

"Natiional Health Service"?

Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians

-----------

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives won 167
seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal Party fell to
3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history (NDP socialists came
in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The Quebec separatist party lost
ALL its seats in Quebec!

No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
dust
Anyway, Good Show, Canada.

I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with the
national health service not far behind.

Josepi wrote:
"Natiional Health Service"?

Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians


Note my description was not capitalized, meaning my phrase was not meant to
be a "name," but a description. I could just as easily said "Canadian
socialized medicine" with no loss of clarity.

-----------

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
(NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The
Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!

Anyway, Good Show, Canada.

I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
with the national health service not far behind.

wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:50:08 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

"Natiional Health Service"?

Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians

-----------

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
(NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The
Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!

No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
dust

Right. They ended the election with four seats (down from 47).

Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
Quebec: 4
Green: 1

On May 4, 8:11*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Josepi wrote:
"Natiional Health Service"?

Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians

Note my description was not capitalized, meaning my phrase was not meant to
be a "name," but a description. I could just as easily said "Canadian
socialized medicine" with no loss of clarity.



-----------

"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
(NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader *lost his seat. The
Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!

Anyway, Good Show, Canada.

I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
with the national health service not far behind.

You see, Bub.. when I comment on some issues in the US, I do my
homework first before commenting.
I suggest you do the same.

On May 4, 8:16*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:50:08 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

"Natiional Health Service"?

Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians

-----------

"HeyBub" *wrote in message
news:Rt6dnaoOAs39ZyLQnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@earthlink. com...
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
(NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader *lost his seat. The
Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!

No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
dust

Right. They ended the election with four seats (down from 47).

Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
Quebec: 4
Green: 1

Brilliant conclusion. They pay you for this?

LOL. Not the same description and the backpaddle only made the hole deeper.
A monetary support system is not "medicine".

I was partially incorrect in my statement. Our federal government does
subsidize the provincial health care schemes.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts-faits/fshc7-eng.asp

This would imply there is a "national healthcare policy" or "support", but
I won't admit to a "service" or "plan".. LOL

Have a good one!

--------------------

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Note my description was not capitalized, meaning my phrase was not meant to
be a "name," but a description. I could just as easily said "Canadian
socialized medicine" with no loss of clarity.


-----------------------
Josepi wrote:
"Natiional Health Service"?

Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
Quebec: 4
Green: 1

It has effectively been a two-party setup for most of its history, although
lately the two parties that traditionally took turns forming the govt. have
instead taken turns getting stomped in elections, sometimes giving the
traditional comedy party--the NDP--the balance of power in parliament--it's
amazing they're now the opposition. But it doesn't really matter, ask most
Canadians from outside Ontario and Quebec and they'll tell you that the
whole system is set up to benefit those two provinces with all the others
coming in a distant second. So whoever is in power, their first priority
will always be taking care of Ontario and Quebec. Imagine if New York State
and California between them had 2/3 the national population and what that
would mean for the rest of the country--that's the way it works in Canada.

As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months to get
one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally got to the head
of the line. So it's a different set of problems from the also broken
American system, they both need serious adjustments.

Robatoy wrote:

No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
dust

Right. They ended the election with four seats (down from 47).

Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
Quebec: 4
Green: 1

Brilliant conclusion. They pay you for this?

No, but for some maths is hard. I, fortunately, have extensive training and
experience in the field and consider it part of the white man's burden to
simplify things for the benighted.

That you consider my conclusion "brilliant," is what I call "positive
reinforcement."

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
Quebec: 4
Green: 1

It has effectively been a two-party setup for most of its history,
although lately the two parties that traditionally took turns forming
the govt. have instead taken turns getting stomped in elections,
sometimes giving the traditional comedy party--the NDP--the balance
of power in parliament--it's amazing they're now the opposition. But
it doesn't really matter, ask most Canadians from outside Ontario and
Quebec and they'll tell you that the whole system is set up to
benefit those two provinces with all the others coming in a distant
second. So whoever is in power, their first priority will always be
taking care of Ontario and Quebec. Imagine if New York State and
California between them had 2/3 the national population and what that
would mean for the rest of the country--that's the way it works in
Canada.

Thanks for the observation. Frankly, I seldom followed Canadian politics so
I wasn't as aware of the to-ing and fro-ing you outlined.


As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months to
get one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally got to
the head of the line. So it's a different set of problems from the
also broken American system, they both need serious adjustments.

I suggest the American system isn't "broken." Everybody fits in somewhere.
At the top is "concierge" medicine - those who get top-notch and immediate
care. There are several categories below that, from Blue Cross, down through
Medicare, all the way to "Canada-lite" (Medicaid)".

Robatoy wrote:

You see, Bub.. when I comment on some issues in the US, I do my
homework first before commenting.
I suggest you do the same.

Yeah, but you never show your work.

Josepi wrote:
LOL. Not the same description and the backpaddle only made the hole
deeper. A monetary support system is not "medicine".

I was partially incorrect in my statement. Our federal government does
subsidize the provincial health care schemes.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts-faits/fshc7-eng.asp

This would imply there is a "national healthcare policy" or
"support", but I won't admit to a "service" or "plan".. LOL

Have a good one!


Sorry, I have other plans for today. But thanks for the thought.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months to
get one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally got to
the head of the line. So it's a different set of problems from the
also broken American system, they both need serious adjustments.

I suggest the American system isn't "broken." Everybody fits in somewhere.
At the top is "concierge" medicine - those who get top-notch and immediate
care. There are several categories below that, from Blue Cross, down
through Medicare, all the way to "Canada-lite" (Medicaid)".

Oh it's broken alright. The cost of health care insurance has been doubling
every decade, employers are dropping or cutting back coverage or in some
cases moving production overseas to escape health coverage costs. Medical
tourism is a growing phenomenon as Americans travel to get surgery they
can't afford in the U.S. One in six Americans has no insurance at all which
means when they finally go to the hospital ER *you* and every other
taxpayer/insurance customer pays for it. American health insurance
companies absorb more in "administrative overhead" (including fat executive
salaries) than anywhere in the world, about a fifth of what Americans pay
for insurance never gets past the insurance companies. Look up
pharmaceutical industry scandals sometime, it's a horror show of companies
concealing dangers of their products, price-fixing, manipulation of the FDA,
gaming the patent system to extend profits and so on. Some hospitals have
closed ERs because they are swamped with uninsured patients who have no
other source of health care. Unless the law prevents them from doing so
insurance companies will refuse to insure anyone with a history of serious
illness, and they have employees whose job is finding excuses to drop
customers once they get sick. Doctors order needless tests to cover
themselves against liability, and they pass on the cost of malpractice
insurance to their patients. Government programs like Medicare pay out
countless millions in bogus claims because it is so easy to defraud the
system. The medical profession restricts the number of med school graduates
to keep salaries (and thus costs) up. The loudest screams about health care
reform invariably come from those who make the biggest profits, no way do
they want change that doesn't put more money in their pockets--and so on and
so forth.

Isn't broken?

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months
to get one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally
got to the head of the line. So it's a different set of problems
from the also broken American system, they both need serious
adjustments.

I suggest the American system isn't "broken." Everybody fits in
somewhere. At the top is "concierge" medicine - those who get
top-notch and immediate care. There are several categories below
that, from Blue Cross, down through Medicare, all the way to
"Canada-lite" (Medicaid)".

Oh it's broken alright. The cost of health care insurance has been
doubling every decade, employers are dropping or cutting back
coverage or in some cases moving production overseas to escape health
coverage costs.

Straw man. Health "insurance" is not the same thing as "health care."

Medical tourism is a growing phenomenon as Americans
travel to get surgery they can't afford in the U.S. One in six
Americans has no insurance at all which means when they finally go to
the hospital ER *you* and every other taxpayer/insurance customer
pays for it. American health insurance companies absorb more in
"administrative overhead" (including fat executive salaries) than
anywhere in the world, about a fifth of what Americans pay for
insurance never gets past the insurance companies. Look up
pharmaceutical industry scandals sometime, it's a horror show of
companies concealing dangers of their products, price-fixing,
manipulation of the FDA, gaming the patent system to extend profits
and so on. Some hospitals have closed ERs because they are swamped
with uninsured patients who have no other source of health care. Unless
the law prevents them from doing so insurance companies will
refuse to insure anyone with a history of serious illness, and they
have employees whose job is finding excuses to drop customers once
they get sick. Doctors order needless tests to cover themselves
against liability, and they pass on the cost of malpractice insurance
to their patients. Government programs like Medicare pay out
countless millions in bogus claims because it is so easy to defraud
the system. The medical profession restricts the number of med
school graduates to keep salaries (and thus costs) up. The loudest
screams about health care reform invariably come from those who make
the biggest profits, no way do they want change that doesn't put more
money in their pockets--and so on and so forth.
Isn't broken?

When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.

'Course he died right away, but that's beside the point...

ROFL!!!
--------------------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.

'Course he died right away, but that's beside the point...

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while doctors
and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating health care
right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private system seems to
work well in many places. The Swiss system is interesting, buying insurance
is compulsory but the insurance companies have to provide basic coverage on
a non-profit basis (and they cannot turn away anyone), they make their
profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling out
of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without coverage. A
bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of health care
and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient care would seem
to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what might be done about
that?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Oh it's broken alright. The cost of health care insurance has been
doubling every decade, employers are dropping or cutting back
coverage or in some cases moving production overseas to escape health
coverage costs.

Straw man. Health "insurance" is not the same thing as "health care."

What an astonishing statement. Seriously, to suggest that health insurance
is not epoxied, riveted, bolted and welded to every aspect of health care in
America is to make a statement so unbelievable as to be worthy of a member
of Congress.

When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.

But of course, if you have unlimited finances you can get the best health
care in the world in America. Alas, most Americans don't have unlimited
finances, they have to hope their insurance company (if they have one) will
approve the high-tech scan their doctor wants to do or whatever other
procedure they need. If they don't have insurance--as one in six Americans
do not--then it gets a bit trickier. Of course there are those with the
attitude that since they have good coverage and thus access to good care
then it's tough **** for anyone and everyone else, there are always people
like that.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

"phorbin" wrote in message
When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.

'Course he was criminally rich.

Guess I can infer then that the world's criminals go to the US for treatment
when possible. Now, there's a recommendation if there ever was one.

In article ,
says...
+
When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.

'Course he died right away, but that's beside the point...

'Course he was criminally rich.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.


What? Can you point to executives of Medicare/Medicaid who are paid many
millions of dollars a year in the way the top execs of big health insurance
companies are paid millions or even tens of millions a year?¹ Can you show
that Medicare's administrative overhead is as great or greater than that of
private insurance companies? Can you demonstrate that the private medical
insurance industry is funded primarily by govt. (to justify your use of the
word "paymaster"? Does Medicare try to refuse patients or drop them when
they get sick the way the insurance industry does? Would the answers to
those questions be no, no, no and no?

However I admire the consistency of your ideology--claiming that the reason
private industry is ruthless, inefficient and greedy is because of the
government demonstrates a beautiful case of tunnel-vision.

¹The CEO of Cigna Corp. gets $21 million dollars a year, the CEO of Aetna
$24 million a year.

What are the two biggest sources of funding for lobbying and campaign
donations in Washington? Two industries--the insurance industry, and the
pharmaceutical industry, they each spend a hundred million a year. And who
financed opposition to health care reform? Among others Rick Scott, former
CEO of the nation's largest health care company (dumped during a fraud
investigation) and former partner of a certain former President in owning
the Texas Rangers--Scott spent $20 million telling the nation how evil it
would be to change the existing health care system. That today he owns a
chain of walk-in clinics is probably just a coincidence.

On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.

On 5/9/2011 5:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.

The US had virtually no Federal government intrusion into healthcare
until the late 1960s. It was widely available to most people, mostly
delivered pretty efficiently, and the economic underclass got covered
via doctors' doing gratis or reduce fee work and/or teaching hospitals
making their services available as a training mechanism.

Then the nosy self-anointed saviors of mankind got involved, decided that
absolutely nothing can be done without mob rule and appointed themselves
the keepers of what's good for everyone. The inevitable corruption,
inefficiency, and flat out fraud followed. Now that it has not worked
well, these same geniuses say we need even more of it.

I have a number of family members that are (or were until retirement)
Canadian healthcare delivery professionals. No thanks.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.

The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.

On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.

The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
Pinko in every corner.

On Tue, 10 May 2011 12:26:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/10/2011 12:14 PM, said this:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.

The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
Pinko in every corner.

That's not really the problem. The Sheeple want lots and lots and lots
of "free" (to them) social services. They do not wish to personally
pay for it, so the political types peddle this fantasy of "We can help
if you'll just vote for us."

But what that inevitably ends up meaning is, "We'll create a bureaucracy
that is more self-interested than interested in serving the constituency."
This makes the Sheeple further dependent on their Congress Critters -
exactly what all incumbents, especially, love.

This then leads to financial disaster and the politicians start selling
"Let's make the rich pay more" even though the "rich" pay over 90% of
Federal taxes in the US.

I share your view that the US system is insane because it props up
two inefficient bureaucracies: The private-sector delivery and
insurance system, and the government payment system. But the
way to fix this isn't to get rid of the private sector. It's to
get rid of the government bureaucracy and let markets fix the
private sector as they do so well.
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
The same is VERY TRUE of health care. Your private health care
providers (HMOs?) make obscene profits strictly because they can. Your
financial companies, banks, and insurance companies do the same, for
the same reason. CEOs and CFOs, as well as managers all down the line
get multi-million dollar bonuses while the companies are loosing
money and shareholders are bleeding - because they CAN. And the CAN
because your government hasn't got (and never has had, regardless
which party in in power - the jumbos or the jackasses) the balls to
stand up to them and regulate them into acceptable behaviour. They
haven't the balls or the stomach to do it because they know they will
not get elected to a second term if they do, because Americans do not
want their Government involved in their lives PERIOD.
Regulating banks and financial institutions is the tip of the wedge
that will turn their country into a communist state like North Korea,
or North Vietnam, or their good friends and financial "benefactors"
the Red Chinese. And government controlled/paid HEALTH CARE!!!!!
That's half way up the wedge.The poor cannot afford health care?
Tough. It'll cull out the "weak" - and the "weak" are the "socialist
scum" that drag down your great country - making it more difficult for
the rest of the unwashed masses to grab on to the AMERICAN DREAM.

Like Marie Antoinette said when told the peasants had no bread - "let
them eat cake".

I'm glad I don't live in the USA. And I hope and pray that out
government doesn't drag us down the American garden path.

Thank goodness we didn't elect the American University Prof as our
PM!!!!

Are you kidding? I doubt there is one field of endeavor that original
Canadian culture hasn't been tainted by US culture.


We can't spell correctly anymore,
We think the word "programme" is spelt shorter for computers,
we think "fun" can be used as an as a descriptive noun and,
we ain't even counting properly anymore.

--
wrote in message ...

I'm glad I don't live in the USA. And I hope and pray that out
government doesn't drag us down the American garden path.

Thank goodness we didn't elect the American University Prof as our
PM!!!!

On 5/10/2011 9:26 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 12:26:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/10/2011 12:14 PM, said this:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.

The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
Pinko in every corner.

That's not really the problem. The Sheeple want lots and lots and lots
of "free" (to them) social services. They do not wish to personally
pay for it, so the political types peddle this fantasy of "We can help
if you'll just vote for us."

But what that inevitably ends up meaning is, "We'll create a bureaucracy
that is more self-interested than interested in serving the constituency."
This makes the Sheeple further dependent on their Congress Critters -
exactly what all incumbents, especially, love.

This then leads to financial disaster and the politicians start selling
"Let's make the rich pay more" even though the "rich" pay over 90% of
Federal taxes in the US.

I share your view that the US system is insane because it props up
two inefficient bureaucracies: The private-sector delivery and
insurance system, and the government payment system. But the
way to fix this isn't to get rid of the private sector. It's to
get rid of the government bureaucracy and let markets fix the
private sector as they do so well.
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,

Policing requires force and force is legally (almost) the sole domain
of government for a variety of reasons.

BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.

The only Western monopolies that ever existed that were *predatory*
were the ones enabled by government. Predatory monopoly can only
exist with force. Without it, the overpricing will be corrected by
government. Think public utilities vs. IBM or Microsoft. No
truly private monopoly can get away with predatory pricing and
survive.

The same is VERY TRUE of health care. Your private health care
providers (HMOs?) make obscene profits strictly because they can. Your

Businesses exist to make a profit. You think doctors, nurses,
pharma researchers, and their supporting staff should work for free
maybe?

financial companies, banks, and insurance companies do the same, for
the same reason. CEOs and CFOs, as well as managers all down the line
get multi-million dollar bonuses while the companies are loosing
money and shareholders are bleeding - because they CAN. And the CAN
because your government hasn't got (and never has had, regardless
which party in in power - the jumbos or the jackasses) the balls to
stand up to them and regulate them into acceptable behaviour. They

Typically wrong. These healthcare providers don't have to be efficient
because they are *guaranteed government payment* no matter how well or
poorly they perform. It is the absence of markets, not the absence
of government that has created the mess.

haven't the balls or the stomach to do it because they know they will
not get elected to a second term if they do, because Americans do not
want their Government involved in their lives PERIOD.

That's the best part of being an American.

Regulating banks and financial institutions is the tip of the wedge
that will turn their country into a communist state like North Korea,
or North Vietnam, or their good friends and financial "benefactors"
the Red Chinese. And government controlled/paid HEALTH CARE!!!!!
That's half way up the wedge.The poor cannot afford health care?

I grew up poor, long before US government run healthcare. This
is baldly false and unhinged from reality. We always had essential
healthcare even when there was only $20 for food.

Tough. It'll cull out the "weak" - and the "weak" are the "socialist
scum" that drag down your great country - making it more difficult for
the rest of the unwashed masses to grab on to the AMERICAN DREAM.

That is true.


Like Marie Antoinette said when told the peasants had no bread - "let
them eat cake".

I'm glad I don't live in the USA. And I hope and pray that out
government doesn't drag us down the American garden path.

Thank goodness we didn't elect the American University Prof as our
PM!!!!

I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
people. I chose to become an American citizen.

On 5/10/2011 9:49 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The only Western monopolies that ever existed that were *predatory*
were the ones enabled by government. Predatory monopoly can only
exist with force. Without it, the overpricing will be corrected by
government. Think public utilities vs. IBM or Microsoft. No


Err ... will corrected by *market forces*, NOT government.

Why?
Job choice?

How long did you reside there before becoming an American citizen?

----------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
people. I chose to become an American citizen.

On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:14:00 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.

The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
Pinko in every corner.

And how would a Canuck know that? Nah, we figure that if the gov't
were downsized, the same money they take now would fund social
security and full public healthcare without any more taxes.

I wonder why we aren't funneling all that campaign money into SS now,
either...

LJ, who strongly feels that any random set of people (including the
homeless or insane) taken off the street could do a better job in D.C.
than our elected CONgresscritters are doing right now.

--
Woe be to him that reads but one book.
-- George Herbert

On 5/10/2011 10:53 PM, Josepi said this:
Why?
Job choice?

Family circumstances - I (eventually) ended up in the US and at
became a US citizen by choice.


How long did you reside there before becoming an American citizen?

I lived in Canada intermittently, and for short periods of time, never
for any extended duration. I have visited many times since, of course.

This "Canada is better/worse than the USA" stuff is ridiculous.
We have far more in common as nations than we have differences.
Moreover, Canadian policy is necessarily different because it has
more geography than the US but 1/10th the population.

And - for the record - in modern times, there have been 4 nations
that stuck together to help each other and free the world: Australia,
Canada, United Kingdom, and United States.



----------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...
I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
people. I chose to become an American citizen.

Right on!
We are practically clones except for the Tennessee people. They **ARE**
clones.


LOL
---------------------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
I lived in Canada intermittently, and for short periods of time, never
for any extended duration. I have visited many times since, of course.

This "Canada is better/worse than the USA" stuff is ridiculous.
We have far more in common as nations than we have differences.
Moreover, Canadian policy is necessarily different because it has
more geography than the US but 1/10th the population.

And - for the record - in modern times, there have been 4 nations
that stuck together to help each other and free the world: Australia,
Canada, United Kingdom, and United States.



----------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
people. I chose to become an American citizen.

wrote:
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.

You better get better examples. Eighty percent of the firefighters in the US
are volunteers and very little tax money - if any at all - it expended in
their support. (Volunteer Fire Department spaghetti dinners are a hoot!)

As for police, well, in my large city we probably have ten times the number
of private security guards as we do cops on the beat. It would be a small
thing to invest them with the same arrest powers as police. In MY state, the
big difference in arrest powers between a law-enforcement officer and a
private citizen is that a LEO can arrest for a crimes not committed in his
presence, suspicious persons, or based on probable cause. Specifically:

"Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or
any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an
offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view,
if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the
public peace."



Like Marie Antoinette said when told the peasants had no bread - "let
them eat cake".

The reason Marie Anoinette said what she did was because the price of bread
was regulated by the government! As such, bakers refused to bake bread
because they lost money on every loaf. There was no government price control
on cakes, so bakers were free to charge what the market would bear.

wrote:
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.

Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
monopoly? Nevertheless...

Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.

Even the poster boy for "bad" monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price
of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents! And did it within three years.
Of course the providers of whale oil were screwed, but for the rest of us
the night became bright.

Most of the evil monopolies are those enabled by the government: Cable TV is
one example.

No, in general, the fight against monopolies is not waged by the consumer -
who almost always is better off from monopoly actions - but by the
competitors of the monopoly.

Finally, our Constitution specifically encourages and protects monopolies.

"Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;... "

In article ,
says...

wrote:
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.

Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
monopoly? Nevertheless...

Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.

Even the poster boy for "bad" monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price
of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents! And did it within three years.
Of course the providers of whale oil were screwed, but for the rest of us
the night became bright.

Most of the evil monopolies are those enabled by the government: Cable TV is
one example.

No, in general, the fight against monopolies is not waged by the consumer -
who almost always is better off from monopoly actions - but by the
competitors of the monopoly.

Finally, our Constitution specifically encourages and protects monopolies.

"Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;... "

And the breakup of AT&T, with the subsequent destruction of Nobel Prize
factory known as Bell Labs, certainly did nothing to promote the
Progress of Science and the useful Arts.

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

wrote:
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well.

you do have these. Rural Metro, amongst other companies, provides fee-for
service fire protection across the country, in hundreds of communities.

http://www.ruralmetro.com/about_communitiesserved.asp

and what are security guards but private fee-for service "policing"?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[...] The Sheeple
[...]the Sheeple
[...]

You've got to love the term. It does such a nice job of separating us
enlightened ones, who have a clear view of Truth, from those nasty, ignorant,
unwashed masses.

-- Doug

On May 11, 1:55*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[...] The Sheeple
[...]the Sheeple
[...]

You've got to love the term. *It does such a nice job of separating us
enlightened ones, who have a clear view of Truth, from those nasty, ignorant,
unwashed masses.


I sure hope that was sarcasm.....

On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:52:26 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote:
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.

Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
monopoly? Nevertheless...

Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.

Even the poster boy for "bad" monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price
of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents! And did it within three years.
Of course the providers of whale oil were screwed, but for the rest of us
the night became bright.

Most of the evil monopolies are those enabled by the government: Cable TV is
one example.

No, in general, the fight against monopolies is not waged by the consumer -
who almost always is better off from monopoly actions - but by the
competitors of the monopoly.

Finally, our Constitution specifically encourages and protects monopolies.

"Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;... "

And the breakup of AT&T, with the subsequent destruction of Nobel Prize
factory known as Bell Labs, certainly did nothing to promote the
Progress of Science and the useful Arts.


The price of a phone call fell through the floor, though.