Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,001

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:49:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
>> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
>> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>> >sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>> >energy.
>>
>> Enron was dollar driven as well.
>
>Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
>want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
>corruption.

No, that dollar driven isn't by definition a good thing. I'm not
saying that it's a bad thing, but you appear to be saying that it
simply makes it better by being that way. If you really want the
latest in techno gadgets you have to look at the Japanese market, not
the American.

>> >You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>> >war on "moral" grounds?).
>>
>> Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
>> Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
>> put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
>
>Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
>France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
>old.

And American companies didn't sell to him at all, right? You don't
seriously believe that, do you?

>The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
>just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to Iran).
>It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they mistakes?
>Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to run a
>country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had Communism
>not been contained.

The US has demonstrated that it's willing to support a friendly
dictator to a democracy that doesn't agree with them many times over,
regardless of the cost to the people involved. Claiming that they
were going to go communist is a good way of justifying the actions,
but that's all it is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,002

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>> >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>> >
>> >It doesn't.
>> >
>> >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>> >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>> >governments.
>>
>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>> other laws need to be changed.
>
>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>married, why discriminate against them?

Good question. As long as they're all consenting adults, who cares?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,003

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2XJzb.226145$Dw6.802274@attbi_s02...
> In article
<[email protected]>, Daniel J.
Stern wrote:
>
> > ...at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost
was
> > directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via
insurance
> > premiums.
>
> or taxes for that purpose should the USA adopt such a system.

Exactly. Actual costs for National healthcare equal to what we have now
would be higher than current costs. To see lower costs you will see reduced
levels of patient care.

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,004

The Ancient One wrote:

>
> For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two asperin
> and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
> could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to the
> Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So he
> heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which the
> Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls short
> in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
> Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
> because it's "free".

Actually I think you have it wrong. In the US, the guy with good health
insurance is liable to act just like the guy in Canada. The really rich guy in
the US, may call his persoanl assistant to get the asprin. The really poor guy
in the US may walk into the Emergency room becasue he doesn't have to worry
about paying and the asprin will therefore be "free.". The poor guy in the
middle with mediocre health insurance may just take the two asprin even though
he has the same headache every day for months and only go to the Doctor when the
tumor in his brain has grown to the size of an orange.

Ed

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,005

The Ancient One wrote:
>
>
> Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
> It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
> healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
> patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
> because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they are
> going to use it.
> For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two asperin
> and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
> could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to the
> Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So he
> heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which the
> Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls short
> in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
> Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
> because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a number and
> wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where healthcare
> comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
> people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment, because
> we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment, Period.
> Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
> criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
> I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend though,
> so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.
>
>
>
>

Yes, that is just the way we do it!!!!

Only 50% of the work force shows up for work on any given day because
the rest are at the hospital having some ailment or other treated!!!

Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.

Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!

Lets compare, shall we?
Can. US
Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29

I could go on, but I won't.

The US has more practising specialists and physicians than we have here,
just nobody can get to them because they are all golfing (|>)) ours just
have to work a full day (and then some).

I have been in this system for a long time, it works. It doesn't work
perfectly for everybody, but it works. I'd rather get really sick here,
than really sick there.

Dan, from Canada

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,006

In article <[email protected]>, The Ancient One wrote:
> "Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Stern wrote:

>> > ...at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
>> > directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
>> > premiums.

>> or taxes for that purpose should the USA adopt such a system.

> Exactly. Actual costs for National healthcare equal to what we have now
> would be higher than current costs. To see lower costs you will see reduced
> levels of patient care.

Or both. I imagine the same processes that do everything in US government.
We are talking about handing over health care to the same people that
give us a poor return on our money with things like 55mph speed limits,
red light cameras, shoddy roads, CAFE, and all sorts of other regulations
and poorly done jobs that are worse than doing nothing at all. Why does
anyone really want these people running health care too?

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,007

C. E. White wrote:
> "Can't you three or four guys that are continuing this thread find some common
> group to post to, rather than all of this crossposting?
>
> Try alt.argumentative.idiots.wont.give.up"
>
> Dan Gates wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>

I know, BUT .. .. I .. .. JUST .. .. COULDN'T .. .. HELP .. .. MYSELF.

Even as I was replying, I was thinking the same thing you were but, but,
but,

|>)

Dan

 

J

John Mielke

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,008

On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:04:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>>>>>health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>>>insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>>>>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>>>>
>>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>>canadian health care problems
>>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>>friends promise.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>>
>>>Try this:
>>>
>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.

First, please explain what a "right-web web site" is.
Second, I didn't realize a highly-regarded internet search engine
would stoop to such filtering. And as a matter of fact, they do not.
If you had bothered to look, within the first page of links, there are
articles indicating that the Canadian system works reasonably well.
But because it returns sites supporting both sides of the issue, you
claim it's right-wing? Sounds pretty "neutral" to me.
Today's google search site count is 2,350,000 sites that you haven't
seen vs one (1) eleven year old study that you have seen (and that
you keep referring to as if it were gospel).
Open that closed mind of yours and read what people are saying TODAY
before leaping to conclusions.
(And if you do, in fact, bother to do some research, and look at
CURRENT web sites supporting both sides of the issue and still feel
that it's better than the US "system" (or lack thereof), I wouldn't
disagree with you.)

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,009

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> > be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> > society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
>
> Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
> no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
> and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
>

Certainly, today, those laws are totally useless. They're completely
unsupportable. It doesn't matter who's party is in control.

>
> > Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> > "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> > phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> > of babies born to unwed mothers.
>
> Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
> does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
> some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
>

Our local laws reflect our values. Our values don't derive from our laws.
That's my point. Sorry you missed it.

> > Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty
is
> > children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on
Friday
> > night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to
it.
> > They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> > producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of
society.
>
> Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
> that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
> were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
>

Stupid teenagers today are indulged with the idea that they can raise
children and are encouraged to keep them. They can go right out and sign up
for AFDC. That's the difference. Instead of being raised with the promise
a stable family they're made "baggage" from the get go.


> DS
>

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,010

Dan Gates wrote:
> The Ancient One wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
>> It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
>> healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
>> patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
>> because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they
>> are
>> going to use it.
>> For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two
>> asperin
>> and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
>> could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to the
>> Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So he
>> heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of
>> which the
>> Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls
>> short
>> in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
>> Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
>> because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a
>> number and
>> wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where
>> healthcare
>> comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
>> people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment,
>> because
>> we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment,
>> Period.
>> Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
>> criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
>> I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend
>> though,
>> so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes, that is just the way we do it!!!!
>
> Only 50% of the work force shows up for work on any given day because
> the rest are at the hospital having some ailment or other treated!!!
>
> Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
> medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
>
> Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
>
> Lets compare, shall we?
> Can. US
> Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
> Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
> Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
>

Let me just add:
Can US


Infant mortality/ 1,000
live births 5 7

Prob. of dying/1,000
Age 5, Males 6 8
Age 5, Females 5 8

Age 15-59, Males 104 148
Age 15-59, Females 59 85



Total Healthcare Spending
as a % of GDP: 7.9 9.2

So you guys are spending much more money, but getting, overall, lower
results.


But it is better because it is free-market, profit-driven!

Dan



> I could go on, but I won't.
>
> The US has more practising specialists and physicians than we have here,
> just nobody can get to them because they are all golfing (|>)) ours just
> have to work a full day (and then some).
>
> I have been in this system for a long time, it works. It doesn't work
> perfectly for everybody, but it works. I'd rather get really sick here,
> than really sick there.
>
> Dan, from Canada
>
>

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,011

"Dan Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
> > It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
> > healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
> > patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
> > because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they
are
> > going to use it.
> > For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two
asperin
> > and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
> > could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to
the
> > Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So
he
> > heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which
the
> > Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls
short
> > in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
> > Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
> > because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a number
and
> > wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where
healthcare
> > comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
> > people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment,
because
> > we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment,
Period.
> > Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
> > criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
> > I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend
though,
> > so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, that is just the way we do it!!!!
>
> Only 50% of the work force shows up for work on any given day because
> the rest are at the hospital having some ailment or other treated!!!
>
> Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
> medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.
>
> Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
>
> Lets compare, shall we?
> Can. US
> Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9
> Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17
> Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29
>
> I could go on, but I won't.
>
> The US has more practising specialists and physicians than we have here,
> just nobody can get to them because they are all golfing (|>)) ours just
> have to work a full day (and then some).
>
> I have been in this system for a long time, it works. It doesn't work
> perfectly for everybody, but it works. I'd rather get really sick here,
> than really sick there.
>
> Dan, from Canada

And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues unabaited.
To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You get
reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but the
system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting list,
and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
treatment.

>
>

 

M

Matthew Russotto

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,012

In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>My experience (ageing parents, two fairly recent children and their
>maladies, friends surviving cancer) has been extremely positive. Waits
>tend to be for MRIs, synthetic hip and knee replacements and such, 15
>years ago, how long did you have to wait for such things? About 10
>years! We keep forgetting that these are pretty new, expensive
>technologies, some of which have not proven to be any more effective
>than the old, cheap technologies.

Err, hip and knee replacements are certainly expensive, but also
proven. Same with MRIs. Hip replacement has been around for about 40
years, knee replacement a bit less. MRI has been around since the
'70s. These are not particularly new technologies.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,013

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
> I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> DS
>

That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine for
everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it could be
a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident and
hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital in a
scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there, they
took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough until
the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously so,
and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up. When
I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever did.

A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had the
money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a box
because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.

The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near the
socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot avoid
the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system. A
private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any "product".

 

M

Matthew Russotto

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,014

In article <[email protected]>,
Daniel J. Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> >Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>> >kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>> >not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>> >prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>
>> And you'd likely get the same in the US.
>
>
>...at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
>directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
>premiums.

Or via taxes? Hidden costs aren't only on the US side.



--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,015

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...

>> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>
>You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
>you would have been placed on a waiting list.

Have you ever been to Canada?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,016

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:31:18 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>...it's worth noting here that massage therapy for a wide range of
>ailments and injuries *is* covered under OHIP. The training and licencing
>standards for LMTs are accordingly tougher. This is a great example of how
>the Canadian system doesn't just toss everyone an aspirin and say "get
>lost" as those who've no direct experience with it seem to think.

To read some of this crap you'd think we were living in a third world
nation here. I guess some people like waiting 2 or more hours in the
doctor's waiting room to get looked at.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

M

Matthew Russotto

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,017

In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Gates <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Get a life! The same low-lifes that crowd your "County" ERs for free
>medicare are crowding our ER for their freebies.

Medicaid.

>Most people using hospital services are their because they need to be!
>
>Lets compare, shall we?
> Can. US
>Life expectancy at birth? 82.7 66.9

Wrong. US life expectancy at birth was 77.2 in 2001. Canada's was 79.2
in 2001.

>Inpatient Care Beds/1,000 pop 20 17

3.9 and 3.6 respectively.

>Acute Care Beds/1,000 pop 35 29

4.0 and 3.7 respectively

>I could go on, but I won't.

If you want to just make stuff up, you can certainly do so.



--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,018

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same sex unions is not
> > discrimination.
>
> Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same-sex couples from getting
> married that is discrimination.
>
> DS
>

The issue is not discrimination. Though it's useful for those who support
gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
for blacks. We discriminate against those who want to marry several
partners or animals or minors or etc. We discriminate all the time and
(hopefully) for good reason. Our laws are a reflection of our values. If
we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and we'll live
with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against gays when it
comes to marriage it's because people believe that the basic unit of our
society ought to be the family and that it ought to be preserved and
protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote your way.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,019

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
>
> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
lodged
> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful,
but
> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
manner.
> >
> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
>
> Have you ever been to Canada?

Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,020

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
> >
> > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
living
> > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
Canadian
> > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs
of
> > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> >
> > DS
> >
>
> That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine for
> everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it could
be
> a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident and
> hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital in
a
> scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there, they
> took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough until
> the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously
so,
> and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
When
> I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
> 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever did.
>
> A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had the
> money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a box
> because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
>
> The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near the
> socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot avoid
> the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system. A
> private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
> everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any "product".

For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.