On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

2> Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many
2> new innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at
2> all.

> Actually, our research facilities and findings are second to none. Since
> we don't have too many "Designer Clinics" you are right, we don't
> develop needless, high-cost surgical practises that are funded by the
> very richest individuals, but our advancement of transplant
> technologies, cancer therapies, etc has been significant (for a country
> with 1/10th the population of the Excited States). Admittedly, the
> government healthcare system will not pay for un-proven, touchy-feely
> "treatments" advanced by some shaman from Mexico! If it is proven in a
> properly-designed, double-blind study to be effective, it is normally
> added to the "covered" list.

....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.

DS

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.

If the goal is provide civil unions with the same benefits as traditional
marriages, then pass laws to provide equivalent benefits. There are many
companies that provide the insurance benefits to domestic partners and others
that don't provide insurance benefits to the wife/husband of married employees.
Wills can be written and contracts drawn up to handle most of the things you are
complaining about. Fixing the injustice does not require a redefinition of the
legal meaning of a "marriage."

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.

If the goal is provide civil unions with the same benefits as traditional
marriages, then pass laws to provide equivalent benefits. There are many
companies that provide the insurance benefits to domestic partners and others
that don't provide insurance benefits to the wife/husband of married employees.
Wills can be written and contracts drawn up to handle most of the things you are
complaining about. Fixing the injustice does not require a redefinition of the
legal meaning of a "marriage."

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.

If the goal is provide civil unions with the same benefits as traditional
marriages, then pass laws to provide equivalent benefits. There are many
companies that provide the insurance benefits to domestic partners and others
that don't provide insurance benefits to the wife/husband of married employees.
Wills can be written and contracts drawn up to handle most of the things you are
complaining about. Fixing the injustice does not require a redefinition of the
legal meaning of a "marriage."

Ed

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

> Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
> neo-Conservatives.

Mike Harris did *tremendous* damage with thoughtless slashing once the
Federal government downloaded a lot of responsibility to the provinces.

> Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts went to the bone,
> where they should have gone to the fat.

That said, even the results of Harris' hackjob are better than the US
"managed care" mess.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

> Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
> neo-Conservatives.

Mike Harris did *tremendous* damage with thoughtless slashing once the
Federal government downloaded a lot of responsibility to the provinces.

> Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts went to the bone,
> where they should have gone to the fat.

That said, even the results of Harris' hackjob are better than the US
"managed care" mess.

DS

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

> Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
> neo-Conservatives.

Mike Harris did *tremendous* damage with thoughtless slashing once the
Federal government downloaded a lot of responsibility to the provinces.

> Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts went to the bone,
> where they should have gone to the fat.

That said, even the results of Harris' hackjob are better than the US
"managed care" mess.

DS

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.

I think you are wrong on this point. If it was possible to accurately measure
"liberalness," I believe CR would fall to the liberal side of the average opinion.
There is nothing wrong with this. I just don't think it is reasonable to assert
that CR doesn't have opinions that the average American would consider liberal.
"Woman's Outlook" is a magazine published by an advocate group. I doubt if you
would claim they were neither liberal or conservative.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.

I think you are wrong on this point. If it was possible to accurately measure
"liberalness," I believe CR would fall to the liberal side of the average opinion.
There is nothing wrong with this. I just don't think it is reasonable to assert
that CR doesn't have opinions that the average American would consider liberal.
"Woman's Outlook" is a magazine published by an advocate group. I doubt if you
would claim they were neither liberal or conservative.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.

I think you are wrong on this point. If it was possible to accurately measure
"liberalness," I believe CR would fall to the liberal side of the average opinion.
There is nothing wrong with this. I just don't think it is reasonable to assert
that CR doesn't have opinions that the average American would consider liberal.
"Woman's Outlook" is a magazine published by an advocate group. I doubt if you
would claim they were neither liberal or conservative.

Ed