"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031922420.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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".

 

In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041139430.24084-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> 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 mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"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.

 

In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041139430.24084-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> 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 mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"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.

 

In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041139430.24084-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> 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 mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"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.

 

In article <auadnZZDP9zV8lKiRVn-iQ@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> 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 mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"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.

 

In article <auadnZZDP9zV8lKiRVn-iQ@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> 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 mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"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.

 

In article <auadnZZDP9zV8lKiRVn-iQ@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> 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 mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"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.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031408490.10934-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same --- unions is not
> > discrimination.
>
> Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same---- 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.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031408490.10934-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same --- unions is not
> > discrimination.
>
> Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same---- 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.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031408490.10934-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same --- unions is not
> > discrimination.
>
> Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same---- 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.