"The Ancient One"

See, case in point; obviously, the American medical care system has
kept this individual's body alive long after his brain has ceased
functioning, to everyone's detriment.

 

"The Ancient One"

See, case in point; obviously, the American medical care system has
kept this individual's body alive long after his brain has ceased
functioning, to everyone's detriment.

 

"The Ancient One"

See, case in point; obviously, the American medical care system has
kept this individual's body alive long after his brain has ceased
functioning, to everyone's detriment.

 

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <MIydndONr9GTd02i4p2dnA@magma.ca>,
> Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>>>the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>>>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>>>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>>>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>>
>>
>>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>>we do now??
>
>
> Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
> but you still can't see them.
>
>


No, the problem of overly-Conservative governments has hit us in the fan
(face) and we see them all too clearly!

Dan

 

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <MIydndONr9GTd02i4p2dnA@magma.ca>,
> Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>>>the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>>>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>>>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>>>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>>
>>
>>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>>we do now??
>
>
> Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
> but you still can't see them.
>
>


No, the problem of overly-Conservative governments has hit us in the fan
(face) and we see them all too clearly!

Dan

 

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <MIydndONr9GTd02i4p2dnA@magma.ca>,
> Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>>>the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>>>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>>>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>>>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>>
>>
>>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>>we do now??
>
>
> Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
> but you still can't see them.
>
>


No, the problem of overly-Conservative governments has hit us in the fan
(face) and we see them all too clearly!

Dan

 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:39:44 -0500, Dan Gates
<dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:

>But what do you call fully funding the development of say 3 x-planes by
>three different manufacturers to fulfil a need for a fighter? All of
>the technology of flight that is developed goes back into their
>commercial applications at relatively little cost.

Not a subsidy.
Businesses learn by doing.
What they learn by doing one job can be used on other jobs, unless
that new technology is otherwise protected.
Whether it's the government paying for the new job, or just another
client, doesn't change that.
The fact that it's the gov't paying means that there's more money to
pour into the job, that's all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:39:44 -0500, Dan Gates
<dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:

>But what do you call fully funding the development of say 3 x-planes by
>three different manufacturers to fulfil a need for a fighter? All of
>the technology of flight that is developed goes back into their
>commercial applications at relatively little cost.

Not a subsidy.
Businesses learn by doing.
What they learn by doing one job can be used on other jobs, unless
that new technology is otherwise protected.
Whether it's the government paying for the new job, or just another
client, doesn't change that.
The fact that it's the gov't paying means that there's more money to
pour into the job, that's all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:39:44 -0500, Dan Gates
<dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:

>But what do you call fully funding the development of say 3 x-planes by
>three different manufacturers to fulfil a need for a fighter? All of
>the technology of flight that is developed goes back into their
>commercial applications at relatively little cost.

Not a subsidy.
Businesses learn by doing.
What they learn by doing one job can be used on other jobs, unless
that new technology is otherwise protected.
Whether it's the government paying for the new job, or just another
client, doesn't change that.
The fact that it's the gov't paying means that there's more money to
pour into the job, that's all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote in message news:<rIednSDS8OzmM02iRVn-iw@magma.ca>...
> Bill Funk wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:55:00 -0500, Dan Gates
> > <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> > Point out, while you're at it, that these figures say absolutely
> > nothing about health care, one way or another.
> >
>
>
> They certainly must, because to listen to any number of Americans, life
> is so tough up here what with the cold and snow and the high taxes and
> the low dollar and the poor productivity and the poor democracy, our
> lives are much harder to live, we should have much poorer life expectancies.
>
> The figures cited are pretty standard measures of health care efficacy.
> Since the US and Canada are so similar, demographically, health care
> must be the difference.

The 'conservative' point of view; healthcare has nothing to do with
keeping people alive, its only function is as an investment vehicle;
and a single payer government sponsored nonprofit healthplan would
louse that up for them, so what's the point of keeping people healthy
and alive longer?