Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Evil Baby · Feb 20, 2004, 02:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

No, you DON'T have a better health care system than we do. You spend less partly because we spend more on our elderly citizens (because they don't have to wait a year or two for a hip replacement)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

They just have to choose between buying their medication or paying for rent. Its a fair tradeoff if you think about it.

Evil Baby · Feb 20, 2004, 02:30 am

Also your private Health Care system would be a good indicater of why bus loads of elderly people come to Canada every month just to buy their medication.

AnonT · Feb 20, 2004, 06:38 am

Again, we have high costs here partly because of too much government involvement. If marijuana were legalized, any medication trying to compete with it would have to drop drastically in price in order to stay competitive.

Another part of the reason for our higher medication prices is that most US pharmaceutical companies do a lot more research than socialized pharmacies. It's one of the many areas of science and technology that we lead the world in. Because our companies do so much research, they end up charging more for medication to pay for it - which means that all your socialized systems are benefitting from our commercialized health care because we're paying for all the research that your countries then end up using.

And besides, the idea that most elderly people have to choose between buying medication and paying the rent is basically a myth that's been blown out of proportion by the media. In the early 90s, a vast majority of the population - even the elderly - was satisfied with our health care system. When the Clintons pushed for socialized health care, the media started running scare stories about people not being able to afford medical care - most of the stories being unfounded. Even though medical care improved while costs only increased as quickly as inflation, the public's view of our healthcare system went down because so many unfounded stories were being fed to the public.

For every busload of Americans who go to Canada to buy their medicine (don't you love how your taxes end up paying for our citizens to get medical care? aren't socialized systems great? and they don't encourage people to leech off the system at all!), there's a planefull of Canadians coming to America to get operations done that they'd have to wait weeks or months for in Canada.

That made me remember one of the fatal flaws with most socialized systems. In a free market, as demand for medicine (or any product) goes up, the people who provide it make more money. They then use that money to expand so their services can meet the demand. In a socialized system, as demand goes up, costs go up, but revenue doesn't - leaving the system to try to figure out where to cut costs - which ends up with services being cut at a time when people are demanding more.

Mathieu · Feb 20, 2004, 08:40 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Another part of the reason for our higher medication prices is that most US pharmaceutical companies do a lot more research than socialized pharmacies. It's one of the many areas of science and technology that we lead the world in<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

WTF are you talking about ??? THere no such socialized pharmaceutical system. There a lot of pharmaceuticals company active in Canada. Talk of Merck frost, Pfizer, ANapharm, Biochem pharma etc... Montreal is the home of a lot of those company who do resaerch here in Canada. You may lead not the world in this, but not without Canadian expertize.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 08:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)

WTF are you talking about ??? THere no such socialized pharmaceutical system. There a lot of pharmaceuticals company active in Canada. Talk of Merck frost, Pfizer, ANapharm, Biochem pharma etc... Montreal is the home of a lot of those company who do resaerch here in Canada. You may lead not the world in this, but not without Canadian expertize.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What would a pharmaceutical supply system look like where the workers owned the means of production?

--Jackney Sneeb

AnonT · Feb 20, 2004, 09:00 am

Ok, sorry, you're right, it's not fully socialized. However, the Canadian government does pay a large portion of the cost of medication, which makes the price seem lower to the consumer even though they end up paying as much through taxes.

Mathieu · Feb 20, 2004, 09:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
Ok, sorry, you're right, it's not fully socialized. However, the Canadian government does pay a large portion of the cost of medication, which makes the price seem lower to the consumer even though they end up paying as much through taxes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

False again, the system work the same way a private insurance would do. Actually, you can have a privat insurance for medication in canada.It is not exactly socialized. Only, the governement offer an insurance service, as all private companies. And the price are lower here because we limits the cost by a law. Pharmacies still make their profit, but not as outrageous as in US.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 09:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
Ok, sorry, you're right, it's not fully socialized. However, the Canadian government does pay a large portion of the cost of medication, which makes the price seem lower to the consumer even though they end up paying as much through taxes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

False again, the system work the same way a private insurance would do. Actually, you can have a privat insurance for medication in canada.It is not exactly socialized. Only, the governement offer an insurance service, as all private companies. And the price are lower here because we limits the cost by a law. Pharmacies still make their profit, but not as outrageous as in US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Slight correction -- the price is "limited" by law. Costs can't be limited by law (without inhibiting production). The way "the law" limits prices is by subsidizing the loss to the seller through extorting money (i.e., taxes) from the population at large. It's a shell game, a scam.

--Jackney Sneeb

Mathieu · Feb 20, 2004, 09:27 am

yeah, well english is not my first language, maybe price is more appropriate. Still we pay less for the service than you do ... Maybe a socialized system is not compatible with your libertarian ideal, but that doesn't make it a bad system. US private system is like a relic in the world.Look Britain, France, Finland etc...

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 10:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
yeah, well english is not my first language, maybe price is more appropriate. Still we pay less for the service than you do ... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
How do you know? The true cost to you is buried within the bureaucracy that administers the taxes you pay. You have no way of knowing how much of that goes to health care, as compared with other methods of payment.

Not only that, few people pay the same amount in taxes. There is no correlation between what you pay and what you take in the way of services.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Maybe a socialized system is not compatible with your libertarian ideal, but that doesn't make it a bad system. US private system is like a relic in the world.Look Britain, France, Finland etc...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The US system is partly public already. The public part sucks -- look at the Veterans' Administration hospitals for example. However, even if the state provided better health care, I would still be opposed to robbing others to pay my doctor bills. My objection isn't who provides the service -- my objection is to how they get the money to provide it.

All the word public means is "provided with stolen money." Why wouldn't a private hospital be just as good as a public one, if they were allowed to extort money from the community? [see the next post for an answer]

--Jackney Sneeb

Mathieu · Feb 20, 2004, 10:18 am

we pay 9.7% of the GPD, that is everything oversum!! Are youallergic to numbers???

So public moneyor mean stolen money??Ahahaha. Yeah same old axe you like to grind. I bet that if I say my cat is brown it is because of those evil politician who steal alll my tax money and give no service ?? You can beleive it if you want... But we still pay less than you do and EVERYONE have access. We redistribute the wealth, that is at the base of the Canadian system , but I know it is not possibly understanable to an american...

You talk a lot, but have you ever experienced our system??
Did you ever lived here???

I live here and I,m prety much satisfied of my system. I would not change it for the american one nor would a mojority of Canadian.

And how would a libertarian deal with that ??? What if i'm born with an handicap? I die cause I can pay cause no one want his money "stolen " to take care of him ? And a mental handicap ?? what would you do in such situation ???

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 10:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
Why wouldn't a private hospital be just as good as a public one, if they were allowed to extort money from the community?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It might be just as good. There would be the added temptation on the part of the administrators to jack up the fees and skim a huge chunk of it off the top for themselves. People would find ways of resisting the extortion, resulting in less money for the hospitals. The administrators would then be forced to start rationing services and charging "user fees" to make up the shortfall and keep people from abusing the system. After all, there's no way the administrators are going to cut their salaries, graft, and kickbacks. The primary purpose of the health care system would of necessity become keeping the administrators in business, with health care being secondary to that.

Hey, that's just like a monopoly! Gee, we wouldn't want that!
<snicker>

--Jackney Sneeb

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 10:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
we pay 9.7% of the GPD, that is everything oversum!! Are youallergic to numbers???<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I was taliking about what you pay -- not the whole country.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
So public moneyor mean stolen money??<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes. Or else please explain the difference between paying insurance and paying taxes for health care?

--Jackney Sneeb

Mathieu · Feb 20, 2004, 10:36 am

Tax are higher for richer people and lower for the poor one. That's what we call wealth redistribution . And everyone get the SAME service. If you pay your insurance , some will pay higher , some will pay less, and so will be their coverage.

But you did not answered my question .... What would YOU do ??

SVMc · Feb 20, 2004, 11:05 am

First, Mathieu has already pointed this out but pharmeseuticals are NOT covered under the Canadian medical system. The only people who recieve medication under government control are those so far below the poverty line they recieve social assistance and have limited benefits under that. This would be similar to your medicaid as I understand it.

Second, our medications don't cost less because we do less research we have very high levels for medications, the only reason the American's don't have this image is because we limit those controls to medication distributed for sale and use in Canada, we do not use the same screening process for medications for export... this is why the U.S. is worried about it's citizens buying medication from Canadian pharmacies because those medication aren't protected by either system. But it says something about the American system that many Americans are purchasing cross-boarder medication for the significant drop in price despite the danger.

Third, another reason our medication is cheaper is that we have less time allotted for patent protection. I know our limit is between 11 and 17 years depending on the medication (new otc pain killer vs. AIDS medication). The U.S. limit standard for new development is 25 years. This means the developer has a monopoly on the developed medication for longer before they have to compete with generic brands. Also in some cases the Canadian government has lifted patent for important drugs such as AIDS drugs for foreign aid. But strangely enough it is the Canadian systems use of competition by generic brand that brings down our price of medication.

Fourth, it is interesting that AnonT can argue that the busloads of Amerian senior citizens crossing the boarder is mainly a myth brough up by the American left to argue for socialized health care... this is probably at least partially true because the real debate does not seem to be about American's crossing the boarder to get medication but about how to stop internet pharmacies.... but at the same time you do not realize that the "stories" about droves of Canadians crossing the boarder for treatment in the States is also largely perpetutated by provincial governemtns who wanted to cut Health Care costs also catering to our more right wing faction. There are NO conclusive studies that see large amounts of Canadians crossing the boarder for treatment. In both cases this does not mean that it does not happen, just that it happens with much less frequency than both media's on both sides of the boarder would have us believe.

Finally the difference between me paying money as taxes to the government for health care or me paying money to a corperation for health care are two fold. First and most importantly, regardless if I am rich, poor or middle class in Canada I will be able to get treatment when I need it. And HMO will not determine if my condidion is "serious" enough to need an MRI a doctor who has seen me will. Second, it is much harder to monitor companies and coroporations which are private entitites than public facilities.

Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty?

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 11:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Tax are higher for richer people and lower for the poor one. That's what we call wealth redistribution . And everyone get the SAME service. If you pay your insurance , some will pay higher , some will pay less, and so will be their coverage.

But you did not answered my question .... What would YOU do ??<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I don't have any business doing anything with OPM (other people's money). I don't have the right to rob others to pay for good deeds I might think are worthwhile, even if I get a bunch of poeople to agree with me (unless it is 100% of the population, in which case it doesn't matter because it can't, be theft if everyone agrees to it).

--Jackney Sneeb

Mathieu · Feb 20, 2004, 11:33 am

As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ...

But as I see you :

1) don't believe in democracy
2) are allergic to numbers
3) have no good alternative to propose

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 11:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Finally the difference between me paying money as taxes to the government for health care or me paying money to a corperation for health care are two fold. First and most importantly, regardless if I am rich, poor or middle class in Canada I will be able to get treatment when I need it. And HMO will not determine if my condidion is "serious" enough to need an MRI a doctor who has seen me will.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I see no evidence why a state-run bureaucracy can't ration health services the same way an HMO can. There are already discussions here about the state charging "user fees" in order to reduce frivolous use of emergency room facilities.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Second, it is much harder to monitor companies and coroporations which are private entitites than public facilities.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why? Which one maintains its power through threats of force (i.e., the law)?

And in what way are corporations different from the state, since they are created by the state?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
He doesn't. Nice straw man.

--Jackney Sneeb

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 12:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I agree with cooperation. That is the opposite of the state. The state is coercion.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
But as I see you :

1) don't believe in democracy<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's true, I don't. There's no evidence such a thing exists.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
2) are allergic to numbers<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Straw man and name-calling. I answered that already.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
3) have no good alternative to propose<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
"Good" is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer self-government over being ruled and robbed by the state. You can call that "bad" -- I call it better than being ruled by politicians.

--Jackney Sneeb

Mathieu · Feb 20, 2004, 12:27 pm

no you did not answer, no you have no alternative, no you don't look at the fact are you are blind to arguments. I've no more time to waste talking to someone who talk alone and do not listen .

View Poll Results: how would you vote in the next Canadian Fed Election?
Liberal	4	18.18%
Conservative	4	18.18%
NDP	6	27.27%
Bloq	0	0%
Green	3	13.64%
other	5	22.73%
Voters: 22. You may not vote

Feb 20, 2004, 02:27 am	#61 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, you DON'T have a better health care system than we do. You spend less partly because we spend more on our elderly citizens (because they don't have to wait a year or two for a hip replacement)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They just have to choose between buying their medication or paying for rent. Its a fair tradeoff if you think about it.

Feb 20, 2004, 08:40 am	#64 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Another part of the reason for our higher medication prices is that most US pharmaceutical companies do a lot more research than socialized pharmacies. It's one of the many areas of science and technology that we lead the world in<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> WTF are you talking about ??? THere no such socialized pharmaceutical system. There a lot of pharmaceuticals company active in Canada. Talk of Merck frost, Pfizer, ANapharm, Biochem pharma etc... Montreal is the home of a lot of those company who do resaerch here in Canada. You may lead not the world in this, but not without Canadian expertize.

Feb 20, 2004, 08:54 am	#65 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) WTF are you talking about ??? THere no such socialized pharmaceutical system. There a lot of pharmaceuticals company active in Canada. Talk of Merck frost, Pfizer, ANapharm, Biochem pharma etc... Montreal is the home of a lot of those company who do resaerch here in Canada. You may lead not the world in this, but not without Canadian expertize.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What would a pharmaceutical supply system look like where the workers owned the means of production? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 09:08 am	#67 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,) Ok, sorry, you're right, it's not fully socialized. However, the Canadian government does pay a large portion of the cost of medication, which makes the price seem lower to the consumer even though they end up paying as much through taxes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> False again, the system work the same way a private insurance would do. Actually, you can have a privat insurance for medication in canada.It is not exactly socialized. Only, the governement offer an insurance service, as all private companies. And the price are lower here because we limits the cost by a law. Pharmacies still make their profit, but not as outrageous as in US.

Feb 20, 2004, 02:30 am	#62 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	Also your private Health Care system would be a good indicater of why bus loads of elderly people come to Canada every month just to buy their medication.

Feb 20, 2004, 06:38 am	#63 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	Again, we have high costs here partly because of too much government involvement. If marijuana were legalized, any medication trying to compete with it would have to drop drastically in price in order to stay competitive. Another part of the reason for our higher medication prices is that most US pharmaceutical companies do a lot more research than socialized pharmacies. It's one of the many areas of science and technology that we lead the world in. Because our companies do so much research, they end up charging more for medication to pay for it - which means that all your socialized systems are benefitting from our commercialized health care because we're paying for all the research that your countries then end up using. And besides, the idea that most elderly people have to choose between buying medication and paying the rent is basically a myth that's been blown out of proportion by the media. In the early 90s, a vast majority of the population - even the elderly - was satisfied with our health care system. When the Clintons pushed for socialized health care, the media started running scare stories about people not being able to afford medical care - most of the stories being unfounded. Even though medical care improved while costs only increased as quickly as inflation, the public's view of our healthcare system went down because so many unfounded stories were being fed to the public. For every busload of Americans who go to Canada to buy their medicine (don't you love how your taxes end up paying for our citizens to get medical care? aren't socialized systems great? and they don't encourage people to leech off the system at all!), there's a planefull of Canadians coming to America to get operations done that they'd have to wait weeks or months for in Canada. That made me remember one of the fatal flaws with most socialized systems. In a free market, as demand for medicine (or any product) goes up, the people who provide it make more money. They then use that money to expand so their services can meet the demand. In a socialized system, as demand goes up, costs go up, but revenue doesn't - leaving the system to try to figure out where to cut costs - which ends up with services being cut at a time when people are demanding more.

Feb 20, 2004, 09:00 am	#66 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	Ok, sorry, you're right, it's not fully socialized. However, the Canadian government does pay a large portion of the cost of medication, which makes the price seem lower to the consumer even though they end up paying as much through taxes.

Feb 20, 2004, 09:18 am	#68 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,) Ok, sorry, you're right, it's not fully socialized. However, the Canadian government does pay a large portion of the cost of medication, which makes the price seem lower to the consumer even though they end up paying as much through taxes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> False again, the system work the same way a private insurance would do. Actually, you can have a privat insurance for medication in canada.It is not exactly socialized. Only, the governement offer an insurance service, as all private companies. And the price are lower here because we limits the cost by a law. Pharmacies still make their profit, but not as outrageous as in US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Slight correction -- the price is "limited" by law. Costs can't be limited by law (without inhibiting production). The way "the law" limits prices is by subsidizing the loss to the seller through extorting money (i.e., taxes) from the population at large. It's a shell game, a scam. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 09:27 am	#69 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	yeah, well english is not my first language, maybe price is more appropriate. Still we pay less for the service than you do ... Maybe a socialized system is not compatible with your libertarian ideal, but that doesn't make it a bad system. US private system is like a relic in the world.Look Britain, France, Finland etc...

Feb 20, 2004, 10:09 am	#70 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) yeah, well english is not my first language, maybe price is more appropriate. Still we pay less for the service than you do ... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How do you know? The true cost to you is buried within the bureaucracy that administers the taxes you pay. You have no way of knowing how much of that goes to health care, as compared with other methods of payment. Not only that, few people pay the same amount in taxes. There is no correlation between what you pay and what you take in the way of services. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Maybe a socialized system is not compatible with your libertarian ideal, but that doesn't make it a bad system. US private system is like a relic in the world.Look Britain, France, Finland etc...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The US system is partly public already. The public part sucks -- look at the Veterans' Administration hospitals for example. However, even if the state provided better health care, I would still be opposed to robbing others to pay my doctor bills. My objection isn't who provides the service -- my objection is to how they get the money to provide it. All the word public means is "provided with stolen money." Why wouldn't a private hospital be just as good as a public one, if they were allowed to extort money from the community? [see the next post for an answer] --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 10:18 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	we pay 9.7% of the GPD, that is everything oversum!! Are youallergic to numbers??? So public moneyor mean stolen money??Ahahaha. Yeah same old axe you like to grind. I bet that if I say my cat is brown it is because of those evil politician who steal alll my tax money and give no service ?? You can beleive it if you want... But we still pay less than you do and EVERYONE have access. We redistribute the wealth, that is at the base of the Canadian system , but I know it is not possibly understanable to an american... You talk a lot, but have you ever experienced our system?? Did you ever lived here??? I live here and I,m prety much satisfied of my system. I would not change it for the american one nor would a mojority of Canadian. And how would a libertarian deal with that ??? What if i'm born with an handicap? I die cause I can pay cause no one want his money "stolen " to take care of him ? And a mental handicap ?? what would you do in such situation ???

Feb 20, 2004, 10:19 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) Why wouldn't a private hospital be just as good as a public one, if they were allowed to extort money from the community?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It might be just as good. There would be the added temptation on the part of the administrators to jack up the fees and skim a huge chunk of it off the top for themselves. People would find ways of resisting the extortion, resulting in less money for the hospitals. The administrators would then be forced to start rationing services and charging "user fees" to make up the shortfall and keep people from abusing the system. After all, there's no way the administrators are going to cut their salaries, graft, and kickbacks. The primary purpose of the health care system would of necessity become keeping the administrators in business, with health care being secondary to that. Hey, that's just like a monopoly! Gee, we wouldn't want that! <snicker> --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 10:23 am	#73 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) we pay 9.7% of the GPD, that is everything oversum!! Are youallergic to numbers???<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was taliking about what you pay -- not the whole country. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) So public moneyor mean stolen money??<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes. Or else please explain the difference between paying insurance and paying taxes for health care? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 10:36 am	#74 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Tax are higher for richer people and lower for the poor one. That's what we call wealth redistribution . And everyone get the SAME service. If you pay your insurance , some will pay higher , some will pay less, and so will be their coverage. But you did not answered my question .... What would YOU do ??

Feb 20, 2004, 11:05 am	#75 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	First, Mathieu has already pointed this out but pharmeseuticals are NOT covered under the Canadian medical system. The only people who recieve medication under government control are those so far below the poverty line they recieve social assistance and have limited benefits under that. This would be similar to your medicaid as I understand it. Second, our medications don't cost less because we do less research we have very high levels for medications, the only reason the American's don't have this image is because we limit those controls to medication distributed for sale and use in Canada, we do not use the same screening process for medications for export... this is why the U.S. is worried about it's citizens buying medication from Canadian pharmacies because those medication aren't protected by either system. But it says something about the American system that many Americans are purchasing cross-boarder medication for the significant drop in price despite the danger. Third, another reason our medication is cheaper is that we have less time allotted for patent protection. I know our limit is between 11 and 17 years depending on the medication (new otc pain killer vs. AIDS medication). The U.S. limit standard for new development is 25 years. This means the developer has a monopoly on the developed medication for longer before they have to compete with generic brands. Also in some cases the Canadian government has lifted patent for important drugs such as AIDS drugs for foreign aid. But strangely enough it is the Canadian systems use of competition by generic brand that brings down our price of medication. Fourth, it is interesting that AnonT can argue that the busloads of Amerian senior citizens crossing the boarder is mainly a myth brough up by the American left to argue for socialized health care... this is probably at least partially true because the real debate does not seem to be about American's crossing the boarder to get medication but about how to stop internet pharmacies.... but at the same time you do not realize that the "stories" about droves of Canadians crossing the boarder for treatment in the States is also largely perpetutated by provincial governemtns who wanted to cut Health Care costs also catering to our more right wing faction. There are NO conclusive studies that see large amounts of Canadians crossing the boarder for treatment. In both cases this does not mean that it does not happen, just that it happens with much less frequency than both media's on both sides of the boarder would have us believe. Finally the difference between me paying money as taxes to the government for health care or me paying money to a corperation for health care are two fold. First and most importantly, regardless if I am rich, poor or middle class in Canada I will be able to get treatment when I need it. And HMO will not determine if my condidion is "serious" enough to need an MRI a doctor who has seen me will. Second, it is much harder to monitor companies and coroporations which are private entitites than public facilities. Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty? Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 20, 2004, 11:23 am	#76 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Tax are higher for richer people and lower for the poor one. That's what we call wealth redistribution . And everyone get the SAME service. If you pay your insurance , some will pay higher , some will pay less, and so will be their coverage. But you did not answered my question .... What would YOU do ??<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't have any business doing anything with OPM (other people's money). I don't have the right to rob others to pay for good deeds I might think are worthwhile, even if I get a bunch of poeople to agree with me (unless it is 100% of the population, in which case it doesn't matter because it can't, be theft if everyone agrees to it). --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 11:33 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ... But as I see you : 1) don't believe in democracy 2) are allergic to numbers 3) have no good alternative to propose

Feb 20, 2004, 11:43 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Finally the difference between me paying money as taxes to the government for health care or me paying money to a corperation for health care are two fold. First and most importantly, regardless if I am rich, poor or middle class in Canada I will be able to get treatment when I need it. And HMO will not determine if my condidion is "serious" enough to need an MRI a doctor who has seen me will.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I see no evidence why a state-run bureaucracy can't ration health services the same way an HMO can. There are already discussions here about the state charging "user fees" in order to reduce frivolous use of emergency room facilities. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Second, it is much harder to monitor companies and coroporations which are private entitites than public facilities.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why? Which one maintains its power through threats of force (i.e., the law)? And in what way are corporations different from the state, since they are created by the state? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> He doesn't. Nice straw man. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 12:13 pm	#79 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I agree with cooperation. That is the opposite of the state. The state is coercion. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) But as I see you : 1) don't believe in democracy<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's true, I don't. There's no evidence such a thing exists. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) 2) are allergic to numbers<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Straw man and name-calling. I answered that already. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) 3) have no good alternative to propose<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "Good" is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer self-government over being ruled and robbed by the state. You can call that "bad" -- I call it better than being ruled by politicians. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 12:27 pm	#80 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	no you did not answer, no you have no alternative, no you don't look at the fact are you are blind to arguments. I've no more time to waste talking to someone who talk alone and do not listen .