🚀 go-pugleaf

Gary L Dare writes
> Jim Brownfield <Jim_Brownfield@Radical.Com> wrote:
> >Gary L Dare writes
> >> A Gallup poll
> >> released on 9/13 and published only in UPI Clarinet had 96% (yes,
> >> that's ninety-six) of Canadians of the opinion that our system up
> >> north is better than that of America 
> >
> >Of course, a Gallup poll in May '93 found that 55% of Canadians
> >expect their standard of living to decline over the next 20 years.
> 
> Fine, so we're in the same boat as everyone else ...

You're certainly in the same boat as we are with Clinton as president.

> 
> >I don't think this is unrelated to health care and other government  
> >spending in Canada.
> 
> Since the %GDP spent it less, that's not what is at fault.  And of
> all the trimming proposals, none address scrapping our basic health
> isnurance approach.  The most conservative of them, a western Canadian
> traditionalist rump called Reform, yesterday advocated an approach more
> like what the French do (see below).

I was referring to all your government spending; including health care.   
Canada's level of taxation is greater than that of the U.S. (although, with  
Clinton, it's not clear how long that will be true).  According to the WSJ  
article cited below, because of Canada's generous unemployment benefits, it is  
not uncommon to find people who regularly work 9 months of the year and receive  
unemployment benefits for the other 3 months.  Guess what, when people sit on  
their butts, they're not being productive -- GDP is lowered and so is the  
standard of living.

> 
> >Medical care in Canada is being seen as a target for cutbacks (source
> >WSJ 8/27/93 pg. 1).  So it would seem, that the situation up north is
> >not as rosy as some would have us believe.
> 
> Name me one advanced western country where their health costs are not
> growing and applying pressures to overall spending ...  When you have
> a public insurance with terms more generous than what most Fortune
> 500's offer in the U.S. of course it makes sense to cut back ...
> however, affected areas are things like vasectomy reversals and
> electrolysis.

Wow, according to the WSJ article, Saskatchewan (which supposedly invented  
Canada's version of socialized medicine) is eliminating 27% of its hospital  
beds.  At any given time you must have about 27% of your people in the hospital  
for vasectomy reversals and electrolysis.  I don't think I'd allow people  
*that* hairy to reproduce! ;-)

> 
> Since the care providers are themselves private, that's seperate from
> the insurance itself ... whatever happens to the insurance, they'll
> still be there ... and myself, I wouldn't mind privatizing some of
> the benefits as the French and the Germans have always done ...
> 
> >America doesn't need any more socialism; Canadian or otherwise.
> 
> Please calm down and check your history: there were no socialists
> in power at the time we changed the insurance setup.  Nor where there
> in France, Germany and Japan unless there's something about Bismarck,
> the Gaullists and the last Shogun that you know about and we don't ...

I'm as calm as I can be with people pointing guns at my head. :-(  If 96% of  
the Canadians are so happy with their system, then allow any Canadian to opt  
out.  Surely 4% of the people opting out wouldn't cause that big a problem.  If  
you did that, I'd have absolutely no argument with your plan.  But you can't do  
that because 96% of the people wouldn't stay in the plan.  Without a gun at  
your head, the whole world would seem different. And whether you prefer to call  
your system something other than socialism or tyranny, it doesn't change what  
it really is.

The key to Clinton's plan is that it will be ILLEGAL to obtain health care  
outside your alliance in the plan.  Freedom and human rights - Clinton style -  
for the 90's.

I guess we can always hope that the courts will adhere to the 9th and 10th  
amendments to the U.S. Constitution and throw the plan out (*right*, and I've  
got a bridge to sell you...).  But if the plan is enacted and allowed to stand,  
there won't be any aspect of our lives that the government won't be able to  
interfere with in the name of health care efficiency.  The Constitution will  
literally not be worth the paper it's written on.

--
Jim Brownfield (Jim_Brownfield@Radical.Com)  NeXTmail accepted
Radical System Solutions, Inc.
rad i cal \'rad-i-kel\ n -- a basic principle: FOUNDATION