🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Brownfield <Jim_Brownfield@Radical.Com> wrote:

>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).  

You might be interested in checking out the discussion on this and
other topics (we're in the middle of an election campaign) over in
Soc.culture.canada ... personal taxes are higher, but corporate
taxes are lower.  However, the spread in personal taxes is 5-10%
versus the rates down here.

>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.

Quite rights, but that's outside of the public insurance/sickness fund.
Strategic unemployment insurance abuse by collusion of the Establishment
and the governments they support should be stopped ... however, we are
up against the Establishment so it's uphill, I'm afraid.

>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! ;-)

Saskatchewan and Ontario are different provinces; Canada has diverse
regions, like the U.S. ... it is not the grey, amorphous mass that
most Americans envision in their minds.

Saskatchewan started the ball rolling, but they got as far as the
mixed French method when the Liberals (not a socialist party) and
Conservatives stepped in.  Most Canadians aren't aware of how other
systems besides their own, the U.S. and the U.K. work ... that's
why Reform's proposal for a more mixed French-style is being Borked
by cries of it leading to a slippery slope towards the American
style ... btw, when Canadians think of "socialized medicine", we
think of the British NHS not ourselves ... all is relative.

The elimination of the excess hospital beds is a good thing because
our hospitals (which are mostly private, not-for-profit) are being
forced to run more efficiently like the businesses that they are.
One of the weak points of the Canadian approach was that while we
negotiate rates a la Rochester, NY (well, actually it happened in the
opposite direction), hospitals always counted on grants at the year's
end to make up for any shortfall --- cost savings have came out of
reasonable usage, not global budgets.  So while our 9.5% GDP spending
looks good against the U.S., there's still a larger gap on the next
step down towards the French (who do not have fixed rates and price
competition, but also the advantage of larger population in more
compact geography).

>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.

They can.  You have to make an application for it.  Many self-enclosed
religeous communities like the Hutterites and individual Christian-
Scientists do so.  Doctors can opt out of accepting the insurance,
too, but they lose the advantage of guaranteed collection.

>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.

Polemic.  As Gallup found, 96% feel that our system is better than than
of the United States.  As far as I know, Gallup is independant.  Your
assertion is inconsistent with polling by Gallup, Decima Research, CROP
and Angus Reid over a period of many years.  Also, better college and
university libraries will carry Maclean's and the Globe & Mail, which
will give you a better idea of what our domestic perspective 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.

If you can afford it, you'd not be in the plan you're stuck in.  Can
you opt out of your employer's HMO, whether or not you can take the
equivalent in cash, to buy your own fee-for-service plan?  I thought
not.  And health costs now are such that getting access outside of
your present plan (esp. HMO) is already impossible ... since Clinton
still relies on private insurance, what you state is consistent with
current practice and nothing in the Clinton papers state what you
flamed-out there.  (BTW, I favour the Republican plan over Clinton's)

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Canada, 10/25: Liberals or
> gld@columbia.EDU 			Progressive Conservatives
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			ONLY ... just do it!!!