My two cents:

The US and Canada
are quite different, as you state, that Canada's health care
is socialistic, and the US is not.   I prefer the US version,
and believe socialized medicine is not good.
But, there are those that like the idea, despite the facts.

Research site:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

If you want to debate the two, I recommend you do it off list, as this
topic can be a "hot" issue, and may cause divisiveness.

Jeff
Help Fund the Cure!
http://dialforacure.com




Janet Paterson wrote:

>hi all
>
>someone wrote, in part:
>
>
>>We live in a free capitalistic society both in the
>>US and Canada ...
>>
>>
>
>not quite correct, from my point of view
>
>although both countries are democracies ,
>there are many aspects of canada that are 'socialistic'
>(i.e. deliberately and specifically NOT 'capitalistic'
>i.e 'for profit'),
>the most visible of which may our health care system,
>created by a national act of parliament over 30 years ago
>to provide universal health care for all canadian citizens
>regardless of their ability to pay
>
>our health system was thus designed to be 'free'
>meaning no (or minimal) user fees
>
>pharmaceutical prices and availability
>are subject to government scrutiny and control
>
>my ontario disability pension means
>i pay nothing for doctor/hospital care
>and a nominal $2.00 fee for each prescription
>
>a different example of socialism in action
>can be seen in quebec where universal %5 per day daycare
>has been offered to all parents for years
>(i wish it were a national program!)
>
>these programs are currently under review
>in re costs and accounting transparency details
>but the overall principles are rock solid
>in the minds of the canadian public
>and are not to be 'messed with'
>
>no socialist or capitalist system is 'free'
>
>our medical care
>and my presriptions
>and quebec's daycare services
>are not 'free' -
>but the costs are borne by all citizens
>in their taxes paid to support their government services
>
>which seems to me to indicate that
>exporting a medication to the usa (or any other country)
>means that its cost is subsidised by canadian taxes and taxpayers
>
>it seems to me that some usa citizens want
>to get the benefit of canada's socialised medicine system
>without paying the real cost
>
>i suggest that usa citizens pursue the only genuine solution
>to their medical care crisis and establish their own
>socialised universal health care system
>
>according to my sources:
>- 80% of usa citizens believe that health insurance
>should be provided equally to everyone in their country
>- 52% say that they would be willing to pay more in taxes
>or insurance premiums to see that happen
>- non-universal health care in the usa costs $4,200 per year per capita
>as oompared with universal health care in
>germany at $2,400
>canada at $2,300
>uk at $1,400
>
>
>
>>The way we improve the standard of living for all
>>of our society and much of the rest of the world
>>is through economic incentives.  Along the way we
>>try not to provide incentives that take away from
>>the least blessed in our society and for the
>>most part it does work ...
>>
>>
>
>also quite incorrect, in my opinion
>
>economic 'incentives',
>or as i view the concept, freeing capitalism to 'do its thing',
>only enables the rich to get richer at the cost of the poor
>(that's the reason socialism and communism exist)
>
>the past 20 years of 'globalisation' and so-called 'free trade'
>and the suppposedly helpful but ultimately destructive antics of
>the world trade organisation (WTO) and the international monetary fund (IMF)
>have not benefited the world's poor; quite the opposite, as a matter of record.
>
>in monetary terms
>the developed countries are richer than ever before
>with more multi-millionaires than ever before
>and the 'developing countries' are poorer than ever before
>with more people than ever before forced to subsist on $1 or $2 per day
>
>
>
>>We in the US are quite well off ...
>>
>>
>
>by what standard of measure?
>as compared to what other countries?
>what percentage of usa citizens cannot afford medical insurance?
>what percentage have gone bankrupt due to medical costs?
>what percentage are unemployed?
>what percentage are in prison?
>
>
>
>>Most of the very costly drug research is done by
>>the drug companies because they can reap rewards
>>that are great enough to balance the risk.  By
>>the way, when they reap those rewards they pay
>>taxes that are huge.  Those taxes sometimes go
>>to fund government research that provides basic
>>
>>
>. information that the drug companies take, add their
>
>
>>own money and research to, and develop new drugs
>>that benefit all mankind ...
>>
>>
>
>these ideas are myths perpetrated by the pharmaceutical companies
>whose sole mission is to generate profits for their shareholders
>and who have in recent years been making bigger profits
>than ever before
>
>how cooperative are they in providing
>low or no cost aids drugs to african countries
>- where the death rate from aids is causing
>global population statistics to need revising?
>- where every 14 seconds a child is orphaned
>due to aids?
>
>the gold standard med for pd is levodopa -
>a med which was pre-existing and was found to be beneficial
>for parkinsonism by pure chance and luck
>by a neurologist in clinical practice
>(read "awakenings" by dr. oliver sacks)
>
>58% of the medical journal article writers
>are paid by the pharmaceutical companies to put the best 'spin'
>on their study results 'analysis'
>
>
>
>>Now here comes the hard part for you to accept...
>>If we in the US do not pay for this there will
>>be few if any new drugs.  We are the first to
>>benefit.  We have the safest drug industry.
>>We have the safest food supply. We have the best
>>medical care.  We have the best doctors.  We
>>have lower per capita taxes then most.  We have
>>the highest standard of living in the world...
>>(by the way you may be able to name some small
>>country that has it better but when you look
>>at the countries wealth you will find it is derived
>>from outside and not self sustaining).
>>
>>
>
>the only reason i find the above 'hard to accept'
>(and the rest of your message - un-replicated here for the sake of brevity)
>is that most of your ideas are also myths and not borne out by facts -
>may i suggest and recommend, for example,
>harper's and resurgence magazines and michael moore's books,
>as starting points for myth-correction
>
>janet
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn