 |
 |
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