 |
 |
Thank you Janet, we disagree, but you made your points without name calling. I hope the people who take the time to read this appreciate that, I do. You made me think about a point that I had not considered. That is the Canadian government (the taxpayers really) are footing at least part of the bill for the drugs purchased by US citizens. On the surface that does not seem fair. Please note I have great respect for Canada their system and people. By the way, supporting those who are not citizens is the price we all pay when we have the relatively open borders that both the US and Canada have. In the US we have a large immigrant population that not only have access to free medical care but also education and all rights of being a US citizen as soon as they touch foot in this country. The US provides more aid per capita to the world than any other country on earth ever has. That aid comes from those companies, US taxpayers, individual citizens and charities. Socialism is one way of running an organized society and it can work. That does not make it right for all nor does it make it the best. Socialism is an experiment at best and the results are mixed just as the results are mixed for capitalism. The key is democracy. In the US we have chosen the path we are on and it works. In Canada you have chosen the path you are on and it works for you. As a whole we have a symbiotic relationship that works together. The medical system in Canada can not afford to create the medical break throughs that are created by the "for profit" system in the US (cost borne by the US tax payers, insurance companies and US citizens). The Canadian system takes advantage of those advances without taking the risk of up front research (don't read this wrong there is research going on in Canada but not as much per capita as in the US). The people in the US are free to take advantage of lower cost drugs provided in Canada but the drug research (for the most part) was funded in the US as was pointed out by US taxpayers and citizens who use the drugs. It's a relationship that works. I am certain that neither would be better off if the other was eliminated. I believe you are wrong on a few assumptions: The US and many drug companies are providing free and low cost drugs to Africa. It's just not reported as well as the negative press. Levadopa is great, also provide quite inexpensively by drug companies but they have had enormous costs in making the drug work right and providing variations. Levadopa in the form it was discovered did not work well. The drug companies did not stop there. Because of economic incentives they continued to progress and provide a wide range of drugs that most of the people on this list could not live without. (According to my sources) The health system in Canada is free but not available to all. It provides a "limited" level of coverage for all not "unlimited." It is "universal" but not "unlimited." The poor in the US who take advantage of our support systems have shorter waits and are afforded access to many aspects of the medical system that they can not take advantage of in Canada. Look up the number and type of MRI systems per capita in Canada compared to the US as well as the number of transplants let alone DBS surgeries. In Canada the procedures are budgeted and the waits are long unless you can afford to go to the US and pay for it (only the rich can do that it will never change). How many DBS surgeries are budgeted in Canada per capita compared to the number performed per capita in the US? DBS is available to the working poor (the majority of workers in the US do have health insurance) based on need not on availability. In Canada I believe it is based on availability. I do read all points of view. I hope you do also. Michael Moore is an entertaining confrontational author and entertainer but not an objective authority on anything, but then again so is Jerry Springer. The difference is Moore confronts and attacks and makes satire out of a few despicable CEO's ( the rich bad guys) and Jerry does the same to a few despicable poor folks (who are poor bad guys). The point I made clear is bad guys all around rich and poor, healthy and ill. Bad taste, ill manners, selfishness and greed are not limited to any one social class, type of government or condition of health. Focusing on positive outcomes, steps in the right direction, cooperation and thinking beyond our individual experiences will enable us to progress in the search for better lives for all. With all respect.... Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Paterson" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 5:18 PM Subject: Re: Canada's Internet Pharmacies Thriving On Business From U.S. > 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