From: gehoffmann@prosrv.ems.com (Gary Hoffmann)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (2)
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:23:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: prosrv.1992Aug27.082345.1
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Effective Management Systems - Milwaukee,  WI
Nntp-Posting-User: gehoffmann

In article <9208192142.AA01294@poly.math.cornell.edu>, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> 
> The first reason is technical: it was clarified by President 
> Bush, who "emphasized the importance of avoiding the problems of 
> bureaucratized, universal-care systems like Canada's." It is a 
> matter of logic that government-run systems are inefficient, and 
> the fact that the highly bureaucratized private sector system in 
> the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore irrelevant.  It 
> is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross of Massachusetts 
> employs 6680 people, more than are employed in all of Canada's 
> health programs, which insure 10 times as many people; or that 
> the share of the health dollar for administrative costs is over 
> twice as high in the US as in Canada. <<<NB: Nancy Watzman, 
> _Multinational Monitor_, May 1992.>>>  Logic cannot be confuted 
> by mere fact. 
> 
> More interesting is the second reason, which is "spiritual." 
> There is a "difference in outlook" north and south of the border; 
> there are "theoretical differences that students of the two 
> nations see in the psyches of the average American and Canadian." 
> These students explain that the Canadian system would cause "the 
> kind of rationing of health care that Americans would never 
> accept... The US system rations by price; if you can afford it, 
> it's there.  Canadians ration their health care by providing the 
> same care for everyone and simply making those seeking elective 
> or less urgent procedures wait." 
> 

I find this very interesting.  I have just read that even CANADA
doesn't like the Canadian style health insurance and plans to go 
back to private sector insurance whereever possible.

Canada rates patients in three categories:

	1. Emergency
	2. Urgent
	3. Elective

Emergency patients will normally receive care within 24 HOURS.  Is
this acceptable?

Urgent care patients may wait weeks or months to receive their care.

Elective patients may wait years!!!  How is this acceptable.  If this
IS acceptable, then what's the big deal about people in this country
going without health care insurance for a year or two?  It all boils
down to having to wait!

Another point is that over 8500 health care professionals from Canada
have moved to other countries (including the US) to practice because
they can not personally deal with telling a person who is in great
pain but not lethal pain that they have to wait a year to two for
surgery (and other types of health care).

I really don't see where a Canadian style health care system can
help in this country.  If it were so great I don't think Canada
would be trying to return a US style of health care.

PS:  If Canada does return to the US style, many border hospitals
     in this country will loose a lot of business as right now
     MANY Canadians come to this country for health care.

> Plainly, that would not accord with "American-style impatience," 
> one "student of the two nations" explains.  Imagine, he says, 
> that "no matter how poor you are, you will sit in a hospital bed 
> and receive care as the richest in your community.  No matter 
> what contacts you have and no matter how rich you are, you can 
> get no better than that." Americans would never accept that, we 
> learn from this expert (incidentally, the president of a 
> health-care consulting firm).  Further insights into the American 
> psyche are given by the deputy director of a trade group of 
> commercial health insurers.  The 70% of Americans who don't 
> understand their own psyches are not sampled; obviously, they too 
> need instruction in self-awareness. 

Remember, what Americans will not accept is the UNACCEPTABLE waiting
periods for health care.

Another point to note is that working class (Middle Class) Canadians 
pay approximately 48% of their income in National Taxes.  The MIDDLE
class is where the money for public health care comes from.

The best way to create more poor in a nation is to tax the heck out 
of the Middle class.  What do you suppose a public health care system
would do?!?!?!?!

People will say that this is not true, but if a typical middle class
family's income drops by approximately 20% (the difference from the
28% in this country and the 48% in Canada, this will drive that family
into a different standard of living, essentially causing them to live
more poorly.  This family busts their butts to make a living, both
parents working, to get further behind???? I don't think so!! They 
work hard to get ahead.  If the only way to go is down, people 
simply wont try as hard and the nation's middle class will fail,
causing an even larger gap between the rich and poor with very
little in between.

Before pushing for a public health care system that looks nice on
the outside, you better examine the inside as well.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary E. Hoffmann                   
Internet: gehoffmann@prosrv.ems.com   Thought of the day:
Effective Management Systems              If you think today is a bad day,
Milwaukee, WI  USA  53224                 try skipping it.             
Phone:   (414) 359-9800                                  

Disclaimer:    My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12067 alt.politics.bush:3652 alt.politics.clinton:3651 talk.politics.misc:43021