From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:47:49 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

Ok, if I've deleted a point, I admit defeat on that point.  Gloat
all you want.  :)

In article <1993Jan3.201902.4899@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>
>Ah, another example of how much the US knows about it's northern
>neighbour. The GST is 7% in Canada.

And what's the GST in the US?

--0--

We haven't *even* begun to talk about other taxes, buddy.

What's a gallon of gas up there?  $2?  $3?

>: Not to mention all the other taxes you are paying.  How much in
>: taxes do you pay, sir?  How much of it do you think is going towards
>: your "inexpensive" medical care?
>
>Canadians believe in spreading the load among those who can pay.

Well, I'm glad the Canadian government agrees.

Americans believe the same thing.  Unfortunately, the government
believes that the load should be shared by everyone, whether they
can pay or not.  THat is, unless you have absolutely nothing.

>: Now that we've examined a few problems with the Canadian system,
>: let me suggest that what works in Canada probably will not work in
>: the US.  A nationalized health care system increases exponentially
>: in cost as the population increases.  
>
>Where is your proof for this ridiculous suggestion? The US already
>spends the highest percentage of GNP on health care of any country in
>the world, *without* a national system. And, arguably, the majority of
>people get less for it.

How many countries of 300 million people have working nationalized
health programs?

USSR?  China?  India?

Hah!  Don't make me laugh.

>: Canada's system works great for 30 million people.  It would be a
>: disaster if it were applied to 300 million people.  You can take
>: that to the bank.
>
>Where do you get this notion from? Let's have something even
>approaching justification please.

Well, actually it has nothing to do with size.  It has everything
to do with how our government is run.  Self-righteous Canadians
can sneer all they want.  I fail to give a shit.  

I wonder how great Canada would be if 150 million Americans immigrated
there because the system is *so* much better?

>: Besides, the US government is a lot less centralized than the 
>: Canadian government is.  It's designed to be inefficient.  Unfortunately,
>: that means socialized health care in the US would cost oh, so much
>: more.
>
>'Designed to be inefficient'????? Do you think that wes really what
>the founding fathers had in mind?

Actually, yes.  It's in every American Government text I've read.

It was designed to be inefficient so a dictator can't take control
of the government overnight.  
 
You know, to prevent the rapid spread of tyranny.

Unfortunately, tyranny that develops over 30 years seems to slip
through anyway.  :(

>: Actually, the government is to blame for our problems, because they
>: interfere far too much.  Overregulation costs the health care industry
>: trillions of dollars per year.  I say totally deregulate it and watch
>: costs plummet. 
>
>Or rather, watch a significant proportion of health care organisations
>do as the airlines did - go bankrupt and leave people with no health
>care at all.

Wha?  I thought the contention was that America had too many hospitals.
Which is it, O Omniscient Great White Northerner?

>: At least reform insurance companies and force them to
>: compete, and post severe penalties for fraud.  [I mean *severe*, like
>: 100x the amount of money involved in the fraud for fines, with no 
>: maximum].  Disband the FDA.  That would reduce health costs
>: enormously.
>
>Why not just bring back Thalidomide while you're at it?

Look, the FDA had *nothing* to do with finding out that Thalidomide
was dangerous.  European researchers discovered that.  The FDA took
the credit, and points at Thalidomide every time we bitch about how
much it costs to get a new drug on the market.

The FDA is worse than useless.  Not only does it not protect us
[Dalkon Shield, anyone?], it stands in the way of cheap medical care.

>: Trying to use a Canadian solution to an American problem is laughable.
>: 
>: Another thing to be considered:  Canada has little in the way of 
>: military.  I wonder how well Canada's health care system would work
>: if it didn't rely on America for defense?
>
>Canada, sir, is providing 10% of *all* the UN peace-keeping forces
>worldwide - both higher in absolute terms and higher in proportion
>than any other country - including your own, which still owes the UN
>$500million in dues.

Ooooh, whoopie.  And we saw just how effective the UN peace-keepers
were in Yugoslavia.

Besides, I don't see UN nations chipping in very much for Desert Storm.
So, consider our nonpayment of UN dues a lien.  

You may not like it.  Tough shit.  That's RealPolitik for you.  
RealPolitik seems to be OK when it's anti-American.  But if the US
*dares* to not pay its UN dues....oooooohhhhhh...it catches all hell
about it.

>Who the hell do you claim to be protecting us *from*?

Well, no one, anymore.  But that's a recent development.

cpk


Geez.  This has absolutely 0% OS/2 advocacy content.  

Although, the same can be said for 95% of the posts in this group.

Maybe we should call it "comp.os.os2-and-bitch-and-gripe-fest"?
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy