From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:28:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.184952.5263@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>
>>some time about a year ago, a "job fair" for doctors was held in toronto
>>by Humana, the big US hospital company. they expected about 200 doctors
>>to show up. 400 showed up. this made the front page of the toronto star,
>>with everyone screaming "oh, the big bad americans are coming here to
>>steal our doctors". humana's reply: "steal them? they're begging us to
>>come up here and give them jobs in the states".
>
>So how many were actually hired?

sorry, i don't know. in general though, if demand is twice
what it is expected, there is little problem filling spots.
i'm sure they hired as many as they wanted.

>Humana took advantage of an
>opportunity to stage a show to embarass a system that they would
>perceive to embarass them
>...
>Humana comes up all the time, and are usually just looking for
>hospital administrators not real practicioners.  It's all a game.

why should i be surprised that you believe this? you also believe
that the GST is a replacement for an older, much smaller tax,
and that it is being used to write down the deficit...

>>i do know that any doctor who practices in ontario is willing to have 
>>the government tell him how much his training, hard work and experience
>>are worth. i wouldn't.
>
>As would any doctor looking at setting a rate schedule with private
>insurance companies pressing down on him/her or having to surrender 
>to the control of HMO bureaucrats who *directly* interfere in the
>practice of medicine.  The only difference is that the main health
>insurance company is the universal one run by the province (which
>private insurance wants nothing to do with).  By the way, I hope that
>you're not confusing the doctors' own monopoly mechanisms like the
>College of Physicians and Surgeons (in every state and province) and
>licencing procedures (law, yes, but from standards set by the College)
>with Big Brother.

since you are conveniently dropping all the tax and policy questions
from our debate and concentrating on the medical side, where i will
admit you do seem to know something, you are catching me without answers
to some of your questions. i don't know anything about "monopoly
mechanisms like the college of physicians and surgeons". i do know
that your argument above is still tantamount to saying "the US system
is bad". i still don't see an argument saying "the canadian system is good".

and i have already made quite clear a good reason why private
insurers want nothing to do with it.

>>you've avoided the point though. the government still decides.
>>and there is NOTHING to prevent them from drastically reducing
>>coverage in the future. 
>
>You mean like private insurance is now weaselling people all over
>the United States?  I've read in the Times recently that 100,000
>Americans a month are getting booted for using the insurance that
>they paid for when they were healthy ...

more poor reasoning. so you would rather have the government do it?
again, just because it is bad down here, that doesn't mean going to
something worse is the solution. that is the *only* point i am trying
to make. if the US is going to invest billions of dollars on a new
health-care system, they might as well invest in a good one, not one
which trades existing problems for future ones.

>As a Canadian, you know
>how cherished our health insurance is and it's the only thing ...
>not Quebec independance, not Alberta withholding oil ... that will
>spark an insurrection.  Any time someone has tried to screw with
>our autopilot system, they get burned ...

but of course! that's typical of any socialist system. start stealing
from one group and giving to another, and when you try to take it away,
they will revolt. thanks for making my point about the problems with
canadian socialism.

i think we have reached the point of marginal returns on this discussion
of canadian medical practices. i never intended them to be the focal
point of this discussion. i just want the readers to understand that
canadian socialized medicine is not all hugs and kisses like many
canadians would have them believe.

>
>>>I can respect your opinions, but not to the point of twisting
>>>things around or (e.g.) to rationalize your newfound libertarianism.
>>
>>who are you to qualify it is new-found? at least i don't call
>>you "mccarthy" for identifying it as such.
>
>Excuse me, I didn't mean to be insulting.

ok.

>Annually, there is a
>Canadian EE/CS type who was traditionally apolitical and usually very
>healthy as to have not ever dealt with medical care up north, and

and your implicit comments again show your bias: why should someone
who has been very healthy and not had to deal with medical care NOT
be annoyed at being forced to pay for others' medical care?

>getting a job in Silicon Valley is exposed to Libertarianism by his
>(so far, no hers (-;) colleagues ... in a vacuum, there isn't a lot to
>go on so they get caught repeating things that they should know better
>is not true.  Obviously, from articles that I've read since that one,

or maybe they had never stopped to think about them before because
they spent their whole lives being told "well, we pay a lot more to
live in canada but it's worth it because everything is rotten in the US",
and then they moved to the US and found out that it's a load of bull?


americans: did you know that the candian government spends millions
of dollars a year on official television propaganda? during a time of soaring
deficits, they have the nerve to waste tax dollars on commercials which do
nothing more than say "canada. what a great place". does this seem like the
kind of activity one would associate with a free, capitalist country?
or with "another kind"?

>your positions have been held longer and go back a ways although the
>interpretation of events and the way things are don't quite jive with
>the actual setup

i think they jive pretty damn fine. you may have caught me on a couple
of the medical details, but you haven't come close on the others.

>(then again, those are things that ordinary Canadians
>don't pay much mind to --- I certainly didn't 'til I got bombarded by
>questions from people here at Columbia and had to remember, fast).
>

the fact that "ordinary canadians don't pay much mind" to these issues
is one of the reasons i don't want to go back. i believe i stated that
in my first post. if people don't even want to think about problems,
there is no hope. and it is still a bit better here, although as i said
in my first post which started all this, it is disappointing to see
what is going on even here.

>
>>well my point is to counter all the "(sigh) i wish we had health
>>care like they do up in canada. it's so *wonderful*" garbage i keep
>>hearing down here. THAT is the propoganda.
>
>You are also the first Canadian, of whatever political stripe, to come
>out against our health insurance system in the three years that I've
>wandered in and out of this group.

well, it's about time.

i also don't see many other canadians running to oppose my statements
against canada's outrageous taxes and social spending, nor
the morally-bankrupt fundamentals which underly them (though that
may change after *this* paragraph).

for just one more example, would you care to defend canada's
wonderful equalization programs? want to tell me how it is
not socialistic to spend over 22% of the national budget
(excluding interest on the debt, which was *28%* of the budget in 1990,
for those who care), on transferring wealth from the provider provinces
to the consumer ones?

care to defend that on a fairness basis? or tell me what business it
has doing in a capitalist country?

--
charles
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64707 soc.motss:52885 alt.sex:39825