From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:42:14 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>they explained why ... a show of force to the Rae government not to
>>screw with OHIP, and be nice when the doctors present their new fee
>
>in other words, they wanted to make sure the government didn't make
>things even worse for the doctors than it is now. 

How bad are things?  Your only objection is the government conducting
our health insurance because the private sector can't be saddled with
universality.  I've pointed out that the doctors are in the drivers'
seat up north ... since the doctors aren't civil servants, and their
acceptance of the insurance is voluntary (Ever heard of opting out?
And tell me why private insurance doesn't offer basic medical coverage;
I do not believe it's against the law, since you can pay an opted-out
doctor with bushels of corn if she/he would take it).  There are so
many ways that the system could have been broken up ... it hasn't.

>>The former hidden wholesale tax was in the area of 13% ...
>
>and as i explained a number of times, it was on a very small number
>of items and has NOTHING to do with taxing services, a fresh new
>tax that was put in to ride on the old so people would be fooled.

No, it was quite extensive.  13% on everything that was manufactured.
That's a fairly long list.  It's name was the Manufacturer's Tax ...
not too hard to parse the meaning there, I'd say.  Now, it's 7.5% up
front instead of behind, leading to a more honest sticker price ...
That's enough to spur the private sector to greater efficiency (a good
thing, if you are aware of the number of intermediate distributors
that exist up north).  Look, I'd rather have neither tax but there's
all the momentum from past debt that we have to start from ...  in the
real world, they've discovered that you can't change overnight ...

>>Let me tell you about a friend who recently found out that
>>she has pituitary cancer: ...  What'd she do wrong?  
>
>what does anyone do wrong? she could also have been run over by a bus.
>seriously, i don't mean to trivialize your story; it is a tragedy.
>but i am tired of people expecting the government to come running to
>their side to solve their problems. 

In either case, that's a nondeterministic action, much like war or
crime ... basic medical needs are non-market.  Even American private
insurance is coming around to admitting this (in the poker game) ...
so far, nobody has figured out an alternative other than government
insurance (because the private sector cannot take universal risk) or
just busting down the works and going to straight cash.  Maybe the
Americans will figure out something else; we'll see.  We didn't with
Liberals and Conservatives in Canada, nor did France nor Germany under
Gaullistes and Christian Democrats (respectively) way back.  Let's see.

>how about the canadian government's official propaganda, which i
>mentioned here and you deleted? is that reasonable?

Maybe I just don't care?  I don't get worked up over tourism ads,
either ...

>>As a western Canadian, here's my angle: not socialism, but a keep-em-
>>poor strategy by (again) the running dogs of the Canadian Establishment.
>
>i don't blame the maritimes. by definition, someone has to get
>the money -- that is what equalization means. ...
>i blame the pusher (the federal governement) not the addicts.

Why stop there, get their bosses in Rosedale and Westmount ... (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64252 ca.politics:10329 ba.politics:7714