From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:23:08 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1992Dec31.161210.1218@rose.com> robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:
>
>I will note, however, that there is a substantial difference between 
>the US and Canada when it comes to MRI and other high-tech, high 
>expense facilities.  In Canada ALL treatment hospitals are PUBLIC and 
>are expected to share high-cost facilities, rather than buy their own 
>where the volumes do not warrent.  In the US there are a lot of high 
>tech set-ups, but primarily at PRIVATE hospitals, and the charges for 
>their use are exorbitant.  Check out the PUBLIC hospitals and see if 
>the ratio of MRIs and CTScanners is any higher than in Canada.  I 
>rather doubt it.

Hey, ok, I will grant this point to you...but:

>There is one last point to be made.  Canada is larger than the US with 
>approximately 10% of the population of the US.  In addition, most of 

Right.  See, this is the problem.  Canada has about the same population
as California.  What makes you think that the US tax base is capable
of providing medical care for almost 300 million people?

[...]

>BTW, my son's total treatment for osteogenic sarcoma cost me C$56.00 
>including 4 operations, regular MRIs and CTScans, chemotherapy, 

It cost you more than that.  What is your GST rate up there?  20%?
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?

BTW, I hope your son got better.

[...]

>possible insurance would be bankrupt by now.  Even with good 
>insurance at the start, their employer, particularly if small, would 
>have been dropped from a group plan insurer within a year or so, 
>leaving the parent or patient without coverage.  Seems to happen with 
>a fair degree of regularity in the US.... CANNOT happen in Canada.

CANNOT?  What happens if your country falls upon hard times?  Then
what?

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.  
 
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.
 
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.
 
Americans are already taxed into oblivion with nothing to show for it.
Our roads are crap, our people aren't fed, or clothed, or employed,
or cared for, and so forth.  Do you seriously think the US government
could effectively handle health care administration?  Didn't think so.

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.  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.

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?

cpk