On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:21:53 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:17:29 -0500, Omelet >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Peter A > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article >, Goomba38
>> >> @comcast.net says...
>> >> > But the truth is is that not *everyone* there really "gets the service"
>> >> > they want. There is rationing, and exclusions based on age and other
>> >> > factors that we don't subscribe to but these are often not mentioned in
>> >> > the argument for nationalized health care. There are limitations on
>> >> > which doctors one can use or see. It is a different system, but not
>> >> > necessarily a better one. They each have their points but no country has
>> >> > managed to combine the best of each into one program.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The US spends a lot more, per capita, on health care than any other
>> >> country. The last stats I saw, a few years ago, had the US spending
>> >> about 40% more per capita than Canada. When you compare waiting times
>> >> and similar measures, you must take this into account. When the US
>> >> system comes out as "superior" it's not necessarily because our free
>> >> market health care is inherently better that the "socialized" systems of
>> >> other countries - it's simply because we pour a lot more money into
>> >> health care. If Canadians decided to spend 40% more on health care,
>> >> their socialized system would likely be better than ours.
>> >
>> >Being forced to wait 6 months for breast cancer surgery can be a death
>> >sentence.
>> >
>> >"Free" is not always better.
>>
>> please give examples of a country with a six-month waiting list for
>> breast cancer surgery. (other than the u.s. if you have no
>> insurance.)
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>I have no specific quotes, but I have Internet friends in England that
>have told me of such.
>
>And long waiting lists for needed surgeries in Canada.
>You also rarely get to pick your own doctor. You may not even have the
>same one twice in a row. (or so I have been told)
>
>I'm glad that you have had nothing but good experiences, but abuse of
>the health care system is occurring in some areas according to others
>(anecdotal complaints, sorry) so it's apparently not all coming up roses?
>
>I don't live there so I have no personal experience. Just several years
>on the web and lots of gripes.
>
>It's not all perfect here either but Charity Care exists. Actually,
>those that qualify for such are often luckier than those with middle
>class incomes. We get wiped out, they get cared for for free.
>
some form of universal health insurance would take care of that.

>Why do you think so many are bitching about the illegal alien thing?
>They don't pay into the system and get free health care as they have no
>way of paying, but we are not allowed to ignore them and let them die.
>
i would like to see stats on this. it sounds like another right-wing
talking points. free emergency-room care, maybe, but non-citizens, as
far as i know, are not qualified for medicare or medicaid. it is a
justification for anti-immigrant bias. don't forget that all those
people working with a fake social security number never collect
benefits.

your pal,
blake







>We that DO have a certain level of income and DO pay into the system are
>the ones that get hurt in, say, a terminal illness situation.
>
>Not everything is equitable.