| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Omphalos" |
| Date: |
09 Jul 2003 09:02:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Will Canada And the U.S. Adopt A Common Dollar? |
On Wed 09 Jul 2003 02:59:09a, (Ray Fischer)
wrote in news:begeft$g3s$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
Canadians are a proud people who abhor the thought that they could
ever be vassals to the U.S. But in a recent poll, a surprising 37
percent of them believe that abolishing their national currency
could help their country and 77 percent predict a common currency
with the U.S. in 20 years. Half see it happening within a decade.
Although market watchers predicted earlier this year that the
Canadian dollar would soon be worth 75 U.S. cents, it closed at the
end of July at 66 cents. While the nation's economy is strong, Prime
Minister Jean Chretien recently nixed the idea of cutting taxes.
Higher costs induced by high taxes reduce the value of the Canadian
dollar because they lower returns to Canadian investors, economists
point out.
Canada taxes capital gains twice as heavily as the U.S. -- and top
marginal income tax rates kick in at incomes of only $65,000
Canadian.
Those rates range from 45.6 percent to 54 percent.
Government expenditures there now represent 42.6 percent of gross
domestic product -- compared to 31.6 percent in the U.S.
But Canadians are healthier and live longer than residents of the
US.
The difference is negligable.
Tens of millions of Americans cannot get health care and illness
is a major cause of bankruptcy in the US.
Many Canadians tend to conjure up images of a person bleeding to death
in a U.S. waiting room while nurses look to see how much insurance the
person has before treating them. In reality doctors are bound by a
hippocratic oath to treat all people in need of urgent care. All
health care professionals in the U.S. are subject to civil and
criminal liability if they cause someone's death or injury in
withholding care, even if they do not have any insurance. Many
exaggerated horror stories have been well publicized by politicians
and the media in both Canada, and the US, and the Canadian public
hears all of it.
Politicians in Canada who tell these stories are usually the same
people who are in the current ruling party. Whenever someone from the
opposition talks about hallway medicine and long waits for surgery in
Canada, the rebuttal from the government usually goes along the lines
of "Well look at the US, where people have to pay tons of money to
HMO's or die!". Of course giving your money to big government in taxes
is much better than giving it to those nasty insurance companies,
right? On the flip side, the politicians in the US who speak about
these stories, are usually the same people who aren't in charge of the
executive branch.
Private corporations often do much better than their
government-controlled counterparts. They can make a profit out of
something in the same area where the government produces a loss. If a
private corporation needs anything, from an executive manager to a
janitor, they'll pay a reasonable amount of money for the task,
whereas the government would take that same figure, double it, and add
benefits on top of that. Great for the worker, terrible for the
taxpayer. This is simply because the private company needs to make a
profit or it will no longer exist. The government doesn't need to make
a profit, and views money as an unlimited resource. You only need to
look to our massive debts (in either country) to prove that.
Do we really want a profit-driven health care system? Do we really
want one where the government uses vast amounts of tax dollars to give
lower-quality health care? Which system is better?
Both are flawed. Few people deny that. There are good arguments on
both sides as to which is better, but really it all depends on where
you're coming from. A pay-as-you-go system is attractive to the person
who can afford it, because they are assured top-quality health care. A
one-size-fits-all system is attractive to the person who can't afford
to pay for his/her health care, because he/she never has to worry
about paying high medical bills. It's debatable which system is
better, but its unquestionable as to which one provides the highest
amount of quality. The US is leaps and bounds above any other country
in terms of health care research, treatment, and facilities. It is
estimated by the CBHR that in 2000-2001 the U.S. government spent $1
(CDN) on medical research, for every $0.11 (CDN) spent by the Canadian
government, all per capita.
--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================
http://31337.pl
.
|
|
| User: "Bradly Wiebe" |
|
| Title: Re: Will Canada And the U.S. Adopt A Common Dollar? |
10 Jul 2003 12:15:55 AM |
|
|
"Omph=E4los" wrote:
On Wed 09 Jul 2003 11:45:45a, S B
<s_brook.nothere@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca> wrote in
news:3F0C38A7.A9692950@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca:
Yeah ... let's see, this guy can't afford a heart transplant, so
we'll let him die. That's great for profits.
A hospital cannot deny health care to someone in a life threatening
situation.
but I'd sure hate to see the bill after, the 'ol ticker would probably
stop again lol
--
__________
=3D=3D\ /=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D\ /=3D=3DYou know how dumb the average=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D\ /=3D=3D=3Dguy is? Well half of everyone=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\ /=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dis even dumber than that=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\/=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://31337.pl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Will Canada And the U.S. Adopt A Common Dollar? |
09 Jul 2003 11:26:25 AM |
|
|
"Omphälos" <omphälos@xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B378C97273BZ@65.32.1.7...
On Wed 09 Jul 2003 11:45:45a, S B
<s_brook.nothere@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca> wrote in
news:3F0C38A7.A9692950@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca:
Yeah ... let's see, this guy can't afford a heart transplant, so
we'll let him die. That's great for profits.
A hospital cannot deny health care to someone in a life threatening
situation.
Things aren't as simple as you attempt to portray them.
If a person has a heart problem and needs a transplant, the hospitals are
only obligated to sustain that which they have to work with. There is no
requirement that I know of that states they must perform a transplant.
-Donald
AA #2104
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen C. Gallagher" |
|
| Title: Re: Will Canada And the U.S. Adopt A Common Dollar? |
09 Jul 2003 10:16:55 PM |
|
|
Yeah ... let's see, this guy can't afford a heart transplant, so
we'll let him die. That's great for profits.
A hospital cannot deny health care to someone in a life threatening
situation.
And he can't deny to pay the bill that they send him afterward.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bradly Wiebe" |
|
| Title: Re: Will Canada And the U.S. Adopt A Common Dollar? |
10 Jul 2003 12:18:36 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Omphalos <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Government expenditures there now represent 42.6 percent of gross
domestic product -- compared to 31.6 percent in the U.S.
But Canadians are healthier and live longer than residents of the
US.
The difference is negligable.
Yeah, what's another year of life.
Oh, and Canadian spend less of health care as well.
Tens of millions of Americans cannot get health care and illness
is a major cause of bankruptcy in the US.
Many Canadians tend to conjure up images of a person bleeding to death
in a U.S. waiting room while nurses look to see how much insurance the
person has before treating them. In reality doctors are bound by a
hippocratic oath to treat all people in need of urgent care.
But, in fact, "treat" means very different things depending upomn how
much you can afford to pay, and when you don't have health insurance
doctors may not even tell you of expensive options.
And if you don't have health insurance you will have to pay a lot more
for your health care.
I'd be willing to lay a few peso's on the line and say that there are
different types of health insurance too. I'd bet policies are outlined
such that some things are covered, and some are not, possibly leaving the
patient with a big bill anyways.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "S B" |
|
| Title: Re: Will Canada And the U.S. Adopt A Common Dollar? |
10 Jul 2003 11:02:39 AM |
|
|
Bradly Wiebe wrote:
I'd be willing to lay a few peso's on the line and say that there are
different types of health insurance too. I'd bet policies are outlined
such that some things are covered, and some are not, possibly leaving the
patient with a big bill anyways.
You aren't kidding ...
While we were in the US, my wife had to have a biopsy ... with insurance
using their facilities ... Non-insured cost $12,000. Insurance discount
$6,000. Out of pocket cost to us $2,000. This with a $360.00 per month
HMO Insurance.
We changed HMOs for various reasons ... under the new HMO, this biopsy
would have cost us out of pocket $20.00 for 2 doctors office visits.
Monthly premium $390.00
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
