SH> Roger Nelson (1:3828/7) wrote to Steven Horn at 08:04 on 23 Jan 2010:
 
SH>RN> Normally I try to avoid political discussions (that's what this is,
SH>RN> isn't it?), but my comment on the thread is that it's both a smoke
SH>RN> screen and NWO plot. [...]
 
SH> Roger,
 
SH> As President Obama does not appear to have given up on his attempt to
SH> reform the U. S. health care system, I thought I should add an additional
SH> comment.
 
SH> to begin with, this is not a political discussion.  It is instead a
SH> philosophical one.  Canada made the decision several decades ago that
SH> every citizen was entitled to a reasonable standard of basic health care.
SH> The delivery of that health care was entrusted to a single pay system
SH> administered by the governments of ten provinces and three territories
SH> backstopped by the financial resources of our federal government
SH> according to standards set by the government of Canada and the 13
SH> governments who administer the plan.  The coverage is mobile, portable
SH> and comprehensive.
 
SH> What you appear to have in the United States suggests that health care is
SH> considered to be a service which must be purchased.  There are
SH> exceptions, most notably the care given to veterans, but normally each
SH> citizen is expected to get his or her care by paying for it or by getting
SH> some form of coverage through HMOs, Kaiser plans or other coverage
SH> agents.
 
SH> In the result, U.S. coverage of its citizens is less comprehensive than
SH> Canadian coverage of its citizens and costs more to run (10.5% of GDP as
SH> opposed to 9.5% of GDP which our scheme costs.)
 
SH> Canada made the decision that the U.S. scheme was unacceptable both
SH> because it lacked universality and was expensive to administer.  We also
SH> found it undesirable that insurance companies benefitted financially from
SH> providing a service considered to be essential.
 
SH> You don't have to like the Canadian scheme and we don't have to like
SH> yours -- every Canadian citzens who travels or visits the United States
SH> buys supplementary health insurance to pay for what our scheme would
SH> normally pay.  But there is no point in discussing any scheme unless you
SH> understand its underlying philosophy.
 
Thank you for that rather lengthy explanation, Steven.  You're guilty of
being verbose, which is a state I'm normally in while asleep.  When awake,
I'm terse.  The proposed health care "system", for lack of a
better word since that document is over 1,000 pages in length, is way too
political for me.  I don't know offhand, but I don't remember our
Constitution being that long.  I'll have to check.
 
Have you attempted to read one of its many incarnations?  Last time I
checked, there were 5 of them on the net and I think I managed to get one
of the first ones, if I still have it.
 
I'm getting back into BASIC and Assembley language (again) and after a 25
year absense, everything appears new to me.  The stuff I was cutting my
teeth on was written for the x86 processor.  This is going to be a tough
row to hoe.
 
 
Regards,
 
Roger

... I was walking on water, or was that *under* water?
--- D'Bridge 3.52