Harper Pledges Patient Wait Times Guarantee
Ruserious @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:54 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
hwacker hwacker:
$1:
Seriously, why do you think that the U.S. is also looking more at our health care system as being the better model.
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com ... 02_09.html
http://cthealth.server101.com/national_ ... urance.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/decis ... hcare.html
Laugh all you want hwacker, it's factual.
You’re such a pinhead. Looking at a system and putting to practical use is another. Canada cannot maintain this little system with 30m people, could you imagine 300m. It would take the population of Canada to administer that system. But for a liberal that would be a good thing for you. Our system is broken and needs a logical answer for the fix, not some BSing by Laydown and spin by Martini.
Did you conveniently forget that that would also mean an additional 300 million people that were paying taxes to support it?
Our health care system is not broken. Could it use some fine tuning? Sure.
They can start with eliminating all of the bloated managerial positions at the hospital corporate levels and freeing up more money that could be applied directly to health care instead of corporate troughs.
Scape @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:01 pm
Ruserious Ruserious:
Our health care system is not broken. Could it use some fine tuning? Sure.They can start with eliminating all of the bloated managerial positions at the hospital corporate levels and freeing up more money that could be applied directly to health care instead of corporate troughs.
AMEN!
hwacker @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:01 pm
Ruserious Ruserious:
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
hwacker hwacker:
$1:
Seriously, why do you think that the U.S. is also looking more at our health care system as being the better model.
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com ... 02_09.html
http://cthealth.server101.com/national_ ... urance.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/decis ... hcare.html
Laugh all you want hwacker, it's factual.
You’re such a pinhead. Looking at a system and putting to practical use is another. Canada cannot maintain this little system with 30m people, could you imagine 300m. It would take the population of Canada to administer that system. But for a liberal that would be a good thing for you. Our system is broken and needs a logical answer for the fix, not some BSing by Laydown and spin by Martini.
Did you conveniently forget that that would also mean an additional 300 million people that were paying taxes to support it?
Our health care system is not broken. Could it use some fine tuning? Sure.
They can start with eliminating all of the bloated managerial positions at the hospital corporate levels and freeing up more money that could be applied directly to health care instead of corporate troughs.
You dolt, The USA has 300m people that does not mean 300m pay taxes.
Ruserious @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:14 pm
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
RUEZ @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:14 pm
Ruserious Ruserious:
Our health care system is not broken. Could it use some fine tuning? Sure.
BS!
Ruserious @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:17 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Ruserious Ruserious:
Our health care system is not broken. Could it use some fine tuning? Sure.
They can start with eliminating all of the bloated managerial positions at the hospital corporate levels and freeing up more money that could be applied directly to health care instead of corporate troughs.
BS!They can start with eliminating all of the bloated managerial positions at the hospital corporate levels and freeing up more money that could be applied directly to health care instead of corporate troughs.
You don't support the axing of hospitals bloated managerial payrolls in order to free up more money that can go directly into providing health care for patients?
Oh wait, that's right, I forgot, Conservatives love to feed the rich with huge corporate level salaries, pensions, bonuses and all sorts of executive level perks.
hwacker @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:23 pm
Ruserious Ruserious:
:lol:
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
Ok Mr Shortbus, you said
$1:
Did you conveniently forget that that would also mean an additional 300 million people that were paying taxes to support it?
Which we all know is wrong.
I said
$1:
Canada cannot maintain this little system with 30m people, could you imagine 300m.
One has to do with taxpayers the other has to do with potential patients.
You find the figures on how many taxpayers the US has to Canada i don't care. it's still 300m potential patients and Canada's system can't handle 30m.
hwacker @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:30 pm
lily lily:
So multiply the numbers by 10. The ratio is the same.
We know Canada can't handle the 30M... that's why we're suggesting the system be fixed, rather than scrapped. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and all...
Your numbers are a strawman, hwacker.
We know Canada can't handle the 30M... that's why we're suggesting the system be fixed, rather than scrapped. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and all...
Your numbers are a strawman, hwacker.
who said anything about scrapped ?
Ruserious @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:31 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
:lol:
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
Ok Mr Shortbus, you said
$1:
Did you conveniently forget that that would also mean an additional 300 million people that were paying taxes to support it?
Which we all know is wrong.
I said
$1:
Canada cannot maintain this little system with 30m people, could you imagine 300m.
One has to do with taxpayers the other has to do with potential patients.
You find the figures on how many taxpayers the US has to Canada i don't care. it's still 300m potential patients and Canada's system can't handle 30m.
Okay hwacker, since it's pretty clear that you really are a few french fries short of a happy meal here, let me help you out.
Potential patients equates to potential taxpayers supporting the system.
What part of that do you find so difficult to grasp?
hwacker @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:42 pm
Ruserious Ruserious:
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
:lol:
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
Ok Mr Shortbus, you said
$1:
Did you conveniently forget that that would also mean an additional 300 million people that were paying taxes to support it?
Which we all know is wrong.
I said
$1:
Canada cannot maintain this little system with 30m people, could you imagine 300m.
One has to do with taxpayers the other has to do with potential patients.
You find the figures on how many taxpayers the US has to Canada i don't care. it's still 300m potential patients and Canada's system can't handle 30m.
Okay hwacker, since it's pretty clear that you really are a few french fries short of a happy meal here, let me help you out.
Potential patients equates to potential taxpayers supporting the system.
What part of that do you find so difficult to grasp?
Really now, I know liberal love taxes but making a 3yo pay income tax is a little extreme seeing how they don't work and are potential patients.
Let’s try this, people between 16>65 are taxpayers (for the most part)
All people in Canada are potential patients. Big difference.
Ruserious @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:47 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
:lol:
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
Ok Mr Shortbus, you said
$1:
Did you conveniently forget that that would also mean an additional 300 million people that were paying taxes to support it?
Which we all know is wrong.
I said
$1:
Canada cannot maintain this little system with 30m people, could you imagine 300m.
One has to do with taxpayers the other has to do with potential patients.
You find the figures on how many taxpayers the US has to Canada i don't care. it's still 300m potential patients and Canada's system can't handle 30m.
Okay hwacker, since it's pretty clear that you really are a few french fries short of a happy meal here, let me help you out.
Potential patients equates to potential taxpayers supporting the system.
What part of that do you find so difficult to grasp?
Really now, I know liberal love taxes but making a 3yo pay income tax is a little extreme seeing how they don't work and are potential patients.
Let’s try this, people between 16>65 are taxpayers (for the most part)
All people in Canada are potential patients. Big difference.
Okay hwacker,
Let's try this, people between 16>65 are also taxpayers here in Canada too (for the most part)
They are the ones who are currently supporting the Health Care system.
What difference is there if you multiply those numbers x10 as lily said.
There's still no difference. The ratio is still the same.
hwacker @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:54 pm
Ruserious Ruserious:
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
hwacker hwacker:
Ruserious Ruserious:
:lol:
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
It must be that conservative math..
Okay hwanker, please explain how if not every one of the 300 million that don't pay taxes in the U.S would be any different than not every one of the 30 million we have here in Canada paying taxes to support our health care system.
Either they both contribute or they don't
You can't have it both ways.
Ok Mr Shortbus, you said
$1:
Did you conveniently forget that that would also mean an additional 300 million people that were paying taxes to support it?
Which we all know is wrong.
I said
$1:
Canada cannot maintain this little system with 30m people, could you imagine 300m.
One has to do with taxpayers the other has to do with potential patients.
You find the figures on how many taxpayers the US has to Canada i don't care. it's still 300m potential patients and Canada's system can't handle 30m.
Okay hwacker, since it's pretty clear that you really are a few french fries short of a happy meal here, let me help you out.
Potential patients equates to potential taxpayers supporting the system.
What part of that do you find so difficult to grasp?
Really now, I know liberal love taxes but making a 3yo pay income tax is a little extreme seeing how they don't work and are potential patients.
Let’s try this, people between 16>65 are taxpayers (for the most part)
All people in Canada are potential patients. Big difference.
Okay hwacker,
Let's try this, people between 16>65 are also taxpayers here in Canada too (for the most part)
They are the ones who are currently supporting the Health Care system.
What difference is there if you multiply those numbers x10 as lily said.
There's still no difference. The ratio is still the same.
Ok dumbass it doesn’t work here with 30m it will never work with 300m, the problems will increase ten fold. Your math not mine.
Now stop the BSing. We all know the system is broke and even though you work in it doesn’t make your points more valid.
I’m done with this Liberal shill.
xerxes @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:56 pm
And we're done with you, the Conservative pimp.
PluggyRug @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:04 pm
Ruserious Ruserious:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Ruserious Ruserious:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
So whats so evil about having a two tier health system?
Nothing if you have millions, can afford to pay for the upper tier and believe in a society where there are two classes, the rich and the peasants who shouldn't be given access to the same services.Everything if you don't believe that all Canadians should be treated equally.
A two tier system will not deny people access to the same services.
It, in fact, would shorten waiting times.
Private health care is already here and here to stay, after all, it is the 21st century.
I personally would not be able to afford private health care but have no problem with those people who can.
You better believe it will deny people access to the same services.
It does in the U.S., where unless you can afford to pay, you don't get treated, there are about forty million Americans who do not have health insurance
As for shortening wait times, go figure?
When the doctors have the chance to either work for the goverment or work in a privatized environment that they can charge even more for their services, just how many practitioners do you honestly think would be available to the general public that couldn't afford to pay with their credit cards.
Seriously, why do you think that the U.S. is also looking more at our health care system as being the better model.
$1:
Despite the American government paying more per capita, private sources also pay far more for health care in the United States. In Canada an average of $630 dollars is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the United States this number is $2719. In 2001 the United States spent in total 13.6% of its annual GDP on health care. In Canada only 9.5% of the GDP was spent on health care. This difference is a relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent 7.6%. Most observers take these numbers to mean that the Canadian health care system is substantially more cost effective than the American.
Here is a fair comment on how to work the two tier system.
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP478.pdf.
Our quality physicians have already left for warmer climates
Like I said earlier, it is the 21st century where left wing monolithic thinking is a thing of the past.
To wake up and smell the roses is a beautiful thing.
NorthCelt @ Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:06 pm
My brother was diagnosed with leukemia a few years back. Two hours after his diagnosis he was on a chopper heading for the nearest cancer centre. He didn't have to wait for a thing and didn't have to pay for a thing, so this system is far from broken. Only brain dead, knuckle-dragging, heifer-humping neo-conservative troglodytes would be interested in dumping one of the proven best healthcare systems in the world. All these tories better be careful what they wish for! If you're looking for better healthcare, you'll only find it in countries that are even more democratic socialist! Not the states, that's for sure...
After so many years, it's too bad we're still having this debate...people who want to screw with 2-tier healthcare are either grossly stupid or sociopathically greedy. They don't give a rodent's rump for fairness unless they're the one's being treated unfairly. Otherwise it's always "I don't wanna pay taxes...I want my money back...screw the poor...you're a commie!" Conservatism, man...a definite genetic defect.