60 Minutes

[Doug69]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>MANY MANY people come to the US for treatment, because they

>are WAY DOWN the WAIT list in Canada. TRUE no one said, they

>can't have treatment, but the list is SO long for specialized

>treatment, that they rather pay out of their own pocket for US

>care!

>

>It ain't what it is cracked up to be in Canadian medicine!

 

One of the most inhumane train wrecks anywhere in the Western World is socialized medicine. People in London have to wait 3 months (or longer) to see doctors even when a doctor's visit is necessitated by a relatively serious or painful affliction. Many American physicians near the Northern border have lots of Canadian patients crossing the border and paying lots more for real, prompt health care.

 

It's so hilarious when people in countries like Canada come to lecture Americans about how great and wonderful things are there and how we should all strive to be more like them. All that's necessary to rebut this sermon is one look at the countries from which these sermons come. That usually prompts an immediate "Thanks so much, but no thanks."

 

Other than a few fringe individuals who are dissatisfied with their own lives and blame their country for that, Americans aren't exactly eager for our country to be more like Canada.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

Doug,

 

The 'press' always seems to overlook those facts, when reporting on the wonderful socialized medicine of Canada. But the Canadian citizens know better and just shrug their shoulders at the mention of their second rate system.

 

I understand that many carry PRIVATE medical Insurance to pay for better care in the US, if it becomes necessary.

[Luv2play]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

You don't mention the thousands of Americans who come to Canada every year to buy drugs they can't afford in the US. Most of them elderly. And the thousands of Americans who use Canadian doctors on fake health cards because it's so easy to get counterfeit cards. It goes both ways. And what about those 43 million? Because most of them are poor and black, are they beneath your notice?

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

I am one of those, that tries to buy Canadian drugs, when I forgot my own RX a couple of times in the last year. So I have FIRST hand knowledge! Both times, the Pharmacist acted like it was a federal crime, and made it very difficult to get more then a 12-15 tablets of each at an excessive price for generics of commonly used medications. I could get almst a 100 tablets in the US for near the same price! It is a major chain drugstore. I would really have expected better service from all the articles I have read about the supposed money saved by Amer consumers in Canada.

 

I happen to know what the wholesale costs are!

 

But then you are talking about 'bucket' mail order shops.

The costs should be less based on the exchange rate and standard of living!

 

The other interesting facts are the number of Canuks spending the winters in Palm SPrings, as well as, Florida, etc. I lived in the desert for 5 years and ate out often and don't remember running into any Canadians! Apparently, they stay home more and eat in, due to their more humble way of life or limitations of their budgets! But one would think, that you would still recognize them in the stores, etc. The invisible US residents! :+

[Chuck50]

RE: HIJACK

 

It nice to see we haven't forgotten how to do that HUGS

[Luv2play]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

Those humble Canuks were looking at a domestic currency that had depreciated every year against the greenback since the early 1990's. Well, how things have changed! In the last 10 months the Canadian dollar has appreciated 20 percent against the US dollar. Maybe this winter you'll see those Canuks in the restaurants again.:+

[Doug69]

RE: HIJACK

 

>It nice to see we haven't forgotten how to do that HUGS

 

I'm always amazed when people think there is something surprising - or wrong - about a conversation which begins with one topic and then branches off into other topics which arise during the original discussion. I've never before encountered people who think that a conversation should be strictly confined to the topics which are first mentioned when the conversation begins. What a bizarre, and sadly limiting, view of a discussion.

 

It's even more bizarre given that those who hold such a view - namely, that the dicussison should be confined exclusively to the topics which are raised by the first speaker - are, in no way, impeded from doing exactly that by those who don't wish to be so confined. The ones who want to talk ONLY about Topic A are free to do so, and aren't impeded in any way in their efforts to limit themselves by those who want to also talk about Topics B, C and D.

 

So why would anyone possibly find grievance in the so-called "hijacking" of a thread. When an airplane is "hijacked," those on board have no choice but to go along with the hijacker's destination. Here, anyone is free to stick to the original topic for as long as they want, even while others head in a different direction.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

My Sisterinlaw likes to complain about all the Canuks that 'sneak' into Michigan to buy clothes and SHOES at the big superstores, then put them on and leave their OLD shoes and clothes in the parking lots to SNEAK back into Canada without paying duty!

 

I did the reserve once, when I took my Mother shopping in Canada to buy some crystal for family wedding presents!

 

:+

[Doug69]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>And what about those

>43 million? Because most of them are poor and black, are they

>beneath your notice?

 

No, but this comment is beneath contempt. Accusing those who have a different view of economic policy than you do, or who oppose your socialist utopian programs, of being racist is really too dernaged - and too 1970s - to bother with.

 

It's truly astounding that no matter how decisively and undeniably history has proven that you can't help "the poor" by taking things away from the rich and giving it to them so that everyone is nice and equal, people still cling to the fantasy that you can.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

Luv2 play,

You are right, I am not LQQKING forward to paying the higher prices for one of my annual week long visits to Canada this year with the lower US$!

And that good St.Hubert BBBQ chicken. The best in the world!

Plan on eating there every nite!

 

}(

[Luv2play]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

The only thing beneath contempt is a system that denies basic health care to its poor and disadvantaged citizens. The two basic indices of measuring a health care system, longevity and infant mortality, are lower and higher respectively in the USA than in any other western democracy and Japan, which have comparable standards of living and medical technology. Can you provide an answer as to why that is so?

[woodlawn]

>>The question is, is there something to be achieved by

>>allowing gay men to serve that makes it worthwhile to deal

>>with the problems that will result?

>

>What an interesting way to formulate the question. With

>regard to ending racial segregation of the armed forces, was

>the relevant question: "Is there something to be achieved by

>allowing blacks to serve with whites"? Was that the relevant

>question?

 

Yes, indeed it was. Integrating the armed forces is not quite the same as integrating the local country club. The armed forces don't exist for the purpose of allowing people to amuse themselves or make social contacts, but to protect the nation from military threats. If integration would cause serious problems for carrying out that mission, as some of our most distinguished officers (including General Omar Bradley) opined at the time it was first proposed, then we should definitely ask whether it is worth doing. I happen to think it was, but others may disagree.

 

>And if racial intergration of the armed forces had caused more

>problems than it did, would you have been oppposed to it?

 

If it had so disrupted the functioning of our armed forces that they were no longer able to protect the nation, I would certainly have opposed it. Are you saying you wouldn't?

 

>In general, treating American citizens equally and giving them

>equal opportunity doesn't depend upon how many "problems"

>doing so will create or whether it's worth it from a

>cost-benefit analysis. Treating citizens equally is an end in

>itself which shouldn't depend upon that sort of test.

 

That is your opinion, but obviously there are lots and lots of Americans who disagree. To this day women still are not treated equally in the armed forces -- they remain barred from serving in certain combat roles. If treating people equally is an end in itself and should supersede all other considerations, then why is this still happening?

 

And regarding the phrase "allowing gays to serve," I would contend that under the current policy gays still are NOT allowed to serve. The current policy requires gay men to conceal their sexual orientation in a way that is NOT required of straight men, or be thrown out of the service. Gay men will not be allowed to serve in the military in a real sense until that distinction is eliminated.

[woodlawn]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>The only thing beneath contempt is a system that denies basic

>health care to its poor and disadvantaged citizens.

 

I hasten to agree. You will find many Canadians and Britons who complain about the inefficienies of their national health systems. You will NOT find many who would support scrapping a single payer system for the every-man-for-himself system we have in America. Even conservative politicians in those countries do not campaign on such a notion, since they know it would be a sure loser. Plenty of Americans -- in some polls, a majority -- support scrapping OUR system in favor of a single payer system, on the other hand. We already have a single payer system for everyone over 65 -- it's called Medicare -- and you will find the same situation among those enrolled in this "socialist, utopian" system as in the single payer systems of other countries; plenty complain of its problems, but almost none would vote to scrap it.

 

It's interesting to note that among the supporters of a single-payer system are some of America's corporate executives who have to compete with corporations from countries where government provides universal health coverage -- so corporations don't have to. It's been estimated that the health benefits GM pays its workers add more than $1,000.00 to the cost of every car the company produces. How is GM supposed to compete with a Japanese company that spends little or nothing on health care because its workers are covered by a government plan?

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

luv has it wrong again.

The poor get FREE care at Emergency Rooms around the country. They are over flowing with people who do not care for themselves and think nothing of having a Ambulence take them to Hospital EmerRoom for Constipation in the middle of the night, when it is a chronic condition, at the Tax Payer expense! So much so, that many hopitals are on Bankruptcy row!

A little self care could have prevented such problems, but would have cost the person some cents.

 

}(

[Guest YFSC]

>What happens if he is fired after 9 years? He gets his own

>contributions back, but not the employers.

 

Not that I want to get into the middle of this debate, but as a point of information, military pensions in the US are non-contributory. That is, the individual makes no contributions and they are fully funded by the government. So, unfortunately for the dischargee, there are no contributions of his/her own to get back.

 

In the private sector the plans vary greatly, since there is no single required plan form, only a set of regulations that is supposed to ensure fairness to all, but which also allows for a wide range of alternatives.

 

Some are non-contributory, so again there would be no contributions to get back. However, most are contributory, with both the employee and the employer contributing. Many (most?) of those provide that the employee will receive his/her own contributions back in full after having been employed for at least a certain relatively small minimum period - 1 year, or 2 or 3 - upon termination for any reason, voluntary or involuntary. Many also provide for payout to the employee of a percentage of the employer's contributions (after a minimum period of employment) on a sliding scale which increases with length of employment, up to 100% in the case of a long period of employment (for example, 20% after 2 years, 30% after 3 years, etc.). So in many cases the employee will get a substantial portion of the employer's contributions in addition to all of the employee's own contributions.

 

The problem with applying this model to military pensions is that, as far as I know, like the individual, the government *also* does not make annual or regular contributions to a separate pension fund for military pensions. Instead the government pays military pensions as current expenses, like salaries. (The same is true for civilian federal government retirees. In addition, neither group contributes to the Social Security system, and consequently is not eligible to draw from it after retirement.)

 

So an individual's military pension is not backed by any pool of contributions, there is no pool for an individual serving in the military to acquire partial or total ownership of or vesting in, and there are no "employer's" contributions to be remitted, just as there are no individual contributions to be refunded. Thus, an individual in the military can indeed end up with nothing as a retirement fund if discharged after 19 years and 363 days.

 

Upon retirement after completion of the minimum time for receiving a pension, too, the retiree does not own any reserved individual pool of funds, or the income from one, or a share in a larger pool. Instead, he/she gains the right to continue receiving government payments on a current basis.

[phage]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>They are over flowing with people who do not care for

>themselves and think nothing of having a Ambulence take them

>to Hospital EmerRoom for Constipation in the middle of the

>night,

 

Those dirty poor people and their annoying medical issues! They just sit around on their butts ignoring their medical conditions because they have no interest in being healthy.

 

And just how do you propose a poor person with no insurance and no financial resources get non-emergency care for a chronic condition? They will not be served by the HMO’s. They will not be served by private practitioners. They will not be served by those very same hospitals if they show up at urgent care. They have no choice except to show up at the emergency room where the law requires that they be seen.

 

Are they just supposed to stay home and die?

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>I am one of those, that tries to buy Canadian drugs, when I

>forgot my own RX a couple of times in the last year. So I

>have FIRST hand knowledge! Both times, the Pharmacist acted

>like it was a federal crime, and made it very difficult to get

>more then a 12-15 tablets of each at an excessive price for

>generics of commonly used medications. I could get almst a

>100 tablets in the US for near the same price! It is a major

>chain drugstore. I would really have expected better service

>from all the articles I have read about the supposed money

>saved by Amer consumers in Canada.

 

If I understand you correctly, you were trying to buy prescription medicines without a prescription, at a place where they had no record of you or your prescriptions. And you are complaining that the pharmacist showed some reservations and would not give you more than 12-15 tablets of "each" (apparently more than one medicine)?

 

That's probably a lot more accommodating than you would have experienced here in the US.

 

>The other interesting facts are the number of Canuks spending

>the winters in Palm SPrings, as well as, Florida, etc. I

>lived in the desert for 5 years and ate out often and don't

>remember running into any Canadians! Apparently, they stay

>home more and eat in, due to their more humble way of life or

>limitations of their budgets! But one would think, that you

>would still recognize them in the stores, etc. The

>invisible US residents! :+

 

Indeed, one would of course easily recognize any of them instantly by their heavily accented English and the Canadian flags sewn onto the front and back of all their garments (required by the Canadian government for all Canadian citizens going abroad).

 

And it is simply immoral for anyone spending several months away from home (the winter or other months) to try to set up temporary housekeeping and eat at home.

[Doug69]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>I hasten to agree. You will find many Canadians and Britons

>who complain about the inefficienies of their national health

>systems. You will NOT find many who would support scrapping a

>single payer system for the every-man-for-himself system we

>have in America.

 

Maybe you are eager to sacrifice the quality of your health care for some socialist panacea where we all have everything equal, but thankfully, most Americans aren't. All anyone has to do is listen to Europeans talk about the quality of their health care and the debate is settled.

 

And if things are so so so so bad and unfair for poor people in this country, tell me - why the fuck do poor people from all over the world sacrifice life and limb to come here??? Why aren't they going to Canada in droves?

 

Someone should stand on the California-Mexico border and tell all of those people who sacrifice everything to come here that everything here is really awful and terrible for poor people and that they should just keep going past Los Angeles and keep going until they get to Vancouver, because things are so much better for poor people there.

 

The poor immigrants who choose this country to come to far more than any other country on the planet don't seem to have the lesson that anti-Americans love to preach: that America is so evil to the poor. Go teach them that - that will solve the immigration problem and let you feel good about yourselves - two birds with one stone.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>why the fuck do poor people from

>all over the world sacrifice life and limb to come here???

 

Well, once you sacrifice life, the limbs aren't very useful anymore.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Health Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

ROFL!:7

 

And taylor thinks I am a smart ass!

Couldn't one of you guys have at least corrected the title?

[Guest msclonly]

Chronic Constipation preventives!

 

LAXATIVES

 

PRUNES

 

No need to avoid the Emergency Rooms, if you are not paying for it.

So skip the above two effective preventives.

Let the States go bankrupt, then try the above.

For Calif, Texas and Florida residents, and other unemployed!

[Guest BenAJ]

If you wanna see a pretty good story about being gay in the military, you should see "A Soldiers Girl"

 

It was a Showtime cable movie (and I think discussed here) but I really enjoyed it and the lead Troy Garity (who is Jane Fonda's son)

 

did a great job (and he was cute also) ;-)

 

It worked as a love story and not just a "gay" love story.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000JD29M/102-1645378-5449710?v=glance

[Guest fukamarine]

>Here in Canada, a pension vests after you have contributed to

>it for at least 10 years and you are 45 years of age. At that

>point, if you are terminated (for any reason), the employer

>must return your pension contributions together with his AND

>INTEREST so that you can invest it in another pension vehicle.

>It is the law.

 

You've got it all wrong and I wonder if you really understand the meaning of vesting.

 

The length of time before your pension is "vested" by your employer is left completly up to the employer and the financial institution he has chosen to invest the money with. The most usual term is 2 years, meaning that after you have been in the pension plan for 2 years, and you leave, either voluntarily or otherwise, all the monies your employer has put into the plan plus your own contributions (which are usually of an equal amount) are given to you upon your seperation, plus any interest that may have accrued.

 

The 10/45 rule you refer to is a government regulation. In effect, if you have been in a pension plan in excess of 10 years AND you have reached the age of 45, the government mandates that whatever monies are in your plan are LOCKED IN and cannot be taken out should you get fired or voluntarily leave. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that you don't take the money and spend it frivolusly so that when you reach retirement age (65) you have at least some income, however small it may be, and hopefully prevent you from becoming a ward of the state - i.e. on welfare.

 

The monies are consider portable and can be transfer to another pension vehicle of your choice, but they will still be locked in

 

"LOCKED IN" is entirely different from "vesting" and the two should not be confused. There is absolutely no way you can get money out of a locked in pension plan before age 65 - unless you have a terminal medical condition such as cancer or AIDS that will preclude you living the extra 20 years. Under this condition, which must be attested to in writing by two doctors, you may withdraw you pension monies, keeping in mind that as these monies never had income tax paid on them, tax must be paid at the time of withdrawal. And as the whole amount will be looked as income earned in the year it is withdrawn, the tax rate will be pretty steep - probably in the 50% bracket. Hope this clarifies the situation.

 

fulamarine

[Guest msclonly]

Fully Vested

 

I like 'Fully Vested with Full Disablity'.

 

Age not a consideration.

[Guest fukamarine]

RE: Heath Care in the US helps people in Canada

 

>My Sisterinlaw likes to complain about all the Canuks that

>'sneak' into Michigan to buy clothes and SHOES at the big

>superstores, then put them on and leave their OLD shoes and

>clothes in the parking lots to SNEAK back into Canada without

>paying duty!

 

Why would that bother her? The Michigan store is getting more business, and the only ones who should care about not paying duty on entering Canada is Revenue Canada. Does she have a habit of getting her knickers in a twist over things that shouldn't concern her?

 

Although, I think that any Canadian that tries to smuggle goods into Canada is just plain dumb as the penalty could be as high as having his car confiscated. Probaly wouldn't happen, but it could! Why take the chance to save a few measly dollars. And with NAFTA the duties are minimal (if any)

 

And on the same note - re Canadian's buying in US stores - so what? As you know, Vancouver is only about 30 miles from the Washington border. The two Washington town of Blaine & Sumas are close to being ghost towns in recent years due to the unfavourable exchange rate (although it is getting better) The business there depended heavily on Canadian shoppers and when that dried up, dozens of businesses (sp?) were forced to close down. On the main street of Sumas, about every second store is closed, as are restaurants and many many gas stations. Would you sister-inlaw prefer that?

 

fukamarine