[OT] - Net Neutrality Is Marxist?
tod at todandlorna.com
Wed Apr 14 09:33:53 MDT 2010
Yeah... but that article is also Canadian, and probably shouldn't be
On 4/14/2010 9:23 AM, alpheus.madsen at juno.com wrote:
> From: Stuart Jansen<sjansen at buscaluz.org>
>> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 18:45 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>> alpheus.madsen at juno.com wrote:
>>>> In Canada, for example, you could buy
>>>> health insurance from a private entity, but since it's
>>>> illegal for you to do so there, someone could be sent to
>>>> prison for it.
>>> As Canada does not actually have a socialized medicine
>> program (like the NHS) but only a public health insurance
>>> program, private, supplemental health insurance is not
>>> only legal, but very common, and this dual system works
>>> quite well for Canadians (I know of which I speak).
>> What Michael is too polite to mention is why he "knows of
>> which he speaks". I've decided to be more direct.
>> Michael is Canadian.
>> Transation: alpheus's reputation just went through a
>> chipper shredder. He parroted a lie and got called on it by.
>> At this point, any reasonable observer has to ask "how many
>> of his other opinions are based on lies he didn't bother
> According to an article in the "Canadian Medical Association Journal":
> "WE ADDRESSED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PRIVATE HEALTH CARE IS ILLEGAL in Canada by surveying the health insurance legislation of all 10 provinces. Our survey revealed multiple layers of regulation that seem to have as their primary objective preventing the public sector from subsidizing the private sector, as opposed to rendering privately funded practice illegal. Private insurance for medically necessary hospital and physician services is illegal in only 6 of the 10 provinces. Nonetheless, a significant private sector has not developed in any of the 4 provinces that do permit private insurance coverage. The absence of a significant private sector is probably best explained by the prohibitions on the subsidy of private practice by public plans, measures that prevent physicians from topping up their public sector incomes with private fees."
> > From the Conclusion of the article:
> "In our survey of health insurance legislation and regulations, we found that regulation of physicians' ability to practise in the privately funded sector is complex and diverse across Canada's 10 provinces. We found multiple layers of different kinds of regulation that seem to have as their primary objective not to make private practice illegal but rather to prevent the development of a private sector that depends on subsidy from the public sector." This is a very good example of how regulation causes monopoly, limits competition, and prevents increase in quality of services--although that's not the point of this article.
> The article could be found at "http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/6/825". Thus, I'm only 60% correct when I parroted something I read a while ago; or more, when you consider the red tape involved in the remaining 40% significantly reduce the options.
> Thus, Michael may be Canadian, but Canada isn't as friendly to private health insurance as he makes it out to be, either!
> If Canada's health care is so great, why did Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams feel he needed to come to the United States for heart surgery, rather than wait in line for heart surgery as the typical Canadian who gets surgery in Canada would have to do?
> Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
> Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
More information about the PLUG