National Healthcare in Canada Problems - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

flstf · 03-03-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Health insurance premiums are expensive because medical care is expensive, and medical care has high costs because the system is simply overused. HSAs will give people incentive to limit unnecessary trips to the doctor. As demand falls, so will costs. The laws of economics dictate that a dip in premiums will follow.

I think that HSA's are one of the best ideas to come along in quite a while to help people deal with their medical costs and I signed up for one as soon as they became available. However I wonder if costs will really fall when trips to the doctors and hospitals decrease or if the cost per visit and hospital stay will just rise in order to maintain current income levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When people are active in a economic system, the system works well. when people are passive they get exploited. Our current system is failing because people are passive. Why do we let our employers control our health insurance? An employer is more concerned about profits than they are about anyone's health, hence our system has problems for employees.

That is a good question. Many people from my father's generation worked for the same company for most of their lives (in his case Procter & Gamble) and were taken care of in exchange for their loyalty and dedication with great benefits. The trend today seems to be for most employers to pick up less and less of these costs and to layoff far more frequently. As people pick up more of the costs for medical benefits, the more there will be the perception that something has to be done to subsidize them.

smooth · 03-03-2006, 09:57 AM

I was the first to reply to this thread. In that post, I asked the same questions as you just did, Charlatan. That data request had been ignored this entire time indicating to me this is a "discussion" only in the sense that the thread starter and a number of people responding are interested in espousing their ideals regarding private vs. public sector services. and only that.

aceventura3 · 03-03-2006, 10:09 AM

It was not my intent to compare Canada's healthcare to the US. The point in the original article posted is that "illegal", according to the NY times, clinics are being established to address wait times. In my opinion that is an indicator that the system will eventually fail. Experts further cite ethical and legal problems with wait times and a need to improve how limited resources are best allocated. In my opinion this is another indicator he system will eventually fail.

US heathcare has problems, in my opinion, for different reasons. One being the passive approch consumers take with healthcare and healthcare insurance. Another, as pointed out an in article linked above, are the large numbers of people who by choice opt out of purchasing healthcare insurance. In addition there are far too many capable of paying people who get virtually free healthcare.

Yakk · 03-03-2006, 11:47 AM

The problem with health insurance.

Why is company-wide health insurance popular?

Because it is cheaper. For fundamental reasons.

Let's suppose we have health insurance that costs 1000$/year.

Bob, Alice and Charles are offered it.

Each has an expected amount/year they will spend on health.

Alice: 1000$/year
Bob: 500$/year
Charles: 1500$/year

So, Bob looks at the coverage, and says "this is a bad deal".

Alice and Charles say "sure, that sounds like a good deal".

Then the insurance company goes "gasp! Everyone who signed up is costing us more than 1000$/year. Our average costs are 1250$/year! Let's raise prices."

Alice hears about the price raise. "Naw, I only spend 1000$/year on health insurance", and drops the coverage.

Now only Charles is signed up for 1500$/year.

The insurance company goes "gasp! Our average costs are 1500$/year! We better raise prices."

This is known as the Lemon Effect -- only the people who the insurance company doesn't want to cover want the coverage.

Then again, the Insurance Company could magically learn what the expected price for each person is, and offer them coverage at the correct price.

This requires the Insurance company know everything about it's clients that the clients know about themselves. How much you smoke. Your family history. Your day-to-day habits. Eventually, your genetic markers and health predispositions.

They also need to be able to change their premiums at will -- or be able to cancel it whenever you have the option to cancel it.

Any asymetry between the information or options the insurance company has and what you have causes "lemon effects", the larger the gap the larger the effect.

By offering insurance to every employee of a company, insurance companies get a population that can be understood statistically. They only need to know as much about the entire company's workforce's health as the company knows about it's workforce's health. (well, not quite -- people can change jobs based off health benefits)

If you can push the insurance up to a national level, the lemon effect goes away entirely, other than people choosing to immigrate based off health concerns.

And that is why group health insurance can be cheaper than individual health insurance, why individual health insurance will never cover everyone, and why government health insurance can be useful.

aceventura3 · 03-03-2006, 01:41 PM

In a previous thread there was a comparison of health insurance to auto insurance, fire insurance or workers' compensation insurance. Virtually every vehicle in this country has some form of insurance. Some would argue if it is affordable, but there is no question that the market is heathy and competetive.

In workers' compensation insurance virtually every worker has medical coverage for injuries on the job. Market conditions vary state to state, but generally most agree that the market is healthy and competetive. In some states fraud is a problem, but fraud has not hurt availability in most markets.

Virtually every building in this country is covered for fire insurance. The market is healthy and competetive.

The same could be true of health insurance. I don't know why we don't make health coverage a higher priority than auto insurance.

aceventura3 · 03-03-2006, 02:02 PM

Seems like doctor shortage in Canada is reaching "crisis level".

Quote:

WHITBY, ONTARIO -- Esther Pacione needs a family doctor. At age 56 she is afflicted with severe ataxia, a neurological condition that causes her acute pain, choking and loss of consciousness.

The walls of her home are scuffed from the times she has fallen and hit her head.

Her regular doctor suffered a stroke a year ago, and all the local doctors she has contacted say they cannot take new patients, so now Pacione, a retired bookkeeper, goes to a walk-in clinic whenever she has an emergency. At the clinic, she waits hours and sees a different doctor each time, and no one there is familiar with her medical history and what drugs she has been taking.

"If you are not bleeding all over the place, you are put on the back burner," Pacione said. "Unless, of course, you have money or know somebody."

The publicly financed health-insurance system remains a prideful jewel for most Canadians, who see it as an expression of communal caring for the less fortunate and a striking contrast to a U.S. health-care system that leaves 45 million people uninsured. But polls indicate that public confidence in Canada's system is eroding, although politicians remain reticent to urge increasing privatization of services.

During the recent closely fought election campaign, Prime Minister Paul Martin promised to fix Canada's health-care system "for a generation," focusing on trimming waiting times for diagnostic tests, cancer treatment and elective surgery such as hip replacements. But medical professionals and local officials say a major reason it may not be easy to address the problem of slow access to treatment is because doctors who do preliminary diagnostic work, refer patients to specialists and monitor the care of chronically ill people are less and less available -- especially in small towns and rural areas.

A 2002 report from the Canadian Senate said that the actual number of family doctors had decreased only slightly in recent years but that the demands of an aging population were growing. Meanwhile, several recent studies have shown that family doctors are working shorter hours.

Young doctors are more likely to seek the most lucrative work in cities or go to the United States rather than start more modest practices in small towns because of growing debts when they leave medical school. That has set off an increasing competition among small towns to attract doctors.

Pacione's predicament is surprisingly common, even in her upper-middle-class community on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

Whitby has only 63 family doctors to care for its 110,000 people (medical officials and local officials say at least 16 more are needed), and many residents drive 45 minutes or more to Toronto for basic medical care. Whitby is one of 136 communities, encompassing a total of a million people in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, that are not adequately served by family doctors, according to the Ontario Medical Association. That is up from 100 communities in 2000.

Whitby officials estimate that 22,000 people there have no doctor at all, forcing them to go to emergency rooms at overcrowded local hospitals to wait in line for as long as four hours simply to refill a prescription, get a doctor's note for an employer or care for their flu symptoms.

"It's like winning the lottery to get in and see the doctor," Mayor Marcel Brunelle said. "This is a very wealthy country. What happened to bring the situation to this point?"

Shortage worsening

The government statistical agency estimates that more than 3.6 million Canadians, representing nearly 15 percent of the population, do not have a family doctor. That remains better than in the United States, where an estimated 20 percent do not have a regular doctor.

But there are signs that the doctor shortage in Canada is worsening. The Canadian Medical Association estimates that the country requires 2,500 medical graduates annually but is producing 2,200 a year.

Brunelle formed a task force in June to recruit young doctors by introducing them to real-estate agents and giving them advice on how to start new practices, and the town government is considering building a municipal clinic. The town of Peterborough is offering large monetary incentives and a grab bag of perks, including memberships at the YMCA and cable television. Other municipalities offer moving expenses and the inside track on real estate next to golf courses.

But experts say those efforts may not be enough. "If the current trends continue, we can anticipate a crisis," warned Joseph D'Cruz, a University of Toronto business school professor who specializes in health care. "People will actually find it impossible to get general medical services in their towns."

The doctor shortage is hurting the economies of small towns seeking to attract businesses. But it is also taxing the energies of the doctors who do live in those towns, as well as the resources of local hospitals -- and patients often complain that their treatment is rushed.

Administrators at the nearby Lakeridge Health Oshawa, an acute-care hospital, estimated that more than 30 percent of the patients who went to the emergency room would go to a family doctor instead if they could do so quickly. It is a burden on the hospital's staff, space and financial resources.

One patient who went to the emergency room recently, Crystal Bentley, 22, complained of cysts behind her ears. She said she would prefer to see her family doctor but would have to wait in his office for hours. She said she went to the hospital because the emergency room was faster.

"Seeing a doctor and not having to pay is phenomenal," she said, "but here I am taking up emergency time from doctors. I really do wish I could see my family doctor instead of coming here and talking to a total stranger."

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...shortage2.html

Just to be fair here is a link the article is titled "What doctor Shortage", it appears there are lots of foriegn trained doctors working low wage jobs who can not get licensed, but the article still acknowledges a shortage.

http://www.caribbeanmedicine.com/article26.htm

O.k. defenders of the Canadian run system how about some facts to support the system has long-term viability. If Canadian trained doctors on a net basis are leaving the country, how are they going to fix that?

BigBen · 03-03-2006, 02:52 PM

I have neither the time or patience to "debate" (read argue to a brick wall) about this any further.

This defender of Canadian Healthcare has officially left the building.

I have a plethora of information to disseminate, and the employability of IMG's is a hot issue, that is correct. Not here, not in this forum.

Go read the Romanow Report. Go on... I dare you. Cover to cover. Every line.

Ask yourself why these docs aren't working in the US. Then ask yourself if you want to be seen by Dr. Nick Riviera (Simpson's reference). That is why IMG's are driving fucking taxi cabs. They don't know how to read test results, let alone communicate effectively with patients.

...sigh...

Now call it free and illegal again, and I will be spending some of that healthcare money tonight. Checking myself into a fucking insane asylum.

snowy · 03-03-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The point in the original article posted is that "illegal", according to the NY times...

Someone didn't read the article closely enough. Your article is not a reprint of the original article in the NYTimes, but rather a paraphrasing. The words "illegal" belong to Investors Business Daily. As host already pointed out, IBD paraphrased the article wrongly.

It would really help to foster debate if everyone read the posts they're replying to instead of making assumptions or operating off of falsehoods.

Marvelous Marv · 03-03-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Can you handle posting facts instead of hypothesis? USTWO is talking shit about how the Canadians pay up the ass for health care, I call him on it that I was paying 20% of my gross income on it and Host posts a comparison of how much they spend vs what we spend and all you two can do is repeat a tired mantra.

You've said this several times, but you haven't mentioned what your annual deductible is.

Marvelous Marv · 03-03-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In workers' compensation insurance virtually every worker has medical coverage for injuries on the job. Market conditions vary state to state, but generally most agree that the market is healthy and competetive. In some states fraud is a problem, but fraud has not hurt availability in most markets.

I would disagree with this. Workmen's comp in California tripled for some businesses within the last few years, causing some businesses to go under. The premiums for a roofer can equal 2/3 of the roofer's pay, not that I'm going to Google that to provide a link.

There is a great deal of fraud on both ends of it.

smooth · 03-03-2006, 10:15 PM

Good call, marv.
Of course, all the other examples in his post were inaccurate characterizations, as well.

I think most people reading those claims recognized them as bs supposition, however.
fact is, lots of people go uninsured, whether they be drivers or homeowners. I'm not sure where ace gets the notion that virtually every car and house is insured--that's simply not true.

snowy · 03-04-2006, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I'm not sure where ace gets the notion that virtually every car and house is insured--that's simply not true.

I live in a state that requires liability insurance, yet when I worked for a minimum-wage employer with other minimum-wage employees, I knew plenty of folks who went without insurance. I would say about half of my crew (15 people) were without liability insurance yet still driving cars.

genuinegirly · 03-04-2006, 03:39 AM

I see the article posted as propaganda - not good journalism. Shows more the degredation of the New York Times than it does the degredation of the Canadian health care system.

In any case, there are a lot of people against providing universal healthcare in the United States (not necessarily on this board or participating in this discussion) and I don't understand why. There are plenty of organizations that have opened free clinics, and people aren't protesting those... is it just because they want people to go without proper medical attention, or is it because they don't want tax payers footing the bill - or are they worried that their tax money will go towards the health care of illegal immigrants? Sounds like the latter from what I have heard around Southern California lately. Dunno... I would think something like that would be easily solved by stating that no illegals get care at government-run clinics, then require proof of citizenship at the door.

I wonder how long it will take for independent free clinics to provide universal health care.

highthief · 03-04-2006, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just like I will ask you, since you are in Canada. How long have your wait time been? How long were they 5 years ago, 10 years ago?

Do you actually dispute that wait time are getting worse?

Perhaps I made a poor assumption, I initially did not think we needed facts to prove that the wait times in Canada were getting worse, and that being the reason for the increase of illegal private clinics in Canada.

I could only offer anecdotal information on wait times, beyond reading a report recently that had wait times in Ontario decreasing last year.

Personally, I've never had a problem - when my wife gave birth the only waiting was for labour to begin, y'know?

The facts as I know them are:

A) Canadians spend less on healthcare than Americans overall.
B) Canadian children are less likely to die than American children, at birth and during childhood..
C) Canadians live longer than Americans.
D) The US is the only "first world" country to not have universal healthcare.

Like I said, the Canadian system is not perfect, but if had to choose between the two systems, I'd choose the Canadian/European option every day.

highthief · 03-04-2006, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen

Ask yourself why these docs aren't working in the US. Then ask yourself if you want to be seen by Dr. Nick Riviera (Simpson's reference). That is why IMG's are driving fucking taxi cabs. They don't know how to read test results, let alone communicate effectively with patients.

...sigh...

Now call it free and illegal again, and I will be spending some of that healthcare money tonight. Checking myself into a fucking insane asylum.

Perhaps literacy in the US is in decline, eh, my hoser comrade?

At any rate, I hear you about foreign docs. I have two anecdotal examples to share. My wife is friends with a lady doc from the US, an Ob-Gyn - unlike a doc from say, Egypt, she only has to pass an exam to practice solo (she can practice supervised in a hospital setting until then, is my understanding).

She failed her first shot at the exam. I'm glad we have that safeguard in place. She'll probably pass next time, but until then she is unqualified.

In another instance, we took our daughter to a clinic (after hours) and there was an Israeli doctor there. English was obviously not his first language - he wrote down some information incorrectly and I had a hard time understanding him. Israel is a well educated country, I don't doubt their docs are well qualified - but language is a problem. I'd like to see all the non-English/French docs spend about a year doing nothing but learning the language.

Yakk · 03-04-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

O.k. defenders of the Canadian run system how about some facts to support the system has long-term viability. If Canadian trained doctors on a net basis are leaving the country, how are they going to fix that?

Train more doctors?

Reduce 'free' money given to Doctor training, increase student loans for Doctors, and excuse large amounts of such loans for Doctors who stick around?

Import more Doctors from elsewhere?

Quote:

The government statistical agency estimates that more than 3.6 million Canadians, representing nearly 15 percent of the population, do not have a family doctor. That remains better than in the United States, where an estimated 20 percent do not have a regular doctor.

Note that Canada is currently producing 88% of the increase in demand for Doctors. If this is accurate, then Canada's 15% lack-of-coverage will be going down over time to 12%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marv

You've said this several times, but you haven't mentioned what your annual deductible is.

In Canada, your annual deductable is 0$. If you want to compare US vs Canadian health insurace, you should compare them at the apple-to-apple level.

There are some uncovered things that you need to get private insurance for, or pay for out-of-pocket. Like ambulance rides (50$), parking (2$), and drugs (in my case, my company's drug plan is "fill out a form, and get your money back". Plus dental, glasses every 2 years, short term and long term disability... Sort of neat what happens when companies have to look for things to insure. =) )

smooth · 03-04-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

I live in a state that requires liability insurance, yet when I worked for a minimum-wage employer with other minimum-wage employees, I knew plenty of folks who went without insurance. I would say about half of my crew (15 people) were without liability insurance yet still driving cars.

I'm familiar with Oregon. The problem of uninsured became so bad that there are now laws that the police will confiscate your vehicle until proof of insurance is presented. Some people just flat out lose their cars and go buy another cheap used car after they consider insurance, the ticket, and impound fees.

california also requires liability. they weren't ever able to pass something as strict as oregon's laws on how to enforce it, but many carriers won't insure you if you refuse uninsured motorist. these are two examples of how both the governmen and the private sector responded to the reality that many people refuse or are unable to secure insurance.

aceventura3 · 03-05-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I would disagree with this. Workmen's comp in California tripled for some businesses within the last few years, causing some businesses to go under. The premiums for a roofer can equal 2/3 of the roofer's pay, not that I'm going to Google that to provide a link.

There is a great deal of fraud on both ends of it.

I live in California also. Work Comp. (W/C) premiums at one point were artificially high, then after some deregulation became artificailly low although losses and fraud did not decrease. During the time of initial deregulation, many W/C insurance companies priced policies artificially low to gain market share in hopes of high investment returns and the ability to raise rates befor losses caught up. It did not work. Many W/C insurance companies left the market, a few went under, and there was consolidation. Premiums went up dramatically. The biggest premium increases occured in those industries with the worst results, like roofing. The way the market responded was with increased loss control activity under the high premium enviroment. True, some companies with high frequency and severity of injuries to their workers went out of business, but those companies that operated safer grew. It is kind of like natural selection. It was a net good thing.

My point is that free markets will respond to problems if given a chance. Centralized controlled market don't seem to have this same ability.

It seems no one agrees that wait times in Canada are poor and are getting worse, that there is a doctor shortage that is getting worse, and that the increase in "private clinics" (legal or not) are attempting to address problems. On the otherhand I have admitted we have problems in the US with healthcare. But according to Big Ben I am a "brickwall", been called worse, but my mom still loves me.

aceventura3 · 03-05-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

Someone didn't read the article closely enough. Your article is not a reprint of the original article in the NYTimes, but rather a paraphrasing. The words "illegal" belong to Investors Business Daily. As host already pointed out, IBD paraphrased the article wrongly.

It would really help to foster debate if everyone read the posts they're replying to instead of making assumptions or operating off of falsehoods.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AB0894DE404482

Quote:

Ruling Has Canada Planting Seeds of Private Health Care

*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. February 20, 2006, Monday
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 4, Column 5, 731 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 731 WORDS -The cracks are still small in Canada's vaunted public health insurance system, but several of its largest provinces are beginning to open the way for private health care eventually to take root around the country. Last week Quebec proposed to lift a ban on private health insurance for several...

To read the rest of this archive article, upgrade to TimesSelect or purchase as a single article.

Quote:

Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
Save Article

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: February 28, 2006
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 23 — The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise.

Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.

But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.

The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. Ontario provincial officials are already threatening stiff fines. Dr. Day says he is eager to see them in court.

"We've taken the position that the law is illegal," Dr. Day, 59, says. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

Dr. Day may be a rebel (he keeps a photograph of himself with Fidel Castro behind his desk), but he appears to be on top of a new wave in Canada's health care future. He is poised to become the president of the Canadian Medical Association next year, and his profitable Vancouver hospital is serving as a model for medical entrepreneurs in several provinces.

Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.

In response, the Quebec premier, Jean Charest, proposed this month to allow private hospitals to subcontract hip, knee and cataract surgery to private clinics when patients are unable to be treated quickly enough under the public system. The premiers of British Columbia and Alberta have suggested they will go much further to encourage private health services and insurance in legislation they plan to propose in the next few months.

Private doctors across the country are not waiting for changes in the law, figuring provincial governments will not try to stop them only to face more test cases in the Supreme Court.

One Vancouver-based company started a large for-profit family medical clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics — in Toronto, Ottawa and London, Ontario — next summer and nine more in several other cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI procedures are opening around the country.

Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private health insurance and delivery systems.

"Why are we so afraid to look at mixed health care delivery models when other states in Europe and around the world have used them to produce better results for patients at a lower cost to taxpayers?" the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, asked in a speech two weeks ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/in...=1&oref=slogin

Just for the record I went to the NY Times website and did a search, for anyone interested.

BigBen · 03-06-2006, 07:18 AM

How did you enjoy reading the Romanow Report?

Are there certain parts you would like me to clarify?

What was your favorite part?

What part do you think the US could easily adopt?

What surprised you the most?

What surprised you the least?

HERE IS THE LINK. I INIVTE EVERYONE TO READ IT.

Charlatan · 03-06-2006, 07:28 AM

The dog ate my homework professor Ben... I promise to read it this week.

aceventura3 · 03-06-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen

How did you enjoy reading the Romanow Report?

Are there certain parts you would like me to clarify?

What was your favorite part?

What part do you think the US could easily adopt?

What surprised you the most?

What surprised you the least?

HERE IS THE LINK. I INIVTE EVERYONE TO READ IT.

I have not finished reading but so far my favorite part is in the Exec Summary:

Quote:

The System Is as Sustainable as We Want It to Be
For years now, Canadians have been exposed to an increasingly fractious debate about medicare’s “sustainability.” They have been told that costs are escalating and that quality of services is declining. They have heard that insatiable public expectations, an aging population and the costs of new medical technologies and prescription drugs will inevitably overwhelm the
system. They have been warned that health spending is crowding out other areas of public investment. Thus one of the fundamental questions my report must address is whether medicare is sustainable? My answer is that it is if we are prepared to act decisively.

It seem an acknowledgement that something dramatic needs to be done to fix the system. Do you agree?

Charlatan · 03-06-2006, 07:56 AM

AceV... it simply acknowledges what we have been hearing. It says nothing to the veracity of the statements.

The report is an attempt to understand what the truth of the matter is...

BigBen · 03-06-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have not finished reading but so far my favorite part is in the Exec Summary:

It seem an acknowledgement that something dramatic needs to be done to fix the system. Do you agree?

I could not disagree more. Keep reading. It is his way of starting the discussion by saying that people who "Fear Monger" have no idea what they are talking about. Romanow has some dramatic ideas, but he does not say that dramatic changes need to take place.

Ustwo · 03-06-2006, 08:16 AM

I read the preamble to the report and skimmed here and there.

It seems to be more of a pep talk and what can be done to make a national system work, not a 'should we have a national system'.

The outcome was predetermined.

Quite frankly I don't care what system you guys have up there, I just want to make sure it stays up there.

Charlatan · 03-06-2006, 08:30 AM

You are probably right Ustwo. The outcome of "we will continue to have Universal Healthcare" is predetermined.

We will never go back to an "everyone for themselves" system. The point of the report is to adress the issues within the existing system and look at how we might solve them. Trashing the system entirely would not be an option.

I predict that we will ultimately swing more towards a European model.

Ustwo · 03-06-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

You are probably right Ustwo. The outcome of "we will continue to have Universal Healthcare" is predetermined.

We will never go back to an "everyone for themselves" system. The point of the report is to adress the issues within the existing system and look at how we might solve them. Trashing the system entirely would not be an option.

I predict that we will ultimately swing more towards a European model.

When the underlying theme is 'it will work if we all work hard enough to make it work' its nothing more than propaganda

Good luck with that eruopean model.

BigBen · 03-06-2006, 09:14 AM

Hey, I know we will prevail, now that we have Ustwo's luck on our side.

Charlatan · 03-06-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When the underlying theme is 'it will work if we all work hard enough to make it work' its nothing more than propaganda

Good luck with that eruopean model.

Perhaps... time will tell.

I wish America all the best with Lassier-fair medicine.

I suppose it is one way to thin the herd, so to speak.

flstf · 03-06-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Perhaps... time will tell.

I wish America all the best with Lassier-fair medicine.

I suppose it is one way to thin the herd, so to speak.

I don't think we are thinning the herd from lack of medical care so much but quite a few are probably financially wiped out from hospital bills.

Charlatan · 03-06-2006, 04:42 PM

flstf... it's either they can't afford it so they don't go until it's too late or they do go and then are bankrupt due to the expense.

So, yes, I agree.

Marvelous Marv · 03-07-2006, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I live in California also. Work Comp. (W/C) premiums at one point were artificially high, then after some deregulation became artificailly low although losses and fraud did not decrease. During the time of initial deregulation, many W/C ...
My point is that free markets will respond to problems if given a chance. Centralized controlled market don't seem to have this same ability.

It seems no one agrees that wait times in Canada are poor and are getting worse, that there is a doctor shortage that is getting worse, and that the increase in "private clinics" (legal or not) are attempting to address problems. On the otherhand I have admitted we have problems in the US with healthcare. But according to Big Ben I am a "brickwall", been called worse, but my mom still loves me.

You know more about it than I do. I did, however, read an article in the newspaper about the owner of a janitorial service with gross receipts of $30 million, who was trying to sell the business because the WC increases had caused him to be operating at a loss.

And I agree with your last paragraph.

And I love your mom!

james t kirk · 03-12-2006, 10:16 AM

You would be very hard pressed to convince too many Canadians we would be better off with a US styled health care system.

I read the article, the guy obviously has an agenda, most of it is tripe, but I will comment on this.

Cancer victims fare no better. The average patient has to wait 5 1/2 weeks from the time he's referred by his family doctor to the time he's treated by an oncologist. Enough time, in other words, to die from the fright of having a serious disease go untreated.

My father had lung cancer.

Long story short, he went to the hospital when the pain became too much for him to handle.

It was a Sunday in October I remember.

They admitted him that day. (Juravinski Cancer Centre / Henderson Hospital in Hamilton)

He was under the care of an oncologist the next day and started radiation treatments the following week once they had put him through every battery of test imaginable to mankind.

Once that was over, they started Chemo on him.

They got about half way through that when they gave up because it was clear that he wasn't strong enough to continue and they were only doing him a disservice.

All in all, he received every possible treatment in a timely fashion that I or anyone else would think of.

He had a battery of doctors, professionals, nurses helping him the best they could.

I could not find fault.

He died 6 months later. The fact that he died had nothing to do with the health care that he received.

The bottom line with those BS American articles that you dig up is that the idea of Universal Health Care has a lot of Americans who profit from the industry scared. They will do or say anything to protect the goose that laid the golden egg.

Is the Canadian Health Care system perfect?

No, it is not.

Is the American Health Care System perfect - Ask the 40 some odd million people who have no health care, or those who have so many holes in their coverage, they might as well have none.

Would I want American styled Health Care?

Never.

I would prefer just to improve our system thanks.

But, I would never presume to tell you what to do with your life.

james t kirk · 03-12-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When you see what Canadan's really PAY in taxes for this 'universal' coverage, you have to wonder if math scores are as bad in Canadian schools are they are US schools these days.

Good luck saving that system, but I've done this one too many times on the board to get into it another time.

Actualy, Americans pay more in taxes towards their inept government run medicare and medicaid per Capita than Canadians pay for full coverage.

james t kirk · 03-12-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Look up what the average middle class canadian pays in taxes for health care, you might surprise yourself.

I can insure my family (with better care) for many times less.

If you look at my T4 from last year, in combined Federal, Provincial Income taxes, plus CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and EI (Unemployment Insurance) the total deductions from my gross pay as a percentage is 30%.

I can live with that.

james t kirk · 03-12-2006, 10:44 AM

I work for a corporation of 1,000 professionals in Canada (Engineering Firm). We are part of an international firm of 20,000 professionals.

Obviously, primary health care is covered by the gov't. with the Canadian office.

However, dental and prescription medication is covered by our "benefits" package.

I have one word to describe our private sector benefits package (from Sun Life, previously Green Shield)

TERRIBLE.

It is bare bones. Skeletal in fact.

There are more things not covered than are covered.

Example, about 1.5 years ago, my tooth cracked (long sad story). The dentist initially prescribed some antibiotics.

The cost was around 50 bucks.

Our "plan" covered 8 dollars worth. I had to pay the rest.

The tooth ended up having to be pulled.

The cost of the implant was $1,800.00.

Our "plan" paid zero. That's right, goose egg. Why? (I asked believe me.) Well, I was told that a molar implant was considered "cosmetic"

"You have to be fucking kidding me" was my response. I was then told that Sun Life / Green Shield has many different benefits packages available, some of which cover dental implants, just my employer chose "this package" and well, it doesn't cover dental implants.

The crown for the implant (getting done right now) is about $2,000.00 (I get it next Friday) Can't wait to see how much of that is covered. My guess will be another doughnut.

Bottom line, my company is a large Engineering firm in Toronto. They are as cheap as they come. They make good profits, we have a solid business going, but they'd sooner eat glass than give me any kind of real coverage. (But they tell me all the time that I should be happy because "It's your plan your way")

Anyhoo, I hardly trust the characters that I work for to implement ANY kind of Primary medical insurance coverage. If I ended up needing brain surgery, they would tell me it was "cosmetic" because after all, it was on my head.

james t kirk · 03-12-2006, 10:50 AM

One final thought.

There has not been an American president to date with the balls to implement any kind of Universal Health Care plan for its citizens.

Clinton made some weak noise about it for about a day or two and never really saw it through (other than putting Hillary in charge).

Change takes courage, and Americans and American politicians seem to abhor change.

When I see this kind of behavior, I can't help but marvel at what kind of courage Tommy Douglas (Keifer Sutherland's Grandfather by the way) had way back when.

aceventura3 · 03-14-2006, 07:17 PM

We know the healthcare system in the US is screwed up.

Questions about Canada's healthcare:

Is everyone treated equal in your system? Is a convicted felon on the same footing as 12 year old child? If they both need a kidney who gets it first? Who decides those kinds of questions? Who decides when the cost of keeping a person alive on life support is greater than the benefit?

Is preventative healthcare important? What kind of treatment could a drug addict get to break the habit? Alcoholic? Over-eater? How do you decide that somthing is "necessary" vs "elective"? Can I get state of the art contacts, laser eye surgery, or do I have to get lod fashion glasses?

Do you like "big brother" making these decisions?

Ustwo · 03-14-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

If you look at my T4 from last year, in combined Federal, Provincial Income taxes, plus CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and EI (Unemployment Insurance) the total deductions from my gross pay as a percentage is 30%.

I can live with that.

And what % of that goes to medical coverage?

host · 03-14-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We know the healthcare system in the US is screwed up.

Questions about Canada's healthcare:

Is everyone treated equal in your system? Is a convicted felon on the same footing as 12 year old child? If they both need a kidney who gets it first? Who decides those kinds of questions? Who decides when the cost of keeping a person alive on life support is greater than the benefit?

Is preventative healthcare important? What kind of treatment could a drug addict get to break the habit? Alcoholic? Over-eater? How do you decide that somthing is "necessary" vs "elective"? Can I get state of the art contacts, laser eye surgery, or do I have to get lod fashion glasses?

Do you like "big brother" making these decisions?

Why not post your answers to all of the questions in your post. Tell us what your insurance coverage provisions and payment limits are, and the total annual cost of your medical/eye care insurance coverage....and who decides the order of priority if you should be put on a list of patients who are awaiting a kidney transplant.

We'll use your answers about your own situation to compare with the answers from a Canadian. Maybe comparing the terms and coverage of an insured American with those of every Canadian, will help us sort out what 40 million uninsured Americans and all Canadians are missing out on,
in the world of private medical insurance coverage of the Americans who are fortunate enough to "enjoy" it.

03-03-2006, 09:57 AM	#42 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I was the first to reply to this thread. In that post, I asked the same questions as you just did, Charlatan. That data request had been ignored this entire time indicating to me this is a "discussion" only in the sense that the thread starter and a number of people responding are interested in espousing their ideals regarding private vs. public sector services. and only that. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-03-2006, 10:09 AM	#43 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	It was not my intent to compare Canada's healthcare to the US. The point in the original article posted is that "illegal", according to the NY times, clinics are being established to address wait times. In my opinion that is an indicator that the system will eventually fail. Experts further cite ethical and legal problems with wait times and a need to improve how limited resources are best allocated. In my opinion this is another indicator he system will eventually fail. US heathcare has problems, in my opinion, for different reasons. One being the passive approch consumers take with healthcare and healthcare insurance. Another, as pointed out an in article linked above, are the large numbers of people who by choice opt out of purchasing healthcare insurance. In addition there are far too many capable of paying people who get virtually free healthcare. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 03-03-2006 at 10:13 AM..

03-03-2006, 11:47 AM	#44 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	The problem with health insurance. Why is company-wide health insurance popular? Because it is cheaper. For fundamental reasons. Let's suppose we have health insurance that costs 1000$/year. Bob, Alice and Charles are offered it. Each has an expected amount/year they will spend on health. Alice: 1000$/year Bob: 500$/year Charles: 1500$/year So, Bob looks at the coverage, and says "this is a bad deal". Alice and Charles say "sure, that sounds like a good deal". Then the insurance company goes "gasp! Everyone who signed up is costing us more than 1000$/year. Our average costs are 1250$/year! Let's raise prices." Alice hears about the price raise. "Naw, I only spend 1000$/year on health insurance", and drops the coverage. Now only Charles is signed up for 1500$/year. The insurance company goes "gasp! Our average costs are 1500$/year! We better raise prices." This is known as the Lemon Effect -- only the people who the insurance company doesn't want to cover want the coverage. Then again, the Insurance Company could magically learn what the expected price for each person is, and offer them coverage at the correct price. This requires the Insurance company know everything about it's clients that the clients know about themselves. How much you smoke. Your family history. Your day-to-day habits. Eventually, your genetic markers and health predispositions. They also need to be able to change their premiums at will -- or be able to cancel it whenever you have the option to cancel it. Any asymetry between the information or options the insurance company has and what you have causes "lemon effects", the larger the gap the larger the effect. By offering insurance to every employee of a company, insurance companies get a population that can be understood statistically. They only need to know as much about the entire company's workforce's health as the company knows about it's workforce's health. (well, not quite -- people can change jobs based off health benefits) If you can push the insurance up to a national level, the lemon effect goes away entirely, other than people choosing to immigrate based off health concerns. And that is why group health insurance can be cheaper than individual health insurance, why individual health insurance will never cover everyone, and why government health insurance can be useful. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

03-03-2006, 01:41 PM	#45 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	In a previous thread there was a comparison of health insurance to auto insurance, fire insurance or workers' compensation insurance. Virtually every vehicle in this country has some form of insurance. Some would argue if it is affordable, but there is no question that the market is heathy and competetive. In workers' compensation insurance virtually every worker has medical coverage for injuries on the job. Market conditions vary state to state, but generally most agree that the market is healthy and competetive. In some states fraud is a problem, but fraud has not hurt availability in most markets. Virtually every building in this country is covered for fire insurance. The market is healthy and competetive. The same could be true of health insurance. I don't know why we don't make health coverage a higher priority than auto insurance. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

03-03-2006, 02:52 PM	#47 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	I have neither the time or patience to "debate" (read argue to a brick wall) about this any further. This defender of Canadian Healthcare has officially left the building. I have a plethora of information to disseminate, and the employability of IMG's is a hot issue, that is correct. Not here, not in this forum. Go read the Romanow Report. Go on... I dare you. Cover to cover. Every line. Ask yourself why these docs aren't working in the US. Then ask yourself if you want to be seen by Dr. Nick Riviera (Simpson's reference). That is why IMG's are driving fucking taxi cabs. They don't know how to read test results, let alone communicate effectively with patients. ...sigh... Now call it free and illegal again, and I will be spending some of that healthcare money tonight. Checking myself into a fucking insane asylum. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

03-03-2006, 10:15 PM	#51 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Good call, marv. Of course, all the other examples in his post were inaccurate characterizations, as well. I think most people reading those claims recognized them as bs supposition, however. fact is, lots of people go uninsured, whether they be drivers or homeowners. I'm not sure where ace gets the notion that virtually every car and house is insured--that's simply not true. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-04-2006, 03:39 AM	#53 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	I see the article posted as propaganda - not good journalism. Shows more the degredation of the New York Times than it does the degredation of the Canadian health care system. In any case, there are a lot of people against providing universal healthcare in the United States (not necessarily on this board or participating in this discussion) and I don't understand why. There are plenty of organizations that have opened free clinics, and people aren't protesting those... is it just because they want people to go without proper medical attention, or is it because they don't want tax payers footing the bill - or are they worried that their tax money will go towards the health care of illegal immigrants? Sounds like the latter from what I have heard around Southern California lately. Dunno... I would think something like that would be easily solved by stating that no illegals get care at government-run clinics, then require proof of citizenship at the door. I wonder how long it will take for independent free clinics to provide universal health care. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

03-06-2006, 07:18 AM	#60 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	How did you enjoy reading the Romanow Report? Are there certain parts you would like me to clarify? What was your favorite part? What part do you think the US could easily adopt? What surprised you the most? What surprised you the least? HERE IS THE LINK. I INIVTE EVERYONE TO READ IT. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

03-06-2006, 07:28 AM	#61 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The dog ate my homework professor Ben... I promise to read it this week. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-06-2006, 07:56 AM	#63 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	AceV... it simply acknowledges what we have been hearing. It says nothing to the veracity of the statements. The report is an attempt to understand what the truth of the matter is... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-06-2006, 08:16 AM	#65 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I read the preamble to the report and skimmed here and there. It seems to be more of a pep talk and what can be done to make a national system work, not a 'should we have a national system'. The outcome was predetermined. Quite frankly I don't care what system you guys have up there, I just want to make sure it stays up there. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-06-2006, 08:30 AM	#66 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	You are probably right Ustwo. The outcome of "we will continue to have Universal Healthcare" is predetermined. We will never go back to an "everyone for themselves" system. The point of the report is to adress the issues within the existing system and look at how we might solve them. Trashing the system entirely would not be an option. I predict that we will ultimately swing more towards a European model. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-06-2006, 09:14 AM	#68 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Hey, I know we will prevail, now that we have Ustwo's luck on our side. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

03-06-2006, 04:42 PM	#71 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	flstf... it's either they can't afford it so they don't go until it's too late or they do go and then are bankrupt due to the expense. So, yes, I agree. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-12-2006, 10:16 AM	#73 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	You would be very hard pressed to convince too many Canadians we would be better off with a US styled health care system. I read the article, the guy obviously has an agenda, most of it is tripe, but I will comment on this. Cancer victims fare no better. The average patient has to wait 5 1/2 weeks from the time he's referred by his family doctor to the time he's treated by an oncologist. Enough time, in other words, to die from the fright of having a serious disease go untreated. My father had lung cancer. Long story short, he went to the hospital when the pain became too much for him to handle. It was a Sunday in October I remember. They admitted him that day. (Juravinski Cancer Centre / Henderson Hospital in Hamilton) He was under the care of an oncologist the next day and started radiation treatments the following week once they had put him through every battery of test imaginable to mankind. Once that was over, they started Chemo on him. They got about half way through that when they gave up because it was clear that he wasn't strong enough to continue and they were only doing him a disservice. All in all, he received every possible treatment in a timely fashion that I or anyone else would think of. He had a battery of doctors, professionals, nurses helping him the best they could. I could not find fault. He died 6 months later. The fact that he died had nothing to do with the health care that he received. The bottom line with those BS American articles that you dig up is that the idea of Universal Health Care has a lot of Americans who profit from the industry scared. They will do or say anything to protect the goose that laid the golden egg. Is the Canadian Health Care system perfect? No, it is not. Is the American Health Care System perfect - Ask the 40 some odd million people who have no health care, or those who have so many holes in their coverage, they might as well have none. Would I want American styled Health Care? Never. I would prefer just to improve our system thanks. But, I would never presume to tell you what to do with your life. Last edited by james t kirk; 03-12-2006 at 01:11 PM..

03-12-2006, 10:44 AM	#76 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I work for a corporation of 1,000 professionals in Canada (Engineering Firm). We are part of an international firm of 20,000 professionals. Obviously, primary health care is covered by the gov't. with the Canadian office. However, dental and prescription medication is covered by our "benefits" package. I have one word to describe our private sector benefits package (from Sun Life, previously Green Shield) TERRIBLE. It is bare bones. Skeletal in fact. There are more things not covered than are covered. Example, about 1.5 years ago, my tooth cracked (long sad story). The dentist initially prescribed some antibiotics. The cost was around 50 bucks. Our "plan" covered 8 dollars worth. I had to pay the rest. The tooth ended up having to be pulled. The cost of the implant was $1,800.00. Our "plan" paid zero. That's right, goose egg. Why? (I asked believe me.) Well, I was told that a molar implant was considered "cosmetic" "You have to be fucking kidding me" was my response. I was then told that Sun Life / Green Shield has many different benefits packages available, some of which cover dental implants, just my employer chose "this package" and well, it doesn't cover dental implants. The crown for the implant (getting done right now) is about $2,000.00 (I get it next Friday) Can't wait to see how much of that is covered. My guess will be another doughnut. Bottom line, my company is a large Engineering firm in Toronto. They are as cheap as they come. They make good profits, we have a solid business going, but they'd sooner eat glass than give me any kind of real coverage. (But they tell me all the time that I should be happy because "It's your plan your way") Anyhoo, I hardly trust the characters that I work for to implement ANY kind of Primary medical insurance coverage. If I ended up needing brain surgery, they would tell me it was "cosmetic" because after all, it was on my head. Last edited by james t kirk; 03-15-2006 at 10:34 AM..

03-12-2006, 10:50 AM	#77 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	One final thought. There has not been an American president to date with the balls to implement any kind of Universal Health Care plan for its citizens. Clinton made some weak noise about it for about a day or two and never really saw it through (other than putting Hillary in charge). Change takes courage, and Americans and American politicians seem to abhor change. When I see this kind of behavior, I can't help but marvel at what kind of courage Tommy Douglas (Keifer Sutherland's Grandfather by the way) had way back when. Last edited by james t kirk; 03-12-2006 at 01:09 PM..

03-14-2006, 07:17 PM	#78 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	We know the healthcare system in the US is screwed up. Questions about Canada's healthcare: Is everyone treated equal in your system? Is a convicted felon on the same footing as 12 year old child? If they both need a kidney who gets it first? Who decides those kinds of questions? Who decides when the cost of keeping a person alive on life support is greater than the benefit? Is preventative healthcare important? What kind of treatment could a drug addict get to break the habit? Alcoholic? Over-eater? How do you decide that somthing is "necessary" vs "elective"? Can I get state of the art contacts, laser eye surgery, or do I have to get lod fashion glasses? Do you like "big brother" making these decisions? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."