# How Many Nonliberal Mac Users Are Out There



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I think being nonliberal and mac lover makes me pretty rare.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I consider myself Canadian instead... Kind of makes me a socialist in many American eyes, no?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

It sounds like you like socialism. I on the other hand don't.


----------



## district (Sep 14, 2003)

Are we talking about the proper define of liberal, or the incorrect American media definition of liberal?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

The incorrect way. I actually am a classic liberal. Better known today as a Libertarian. And I love MACS!!


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I know there is at least one Member here that fits your description. You won't have to look hard to find him. Coincidentally, a west coast type as well.



district said:


> Are we talking about the proper define of liberal, or the incorrect American media definition of liberal?


Americans, Liberals, Socialists! All just definitions, can't we all just get along? Share the Love? Feel the Vibe?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dudireno said:


> I think being nonliberal and mac lover makes me pretty rare.


Hardly.

Many of us Mac lovers in western Canada are non Liberals and have been for decades.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> Hardly.
> 
> Many of us Mac lovers in western Canada are non Liberals and have been for decades.


Come on Sinc, you love the health care don't ya? You'll take the CPP cheque won't ya?
By American Media Definition, that would make you a tree huggin' Liberal Leftie with communist tendencies.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> The incorrect way. I actually am a classic liberal. Better known today as a Libertarian. And I love MACS!!


I think that the Libertarian Party in the US has some very good ideas and values. I don't always agree with the implementation.

Libertarians does not mean Conservatism -


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

No Libertarianism isn't conservatism but I usually just say I am a conservative because people usually don't know what I am talking about. Free market is the true basis of my convictions. Its good to see some other non liberal mac lovers out there. I thought it was just me and Rush Limbaugh. You do know Rush Limbaugh is a big mac supporter right? In fact the truth is he has probably helped the survival of the company. I bet you liberals hate to admit that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries is exactly right. Being Libertarian does not necessarily make one a Liberal in any way shape or form.

Just as using the only available health care or social security system that we currently have here in Canada, makes one a fan of Canadian liberalism. Or even a supporter of it. Although we are all forced to support these systems financially...we really have no choice in this matter at all. It's a controlled monopoly. Much like most of the big unions. Which brings us back to the argument for Libertarianism.

The two biggest single problems I see with the current left/lib (some still call it "socialism") direction that Canada seems to be committed to are this:

Problem#1-Lack of choice. By their very nature, leftist movements like Big Labour and massive monopolistic social programs prevent freedom of individual choice. We are all asked to give up something for "the greater good of all"...despite the fact that a whole BUNCH of us realise that much of this stuff is completely unsustainable in the long run. But we have to go along with it. We have no other choice in the matter. There is no other current alternative.

Problem#2-The whole silly mess is based upon the idea that it is "the will of the people". That's the excuse they use to continue this unsustainable charade...instead of remaking it into something more workable. Something that we might be able to continue with, even after the big demographic changes hit us like a brick wall full of crocodile teeth. In fact...if any of us even take a moment to question the current direction, we are instantly labeled and shouted down by this loud and well organised minority. So the silent rage amongst the greater majority grows.

The simple truth is that Canada is NOT necessarily a "socialist" or left/lib country. In fact...more Canadians chose NOT to vote than actually voted FOR the left/lib politicians in the last election. When you add those numbers to the voters that actively voted AGAINST the left/lib socialists, then you have an overwhelming majority who would seem to be against, not for, the current direction in Canadian politics.

It's the tyranny of the loud and well organised minority against the vast majority that rules around here. It's an inequitable situation. And I think that this inequitable situation is going to come to a head rather soon.

Probably in the next Federal election. Perhaps just after that. But the change is coming, no question about it.

It'll shake some people to their very core. Some others will cheer loudly. All will experience a big change in the way that they do business or conduct their lives.

Watch and see.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*free market? u must be kidding*

quote:
Free market is the true basis of my convictions.

that is one of the big lies of the american economy
big business & military hardware makers have been huge beneficiaires of the governmental business welfare state

military hardware being pushed at huge expense to the economy
during the cold war there were enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, but mention socialized medicine and people call you a communist

the military-industrial complex run america
seem that very few heeded the words of then outgoing president (and former miltary leader) Eisenhower when he told people to watch out for the m-i complex and how it might take over the government


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The so-called "military-industrial complex" has taken a few giant hits in the past few decades. Like socialism...they "just ain't what they used to be". 

Eisenhower was more than half a century ago. He was speaking from a time when a major war had just ended. And when a major war machine had just been told that it wasn't really needed any more. No wonder that they were freaked...and that he was freaked by their reaction to the news that they weren't needed anymore. It must have been a big scary blow to them.

That was a LONG time ago, Michael.

Time to move into the present, old buddy.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> In fact the truth is he has probably helped the survival of the company.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Now that was funny. The only company Rush saved was the one he was buying drugs from. 

Sorry Mr. troll, but your methods and attitude are transparent as a piece of saran wrap.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah Carex...and Tom Clancy is also on record as being a big Mac supporter.

Anyone here want to claim him as a card carrying Liberal??


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'd hazard a gues that a whole BUNCH of lbertarian conservatives are devout Mac users. Just like me.

But they just don't have the time to post long replies on left/lib boards like this. (too busy making big heaps of money, I'd guess).


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

There are many conservatives in this country that are hard to distinguish from the “rabid” socialist. In this country they go by the term “Red Tory.” 

Red Tories have more in common with New Democrats than with Liberals and the CCRAP conservatives.

The classic Red Tories like Dalton Camp and Robert Stanfield (the so called best Prime Minister we never had) believed that the Country had to be governed for everyone, not just the wealthy and privileged.

How can a society plan and operate in an altruistic manner if everyone in the society takes the position of; screw you jack I know best? 

If we do not operate our society in an altruistic manner who benefits?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't identify myself with the old term "red tories". I think it's a leftover from a past age.

Back then, some of the conservatives felt very deeply that a few of the socialist principles were actually on the right track. So they were considerd to be "blue tories who were wearing red underwear".

That whole movement is pretty much dead these days. We have learned what works and what doesn't. What you are referring to is from a bygone age...when we didn't know any better.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

My original point was that the Rush Limbaugh comment was ludicrous. Turning a computer company around. Not likely. 

Why would a tool like a computer be divided along American political lines? Macs are used by people in creative industries and those folks may be more interested in what the Democrats have to say. If you took these 'professional' types out of the picture, are people not just choosing the best tool for the job or the most reliable home hobby electronic device. It's like saying one side is stupid so uses windows, the other smart and uses macs. There is absolutely NO CONNECTION

Even the Shrub has had his picture taken next to a Mac.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I have it on good advice that George W. uses a Mac every single day. So do the NSA and the CIA. The FBI prefers Macs. So do the RCMP.

They're just better. And far more secure, right out of the box.

And anyone who tries to deliniate Mac usage along political lines is just blowin smoke in the wind.

The people who attempt to do this are the very same ones who try to hang labels on everything...just so they know who to hate and who to love.

Bunch of bunk as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> And anyone who tries to deliniate Mac usage along political lines is just blowin smoke in the wind.
> 
> The people who attempt to do this are the very same ones who try to hang labels on everything...just so they know who to hate and who to love.
> 
> Bunch of bunk as far as I'm concerned.


Which is exactly the point that our dear neighbor from Oregon was trying to make.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Precisely.


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

I'm about as non-partisan as they come.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Which means what, pray tell?

Are you a right wing PC user and a closet Mac fanatic? Or are you a ******* Mac user who only has a PC around for games and such?

Or...are you a fanatic who will only use ONE of the two platforms no matter what sort of limitations this places upon you? (I am one of those, BTW)

Or...even better yet...are you one of the many who don't actually place labels on people or machines? One of those who simply chooses what works the very best, both politically and in the computer world, and goes with it?

If so...I congratulate you. You are one of the enlightened!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

What a deliciously contrived topic of discussion. The word <i>correlation</i> comes to mind. Although even that may be stretching.  

My biggest problem with this game of drawing political lines in the sand is that it eventually makes even the devout hypocrites. People can strongly tend towards certain practices, beliefs or policies; however, I question whether any one who adamantly claims to be this or that can say with 100% certainty that they're unwaiveringly so. Then again maybe I don't want to meet such a person because they'd likely be a fanatic.

Macs are great. Different political views are great. Don't get preachy though; it reminds me of children egging each other on with "mine is better than yours" statements.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Which is approximately what I was trying to say in my last post, CC.

But I used less words to do it. (at least I think I did)

So...when did you become so terribly obtuse?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm working on the first part of my name and I figure being obtuse is a part of it.

MacNutt, I'm not sure if your reply was defensive (I'm leaning on the "no" side), but, if it was, be still because it was just a general rant directed at the thread.

And seeing as I entered into this thread, I'll add I'm a touch left of center. I'm not a liberal and I don't much like the Liberals; however, if sleazy Gordo weren't premier I might admit to agreeing with much of our provincial Liberals policies. Don't quote me on that later though because I'll deny it to my grave.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Rush Limbaugh has millions of listeners a day and he brags about MACs all the time. You don't think that has helped the company? I will retrack "survival"

From my opinion it seems that most MAC users are liberal. I was looking for non liberal MAC users out there. I was looking for conservatives or Libertarians. And it doesn't look like I found very many. My point exactly.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> quote:
> Free market is the true basis of my convictions.
> 
> that is one of the big lies of the american economy
> ...





Are you suggesting Military build up is Free Market? It is quite the opposite. Taxing individuals by law and then building a military is not Free Market activity. Free Market supporters are definitly afraid of the Military-Industrial complex.

And you started your post by saying that is one of the big lies. I can assure you that my convictions are based on the free market. Kind of a confusing post. You use military as an argument against free market and you use what I am stating is my belief as a one of the big lies. Whats the lie?


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> The simple truth is that Canada is NOT necessarily a "socialist" or left/lib country. In fact...more Canadians chose NOT to vote than actually voted FOR the left/lib politicians in the last election. When you add those numbers to the voters that actively voted AGAINST the left/lib socialists, then you have an overwhelming majority who would seem to be against, not for, the current direction in Canadian politics.


?? So all the people that didn't vote in the last election were non-liberals?? What sort of reasoning or information would lead you to believe that? That's ridiculous.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*free market lies*



Dudireno said:


> Are you suggesting Military build up is Free Market? It is quite the opposite. Taxing individuals by law and then building a military is not Free Market activity. Free Market supporters are definitly afraid of the Military-Industrial complex.
> 
> And you started your post by saying that is one of the big lies. I can assure you that my convictions are based on the free market. Kind of a confusing post. You use military as an argument against free market and you use what I am stating is my belief as a one of the big lies. Whats the lie?



what i am saying is that a free market economy doesn't exist in the US unlike what most "business people" would like us to think and that as long as the m-i complex exists and exerts hugs power a free market economy will not be allowed to exist
except for buying a 6-pack at your local 7-11


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

absolutly agree. people just think america is all about free market. That would be like me saying canada is a communist nation. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> absolutly agree. people just think america is all about free market. *That would be like me saying canada is a communist nation*. Thanks for the clarification.


Hi and welcome Dudireno, glad to see you posting on Eh Mac.  

Just one caution please do not provoke our resident rightwingnut.  

I will look forward to reading your future posts.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I don't understand???

Really I just wanted to get an idea of the number of Mac people who consider themselves non liberal, non socialist, non democrat, not to the left or whatever you want to call it. I get the feeling that people misunderstand what I mean by liberal. 

Its funny that it offends people when I imply a simple generalization that Mac users are liberal. 

Nothing wrong with being a rightwingnut!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*US liberal vs. Cdn. liberal*

US politics has been severley skewed right and as such the word "liberal" means something different than it does in Canada

in Canada even the CONservatives (claim) to believe in universal (read: socialized) medicine - health care for all

whereas in the US it's considered very liberal to even whisper the words


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Ok I see. Yea if you are OK with socialized medicine I would consider you to the left. 

Do you guys really like your healthcare up there? We hear down here that you have long waits to receive simple procedures such as a CT scan. Huge waiting lists to get anything done. We hear that many people come here to get better medicine. We hear you have shortages of good Dr.s. 

You know the US has alot of socialized ideas in practice:
Medicare
Social Security
Minimum wage
Federal Reserve
Welfare
Progressive taxes


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*libertarian/left*

I think there is some confusion here regarding terminology. It is quite possible to be both left-leaning and libertarian. The authoritarian/libertarian spectrum is independent of the left/right spectrum.

Here are some examples: 

Authoritarian-Right: George Bush, Adolph Hitler, Margaret Thatcher

Authoritarian-Left: Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussien

Libertarian-Left: Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, the Dali Lama (Dennis from the Holy Grail "Anarcho-syndiclism is a way of preserving freedom!")

Libertarian-Right: Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand

I'm in with Ghandi, et al., in the libertarian left. The basic position is that we should have as little government interference as possible consistent with it functioning to protect society and the environment from rapacious amoral corporations, criminals and other threats, while providing a social safety net that allows citizens to take risks, and funding socially desirable activities that are not profitable in the short term (art, science, museums, etc.).

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*cdn vs. us healthcare*



Dudireno said:


> Ok I see. Yea if you are OK with socialized medicine I would consider you to the left.
> 
> Do you guys really like your healthcare up there? We hear down here that you have long waits to receive simple procedures such as a CT scan. Huge waiting lists to get anything done. We hear that many people come here to get better medicine. We hear you have shortages of good Dr.s.
> 
> ...



left and right are labels
i prefer humane and inhumane
billions being spent on an illegal war in iraq but no money for healthcare for 43 million or so citizens of the us

canadians believe (as does most of the civilized world) that healthcare is a right and not a privelege for those that can afford it

for some insight, go here

http://www.lannigan.org/american_healthcare_crisis.htm


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Point taken.

Its hard for me to believe that nobody knows what I am talking about. 

I am speaking economically. Libertarians are economically to the right. Ghandi and stalin are economically to the left.

Bush and Rand are economically to the right. 

Is that understandable. 

So are there any MAC lovers that are economically to the right besides me???


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Libertarian party in the US has the following tenets:
-individual liberty and personal responsibility
-a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
-a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
http://www.lp.org/

My personal responsibility includes health care for my fellow citizens. 

Bush and Rand are not Libertarian. If anything Bush is closer to Fascism, corporatism.

Ayn Rand never supported Libertarianism.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_FAQ#obj_q3
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.)


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Point was not taken to Macspectrum.

I definitly consider recieving healthcare from another person a priviledge. I am very thankful.

Just like my statements I hear about Canada are inaccurate so are the ones you are sending. There is plenty of free healthcare at each state level to those who can't afford it. Yea that doesn't mean you can get your hang nail treated but they are covered. People choose not to sign up. Hospitals have huge lists of patients that cannot pay or are uninsured that they will never receive payment from. The majority of those uninsured are those between the age of 20-35 and use the least amount of healthcare. Those who use the most healthcare resources have medicare which is for disabled and elderly. Do you personally know someone who isn't recieving healthcare in the US?

Do you like your healthcare in Canada?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm we just voted the founder of Healthcare in Canada the Greatest Canadian....does that answer your question.

Fiscal responsibility is a tenant of the all major parties here and seems NOT to be of any concern whatsoever to the NeoCons hence Canada's financial numbers and record are sterling and the US is foundering. Evidence??..... the US currency nose dive. The financial ratios are just plain abysmal for the US.

The Federal gov has had surpluses, paid down the national det and yes still offered universal healthcare which while not perfect is sight better than the mess down south where more is spent per capita for fewer services for fewer people.

Left and right are archiac terms better relegted to the French political house they orginated from.

Common weal is a strong term in Canada. Far less so in the US would be our assessment from the northern border of the blue states.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Libertarian party in the US has the following tenets:
> -individual liberty and personal responsibility
> -a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
> -a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
> ...



What the hell? I never said Bush and Rand are Libertarian. I said they are economically to the right. 

Libertarians believe that healthcare can be better provided by the free market then through the state. To insinuate that Libertarians don't care about their fellow citizens is just a lack or understanding. They think it is irresponsible for you to try and socialize it because it will flourish under the free market. Whether you disagree with the argument or not is beside the point. You need to first understand the view before you can argue it. 

What do you care what ideological group I claim to belong to? And what am I trying to do?

You guys are just trying to attack me. I respectfully resign.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

In my opinion, many Canadians tend to defend the healthcare system here even though, in reality, there are some serious current problems and even more emerging issues as the population ages. 

Also, we like to define ourselves by who we are not, which is American, and so I find most Canadians enjoy flaunting "free" health care to our neighbours (me included)  

The odd thing though, is that when you look around the world at the most efficient systems and healthiest populations, they tend to be nations with a mix of both socialized medicine and private clinics (e.g., Finland, Austria, Sweden...). 

It's a complex issue for sure.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

If we're talking about labels, like liberal and conservative, the truth is they mean different things to different people. Which isn't surprising, since they form the names of political parties, and those parties run the gamut from far right to far left, and anywhere in between.

We all agree on some things, no matter what our current political stripe. Some of those things are liberal and some are conservative.

Open markets, Free Trade, Pro-Business, and Democracy itself (individual property rights, limits on government, freedom of the individual from external restraint) are all classic liberal doctrine, yet our modern day political parties often don't acknowledge them as such.

Similarly, Conservatism is simply the belief that everything should stay as it is (whatever that may be); maintain the status quo. Certainly the Bush Administration's foreign policy is a radical departure from the past; true conservatives would leave it as it were, or perhaps move toward less, not more, intervention in the affairs of state outside the USA.

You could quite correctly argue that Bush is exporting liberalism to the rest of the world, and he's fighting conservatives who should properly argue that deposing Saddam is not the business of another government.

On the other hand, it's quite clearly conservative to be against same-sex marriage, to leave Social Security alone, and to either continue supporting Public Health Care (if you're a Canadian) or stick with private health care (if you're an American).

The most Conservative governments are places like Cuba; while China is becoming Liberal by the day.

There is also more similarity between Anarchism and Libertarianism than differences; yet I don't think you could find one example of each in the modern world who would get along over dinner, let alone agree they share a common political philosophy.

If you're talking about political parties or issues in your local world, the phrases are meaningless as a description of a personal political belief or verge on the interchangeable; the devil is in the details, so to speak. Nor would a liberal from one country recognize a liberal from another with any certainty; the "need" for liberalism changes depending on where you're at.

Assuming you live in a democracy, with open markets and reasonable individual liberty, and things are going pretty well as far as you are concerned, then you should probably become a Conservative on the spot, keeping things exactly as they are. But you will have a hard time finding a political party, no matter what the professed philosophy, that would support such a program.

Similarly, there are those who consider themselves Liberal who don't want to change Health Care (however it may be in your country), who wish that the US and UK had stayed out of Iraq, and who don't support Same-Sex Marriage.

A party is just an expression of itself; it's usually wrong to characterize it as liberal or conservative since both tend to borrow (heavily) from the other.

But, they are free to define themselves as they wish and they are (or should be) a reflection of the supporters and members ideals. And if you define yourself one way and the party you support defines itself as Conservative, then you may as well follow along and say you're conservative too. But in another time or another place, you could easily find yourself called liberal, or something else entirely. It's a matter of perspective; ie from where you sit.

Which is why it's hard to talk politics if you use labels like liberal and conservative with people from different backgrounds; many of the words you use mean something different to them, and vice versa.

At least in the US they use Democrat and Republican, even though they do attach labels to them that may or may not be deserved, we can tell them apart and have a good idea where they stand on issues.

In Canada the Liberal Party is often not liberal at all (historically it's been conservative to a fault, before the Trudeau Years) while the Progressive Conservative Party (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) introduced Unemployment Insurance, Worker's Compensation, and signed Free Trade Agreements. No wonder we're confused.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Umm we just voted the founder of Healthcare in Canada the Greatest Canadian....does that answer your question.
> 
> Fiscal responsibility is a tenant of the all major parties here and seems NOT to be of any concern whatsoever to the NeoCons hence Canada's financial numbers and record are sterling and the US is foundering. Evidence??..... the US currency nose dive. The financial ratios are just plain abysmal for the US.
> 
> ...



One more thing. I thank you MacDoc for a well put post.

We spend more for healthcare per capita because we provide the best in the world. Where would you rather have your infant's heart transplanted. We are the leaders in healthcare technology. Its Expensive. And all that technology that we spend enourmous amounts on trickles down to you and everybody else in the world. 

Our financial state is dismal I admit but it is because of our wasteful governement not because of our Free market entreprenures. Our free market or what we have left is what makes us and our governement brings us down.

Again thanks for your post. I appreciated it.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

thank you gordguide! That puts it in perspective as to what is going on. 

In America Conservative = Republican and Liberal = Democrat

Now I see why everybody was so weird about this.

But still I withdraw because it was way off of what I wanted. My general consensus is canadians don't like labels, like their healthcare or the fact that it is free, and are more economically to the left than I.

hey but we like MACs


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> \ And all that technology that we spend enourmous amounts on trickles down to you and everybody else in the world.
> \


Please, my taxes helped subsidise some research centres established here in the Island of Montreal (Merck, etc). Research that actually flows your way. Drugs that were perfected here. 

You may spend more for healthcare because it's the most expensive per capita.


This is not to say that we can't improve in Canada - yes we should.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> ..."like their healthcare or the fact that it is free,...


Just a little correction Canadian Health Care is not free. It costs plenty. It is universally available, and subscribed by all, whether they want it/need it or not.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... We spend more for healthcare per capita because we provide the best in the world. ..."

That's not a reference to all health care spending in the US, it's a reference to public spending per capita, such as VA Administration, Medicare and Medicaid. Private spending isn't included in that figure at all, it's in addition to the per-capita spending.

It costs each US taxpayer more to run such modern facilities as VA Hospitals and public hospitals in Compton, California than it costs Canadian taxpayers to provide health care to everyone. I've been to a VA Hospital; trust me it's nothing to brag about.

If you want to compare systems, compare the health of uninsured Americans to others. They're the ones benefitting from higher per-capita costs in the US.

It's a little lazy to compare Canadian health care to yours. It's an easy target. You can't improve a public system without criticism, and there is lots of politically motivated rhetoric on both sides that probably shouldn't be taken at face value.

There are many, many examples of public health care that kick Canada's ass, and do it for less money to boot. Try Sweden, or Switzerland, or Germany, or Saudi Arabia, or Japan, or Belgium or just about any other country on earth. Even such places as South Africa can afford it. (" ... Where would you rather have your infant's heart transplanted. ..." Dr. Christiaan Barnard, who invented the procedure and performed all of the first ones, worked in a public hospital in South Africa).

I was in the US during the Clinton Health Care debate. One thing I heard over and over again was "Canadian Style Health Care" in newspapers, magazines, on TV and in the bars. Just so you know, not one proposal I ever heard during that time had any resemblance whatsoever to Canadian Health care. It was just a convenient buzz-word.

The current political climate in Canada is a bit more familiar to US residents than it had been in the past; we do have a more distinctively right-wing party now than we had in the last century, while the Liberal Party would be pretty "liberal" by US standards, even in places like Minnesota and Maine.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Please, my taxes helped subsidise some research centres established here in the Island of Montreal (Merck, etc). Research that actually flows your way. Drugs that were perfected here.
> 
> You may spend more for healthcare because it's the most expensive per capita.
> 
> ...



I guess I can't stay away when you make a comment like this.

Are you seriously suggesting that the US isn't more advanced in healthcare than canada or the rest of the world. Our hospitals are the most innovative and the most advanced. We have the best surgeons, onchologists, ect. We have the best teaching facilities and treat far more people than canada. People come worldwide (even canada) to use our facilities and if you don't think this is far more expensive and that you don't benefit from that than you are just being stubburn. 

My point was a simple statistic such as healthcare cost per capita is just one sided and doesn't prove anything. I am sure we spend far more for movies per capita. Does that mean you have better movies? People all over the world watch the movies that come out of Hollywood. I know maybe a total of 10 foreign films. We have higer technology and more incentive. We accomplish far more in the movie industry than the rest of the world. It is just naive to think we don't do the same in Healthcare.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> I know maybe a total of 10 foreign films.


Are you bragging about that? 
 

I thought for a while you might be a Canadian playing devil's advocate but I see I'm wrong!

I'm kidding, eh!


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

gordguide said:


> " ... We spend more for healthcare per capita because we provide the best in the world. ..."
> 
> That's not a reference to all health care spending in the US, it's a reference to public spending per capita, such as VA Administration, Medicare and Medicaid. Private spending isn't included in that figure at all, it's in addition to the per-capita spending.
> 
> ...



Yes I agree our VAs are terrible. They are run by the government. It is the biggest most wasteful organization on the planet. Non VA hospitals are completely different.

I am not quite figuring out what you want to compare? Compare our uninsured to what? Your whole country?

There is no doubt our country is unhealthy. The US is obese. But the majority of those uninsured are 20-35 and are probably rather healthy. To suggest the uninsured are just running around with disease, injuries, or needing treatment just isn't accurate. Those needing care get it.

All the countries you mentioned don't have 300million people and they don't have near the flood of immagrants as we do. Our hospitals in California can't stay in business because we treat thousands that are not citizens that don't pay. So I guess you could add that to your statistic per capita. How many we actually treat and how many are actually reported would certainly skew the result. How many from mexico does canada treat for free. How many americans does canada treat for free. In fact if I remember correctly my friend recently hurt himself in canada went to one of your emergency departments and was told would not be treated unless he paid an exorbent amount up front. He chose not to get care and limped home. We treat thousands for free and the cost is made up by charging those that pay more to make up the cost of the ones who don't. If everybody paid their medical bills down here mine would no doubt be lower. Those who don't pay are an expense to the hospital. They have to raise their rates on those that pay to recoup that expense. Whats the difference. You tax those that pay and make sure the ones who can't afford it get it. 

You just think yours is morally better. But the real difference is ours is just better care.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Eukaryotic said:


> Are you bragging about that?
> 
> 
> I thought for a while you might be a Canadian playing devil's advocate but I see I'm wrong!
> ...



Just stating my cultural bias.  

US born and raised. 

Just love those MACs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the US isn't more advanced in healthcare than canada or the rest of the world.


No, I was responding to your statement that "we spend enourmous amounts on trickles down to you and everybody else in the world". It's not one sided. 
Many of the benefits you get, come from innovations from around the world. Some of those innovations are funded with public money.




Dudireno said:


> My point was a simple statistic such as healthcare cost per capita is just one sided and doesn't prove anything.


- So why bring it up then?




Dudireno said:


> We have higer technology and more incentive. We accomplish far more in the movie industry than the rest of the world. It is just naive to think we don't do the same in Healthcare.


You know all those special effects? Most are done with Softimage, Alias and Discreet... Canadian firms.... Two from Montreal....


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"You know all those special effects? Most are done with Softimage, Alias and Discreet... Canadian firms.... Two from Montreal...."

So there you go. Hollywood puts it to use and I am assuming it is more expensive to put in a movie. I am not trying to imply that the US in no way benefits from canada. The US is using more expensive, high tech, and innovative stuff. We are using the highest tech movie stuff and therefore I am sure our movies cost alot more to make. Whether you like it or not putting technology to use benefits society. If your healthcare was entirely free market you would be more advanced in a short time and would be providing those same benefits to society that the US is. I am sure now that everybody is going to blast me for all the ways the US hurts society. But it doesn't take away the fact that we still provide alot in this world because of our advancement. Your healthcare system provides less care and treats less people. But your claim to fame is everybody is treated according to his need. There are thousands of horror stories of people living in canada who don't get treated when they need it. 

" So why bring it up then?"

Because the other guy did.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> There are thousands of horror stories of people living in canada who don't get treated when they need it.


Examples would be useful.



> If your healthcare was entirely free market you would be more advanced in a short time and would be providing those same benefits to society that the US is.


And lord help ya if you are living below the poverty line. Of course, we may get better rhinoplasty that way. 



> We are using the highest tech movie stuff and therefore I am sure our movies cost alot more to make.


Imagine if all the money wasted on the entertainment industry were put to good use. It would be a wonderful world indeed. 

So are we to assume that the country that makes the most expensive movies is the most advanced? Just curious.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The US lines many private pockets with healthcare money, it's inefficient and inequitable to an extreme and fundamentally inexcuseable.
The US is the ONLY first world nation without national healthcare. It's a disgrace ..period.

The US also has the highest prison population in the world per capita bar none. Gun deaths and it's GINI score and corruption score are awful for the purported "leader of the free world".
Twisted priorities, terrible leadership and a housing bubble overdue to pop as well. 
A billion a week it can't afford in Iraq, soldiers having to armour their own humvees and bodies and a government deficit that is the laughing stock of the world when the party in power is supposedly - small gov/fiscally responsible.

Welcome to what the REST of the world sees and many like your own world respected John Kenneth Galbraith deplores. He called his own country a "predator nation" and your former Chairman of the Fed is calling a 75% chance of financial meltdown in the next 5 years.

Read the Economist lately on the US??? - might be enlightening.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"So are we to assume that the country that makes the most expensive movies is the most advanced? Just curious."

No. Should I assume you don't think the US is the most advanced?

"Examples would be useful."

1. people waiting to have procedures that die waiting because waiting lists are so long. And I am not talking about waiting for transplant where the organ isn't available. I am talking about surgeries that are capable of being performed but aren't because you can't keep up with the demand. 

2. Waiting 6 months to see a family physician.

3. Waiting months after you have seen your family physician and then waiting another 6 months to get a CT scan or surgery.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The US healthcare system is neither the best nor most efficient in the world. It has some of the best doctors and the level of equipment is mind-boggling but the overall system performance is not leading the globe as judged by the rate of infant mortalities, average lifespan and a whole host of other metrics. The world-class facilities that do exist are not available to all and are denied to many. There's no point comparing the top 5% of the system, its the overall performance that is relevant. People don't choose not to have access, its a fact of their economic status. Do they choose to be poor? 

The question of efficiency of systems is also interesting. Drug prices are 20-50% higher in the US than Canadian counterparts (that are produced on the same factory lines). The reasons are complex but include the massive amount of advertising (to patients and doctors). Then there is the out-of-control malpractise mess which acts against the system. We have waiting lists and we shortages of doctors and nurses. If we Canadians as a nation were prepared to pay into our system to the level Americans as a nation pay into theirs (through our taxes rather than through insurance) we'd avoid these issues. Americans have the most expensive healthcare system in the world yet it isn't the most efficient and it isn't available to all. The uninsured sector isn't conveniently comprised of only the healthy (and most mothers give birth in their 20s-30s).

The profit incentive is also a poor fit to the concept of healthcare. As you point out, many hospitals are bankrupt through treating patients who don't/can't pay. Profits take money out of the system and focus procedures onto those that maximize profits. HMO's do their best to deny or defer treatment wherever possible. In the best interest of the patient or the shareholders? Catastrophic illness is synonymous with catastrophic financial consequences (unless malpractise is involved). How many people are uninsurable regardless of their personal wealth? They are bad risks - through no fault of their own. Does society have a responsibility to these people or is it just bad luck - they're on their own?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The US lines many private pockets with healthcare money, it's inefficient and inequitable to an extreme and fundamentally inexcuseable.
> The US is the ONLY first world nation without national healthcare. It's a disgrace ..period.
> 
> The US also has the highest prison population in the world per capita bar none. Gun deaths and it's GINI score and corruption score are awful for the purported "leader of the free world".
> ...




You state many truths. I guess we see the solutions from a different perspective. If our government wasn't allowed to pass laws within the healthcare system nobody in the healthcare system could use the government to line their pockets. In fact the acts that the government does is strictly forbidden in our constitution. 

We have a form of socialized medicine for the elderly and disabled and we have healthcare for the poor, underpriviledge, or whatever buzz word. I'm telling you in Oregon alone there are 300,000 people on whats called OHP. oregon health plan. This allows them to get free healthcare. They give this to anybody who demonstrates a need. And the state pays what ever they feel like paying. The hospital doesn't charge what they want they get paid what the state pays them. So the hospitals charge more for those who have insurance or are capable of paying. Honestly whats the difference. yours is through taxes ours is thorugh cost shifting. 

I blame everything you point out as being the fault of hampering the free market. A different philosophy. Just by bashing the US doesn't disprove my arguments. I use the same statements when I discuss this with someone from the US. Our housing market is totally manipulated through controlled interest rates. Interest rates are determined by Alan Greenspan the one you talk about. Our government prints money out of the air. We spend money and create huge deficits but are accused of not giving enough to the Tsunami. These are not Free Market capitalistic ideas. 

Our prisons are filled with drug offenders and dealers. Another non free market idea. So to hold the US as a standard of Capitalism and the Free Market is not fair. It would be like me using the Soviet Union as an example of Socialism. The US simply has more economic freedom then the rest of the world. And yes we are headed for a drastic meltdown. But guess who holds all the US Bonds. The world. The world has been sending us products and we send everybody else green paper. The world is not innocent. 

I read Ludwig von Mises and Murry Rothbard. Free Market advocates. It might enlighten you as well.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> The US healthcare system is neither the best nor most efficient in the world. It has some of the best doctors and the level of equipment is mind-boggling but the overall system performance is not leading the globe as judged by the rate of infant mortalities, average lifespan and a whole host of other metrics. The world-class facilities that do exist are not available to all and are denied to many. There's no point comparing the top 5% of the system, its the overall performance that is relevant. People don't choose not to have access, its a fact of their economic status. Do they choose to be poor?
> 
> The question of efficiency of systems is also interesting. Drug prices are 20-50% higher in the US than Canadian counterparts (that are produced on the same factory lines). The reasons are complex but include the massive amount of advertising (to patients and doctors). Then there is the out-of-control malpractise mess which acts against the system. We have waiting lists and we shortages of doctors and nurses. If we Canadians as a nation were prepared to pay into our system to the level Americans as a nation pay into theirs (through our taxes rather than through insurance) we'd avoid these issues. Americans have the most expensive healthcare system in the world yet it isn't the most efficient and it isn't available to all. The uninsured sector isn't conveniently comprised of only the healthy (and most mothers give birth in their 20s-30s).
> 
> The profit incentive is also a poor fit to the concept of healthcare. As you point out, many hospitals are bankrupt through treating patients who don't/can't pay. Profits take money out of the system and focus procedures onto those that maximize profits. HMO's do their best to deny or defer treatment wherever possible. In the best interest of the patient or the shareholders? Catastrophic illness is synonymous with catastrophic financial consequences (unless malpractise is involved). How many people are uninsurable regardless of their personal wealth? They are bad risks - through no fault of their own. Does society have a responsibility to these people or is it just bad luck - they're on their own?



Well I beg to differ. I really never expect to have to defend the fact that the healthcare in the US is the best. So I will give you that and research for my self. However, you neither gave me any substance. What are the infant mortality rates? what is the average life span? These things I would like to know. 

We have higher prices for drugs? So?? We pay more for lots of things. My sister lives in bellingham Washington and goes to Canada frequently and says how much cheaper everything is. A child can live in Ethopia for a month on the salary I make in a day. So is ethiopia more efficient? I think not. 

It is available to all. Thats what I am telling you. Nobody goes without healthcare in this country. They go without insurance a big difference. 

"How many people are uninsurable regardless of their personal wealth?"
I don't know. Are you going to inform me?

There is alot of bad luck in this world. And yes we as a society should be looking out for those in need. But not through governmental force. It is the worst way to do it. It should be done through fund raising and compassion. I know you laugh at that but charities, chruches, private individuals are giving. 

Now for my question:
How many people are sick by choosing? Smokers, drug addicts, alcohol, overweight, promiscuous. These people should not pay more for their extra share of the burden? It is just as uncompassionate to do these things and then expect something in return. Are these people just out of luck? No I think they get a free ride. That is immoral.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

That is brilliant. I think I will email George W. and let him know that if he excludes the obese, those that smoke and drink, the promiscuous and lets throw in the gay community, he could have the most efficient, universally available health care system in the world. He may even get elected to a third term  

http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm

http://www.mrdowling.com/800life.html

Oh, and by the way, don't expect to be able to make brash statements on this board and not have to defend them.



> I really never expect to have to defend the fact that the healthcare in the US is the best.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

for infant mortality rates click here

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/04/cp-rc6_e.asp

the biggest difference in the healtcare systems between Canada and the US is that in Canada we expect healthcare regardless of the ability to pay, whereas in the US healthcare quality is DIRECTLY related in the ability to pay


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> "So are we to assume that the country that makes the most expensive movies is the most advanced? Just curious."
> 
> No. Should I assume you don't think the US is the most advanced?
> 
> ...


On your examples, would you care to share the the source of your Data. It is wildly inaccurate. 
Canadians do not wait to see doctors for any period of time. We have a shortage of GP's, yes. But no one in this country has to wait to see a doctor if ill. Maybe a few hours.
No Canadians wait any length of time for life altering or threatening illnesses. Poor diagnoses happens here as well. Many cases of delay are due to this. Total time for my Father from diagnoses to open heart surgery was 17 hours. That included the call and visit to a family doctor. He was taken to what is acclaimed as one of Worlds leading heart institutes at the Ottawa Hospital.
Many of the "life Threatening" procedures you seem to quote people die waiting for are not life threatening. There are long waiting lists for Hip and Knee replacements. This is extremely unfortunate due to the quality of life aspect but not life threatening. This is not acceptable but not certainly not life threatening.
CT's and MRI wait lists are not acceptable, but they are not as bad as you state. Again, if the initial diagnoses warrants, it will happen in minutes. If it does not, it will happen in days, not months.

I'm just curious about who feeds you this. Oh, don't worry about it, I watch your media. I know!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I should have provided data - my apologies. 

The infant mortality rate in the USA is 6.75 deaths per 1000 live births (world rank 35th). In Canada the rate is 4.88 (rank is 20th). Lowest rate is Japan at 3.3. Data are available here.

Life expectancy at birth is 72 in Canada and 69.3 in the USA. WHO data.

We'll have to disagree about who should pay the health costs for those who contribute to their own sickness. To ignore them is inhumane by my definition. I am an avid proponent of smoking cessation but I could never deny the right of a smoker for treatment of is emphysema or lung cancer. I will not judge a person based on their life choices as I have no idea why they made those choices.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Well I would like to say thanks to those who are responding. It has both enlightening and educational. 

I made those statements about wait times knowing damn well they may not be true. This is what we are told in the US. I don't trust my media. However, I assumed it must be partially true. Nobody was responding to me when I asked if they like their healthcare. 

I am very impressed with the plethara of stats. Very interesting. I can't accuratly comment on them. Does this make me wrong? I would say we are very unhealthy country due to advancements that make us lazy and we are uneducated. However, It looks to me that we are the highest rated country based on population. I honestly can't say how populated canada or australia are(is everybody going to give me a link). I think the countries on the list are just healthier smaller countries. Is this what we are going to base our rating of the US healthcare system on. One of the leading causes of death in this nation is auto accidents. Can those other countries claim that? Does that effect life expectancy? Is that the fault of the healthcare system? Do you see my point? Do these countries have as much immigration recieving free healthcare? Are these stats included? How many people from other countries are trying to get into yours? Do you have stats on that? I bet more people are flooding to the US then to switzerland or iceland. Does that count for anything. 

I'm suprised you don't like my media. It seems far to left wing for me.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*The free market is not a good model for health care*

Dudireno, I hope you don't feel like you're being attacked here... the arguments you're getting are directed against your statements, not against you personally.

There are a couple of important fallacies that I see very frequently in this debate. There is a widely-held and poorly substantiated belief that free-market capitalism automagically makes something efficient. This is not true. What it does is select for organizations/methodologies/systems that create the most profit. Sometimes, these are efficient systems. However, with the case of health-care, there is no reason to think that opening it to free-market forces would create an efficient system, and there are many reasons to think it would not (as well as examples in the US and elsewhere).

Firstly, any profit generated by such a free-market healthcare system would *inherantly* be an expense not suffered by public healthcare.

Secondly, and more importantly, a system that makes money from treating illness/injury, will make no money from healthy people, and will therefore not try to minimize illness/injury. Corporations that make money by treating disease have no incentive to cure or prevent these diseases. In contrast, governments who have to pay for the healthcare of their citizens have a huge incentive to keep those citizens healthy.

Dell has made a great business out of efficiently producing computers. This is an example of the power of free-market capitalism. However, I think most of us would agree that they don't make the best computers, and it is certainly true that they don't do everything they can to make sure that people stop buying computers.

The goal of a healthcare system is for no one to need it. Free-market capitalism is ill-suited to this paradigm.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

Have you visited Canada? You'd like it here and its not too far from you. We have cars (automobiles)! Actually, in Ontario we build more than Michigan does  Our population is something over 31 million. We have about 240,000 immigrants (from many poor countries) per year. I think this is substantially more as a proportion of population than the US. Our causes of death are similar to yours (except death by firearm which is over double per capita than Canada even though we own about the same number of guns per capita). I don't think there is any excuse regarding the significantly poorer US stats except for the overall status of the healthcare system. We are very similar in terms of miles travelled per person, average speed limits, etc. Ditto for most of Europe, Japan and Australia.

If you want the actual stats, I can dig them up but the the point is that I don't think your point in trying to paint the USA as being exceptional is a valid argument to explain the lousy life expectancy and infant mortality numbers. Indeed, I wonder how many other Americans are blissfully unaware of these stats. You should demand better!

Come and visit! We don't shoot.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Also, much of what you say in previous replies assumes that other countries have nowhere near the immigrants that the US does. Source - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Canada
Net migration rate:
5.96 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
USA
Net migration rate:
3.41 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
And just for fun, Switzerland
Net migration rate:
4.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I felt attacked at first but not anymore. Everybody seems to be real civil. I apprecitate it.

However, I do disagree with you admently in regards to healthcare not working with free market. There is still plenty of of incentive to provide good healthcare. If your facility provides bad healthcare people go out of town or down the block to get it. There is incentive to stay healthy from employers. How about the incentive to stay healthy because you don't want to pay for it. Its absolutly ludicris to say there is no incentive to cure disease. How about selling your product. How about company recognition. Drug companies don't want to make a drug because it might cure the people that are sick?????? Insurance company would have a great desire to keep you healthy. Your family Dr. wants to keep you healthy. Are you suggesting that Dr.s would purposely mistreat his patients so he could make more profit off you later. He wouldn't stay in business very long. If there is a demand for something you can be garuanteed someone is going to try and provide a service that will provide for that need. You just see profit as a evil thing. If someone is making a profit that means someone on the other side is buying. I don't buy things I don't want. I am thankful to go to the grocery store and buy tomatoes, meat, milk, and bread. I am thankful that someone has found a way to profit from me paying $1 for a loaf of bread. That is my benefit. I am thankful that someone has taken the time to develope the drug to save my life. I am thankful I can pay $2000 to save my 4 year old son from dehydration(true story). The free market naturally addresses the greatest needs. As society changes the free market is the most capable with keeping up with those changes. No one is suggesting that it automatically makes life perfect. It just naturally changes with societies demands. Whats more important treating some rare disease or treating asthma. Well I would say since millions of people suffer from asthma that it would be more important. And I bet that more people would be trying to make a profit on that then some rare disease. As societies needs change so does the free market. 

Is this really foreign idea in canada? Who is deciding in canada what is treated first?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Those are legal immagrant numbers give me a break here. Its weird to me that I have to debate things that seem so obvious to me. But I guess thats the point. I guess I am just a dumb american who is just believing everything he hears.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I really doubt that europe or Japan drives as much as Americans. I could be wrong. Michigan? man we import like crazy. Where do you think most of the cars go to in this world? Europe? Japan? 

And so you say we are similar except for guns. Well is that the fault of healthcare system? What all the uninsured are going around killing because they can't get healthcare. Come on. Its cultural. Wyoming stats are far different that New York or California. To suggest that immigration effects you as much as US is not accurate. Have you seen Mexico? Have you actually visited? its directly on our border. Where are all your immigrants comming from Greenland. We have far far more illegal immaigrants in this country than you. These skew the stats. alot of the illegals crossing the border are those who can't wait any longer for healthcare. They go straight to our hospitals and get treated. Do you really think you have that same problem. Do you think the stats exclude those children that die that are not citizens. Those stats are pulled from the hospitals and I can assure you they don't go through the numbers and take out the illegal immigrants that receive no prenatal care in mexico. 

Why do you think we have a higher infant mortality. All the dieing babies are just poor and unlucky .


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*American Media and accuracy*

Let's not forget that CNN called Rodney Dangerfield's people to ask what comment he had on the passing of Johnny Carson.

ps - Rodney died a while ago

we can argue back and forth on America vs. Canada health systems, but in the final analysis (and I know I repeat myself) in Canada universal health care is viewed as a fundamental human right

I trust big business less than I trust big gov't


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Just a note for Mr. Duderino. (Haven't read them all, not going to. ) Just doing some research, and came across a book here, by Harvey Mansfield. He's the guy the left loves to hate. He argues against the New Left, AND modern liberalism in the name of an older liberalism, but he has to call it conservativism now, and calls the new, diluted, pure-egalitarian regime "cool cucumber liberalism" (the book is "The Spirit of Liberalism") The better arguments don't rest on the popular issues of the day-- like free market and the economy on the right, or immigration policies, healthcare, starving homeless, or other pet projects of the left-- but argue from other, bigger books that dealt with more.............. "universal" principles. that's all.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

If you trust big gov't over big business why not make everything go thru government? Why stop at health care. What about food. Does everybody have a right to food? Better make a government program. Free food for all. You guys claim to be so good with balancing your finances. Well raise taxes and give away food. You will all be eating lobster right? Yea right you will be eating bread and water and then tell me "well everybody has it. Nobody is starving in our country"

I know I know its different then healthcare right? Well tell me why. All people need to eat and it should be a basic human right. Oh it gets better, you could decide what everybody eats and then everybody will be healthier.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*ok, i'll make an exception*



> If you trust big gov't over big business


i may just make an exception for BushCo.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Thats funny!

Really though. I am consistant. You are not. I want free trade across the board. You want free trade for some things and government programs for others.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*not what i want, but what we need*



Dudireno said:


> Thats funny!
> 
> Really though. I am consistant. You are not. I want free trade across the board. You want free trade for some things and government programs for others.


consistency should not be confused with correctedness
insanity was once defined as; "repeating the same action, but expecting different results"

government's main job should not be the ability to wage war, but to create environments (political and economic) that better protect and provide for its citizenry

if the US gov't put as many resources (time and money) into healthcare for all of its citizens and better education you'd get a better society which is beneficial for all, but the PTB (powers that be) really don't want benefits for everyone, just for themselves, to wit, ever notice how good the health plan is for gov't officials?

perhaps a prerequisite for becoming a federally elected official (executive and congress) should be to have all children of age enrol in military during the term of office of said official

then they might just put a little bit more thought into sending troops overseas


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> I really doubt that europe or Japan drives as much as Americans. I could be wrong. Michigan? man we import like crazy. Where do you think most of the cars go to in this world? Europe? Japan?
> 
> And so you say we are similar except for guns. Well is that the fault of healthcare system? What all the uninsured are going around killing because they can't get healthcare. Come on. Its cultural. Wyoming stats are far different that New York or California. To suggest that immigration effects you as much as US is not accurate. Have you seen Mexico? Have you actually visited? its directly on our border. Where are all your immigrants comming from Greenland. We have far far more illegal immaigrants in this country than you. These skew the stats. alot of the illegals crossing the border are those who can't wait any longer for healthcare. They go straight to our hospitals and get treated. Do you really think you have that same problem. Do you think the stats exclude those children that die that are not citizens. Those stats are pulled from the hospitals and I can assure you they don't go through the numbers and take out the illegal immigrants that receive no prenatal care in mexico.
> 
> Why do you think we have a higher infant mortality. All the dieing babies are just poor and unlucky .


So, it's all Mexico's fault?
Also, Canada also has a large illegal immigrant problem. However, the way we treat them is substantially different. They are allowed to stay and are taken care of until such a time as their status is determined. This includes health care.
Illegal immigrants in the US avoid hospitals and anything which may be watched and regulated. If they are found to be illegal, they're on the first bus out. This blows holes the size of Wyoming in your argument


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Thats not true and you don't know what you are talking about. Illegal immigrants do go to our hospitals they even get on our welfare system. They are talking about allowing for driver licenses in california. they drive on our streets and if they get in a wreck the citizen has no legal recourse against them. They cannot be compensated for damages. In otherwords they can come here and do not have to abide by our laws.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> Nobody was responding to me when I asked if they like their healthcare.


You asked about the satisfaction with health care “service.” Well I am middle aged I have three chronic conditions (one of the endocrine system, second is genetic and the third is a condition of the eye). None are imminently life threatening. I also have a ten year old injury that is now “acting up” (injured wrist detached tendon and ostio-arthiritis (SP?).

I have to wait 3 to 7 days for an appointment with my GP. If I have a more urgent need to be seen by a doctor I’ll phone one of the (what is called) after hours clinics and have an appointment within hours. For more serious ailments I go to the hospital (emergency department) and will be seen within hours based upon triage. A report from the after hours clinic/hospital is sent to my GP’s office. 

I live in a city of 80,000 souls and we have two hospitals one predominately French the other predominately English. Both hospitals are bilingual and have specialties in health care with duplication of general care. As an aside I live a province the first and only officially bilingual province in Canada.

I visited my GP in mid September for my wrist. I had an appointment with a specialist in mid October (just at the end of a month long strike of hospital workers). Within two and half weeks of seeing the specialist I had a bone scan, MRI and X-rays.

My GP caught my genetic disorder as a result of racial profiling. Based on Canadian data the occurrence of the genetic marker is 1 in 250 to 300 people. In our local population the racial profile is generally more homogenous than the population of the rest of Canada.

My GP started follow up screening and identified the problem, through regular blood tests, (for my first chronic condition) before it could cause me significant problems. If not caught in time the maladies and costs could have been very high. 

Why did my GP do this? The blood tests were cheap for initial screening and the cure when caught early is relatively cheap and easy.

I very satisfied with my treatment (pun intended) from the Canadian Health Care System. BTW it is not free health care.


[/QUOTE]I'm suprised you don't like my media. It seems far to left wing for me.[/QUOTE]

I find our media mostly right wing and your media *very right wing* like CNN, NBC, CBS, WB and ABC. I have Satellite and watch your local news as well. Seems to me the local media is more to the right than the networks. I find much of the focus of the local's "news" is either mostly sensational or inane.


But I'm a leftie.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

I lived in San Diego for 3 years and so am very familiar with illegal immigration. I am also very familiar with the dependence of southern Californians on access to dirt-cheap labour. The ravines are littered with camps (mainly men) who send their wages back to Mexico. I don't blame the US for the poverty in Mexico but I would argue that the US gets significant benefits from its access to cheap labour. This "hidden sector" is slowly being recognized in terms of being given access to benefits and that is a good thing. Of course, the opposite is happening in Arizona with vigilantes proposing to patrol the border.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against capitalism and the profit incentive in general - just in its applicability and appropriateness for delivery of healthcare. As Canadians, we have differentiated between provision of rights and provision of goods. Healthcare should be a right that is not abandoned to free-markets. When capitalism is at its most effective, it generates winners and losers. That is simply intolerable to most of Canadians when it comes to health. Capitalism as an ideology is dangerous when it is applied no matter what the problem. There is no inherent need for consistency of economic models. Government provided healthcare is not incompatible with free markets in other areas. In Canada, the two systems work together very well. Afterall, our system buys drugs from for-profit pharmaceutical companies (at significant discounts due ot their much higher volume purchases - unlike the much smaller market-based HMOs).

Canada is not scary. We like it up here. We are not idealogues - we cherry pick the best the world has to offer and mix that with our own ways of doing things. We know we can do better and we have all sorts of beefs with our government but our society does not judge itself solely on the number of winners. We try to cater to everyone, no matter what their circumstance. It's a different set of values and priorities from the US. I think it results in a more humane and just society with less crime. But we're not trying to convert you (Americans), we're carving our own path along with our own set of insecurities and doubts. Live and let live.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MIX is the critical word. Just as checks and balances are built into government systems so too economic systems need similar "non market" checks.
You have them already with Federal regulators in just about any industry you can name.

Mixed economies are proving resilient and of service to citizens.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Backing up a bit Dudireno, yesterday a brief discussion about public spending on health care, you asked:

" ... I am not quite figuring out what you want to compare? Compare our uninsured to what? Your whole country? ...'

I am comparing public spending by government on health care in Canada and the US.

Some figures I dug up from a US Gov't publication:
Source: US NIH

Spending per Capita
(2000) $US 5,039.00
(2004 est) $US 5,757.00

Of that, 16% is paid by Medicaid, 19.2% by Medicare, and 7.3% by "Other Public" funding (2000). In other words, government is paying about 42% of all the money spent on health care in the US, or $US 2,116.00 per person (all residents of the USA, not just those eligible for public funding) in 2000.

Canada:
It's a little more difficult to calculate, because (you might be surprised to learn this) most health care is paid by provincial governments and coverage varies depending on which province you live in.

Source: Statistics Canada (Federal Gov't)

Spending per capita:
Canada average (2000) $C 2,198.00
Manitoba (highest) (2000) $C 2,635.00

US$ = C$, 2000
2,116.00 = C$ 3,004.72

So, public cost of heath care, per capita, is higher in the US than in Canada. This money must come from all taxpayers, not just the publicly covered residents. Heath care takes a bigger bite out of a US taxpayer's bill than a Canadian taxpayer's bill, despite the fact that only a small % are covered in the USA.

There are many reasons for such a wide disparity, and most of them are economic, not care related.

" ... Using the most recent data on health spending published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), we explore reasons why U.S. health spending towers over that of other countries with much older populations. Prominent among the reasons are higher U.S. per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as well as a highly complex and fragmented payment system that weakens the demand side of the health sector and entails high administrative costs. ..."

_U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context_
Uwe E. Reinhardt, Peter S. Hussey and Gerard F. Anderson
Journal of the American Medical Association

In particular the payment system (basically, the forms insurance companies require health care providers to fill out) accounts for more than 20% of the cost of US health care. Other nations generally have administration costs well below 5%

After the US, health care (in ever case, this is public and private spending combined) Switzerland is next at about $US 3,500. A few perhaps statistically aberrant nations follow (San Marino, Luxembourg) and then we have Germany, Canada, then Norway, all around the $US $2,500~2,800 or so range. Every one of these countries has a higher life expectancy than the US; something about US costs does not translate to better health.

Higher GDP is really not an element of care but is an element of cost. If I can get my car fixed for $35 an hour and you have to pay $55 an hour, there will be higher spending on auto repair where you live, for the identical work.

Administration costs stand out, drug prices also weigh in heavily. Reducing those two elements to average levels in G7 countries (minus the US) brings your health care costs essentially in line with the rest of the world's higher spending nations.

Where you have Canadian hospitals with consistent numbers of US patients (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto) generally about 80% of the administration staff's time is dealing with a dozen or so US patient's insurance administration, the other 20% handle hundreds of Canadians' insurance forms. These hospitals need 5 times the number of staff to do insurance forms than a hospital with exclusively Canadian patients requires; if there were a hundred Americans they would need who knows how many additional staff.

Mandating US insurers to use a standard form (as is done everywhere else) would cut health care costs, insurance costs, and your tax bill, by a significant amount. For whatever reason, the US insurance industry vigorously opposes such a change.

My guess is it would make comparison shopping for coverage too easy, and might also reveal more obviously the wide variations in coverage and limits that exist from provider to provider; the kind of competition the industry simply doesn't want. It's my gut feeling that they prefer if you don't understand or can't bother to read the proposal or insurance plan; once you're sick it's too late but that's the only time you ever really understand what you've bought.

I won't disagree that the US has fine hospitals but I won't go as far as agreeing they are "the best in the world". They are good, but there are fine hospitals everywhere.

I've been at a US hospital and aside from being given a list of forms to fill out that took me about 10 minutes, even though I had proof of full coverage (in Canada, you present a card and then sit down) I would say it was essentially the same as the experience I've had in Canada.

We have an excellent University here in Saskatoon and you will be hearing about one research project that has been ongoing for about a decade. Trials on primates are about to begin, and we've chosen a US university that has a primate research lab to partner with, which practically guarantees when you hear about it, it will be presented as if it were an "American Discovery" because that's how everything is presented; no US angle, no story. I'm not saying this is wrong, but if you're not aware of it, it does lead you to believe that everything is discovered in America and the rest of the world just waits for the discovery to arrive from distant shores.

I've traveled extensively in the US and have read probably close to 80 local newspapers; few pay any attention to a story without a US connection, and most barely mention or simply don't mention any aspect of a story that isn't home grown.

How many news outlets tell you that the probe on the Saturn moon Titan (sending photos the last few weeks) is an ESA craft? In America, you hear it's a "NASA" project to Saturn's moon. That's just the way things are with the media there, and pretty much the way it's always been.

We've discovered a way to grow spinal nerve tissue at the UofS. A drug administered within a few hours of injury results in complete recovery. Christopher Reeve was too early, but perhaps some people reading this site won't be. Lab rats with completely severed spines are mobile and jumping around within weeks; you can't tell them apart from any healthy rat.

Assuming the primate trials go well, there should be human trials in about 5 years. In case you were wondering, it does not involve stem cells.

Back on topic, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr and George W Bush are all Mac users.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Excellent Post! * gordguide very informative.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Well I will say you guys come up with tremendous arguments. I am also outnumbered and to be able to counterpoint ever thing is quite a task. I do appreciate everybodies comments. What I appreciate most is the real life examples of hospitals in canada and that it is not as bad as I am told. 

However, I still stick to my free market aproach and ask you to not think of the US as a good real life example of the free market. It is just the most free in the world as far as I know. Maybe Singapore or Hong Kong have freer markets I am sure someone will inform me of that. What I would like to say is that I am very aware of the administrative costs involved in the US healthcare system. I work in a hospital here in Oregon doing billing, coding, and reimbursement. I have a bad taste for the government run programs because in my particular hospital medicare patients make up 70% and state insurance makes up another 10%. I admit I live in a predominently elderly community. They set their prices, are hard to deal with, make the rules and you can't turn the patients away. Its pretty hard to tell me that you want to compare the US healthcare system to canada's system as an example of how the free market doesn't work. It is obvious that the insurance companies, drug companies, medical suppliers, and even Dr.s use legislation to hamper our markets. That is exactly why we don't have generic forms that you speak of to help us speed up the processes. However, it is my opinion that if our government didn't play a role in the system those that didn't accept no ways and ideas that make delivery healthcare better would be left in the cold. They are allowed to use their money and power to influence government controls. Our constitution specifically speaks against those autrocities. 

I also think that it can be reasoned that there are many many reasons other than just our healthcare system that leads us to lower life expectancy rates. Like the ones i have stated. Population, immigration, auto, culture, education. Our education is way behind compared to leading nations around the world. I personally went to a private school (free market) and received a far better education for less than the government spends per child in public school. There again I vote for the free market. I look around now and children under the age of ten are fat. I live in a society of lazy fat americans. The poor and uninsured you talk about here in the US that are so unlucky have color TVs with satellite, SUVs, a computer, and a welfare check. I see it first hand don't tell me it isn't true. 

I blame parents, movies, media, and public education for our lazy society. The US is failing as a culture. We argue about prayer in school, the word God in our constitution, World policing, and marriage rights. Instead we need less taxes, less government spending, less laws, more community support, private charties freer markets. It would be a stronger wealthier happier healthier society. Instead we are right behind the rest of the world into more government and more socialistic ideas. 

I can't believe you think our networks CNN, ABC, CBS are right wing. That puts a perspective on how far left you guys are. 

I just want freedom including personal and economic freedom. You argue against freedom for the common good. Healthcare is not a right. You have no right to make demands to somone else to provide you with something.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

This is a good discussion. I realise that you are outnumbered but I will say that your perspective is both interesting and useful. Our politicians are constantly trying to deal with the healthcare headache. Canadians expect more for less (as do Americans). They also set limits on how the government can provide those services. These limits are based on deeply held principles of fairness and equality when it comes to healthcare access. Most Canadians (including myself) do believe healthcare is a right and cannot be denied on any grounds. Our right-wing politicians continualy float trial ballons about introduction of privatization for specific procedures. It typically leads to an uproar. Indeed, I think Alberta's Premier (Ralph Klein) essentially rescued our Liberal Party from losing power by suggesting he'd introduce privatization legislation as soon as a Conservative government was formed.

The facts are that the US healthcare system costs more and provides less when averaged over the population. Perhaps if the USA got its system in order so that the purported advantages of free-market enterprise an remove the waste, then Canadians might begin to consider privatizing some services. As it stands, the US system is a strong argument for our retaining our system as a fully socialized system - even if we were to set aside the very strongly held beliefs in equal access to all regardless of ability to pay (and that principle is just about the only thing most Canadians agree upon).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Singapore is hardly a model of Laissez faire. Things are run very rigidly and the healthcare is a mixed system
_Singapore’s well-established healthcare system comprises a total of 13 private hospitals, 10 public (government) hospitals and several specialist clinics, each specializing in and catering to different patient needs, at varying costs.

Patients are free to choose the providers within the government or private healthcare delivery system and can walk in for a consultation at any private clinic or any government polyclinic. For emergency services, patients can go at any time to the 24-hour Accident & Emergency Departments located in the government hospitals._

Your "free market" seems very vague as the last time it was practised anywhere signficant was turn of the 20th century and the anti-trust breakups followed rather quickly after abuses.

How does California's tough pollution laws square with "free markets".
Or the control of the Ogallala aquifer - even the Texans have to "follow the rules".

A few examples or definitions are always useful. Even the Credit Card industry is "regulated" so is not a free market and that's about as predatory a field as exists.

What Canadians as a whole generally sit comfortably withis a "sensible" balance between gov and corp power and cast a skeptical eye on both. That said we sure are far from perfect but the last decade has seen sound financials and some good progress. Energy supply is a real issue for Ontario.

I read a scary number yesterday in Discovery.
If we had the ability to open a 1000 megawatt clean nuclear powerplant - to meet the projected needs for the planet???..................one new plant........EVERY DAY.........FOR TWENTY SEVEN YEARS!!!!!

So we are not alone in our hunt for energy solutions.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Just like I am told your healthcare isn't as good, long waits, people die while waiting etc. You are told how many are uninsured, how many don't have equal access, and all the unhealthy just not getting treatment.

It simply isn't true. You can't just compare costs. These are all unverified but I am sure it costs more to own a home here, it costs more to cloth yourself, etc. We have higher wages. 

the truth is the people who don't have insurance don't pay for it because they don't want to give up their steak dinners, nike shoes, tommy hilfigure jackets, and cable TV. They are the same people who say there are no good jobs, collect unemployment, and visit the ER for a sore throat. Obviously this isn't always the case. But our poorest in this nation are rich compared to the rest of the world. These people are not denied access to healthcare. They are denied access to demand healthcare on their terms. You make it sound like everybody who is poor in this country are that way because they can't pay their medical bills. They still get taken care of and others pay for it. They may not get their hang nail fixed but they are not dieing on the streets because they can't pay their bills. Everybody in this nation is receiveing vaccines, immuinizations, live in a fairly disease free society, and will not be left to die if they need treatment. What else are you asking for?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Welcome to ehMac*

Dudireno, I appreciate your arguments and your ability to make them. Welcome to ehMac! Your fairly pure libertarian views are a refreshing change from the usual contradictory, statist, neo-con ramblings that we see on this board from a certain individual. While everybody can have an opinion, few seem to be able to explain why they have that opinion in a coherent way.

You will be undoubtedly outnumbered on this board, since most here swing from the centre to the left on the economic scale, but if you make valid arguments, most here will treat you with respect. Interestingly, on the statist/authoritarian to libertarian scale most here probably are on the centre to libertarian side of that axis as are most Canadians, IMHO. So you may find that there will be much that you can agree upon with those here too.

For instance, I would guess that most here, and most Canadians think that the government telling two people of the same sex that they can't get married and are somehow inferior to anyone else is something they disagree with. We tend to agree with the famous quote from that old socialist, Pierre Trudeau that "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" (quote may not be strictly accurate, relying on my failing memory cells). We don't tend to have a problem with things like seeing Janet Jackson's breast that seem to throw many Americans into a tizzy. Overwhelming majorities of Canadians really don't care if someone wants to smoke a bit of pot and are mystified by the American war on drugs hysteria and their ham-fisted attempts to influence our policies in that area.

A great many Americans, especially the fundamentalist lynch pin that managed to prop up Dubya, seem to agree with these authoritarian anti-Libertarian ideas. I really think that Canadians differ far more with many Americans in this regard than with economic left-right stuff. You probably won't find too many Canadians who are actually raving communists. 

I think when Canadians see your media as being right wing, what they really mean is that it seems to be sliding more away from being independent and closer to something like Pravda, just parroting government propaganda. I actually don't think that the US is sliding that far to the economic right, at least in a libertarian sense, and the huge deficits and corporate welfare, Haliburton, Enron, etc, are proof of that. Where I think the US is heading is to a much more right/authoritarian direction, with nonsense like the Patriot Act and the upcoming Patriot II, which eviscerate your Constitution. This stuff scares the hell out of me and I think should terrify any American who has the least idea about the principles that your country is founded upon.

You'll find that most Canadians know a great deal about the United States, most know many Americans personally or are related to them and quite a few have spent extended periods of time in the USA. Me, I lived in California for 4 years. We are constantly awash in American media, so we always know what is going on down there, to the moment. When I criticize the US, I am usually trying to be very careful to criticize the government, which I disagree with, so I don't believe I am being anti-American, just like the many millions of Americans who share my views. I often wish the USA could do more to live up to the noble ideals enshrined in it's Constitution.

You may have heard the analogy about Canada and the USA being like a mouse sleeping next to an elephant. While the elephant may not know that the mouse is there, the mouse has to be aware of every movement of that beast.

Canadians are like Mac users, versus PC users. We think we have a bit better idea and are quite happy with our platform, we like our user interface, thank you very much, but we know we have to exist in a PC world and can be surprisingly flexible if required.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> What else are you asking for?


We seek the truth.

Dudireno, do a few google searches before you relate to us the things that you are 'sure' of. BC is not very far from you and perhaps you should come up for a visit some time. 

Higher wages is a hard statistic to pin down. Teachers get paid less in the States from personal experience. Government employees as well. 

The average cost of a house in Vancouver, BC would shock you. 

Again, this stuff is all readily available on the web with about 5 minutes of dedicated searching. 

It is rather interesting listening to your misconceptions and beliefs. It reinforces and enlightens us as to what the average American thinks about the rest of the world and the US.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*You must live in a different USA than the one I lived in...*



Dudireno said:


> Everybody in this nation is receiveing vaccines, immuinizations, ....


So the Americans coming to Canada for flu immunizations a few months ago were an illusion?



> But our poorest in this nation are rich compared to the rest of the world.


Ever live anywhere else? Like Europe, South America, Australia, Asia, or, heaven forbid, Canada? The poor of America are as wretched as anyone in any developed country. The difference is at the other end of the spectrum. Your wealthy are much better off than the wealthy in most other developed nations, because they pay proportionately so much less tax. Of course most societies don't worry about looking after the wealthy, as they have the resources to look after themselves. But the US coddles its wealthy at the expense of its poor and middle class. This approach was tried before, and lead to the French Revolution, but the US has much better distractors to offer the proletariat (cable TV and the internet beat the crap out of bread and circuses) so they may not rise up for quite some time.



> Just like I am told your healthcare isn't as good, long waits, people die while waiting etc. You are told how many are uninsured, how many don't have equal access, and all the unhealthy just not getting treatment.


Having lived with both systems, I agree that neither is perfect, and misinformation is spread on both sides, but the Canadian system is vastly superior in my experience. YMMV.




> the truth is the people who don't have insurance don't pay for it because they don't want to give up their steak dinners, nike shoes, tommy hilfigure jackets, and cable TV.


Most of the people I know without coverage in the US are university students who are struggling to feed themselves. When I was a postdoc in Seattle, my health insurance cost almost as much as my rent. You may not pay as much tax as we do, but you pay so much more in user-costs that it more than makes up the difference. My pay cheque got smaller when I moved to Canada, but my disposable income went up.

Cheers.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

" Most of the people I know without coverage in the US are university students who are struggling to feed themselves. When I was a postdoc in Seattle, my health insurance cost almost as much as my rent. You may not pay as much tax as we do, but you pay so much more in user-costs that it more than makes up the difference. My pay cheque got smaller when I moved to Canada, but my disposable income went up."

The 20 to 35 year demographic I have been speaking about. Thanks for the backup with real life situations. Oh and actually did you know most schools probably even the one you went to provide catastrophic insurance for students. Check it out.


Carex: Where do you think it costs more to live in real dollars? Your best educated guess. The US or Canada. Do things have a bigger rice tag in US or Canada? Just give one or the other before you explain. whether it is a guess or not just give me one or the other. If a gun was pointed to your head and if you made the wrong choice you were going to be shot which one would you choose?

The flu vaccinations are an exception. But vaccinating the whole country for the flu is not a priority. In fact some people would rather not have it. You know what vaccines I am talking about. And you know the point I was trying to make. And again we didn't produce those vaccines in this country because of political pressure and companies couldn't make a profit. Why because they get sued and price setting. How much help does your healthcare system send around the world? Do you think it is more than ours. You don't think private profit making companies send support around the world?

thanks for the google advice. I bet you did do a google search didn't find what you are looking for and so decided not to post any findings. I on the other hand admit I just didn't look. 

As for my singapore comment it was just thrown out there because I figured someone would make a comment about the US not being the freest nation in the world. I don't actually know all the countries around the world and exactly which one has the most freedom. thats all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=463499
> 
> 
> Feb 2, 2005 —*By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
> ...


Some system.....INSURANCE Companies are guaranteed their return but the average American jo or jill ISN'T guaranteed anything EVEN IF THEY DO PAY FOR IT let alone if they can't.

You got a sick system...period. As to freedom - checked the 14 points of facism lately.



> n "Fascism Anyone?," Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying characteristics of fascism."


see how your country fares.......in the eyes of your own countrymen .....
* http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm *
.you wonder why Bush and Co is destested around the world. You're not free....you're living in an Orwellian nightmare.

We're ALL fervently hoping the REAL America wakes up soon. ;(

There are very different, very successful societies in Canada and Europe that are open and inclusive in way almost unknown in the US.
And THEY ALL provide healthcare to ALL their citizens.

I just wonder if you know that 400 of the 435 of your Congressional districts ARE PREDICTABLE IN ADVANCE......that's not democracy ....it's a FIX.

Good for you to listen. Will it change anything??


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> "
> Carex: Where do you think it costs more to live in real dollars? Your best educated guess. The US or Canada. Do things have a bigger rice tag in US or Canada? Just give one or the other before you explain. whether it is a guess or not just give me one or the other. If a gun was pointed to your head and if you made the wrong choice you were going to be shot which one would you choose?


Dudireno, I know you directed this at Carex but having lived but in the U.S. and Canada this will be a hard question to answer as it has to be qualified with examples.
Overall it's less expensive to live in the U.S. but there is a lack of quality.
At the bottom end of the scale there is an abundance of quantity over quality. Once you move up the scale, things often become more cost effective in Canada. 
Electricity is less expensive here, but gas more expensive (here being Canada).
Basic foodstuff is less expensive in the U.S. at the detriment of quality.
Clothing is less expensive in the U.S. but again the quality is less. Many friends from California shop here for clothing, noting that style/fit is poor.

An example that is dear to me is the cost of U.S. wines. At the lower end of the scale for a given company, your prices are much less expensive. That same companies higher end wine will cost less in Canada (depending on the Province). This is often due to our provincial government boards controlling the price of alcohol (we mostly have government stores). 

Over the counter drugs are less expensive in the U.S., prescriptions are not.
The overall cost of living will depend on your lifestyle. It's less expensive for me to live in Montreal than Toronto but ironically if I lived in Toronto I would be making more money. 

I'm glad that I can choose to live where I want - asking a black or white question is usually of little value, no?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The lack of coverage I remember people complaining about rarely involved acute conditions. It was the fact that students had to choose between groceries and glasses, rent or birthcontrol pills, electric bill or fillings, etc. Insurance offered by student societies is neither free nor does it cover everything most people need. And then there is the 'co-pay'...something I had no idea existed until I moved to the states.

As for where it costs more to live, both Canada and the US are so diverse that I don't think it is possible to answer that one. There are places in the US that are astronomically expensive to live (Boston, Palo Alto, SanFrancisco, Manhatten, etc.) and places where it is quite cheap (northern Kentucky, Wyoming, etc.). Similarly, in Canada, there are expensive places (Victoria BC) and cheap places (Brandon Manitoba). However, wherever you live in the US, you have to add health-insurance and all the nickel-and-dime-user-fees that are covered by our taxes in Canada. So, as much as Canadians bitch and moan about our high taxes, having lived in the US, I've come to recognize that we get real value for our money. On the other hand, I still think we're over-taxed up here, but rather than cutting social programs to reduce the tax-burden on citizens, I think our government ought to raise taxes on corporations (or, at the very least, start collecting the taxes owed by corporations that are simply not paying them).

Which country has more freedom? That's hard to measure. In Canada, I have less fear of violent crime (that's a kind of freedom), less fear that people who have no social support will resort to crime against me or my family, freedom from state-funded religious proselytization, freedom from government spying on my personal communications because they've decided I'm a suspect, freedom from draconian drug laws, freedom from involvement in unjust wars, and many other freedoms that I didn't have in the US. However, while in the US I enjoyed access to better funding for research, lower taxes on the few luxuries I could afford (beer, wine), a vibrant and diverse scientific community (there are a few universities in Canada that also have this, but really only the big ones), and the very friendly people. If I had been inclined to, I might have enjoyed the freedom to carry a handgun, smoke in public places, or do other things I think society ought not allow.

Personally, having read your constitution, and having thought extensively about Canada's political system, I think the US system is better, but, because of it's size and the vast amounts of money involved, it's under much more corrupting pressure. If the US could divide itself into 2 or 3 more managably-sized countries, I think each of them could do much better than Canada. However, as the monstrosity it is, the US is not capable of managing itself in a rational way.

Cheers


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Define banckrupt. People claim banckruptcy in this country all the time. There bills are wiped out they start over and they can't get a credit card or a bank account for 7 years. They have to use cash to buy all things and some of their wages are garnished. Do you know anything about banckruptcy. Well I know a little and I know it is not that big of a deal and I know it is abused I knew people who planned on filing it and so for the next 2 years lived it up. They are no worse off then they were before. These 2 million aren't starving. Don't fool yourself.

Besides 2 million in a year. We have 300million in this country. Thats less than 1% a year. I think that is damn good. I bet 1% of your population is getting screwed in some way or another in your healthcare system. 

There is no doubt my country is rotten. I hate the 2 political parties. Our elected officials are all scoundrals. But what you are purposing with a government controlled healthcare system gives them more power. Maybe the biggest difference between our countries is that you have found a way to make government more honest. Maybe your elected officials are held to their actions. there is no doubt that our politians line their pockets cheat and steal. Thats why I am so turned off by the government and socialized programs.

I don't think I am free at all. I am a big supporter of Orwell. He was talking about socialistic societies. He lived in one and despised it. He was not talking about a Free economic society. He was talking about socialistic oppressive societies. Have you read and studied Orwell? I haven't read alot but I know he was talking about communism and such. He would not approve of a state run healthcare system.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc - I'd take the Canadian Charter anytime over the US Constitution - it was brilliant for its time but dated now. The Charter is a modern document with a model for the world, especially one where there are great diversity in cultures and growing need to deal with the frictions of high populations and shrinking resources.

I DO agree with the regional aspect of your thoughts - I've been considering which Blue states we ought to adopt...Hawaii for sure  Gate's land - maybe, Arnie Land......well pros and cons....Hillary land - shows promise


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Please take the Clintons. they are such an honest group of people.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Orwell was talking about the then current Britain and totaliatarian control NOT about an economic system.
He was privy to the MAGIC and ULTRA and the incredible control of the press around the "free world" - what he knew he could not tell as he was under threat from the Official Secrets act.
Churchill's "memoirs" were the very revisions of history he wrote about. While it might be viewed as benign, it was the threat of "revision" - ala the "school taught history" of how indigenes were handled in Canada and the US which are only now being challenged as a cover for genocide.

Only by way of fiction could he warn against state control THAT HE KNEW WAS IN PLAY.
Britain and allies created a fictional army of million men - right down to marriage banns in local US newspapers for fictional soldiers posted to the "invasion army".....the amry the Germans beleived was there for days after the Normandy invasion.

He saw how complete "fictions" could be carried out.......and warned against state control.

Sounds much like - WMD spin and a campaign to tangle Bin Laden with Saddam in the minds of the US populace.....a meme that STILL hold remarkable sway.
Some of the phrases in 1984 are so close to those used in the lead up to the Iraq attack.

We do not have a perfect society - it's doubtful there will ever be one. But measures like GINI show equitable societies - that we do better than the US in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I KNOW Canadians would prefer Bill Clinton in a heartbeat over the gang running the current regime - I suspect that feeling would be reflected in the US if a third term were allowed.

But for the idiocy of Newt Gingrich you WOULD have had universal healthcare under Clinton. Instead you have an oligarchy rapidly turing to a dynasty if Jeb runs for President.

When 2% of the population owns 50+% of the wealth in nation.......corruption is rampant. The US does poorly on that score as well - right around the same ranking as Chile.

http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Well I think it costs more to live here. But that is just me. I also think we have higher wages. I am just saying you compare costs of healthcare but then when I turn around and ask about cost it is to hard to explain or answer. But the cost per capita is sure thrown around as a basis for showing me that healthcare here is worse somehow. 

Look, it is hard for me to sit here and defend the US when I have so many things I dislike about it. I defend it solely on the basis to counter point statistics that are thrown at me. The same applies when I ask you where is more expensive. I think it is slightly intellectually dishonest to think that US doesn't cost more. I think if I moved to 
Canada with the same wages I have now in the US I would be richer. I think these stats on healthcare costs, how much is spent, infant mortality rates, and life expectancy are just not a good argument. The statistical difference is not overwelming. 

I really can't keep up with everybody. I have enjoyed this alot though. it is refreshing to communicating with people who can argue their point so well. Usually anybody who disagrees with me down here doesn't seem to be able to argue it very well. I would like to think that you feel the same about me. I don't know how much more I will keep communicating but I hope there are no hard feelings. I am not a mean spirited greedy person. I just think we have different opinions on how to achieve the same goals. I think in the long run people will be more taken care of and wealthier if free market is allowed to be free. Don't forget no matter how hard you try there is still a free market at work. Even though drugs are illegal here there is a market force still out working in drug sales. Also, don't forget what is considered a luxury now will be common in the future. We all communicate by computers don't we? People deep down want to do good. I don't need laws to tell me how to live. I don't do drugs not because it is illegal but because it will ruin my life. the law isn't what keeps me from murdering. I don't nor do I want any restrictions in my life including economic. I think people need to really think about the fact that we are capable of living together in socities without being ruled. We don't need to redistibute wealth according to some man's opinion. We naturally distribute wealth.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> " If a gun was pointed to your head ... .


A situation that, fortunately for us, occurs far less in Canada than in the States.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

LOL! that was a good one!!


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> LOL! that was a good one!!


Thanks. It's nice to be appreciated.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dudireno...

I must apologise for all of my less informed countrymen. Forgive them...for they know not what they speak of.

They are still, unfortunately, laboring under a collective fallacy that claims that Canadian National Health Care is actually working. It is NOT!

This they will soon realise, once they enter the system with any serious ailment. Until then...they think it is just fine.

Brainwashing at it's highest form.

Trust me on this.

And...what is even worse than the fact that they choose to ignore the fact that thousands of Canadians who rely upon the nations Health Care System spend months and years in deep pain, or even DIE, due to the huge waiting lists...

What's even WORSE is the fact that this already failing system, that makes people wait for months for treatment. is about to experience the biggest single upswing in demand in it's recorded history!

Right at the very same time that their budgets will be shrinking by a factor of ten or twenty.  

The much-vaunted Canadian National Health Care System is teetering on the brink, right now. It will collapse completely when the baby boomers begin to retire in mass amounts.

Because it's completely unsustainable. Every single accountant and finacial planner knows this. EVERYBODY knows this.

It's just simple math.

But some people who have been totally brainwashed by their handlers still think that there is some easy way out of this mess.

And THEY will hack away at anyone who presents the actual scary figures to the public. And ridicule them...also in public.

That's their single-minded mission, after all. Toss them away like they were spent pizza boxes. They have no real voice in this country, after all...

Trust me on this.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Trust me on this.
> 
> 
> Trust me on this.


It's like listening to Rush "It's a known fact" - well okay, name your sources, your studies, elaborate your point.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MacNutt here is a little support. Maybe not the stuff everybody is looking for but i didn't see you or I resorting to insults. Artistseries shows he is truly compassionate. He almost sounds like an evil capitalist american.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/freehealthcare.html

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=609

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=521&sortorder=articledate


I have a distinct impression I am being mislead to believe there are not long lines in canada considering it shows it is on the rise. I believe that your system will be in trouble in a short time. We too are experiencing the baby boom effect.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

*How About These Numbers*

Total immigration is almost 10 times greater in US then in Canada. You had 250,000 in 2001. Try 2.25 million in one year in the US. 

Notice the 1.7 million annually illegal immigrants. and also notice the 750,000 births to immigrant women. You become a citizen if you are born here. These were quick and easy to find. I have a hunch some of you looked it up and didn't post what you found because it didn't fit your agenda. I guess I should have looked sooner. I am sure these numbers are taken in different ways. I realize they don't represent the exact same thing. But the numbers are so much different I am sure we at minimum double your immigration. And thats a long stretch. And I am sure your illegal immigration doesn't even come close. In fact I bet that is the major difference. But I am just full of misconceptions that don't hold any water. I am just a miss informed american. Your media is so unbiased.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...tp://www.netcom.ca/~agsheikh/immigration.html

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Wow check that out. Your government predicts a wopping 1,000,000 immigrants in the next five years. How are you going to deal with that? We more than double that in a year. We have more than that in one year in just illegals alone.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Dudireno, your naivety (sp?) is becoming trying. 

What do you think the population of each country you are discussing is? Answer that question, via a google search perhaps, then get back to us about the relative number of immigrants in each country.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

as I was saying Dude :yawn:


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

What does that have to do with it? I was defending the position that we have far more immigrants coming into this country than canada. I never implied that I was talking about percentage of immigrants to the population. I have no idea why this makes me naive. I guess that answers it. 

You give me stats implying that because infant mortality rates are higher in the US, life expectancy is lower, and 30-40 million are uninsured that somehow this means canadas socialized medicine is better and look at all the other small socialized countries are better too. I might also add that the differences were small. My response was immigration and population make these arguments uncomparable. Now I show you that our immigration is high and your wait times are high and you point to population. What exactly is your point?

Here let me explain my point further. We are accepting a huge growth in population due to immigrants. I am sure if you wanted to find (I am sure you will not admit too unless I corner you with a google search) it would show that these individuals have higher infant mortality rates. In otherwords the reasons for why the numbers are different are endless and to put blame solely on the healthcare system is irresponsible. How about the life expectancy of races is different. Blacks have a far lower life expectancy then whites. Lets look at the percentage of blacks in our populations. So forth and so forth.

Now lets take the statistics of your wait times. Far easier to establish. Is immigration throwing that stat off? Is your lower population the problem? What exactly makes this statistic so inaccurate? Or is it accurate?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

posted by macnutt


> I must apologise for all of my less informed countrymen. Forgive them...for they know not what they speak of.


apologize for yourself
you bandy about phrases like; 'Everyone knows this" like you're carrying 2 stone tablets in your hands

you claim to be schooled in the scientific method but rarely back up any of your claims with verifiable data

and as for predictions, what happened to the stephen harper gov't?
that was supposed to be elected "big time"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So are WE accepting a LARGER percentage on a smaller economic base and yet still cover everyone.

Europe is LARGER than the US 450 million and has huge immmigrant issues and still covers everyone that is a citizen and many that are not.

There IS NO DEFENSE - you have wasteful system that caters to corporate bottom lines more than the common weal of the average US citizen.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

You coward! What about your wait times????? Your care appears to not be accessable to all equally. Those with certain ailments are judged not in need according to whose rules. It appears to be illegal to pay for services out of line in your country. Your costs are low because you aren't treating people in a timely manor. Your silence looks like guilt to me.

I am tired of being ignored. I am talking to people who have stopped listening. write whatever you want I will not return.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

In my experience it's more expensive to live in the US than Canada, but there are a few conditions I would have to add. I've lived in Minneapolis and where I live now, Saskatoon.

[edit: deleted a bunch of personal stuff before Google cached it; I just left it there for a day so ehMac'ers could read my post if they were following the thread]

Dragging it a bit back to health care, Auto Workers are paid pretty much the same wages in Michigan and Ontario. GM, for example, negotiates from the basis of cost per employee hour worked, including payroll taxes and benefits in each country. As a result, the Canadian workers get paid more ( for comparison, converted to US dollars), because of lower payroll taxes and no health premiums; " ... these health insurance savings can amount to several dollars per hour of labour worked," the [Canadian Auto Workers'] union, GM, DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. said in the joint statement. ..."

" ... [Michigan] Big Three workers are paid about $19 an hour, but their average pay with benefits included ranges from $40.45 at Ford to $43.13 at GM. ..."
-Michigan Daily Online/AP


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> You coward! What about your wait times????? Your care appears to not be accessable (sic) to all equally. Those with certain ailments are judged not in need according to whose rules.(?) It appears to be illegal to pay for services out of line in your country. Your costs are low because you aren't treating people in a timely manor(sic). Your silence looks like guilt to me.
> 
> I am tired of being ignored. I am talking to people who have stopped listening. write whatever you want I will not return.


No one said our system was perfect or that your system is bad. However, I would rather have medical priorities determined by medical staff than by accountants and health insurance companies with an eye on the bottom line. You ASSUME that our costs are lower because we're not treating people in a timely manner. I submit that if you extract the corporate profit margins and advertising costs from health care, you'll have more money for actual health care. That is, in essence, the fundamental basis of the so-called socialist health care systems around the globe run by governments. Government of the people and FOR the people. Not governments who reduce health care to a for-profit commodity. You might also find your costs will drop if handguns were outlawed. Don't even go to the NRA's argument of "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". Yes, people with guns kill more people more efficiently than those without guns.

*
The United States, which has uneven regulation of firearms from state to state, has a firearm homicide rate that is ten times Canada's." UN Study Shows International Co-operation the Answer to Firearm Misuse. In Sight. Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice. Ottawa, June 1997.* 

It's not a great leap in logic to suggest that injuries, injuries that require medical attention no doubt, due to handguns would also be 10 times greater in the States than in Canada on a per capita basis.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What DON'T you understand about triage. Critical issues are dealt with in a very timely fashion. A friend was diagnosed with a brain tumour and was into surgery within a day of the diagnosis.

Sure - a bad knee might wait for arthroscopy but any citizen can walk into any clinic generally 24 hours a day and receive immediate treatment. Period full stop.

ALl systems can be better. I don't like that ambulance attendants get tied up in emerg rooms - needs correcting. There a innumerable areas for change including IT costs and drug costs.

Retreating in the face of facts you don't want to hear..........sounds all too familiar.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Of course everyone knows that there is non-publicly insured medicine in Canada, right? You can, if you want, open a private clinic or hospital anywhere in the country, and they do exist. Patients pay with private insurance or out of pocket, just like in the US. It's not mandatory that a hospital operates under the Canada Health Act; there's nothing regulatory or legal that would impair you from opening a facility that doesn't bill to the public system.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I don't think everyone knows that - thanks for pointing that out.

There is are a few private clinics that I know of and many doctors work between both "system". Plastic surgeons often operate (pun intented) that way. They even rent operating rooms in hospitals to perform surgery.


----------



## expat (Apr 27, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> I think being nonliberal and mac lover makes me pretty rare.



You think you're rare. I'm a non-liberal mac lovin' canuck living in left wing central USA.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

I'm a Mac user, have been since the mid 80's, and I've been a member of the PC Party since the late 70's.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Methinks Dudireno has left this thread - unfortunately for the wrong reasons. I also think he was getting tired with having to respond to som many posts. I don't think any were misleading. The point about absolute numbers of immigrants is wrong-headed, its the per capita numbers that matter (for the same argument that he used regarding general costs). The point about infant mortality and life expectancy are also valid. There are not any exceptional reasons for these figures in the US. I think they reflect the overall support of society for theose who are not so well off but I know that is hard to prove. No matter what the reason, its surely a disgrace.

This was an excellent thread overall. No converts but no blood either. The thought of our system being run by US healthcare corps should be enough to end the debate once and for all.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

*Thread Hijacking!*

Duderino, to go back to a post you made earlier, I think politics have hijacked this thread. We've taken (myself included) your light-hearted inquiry and made it into an rampaging yet informative beast.

I agree that Macs are marketed at a more left-leaning audience. However, I imagine alls walks of life in the political spectrum must use them. If not, it does obviously equate to a mental weakness on their part and possible correlative flaws in their political beliefs.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Cynical Critic said:


> Duderino, to go back to a post you made earlier, I think politics have hijacked this thread. We've taken (myself included) your light-hearted inquiry and made it into an rampaging yet informative beast.
> 
> I agree that Macs are marketed at a more left-leaning audience. However, I imagine alls walks of life in the political spectrum must use them. If not, it does obviously equate to a mental weakness on their part and possible correlative flaws in their political beliefs.


I honestly believe that Macs are admired and used by people who think clearly, and who can see a tool that is obviously better that what else is currently available. Simple as that.

And I suspect that a whole BUNCH of Mac users out there are actually more conservative than "left" in their political views, when all is said and done. Perhaps not the majority of Macophiles...but certainly a sizeable number of them.

We right wing conservative types are, after all, well known for our pragmatic thinking. So when we find a compter and OS that is obviuosly better...then we GO with it!

We adopt what works...and dump the silly ideals that don't. Simple as that.

Which might be one of the main reasons that conservative thinking and voting patterns are very much on the rise these days. And why leftist nonsense is fading out rapidly.

Even among Mac users.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Right wingers dump the silly ideals that don't work???? Cough. You might send an email to Stephen Harper about that......



> MacNutt: And I suspect that a whole BUNCH of Mac users out there are actually more conservative than "left" in their political views, when all is said and done. Perhaps not the majority of Macophiles...but certainly a sizeable number of them.


.

Another fine example of clear thinking. QED.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Note to Jim ("Earth to Jim")...

During the past twenty years or so....conservative thinking and right wing ideals have been adopted by pretty much ALL of the former socialist parties in pretty much every country on this planet earth. Sometimes on a massive scale (China, India, Russia, and the whole of eastern Europe...to name only half of the planet) And this mass migration to the right...or adoption of right wing policies...seems to be still going on as we speak. Pretty much everywhere.

Your old homeland, the UK, is ALSO far (VERY FAR) to the political right of where it was only twenty years ago. Even though it's current government claims to be a nominally leftist "Labour Party":...

During this same twenty year period, almost NO leftist/socialist policies have been adopted by any of the established conservative right wing parties in ANY of these areas. Zero. Zip. Nada

And yet, they seem to be taking control of pretty much everything. Pretty much everywhere.

What does this tell you?


----------

