You said that taxes in Canadian is like a giant insurance system. What I'm saying is here you can still get medical help from public run hospital w/o health insurance.

In a perfect world national health insurance would be great. But as you know this isn't a perfect world. There are reports of Canadian health system that is about to buckle under it own weight (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p01s04-wogi.html). So the Canadian are having to decide pretty soon how to fix their health system.

Republican and Democratic parties are two major parties. And there numerous of other political parties. But they don't get much follwoing from the general population. So they don't get the pub. like the first two.


>>Yes you're right, buying health insurance in the US is a tricky proposition. However, for those that don't have insurance, they can go to a publically run hospital (few private hospital as well) and get help. Parkland Hospital, you know the one where JFK was taken after he was shot, accepts practically all that need help, even illegal aliens.
>>
>>So this thing about not being able to get help if you don't have insurance is not completely true.
>
>I don't think I said anything about that, Dean.
>But since you bring it up... do ambulances check insurance status and report it to the nearest hospital (normal destination) and often get 'redirected' when there is no insurance?
>Here, you see, it doesn't matter and I do get to go to the nearest hospital every time. And I don't have to have cash or a credit card for the ambulance either.
>
>It's very easy to find an exception (like Parkland Hospital) for just about anything (like you folks don't have just a 2 party political system by witness of Libertarians, Greens, Reform, etc yet these "parties" are NEVER seen in any media) to "prove" that your system accommodates all, with caring and generosity. But in fact these things represent miniscule percentages of the real situation. They are there specifically so that you (collectively) can say with conviction that "not being able to get help..." is a fallacy.
>
>Jim
>
>>
>>
>>>SNIP>
>>>>I think the bad part of this is that, again if my theory is true, you may be paying (through taxes) for drugs you'll never use or need.
>>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>Dean,
>>>
>>>I don't think you are right on this, but to be honest I don't know either.
>>>But I want to say something about 'paying for stuff you'll never need'...
>>>
>>>Our socialized medicare is really a form of insurance, against catastrophic medical costs. Many of your countrymen spend money on the same thing, for the same purpose, but yours typically has tons and tons more controls on "services" and coverages and typically makes "pre-existing conditions" too expensive to cover.
>>>Now ask yourself if your own insurer for medical services would have cheaper premiums if EVERYONE in the U.S. was a subscriber.
>>>
>>>Our socialized medical system has (and still does) come under heavy fire for roughly the same reason you state... paying for stuff you'll never need. Many prominent newspaper columnists and radio/TV personalities have railed that they are paying for things they simply don't need and that this is wrong. Some of them, though, have later had one of their children or a close family member get very very sick or badly injured, and most of them have later admitted that they were wrong in their original position and stated that they surely would have gone broke and lost everything they had if it weren't for "medicare".
>>>
>>>In other words, you pay insurance premiums for SOME coverage and hope against hope that you will never need it. And if you ever do need it, then you hope against hope that you can get approval for the doctors' recommended procedures and such from some clerk of the insurance company.
>>>
>>>So what do you see as the difference between 'paying for what you'll never use or need' under our system compared to yours? Don't you hope that you'll never need your insurance to kick in?... And don't you pay the premiums anyways?
>>>
>>>Jim