Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman
From: chapman@fornax.uucp
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: definitions of culture, really Brad, Brad, Brad....wake up
Message-ID: <204@fornax.uucp>
Date: Wed, 25-Feb-87 15:36:31 EST
Article-I.D.: fornax.204
Posted: Wed Feb 25 15:36:31 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Feb-87 19:47:23 EST
Distribution: can
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 28

> >
> >I seriously doubt you could prove that assertion - things *are* developed
> >in the rest of the world you know (e.g. pacemakers by canada). However
> >even if that were so the commetn is how that medical ability is put to
> >use here. Only three provinces (BC, Alta, Ont) even charge for their
> >health plans. Just like in England - not like in the US.
> >
> Do you make the assertion that the USA does *not* lead the world in health

I don't have to - you are the one making the unsubstantiated assertion.

> care research and the development of new health care techniques?  They
> do pay a lot for it, and one of those costs is a private health care system,
> but *somebody* has to do it.  The public health care systems exist on the
> backs of the private ones -- that's the point I was making.

The British public health ystem would probably find it surprising that they
exist only because of the US.  Regardless you continue evading the point:
the US government could certainly afford to provide adequate levels of
health care to every resident of the US.  This does not however seem to
be a priority to them - the well off get good health care and the poor
get sick.

Health care in Canada is inexpensive (absolutley, not just to the patient)
and I would wager that this is in large part due to the profit motive
being removed and/or suppressed in it.

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***