Xref: utzoo comp.sys.misc:1370 misc.misc:2701
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!actnyc!gcf
From: gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: A true story
Message-ID: <836@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 21 Apr 88 14:28:09 GMT
References: <18368@watmath.waterloo.edu> <5038@nsc.nsc.com>
Reply-To: gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Distribution: na
Organization: InterACT Corporation
Lines: 22

In article <5038@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com ({JOAT}) writes:
} in article <18368@watmath.waterloo.edu>, credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) says:
}  ...[stuff about medical services provided free to the consumer, i.e.
}      "socialized medicine" or "socialized medical insurance" ]...
} 
}  Yea, great but who wants the quality of care they provide. Even the PM
} Maggie Thatcher(sp?) would rather pay than use the 'free' health services.

Canada has a system of socialized medical insurance (you pay for the
insurance mostly through taxes, then go to the doctor(s) or facilities 
of your choice) which I found distinctly superior to the U.S. system.  For
one thing, the providers don't have to go through a lot of gyrations to
find out whether you can pay or not.  For another, the system recognizes
that the money has already been put up, so they pay promptly and the
providers don't mind getting it from the system, rather than the patient.
I found the services themselves equal to or better than what you can get
in the US.

Naturally, Maggie Thatcher, having plenty money and knowing what she
and her friends have done to the 'free' health services, uses private
services.  Well, before she became prime minister she promised not
to _touch_ the National Health, and I guess she was keeping her promise.