warehouse club warning

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Actually, now that you explain your lineage, it explains a lot of other
things as well. A lot of the attitudes you express here probably also
"aren't your fault".

Art

Ron Hunter wrote:


>>
> I am 7th generation 'Texian'. It might take some research to find out
> exactly what that means. Unfortunately, I was BORN in New Orleans, but
> it WASN'T MY FAULT!
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Matt,

You are wasting your typing fingers. Didn't you read the views of your
detractors? If it isn't "profitable" to the US, it doesn't warrant
getting involved.

The one absolutely valuable lesson that the Bush administration and the
9-11 events have revealed clearly to the world is that the US government
only acts within its own interest, for the well being of those it is
most heavily in debt to, or owned or run by.

Art



Matt Silberstein wrote:


> As opposed to the U.S. waiting until we were attacked? Can you imagine
> the world intervening in Sudan now that we have acknowledged that
> genocide is going on? Or actually doing something about Pakistan's
> exporting of nuclear weapons? Or doing something about Saudi Arabia's
> exporting of hate? Or trying to reverse the re-imposition of
> dictatorship in Russia? Or maybe actually working to stop terrorism in
> the world rather than give excuses and motivation? Imagine actually
> going after Bin Laden instead of diverting forces to Iraq. Imagine
> taking the time to ensure you had enough troops and that they had
> enough amour before attacking. Imagine working for rule of law rather
> than just doing what we wanted to do.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:


>>
> Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
> and end up spending 40% or so of their GDP on it, and people wait for
> months, if not years, for needed surgery while doctors flee to other
> countries.
>
>


Oh really?

And how much of the GDP is paid out "privately" in the US on medical
costs? (And how much of that is ripped off by your lovely "for profit"
insurance and medical system). And how many people in the US just end
up dead before they "wait months if not years" for the surgery they
need, because they have no insurance.

The doctors that flee, BTW, happen to usually be the unethical ones who
went into medicine for the money anyway, so, good riddance, and further,
if they had nowhere else to go, because the other countries also worked
under socialized medicine, that would solve that problem pretty fast,
wouldn't it.

You obviously have never lived in a country with good socialized
medicine. I have both lived in the US (half my life) and in Canada and
Europe (half my life) and I would NEVER consider going back to the US as
an option.

Simply put, the US provides medicine for SOME of the people, those who
can afford the horrific costs (and why do I bet you have a nice paid for
health plan through your employer or pension while you would deny that
of Walmart employees (which you parasitically live off of by shopping
there)). In the meantime, a good percentage of Americans suffer with no
health care or substandard health care, and the proof is in the UN
rankings that show the US, the great wealthy super-duper power, never
even gets close to the top of the list for health, education or standard
of living, year after year. Daily, people in the US are bankrupted
financially by health care costs; the poor, the elderly, the sickly,
those with rare diseases.

Now, I will agree on one thing, Canada has suffered tremendously as a
result of having the misfortune of our geography, situated right next to
your toxic country. Your private insurers scramble to get the Canadian
business and are helping to ruin our medical system. Your medical
"corporations" (who used to be called doctors), lobby here continually
to try to break up the medical system we have. Stupid Canadians, which
unfortunately, there are too many of, who don't know better, look to the
US as a model of a perverse "cheap tax" haven, and suffering from US
Envy, due to their ignorance, have voted in governments here that have
slowly damaged our health system. Even then, however, it's still better
for most people than what the US offers. We have a healthier population
as a country than the population of the US. I know that nothing matters
to you but yourself, and maybe your immediate family, but here in Canada
there still does exist the understanding that a healthy and educated
society benefits everyone, that keeping guns out of the population
protects everyone, and that keeping right-wing fundamentalist crazies
out of public office (by not voting for them) protects the separation of
"church" and state so all people can be equally represented under law
with fairness.

In all my days, I have never seen a more paranoid population as exists
in the US today. You people consider any society more evolved and saner
than your own a threat to your way of life, and I suppose in some ways,
it is. Heck, the rest of the world just might work on solving things
like global climate change without you, and wouldn't that be horrible,
so your country does everything in its power to derail the process and
spew your poisonous pollution and greenhouse gases at a rate unsurpassed
by any other country. Well, Mr. "Texian", while your crazy government
goes around punching holes in the permafrost looking for oil in fragile
tundra of Alaska, so you can drive SUVs, the rest of the world works on
fuel cells, and while your country continues to foul your nest so you
have no clean water left, coming north begging for a cup of clean
drinking water, we'll probably be good neighbors and give you some out
of pity, and just shake our heads the way people do when encountering
fools and madmen.

Art

Ron Hunter wrote:


>>
> Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
> and end up spending 40% or so of their GDP on it, and people wait for
> months, if not years, for needed surgery while doctors flee to other
> countries.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The situation reported regarding Walmart indeed has been documented
numerous times.

Art

George E. Cawthon wrote:

> Petey the Wonder Dog wrote:
>
>> Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
>>
>>> It's mostly Iiford's mistake (I prefer to call it a mistake, rather
>>> than trick)
>>
>>
>>
>> How about if it's neither a trick nor a mistake...
>>
>> One of the ploys that companies like Sam's, (+ Walmart of course,) and
>> Costco do is
>> buy millions of dollars worth of product and when the manufacturer
>> ramps up their
>> product to the increased demand, the big store demands price decreases
>> or threatens
>> to bail out. The manufacturer has no choice but to lower quality to
>> get to the lower
>> price.
>
>
> Bull! You obviously never shop at Costco or no over a long period.
> Costco often gets newly introduced stuff which sells at a high discount
> to other stores. And we are not talking about different models but the
> identical item. Then Costco often sells out of the item and it is never
> offered again. What is happening is that Costco's low prices create a
> market and the manufacture will no longer sell at a discount to Costco.
> Quite a contrast to what you are saying.
>
> Don't know if what you say happens at Walmart, but I doubt it. Any
> substantial reduction in quality would quickly result in decrease sales
> and an excess of product.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I don't know who is responsible for the lowered quality of products sold
at some of the discount big box stores, but it definitely happens.
Several months back Loblaws Super Store was selling Epson Photo paper,
with the identical product number on it as that sold elsewhere, in 100
sheet or so packages for a "great price". However, upon sampling it, I
discovered the paper was literally nearly half the thickness of the same
product sole elsewhere in 20 sheet packages for considerably more money.

The big box version was so thin as to ripple out of the package and by
the time the ink hit it, well, forget it.

I don't know who was to blame for this product. The big box, Epson,
collaboration of the two, a counterfeit product, all I know is it ended
up no deal for anyone who used the product.

And the problem is I'd imagine many of the buyers were unfamiliar with
the other product of the same number, so they couldn't make a direct
comparison to know they had been provided with an inferior product,
which saved them nothing due to the quality differences.


Art

George E. Cawthon wrote:

> Petey the Wonder Dog wrote:
>
>> Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
>>
>>> NO company has the personnel to inspect every shipment of a product
>>> for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe not, but... don't assume that Sam's got where it is by leaving
>> quality control
>> to chance.
>
>
> Whoa, you were just saying that manufacturer's were forced into lowering
> the quality by Sam's demand for lower prices, but that Sam's didn't
> check everything. Now you are saying that Sams knows what the quality
> is, so you are saying that Sams deliberately lowers the quality by
> lowering the price paid to the manufacture. You can't have it both
> ways. And, don't you think that Sam's knows that lowering the quality
> at the same price will have an adverse effect on sales?
>
>>
>> Let's say you are Sam's Club, and you order $25 million worth of paper
>> from Ilford.
>> The order is a LOT more concise than "Paper for printing stuff on with
>> a printer, 8"
>> x 10, 100 sheets per pack." The specifications are far far more
>> detailed. They
>> know and specify EXACTLY what they want. Then you have quality
>> control people who
>> will do random inspections of various batches right at the plant. They
>> check HOW a
>> product is made. They have to see the process whereby the product is
>> made to those
>> specifications.
>>
>> Granted, someone may not have been doing their job, and companies will
>> sometimes
>> compromise even the safety of foods or medicne to make a buck, but
>> companies like
>> Sam's can't afford to screw over their customers for long.
>
>
> Right, Sam's can afford to screw over their customers, but that is
> exactly what you have been saying with regard to the prices they are
> willing to pay the manufacture after the manufacturer ramps up
> production. Your whole argument is a house of cards. One little push
> and it collapses.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:16:08 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Arthur
Entlich <artistic@telus.net> in <YNa2e.128924$fc4.45460@edtnps89>
wrote:

>Matt,
>
>You are wasting your typing fingers. Didn't you read the views of your
>detractors?

I must say that there was a lot of huff and puff that seems to have
disappeared. I did not even mention that Afghanistan is pretty much a
narco state now, one that has get women in the state they were in
under the Taliban. Or that women are loosing their rights daily in
Iraq and that our "friend" Saudi continues to mistreat them with no
word from the U.S.

> If it isn't "profitable" to the US, it doesn't warrant
>getting involved.
>
>The one absolutely valuable lesson that the Bush administration and the
>9-11 events have revealed clearly to the world is that the US government
>only acts within its own interest, for the well being of those it is
>most heavily in debt to, or owned or run by.

While the U.S. are not angels, neither are we devils. Countries act in
their own interest, the U.S. is a country. My problem is not that, my
problem is that we don't act in our interest as I see it, we seem to
act for a small group of people with a very short time-frame. Shrub
pushes on drilling in ANWAR, but does not meaningful to reduce oil
consumption. Or, since I am in venting mood here, this recent gross
hypocrisy regarding Schiavo. The Republican Party gained tremendous
political success by taking the mantle of "States Rights" from the
Democrats. They repeat over and over that they believe in small
government and states rights and the family. So they could not do
anything about civil rights. They were against discrimination, but it
was not the role of the federal government. But suddenly it is the
role of the federal government, they took this case right out of the
state. They passed laws (and tried to pass more laws) to *reduce* the
value of marriage and of the family. If you actually believe these
people this one brain-dead woman is worth more than millions of blacks
and Hispanics, she is worth more than the families of America. Either
that or they have spent decades using prejudice as a weapon, they
don't give a hoot about states rights, they wanted the votes of
Southern bigots. You can see their view of states rights when you see
that they override the states when it comes to drug usage or tort
reform or a host of other issues.

Venting over for now.



>
>> As opposed to the U.S. waiting until we were attacked? Can you imagine
>> the world intervening in Sudan now that we have acknowledged that
>> genocide is going on? Or actually doing something about Pakistan's
>> exporting of nuclear weapons? Or doing something about Saudi Arabia's
>> exporting of hate? Or trying to reverse the re-imposition of
>> dictatorship in Russia? Or maybe actually working to stop terrorism in
>> the world rather than give excuses and motivation? Imagine actually
>> going after Bin Laden instead of diverting forces to Iraq. Imagine
>> taking the time to ensure you had enough troops and that they had
>> enough amour before attacking. Imagine working for rule of law rather
>> than just doing what we wanted to do.
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Pavel Dvorak wrote:
> Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>
> [lot nuked]
>
> >>Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries
try it,
> >
> > Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
> >
>
> It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
resist:
>
> Canadian health care system does not work.

Nor does the American.

> If you have to endure many
> months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
> replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait
for
> diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
too late
> when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
> to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
> is wrong, isn't there?

What is the life expectancy? How about cancer death rates? So they what
if they don't use the American system, the more money you have, the
better and sooner you get care. We ration her.

> (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are
drowning
> and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them
drown,
> because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>
> Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>
> (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
> (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate
attention, or
> (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
> from time to time.

How about some stats? I don't see the kind of misery due to lack of
health care I see in the U.S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:

[lot nuked]

>>Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
>
> Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>

It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist:

Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too late
when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
is wrong, isn't there?

(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)

Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:

(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or
(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
from time to time.

Pavel

[rest nuked]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm betting you weren't using the Canada healthcare system 15-20 years
ago, when it worked quite well. It has been sabotaged by corporate and
political interest which wish to prove it doesn't work, and they have
almost done so. But as long as there are people like me who were around
when it did work, we can attest to the lie that it can't.

Art

Pavel Dvorak wrote:

> Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>
> [lot nuked]
>
>
>>>Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
>>
>>Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>
>
>
> It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist:
>
> Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
> months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
> replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
> diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too late
> when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
> to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
> is wrong, isn't there?
>
> (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
> and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
> because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>
> Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>
> (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
> (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or
> (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
> from time to time.
>
> Pavel
>
> [rest nuked]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I'm betting you weren't using the Canada healthcare system 15-20 years
> ago, when it worked quite well. It has been sabotaged by corporate
> and political interest which wish to prove it doesn't work, and they
> have almost done so. But as long as there are people like me who were
> around when it did work, we can attest to the lie that it can't.


Hey Canada does not have a monopoly on corporate and political
imbiciles. I think we invented them in the US. You guys just copied
them. ;-)

>
> Art
>
> Pavel Dvorak wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>
>> [lot nuked]
>>
>>
>>>> Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries
>>>> try it,
>>>
>>>
>>> Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
>> resist:
>>
>> Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
>> months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
>> replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
>> diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
>> too late
>> when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
>> to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
>> is wrong, isn't there?
>>
>> (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
>> and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
>> because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>> Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>
>> (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>> (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate
>> attention, or
>> (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin from
>> time to time.
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>> [rest nuked]
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:29:28 GMT, SamSez wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>I recently noticed that Sams Club was carrying "Ilford Galerie Professional
>> >>Inkjet Photo Range Smooth Gloss Paper" [sic] in 100 sheet boxes, and through
>> >>their web site you could also order "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet
>Photo
>> >>Range Smooth Pearl Paper" [sic], so I bought two boxes of the gloss and one
>of
>> >>the pearl.
>> >>
>> >>Only when I went to make a print on the pearl, I saw immediately that it was
>> >>different than the "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo Range Smooth
>Pearl
>> >>Paper" that I had used previously. It had a lower base brightness, a duller
>> >>finish and felt thinner despite the box being apparently the same size.
>> >>
>> >>Here's Ilford's response:
>> >>
>> >>"Many thanks for your email. We are sorry thqat you are dissapointed. the
>Sam`s
>> >>Club version of our media is NOT the same as the general brand found in Pro
>> >>dealers and is NOT covered in the sample pack. The description of the media
>in
>> >>the sample pack at 280gsm is correct for the media supplied via our dealer
>> >>channels where the sample pack was purchased. The packaging is very
>different
>> >>for the Sam`s media and sorry to say that you should have purchased the
>media
>> >>via the same dealer route as the sample pack. Your comments will be passed
>over
>> >>to our marketing group, but the Sam`s media although to the same standards
>is
>> >>very different and is why the media is cheaper. We do not include the Sam`s
>> >>version in our sample packs as this is the only outlet for this version
>> >>generally. "
>> >>
>> >>Kind of interesting that the name on the box is exactly the same for two
>"very
>> >>different" products.
>> >>
>> >>Sigh....
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Any company that pulls tricks like this deserves to go bankrupt. Ooops...
>> >Ilford IS bankrupt. Justice?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Ilford did not pull tricks. They just sold a reduced quality product
>> based on a customers specifications and packaged it differently.
>> Hopefully they gave it a different name. The tricks are from Walmart.
>>
>> >Pete
>> >
>> >
>
>In case I didn't make it clear enough in my original post, they did NOT give it
>a different name. That is my point.
>
>
>
After reading and rereading much the same line here without this point
being injected, I want to add something. Here where I live (in SC),
this town has two Wal-Mart stores and one Sams Club. I've never seen
Ilford paper in either of the Wal-Mart stores here. Further, the
local Sam's club ONLY sells the one labeled "Ilford Galerie
Professional Injet Photo Range Smooth Gloss Paper", I have never seen
the pearl type in there. And I've been buying the smooth gloss paper
from them for several years now. It is always in the same packaging,
and is marked as 250 gsm (or grams/sq.meter). I've never test weighed
in out of the dozens of boxes I've used, but I have checked its
thickness regularly with a dial caliper, and it consistently falls in
the same range from box to box.

Of some interest to me, at least, I tried to find their smooth pearl
paper there, and have been told they do not carry it. And I even
tried to find it listed on their web site, some months ago, but it was
not listed. So, how did you manage to get some from them at all? I
ended up ordering it from B&H Photo, and they were out of the 100
sheet boxes, and had to buy it in 250 sheet box.

Just don't understand the furor.

Olin McDaniel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:424f1d0a.17672737@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> After reading and rereading much the same line here without this point
> being injected, I want to add something. Here where I live (in SC),
> this town has two Wal-Mart stores and one Sams Club. I've never seen
> Ilford paper in either of the Wal-Mart stores here. Further, the
> local Sam's club ONLY sells the one labeled "Ilford Galerie
> Professional Injet Photo Range Smooth Gloss Paper", I have never seen
> the pearl type in there. And I've been buying the smooth gloss paper
> from them for several years now. It is always in the same packaging,
> and is marked as 250 gsm (or grams/sq.meter). I've never test weighed
> in out of the dozens of boxes I've used, but I have checked its
> thickness regularly with a dial caliper, and it consistently falls in
> the same range from box to box.
>
> Of some interest to me, at least, I tried to find their smooth pearl
> paper there, and have been told they do not carry it. And I even
> tried to find it listed on their web site, some months ago, but it was
> not listed. So, how did you manage to get some from them at all? I
> ended up ordering it from B&H Photo, and they were out of the 100
> sheet boxes, and had to buy it in 250 sheet box.
>
> Just don't understand the furor.
>
> Olin McDaniel
>

a) as I said in the original post, the pearl is available via the web site --
not the local club stores. Recent boxes of smooth gloss even contain a flyer
suggesting you go to the website for the pearl. Just go to the web site and
search for 'ilford'. They'll be happy to ups you a pack -- though as of
tonight, it looks like the 8.5x11 pearl has dried up and only the 4x6 pearl is
listed.

b) the 'furor' is this: if you buy an Ilford sample pack, or buy Ilford smooth
gloss or smooth pearl from a photo supply shop, or look on the Ilford web site,
what you get from any of those sources is not the same as what you bought at
sams -- even though there is only one type described on the Ilford web site and
only one type described in the sample pack. Both have exactly the same name,
but the sams version is 250gsm while the Ilford web site [and photo supply
shops, and sample packs] only have a 280gsm version [with the exact same name].

If you are happy with the 250, that's great -- but it isn't the same as what is
sold elsewhere.

Complaints about various countries health systems not withstanding, that's the
furor.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Yes, sadly a lot of the corporate interest I was speaking of come from
"south of the border", as we say up here...

Not only does US corporate healthcare and insurance want to take a chunk
of the Canadian action, but more importantly, they want to prove
nationalized health care won't work, because if it was working smoothly
in Canada (and it ran pretty well years ago) Americans would want a
similar system, and that's the real threat to those corporations.

Every time Canada shows something works in spite of the opposition to it
in the US, it makes American corporate or political interests have to
explain things, which they find embarrassing and difficult to excuse
themselves for. (for instance, our gun control regulations result in
1/10th the gun related deaths and accidents here per capita - and I bet
it would be even lower if we weren't right on top of the US) so the NRA
likes to portray the people of Canada as being ruled under a "communist"
government where we have no control over our lives, and if we ever
wished an uprising we couldn't have one, because only the government has
fire arms.

We all know that the US government would just sit still and allow a
group of militia to "take over" the US government any time they wanted
to, because they had guns, and I guess the US government only has frisbees?

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I'm betting you weren't using the Canada healthcare system 15-20 years
>> ago, when it worked quite well. It has been sabotaged by corporate
>> and political interest which wish to prove it doesn't work, and they
>> have almost done so. But as long as there are people like me who were
>> around when it did work, we can attest to the lie that it can't.
>
>
>
> Hey Canada does not have a monopoly on corporate and political
> imbiciles. I think we invented them in the US. You guys just copied
> them. ;-)
>
>>
>> Art
>>
>> Pavel Dvorak wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>>
>>> [lot nuked]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries
>>>>> try it,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
>>> resist:
>>>
>>> Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
>>> months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
>>> replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
>>> diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
>>> too late
>>> when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
>>> to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
>>> is wrong, isn't there?
>>>
>>> (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
>>> and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
>>> because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>>> Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>>
>>> (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>>> (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate
>>> attention, or
>>> (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin from
>>> time to time.
>>>
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>> [rest nuked]
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:40:45 GMT, "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:424f1d0a.17672737@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> After reading and rereading much the same line here without this point
>> being injected, I want to add something. Here where I live (in SC),
>> this town has two Wal-Mart stores and one Sams Club. I've never seen
>> Ilford paper in either of the Wal-Mart stores here. Further, the
>> local Sam's club ONLY sells the one labeled "Ilford Galerie
>> Professional Injet Photo Range Smooth Gloss Paper", I have never seen
>> the pearl type in there. And I've been buying the smooth gloss paper
>> from them for several years now. It is always in the same packaging,
>> and is marked as 250 gsm (or grams/sq.meter). I've never test weighed
>> in out of the dozens of boxes I've used, but I have checked its
>> thickness regularly with a dial caliper, and it consistently falls in
>> the same range from box to box.
>>
>> Of some interest to me, at least, I tried to find their smooth pearl
>> paper there, and have been told they do not carry it. And I even
>> tried to find it listed on their web site, some months ago, but it was
>> not listed. So, how did you manage to get some from them at all? I
>> ended up ordering it from B&H Photo, and they were out of the 100
>> sheet boxes, and had to buy it in 250 sheet box.
>>
>> Just don't understand the furor.
>>
>> Olin McDaniel
>>
>
>a) as I said in the original post, the pearl is available via the web site --
>not the local club stores. Recent boxes of smooth gloss even contain a flyer
>suggesting you go to the website for the pearl. Just go to the web site and
>search for 'ilford'. They'll be happy to ups you a pack -- though as of
>tonight, it looks like the 8.5x11 pearl has dried up and only the 4x6 pearl is
>listed.
>
>b) the 'furor' is this: if you buy an Ilford sample pack, or buy Ilford smooth
>gloss or smooth pearl from a photo supply shop, or look on the Ilford web site,
>what you get from any of those sources is not the same as what you bought at
>sams -- even though there is only one type described on the Ilford web site and
>only one type described in the sample pack. Both have exactly the same name,
>but the sams version is 250gsm while the Ilford web site [and photo supply
>shops, and sample packs] only have a 280gsm version [with the exact same name].
>
>If you are happy with the 250, that's great -- but it isn't the same as what is
>sold elsewhere.
>


OK, I'll concede one thing and not the other. I was unable to find
the 8X10 Ilford Pearl on Sam's Club web site, when I tried to buy
some, admittedly not knowing there were two grades. That's when I
ordered it from B&H. You seem to admit not being able to get it from
Sam's even yourself.

Now the concession, after you called my attention to the different
B.W. (Basis Weight in the paper manufacturing business, with which I'm
very familiar) - I looked on my various boxes of the smooth and all
from Sam's show 250 g/sm. And the box of the pearl which I ordered
from B&H shows 280 g/sm. So, unless you look very carefully at the
boxes, it is easy to be hoodwinked - BUT they DO show the difference
on the boxes. There are a couple of other subtle differences on the
boxes, but unless you were alerted to look, you might not notice.
Just to confirm this, I compared notes with another local buyer of
Ilford papers, and he had a box of the smooth that he'd bought at a
retailer and it showed 280 g/sm, whereas all mine from Sam's show 250
g/sm. Another interesting difference that we had earlier spotted, his
box showed it came from a Switzerland source, whereas the Sam's Club
product shows it came from a British source. Gotta look close on the
back of the boxes, to see this.

As to being "happy with the 250", I'll simply state it's been the best
of any brand I've ever used so far on my Canon i950. There may be
bettersmooth papers, but I've not found them. The Konica brand (later
to be rebranded under Office Depot's name) is a close second, but now
having found this Ilford - I'm staying here with it, and it's much
cheaper than that from Office Depot as well.

Olin McDaniel

 

[plan9]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Where I live it was 4/6/2005 4:58 PM, when Olin K. McDaniel wrote:

> There are a couple of other subtle differences on the boxes, but
> unless you were alerted to look, you might not notice. Just to
> confirm this, I compared notes with another local buyer of Ilford
> papers, and he had a box of the smooth that he'd bought at a
> retailer and it showed 280 g/sm, whereas all mine from Sam's show
> 250 g/sm. Another interesting difference that we had earlier
> spotted, his box showed it came from a Switzerland source, whereas
> the Sam's Club product shows it came from a British source. Gotta
> look close on the back of the boxes, to see this.

My Sam's Club Ilford is 250/gsm and says "Made in Japan" on the back
of the box. Appears Ilford has contracted it's paper mfg to several
sources.

--Ben

 

[gary]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Pavel Dvorak" <ah772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:d2p37o$c5c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>
> [lot nuked]
>
>>>Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
>>
>> Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>
>
> It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist:
>
> Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
> months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
> replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
> diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too
> late
> when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
> to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
> is wrong, isn't there?
>
> (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
> and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
> because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>
> Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>
> (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
> (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or
> (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
> from time to time.
>
> Pavel
>
> [rest nuked]

I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That is
WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the drowning.
The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players get in ASAP
and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to the US. The
average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see a specialist
about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she would be in
under a week. I would pay for that service here if the communists in power
would let me. But alas like the only other 2 jurisdiction in the world,
North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed private health care.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

gary wrote:
> "Pavel Dvorak" <ah772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:d2p37o$c5c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
>>Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>
>>[lot nuked]
[...]
>>Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>
>>(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>>(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or
>>(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
>>from time to time.
>>
>>Pavel
>>

I can't let that go either. The same is true in the USA, too. Except
that it's worse. There, many people never get in: they don't have
insurance, and don't qualify for medicaid.

> I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That is
> WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the drowning.
> The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players get in ASAP
> and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to the US. The
> average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see a specialist
> about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she would be in
> under a week.

And in the USA she might not get the best care, as the insurer might not
pay for it - depends entirely on your insurance plan. That is, if she
had insurance. Which might cost you upwards of $3,000/year - each.
Depending on how much of it your employer pays. (Figures from my sister
and brother-in-law, who live in California, where you can get excellent
care, even you aren't a film star, if you are properly insured, or have
loadsadough.)

> I would pay for that service here if the communists in power
> would let me. [...]

The waiting times increased because back in the late 80s and early 90s
medical school places were cut by 20% so as to save money so that the
feds and the provinces could cut taxes - you remember those wonderful
tax cuts, don't you? In my case, it came to all of $250/year. Wow! That
bought ten 2-4s of beer back then. What a bargain!

Those scam artists cut a whole lot of other things, and the effects of
those cuts are beginning to bite now, too.

BTW, the USA spends about twice as much one health care as we do in
Canada, measured as percent of GDP. And the leading cause of personal
bankruptcies in the USA is medical bills.

I agree our system needs improvement, but it is still preferable to the
US system. Now, if only my fellow Canucks had sense enough to be willing
to pay for it, ie, accept a tax increase. But my breath holding am I
not, as in the face blue becoming wish I not.

Personal anecdote: My daughter was trained as a nurse at the cost of my
fellow taxpayers. Unfortunately, that was at the time when those health
care cuts began, so she could not get a job in Canada. She went to
Texas, where she earns about 30% more than if she were in Canada.
However, she tells me that there's a nursing shortage in Texas, too. Go
figure.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what it
really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my family
lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable, particularly if
hospitalization is required).

But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of in
reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say you
want to pay out of pocket, right?

So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when
the solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at
the border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe you
can stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any lodging costs.

Art

gary wrote:

> "Pavel Dvorak" <ah772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:d2p37o$c5c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
>>Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>
>>[lot nuked]
>>
>>
>>>>Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
>>>
>>>Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>>
>>
>>It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist:
>>
>>Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
>>months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
>>replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
>>diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too
>>late
>>when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
>>to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
>>is wrong, isn't there?
>>
>>(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
>>and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
>>because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>>
>>Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>
>>(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>>(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or
>>(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
>>from time to time.
>>
>>Pavel
>>
>>[rest nuked]
>
>
> I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That is
> WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the drowning.
> The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players get in ASAP
> and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to the US. The
> average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see a specialist
> about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she would be in
> under a week. I would pay for that service here if the communists in power
> would let me. But alas like the only other 2 jurisdiction in the world,
> North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed private health care.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what
> it really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my
> family lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable,
> particularly if hospitalization is required).
>
> But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of
> in reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say
> you want to pay out of pocket, right?
>
> So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when
> the solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at
> the border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe
> you can stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any
> lodging costs.
>
> Art
>
> gary wrote:
>
>> "Pavel Dvorak" <ah772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> news:d2p37o$c5c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>>
>>> [lot nuked]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries
>>>>> try it,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
>>> resist:
>>>
>>> Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
>>> months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
>>> replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
>>> diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
>>> too late
>>> when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
>>> to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
>>> is wrong, isn't there?
>>>
>>> (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
>>> and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
>>> because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>>>
>>> Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>>
>>> (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>>> (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate
>>> attention, or
>>> (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
>>> from time to time.
>>>
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>> [rest nuked]
>>
>>
>>
>> I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in.
>> That is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about
>> the drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey
>> players get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can
>> afford it go to the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been
>> waiting 8 months to see a specialist about an ear problem. We have
>> friends in the US who say she would be in under a week. I would pay
>> for that service here if the communists in power would let me. But
>> alas like the only other 2 jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and
>> Cuba, we are not allowed private health care.
>>
>>

Pretty soon, the powers to be will require a passport for those going
to Canada to get back to the US. If that happens it is said Canada
will require the same. This is another pain in the ass for the
occassional traveler.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what
>> it really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my
>> family lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable,
>> particularly if hospitalization is required).
>>
>> But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of
>> in reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say
>> you want to pay out of pocket, right?
>>
>> So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when
>> the solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at
>> the border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe
>> you can stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any
>> lodging costs.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> gary wrote:
>>
>>> "Pavel Dvorak" <ah772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>> news:d2p37o$c5c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>>
>>>> Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>>>
>>>> [lot nuked]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries
>>>>>> try it,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
>>>> resist:
>>>>
>>>> Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
>>>> months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
>>>> replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
>>>> diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
>>>> too late
>>>> when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
>>>> to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
>>>> is wrong, isn't there?
>>>>
>>>> (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
>>>> and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
>>>> because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>>>>
>>>> Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>>>
>>>> (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>>>> (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate
>>>> attention, or
>>>> (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
>>>> from time to time.
>>>>
>>>> Pavel
>>>>
>>>> [rest nuked]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in.
>>> That is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about
>>> the drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey
>>> players get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can
>>> afford it go to the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been
>>> waiting 8 months to see a specialist about an ear problem. We have
>>> friends in the US who say she would be in under a week. I would pay
>>> for that service here if the communists in power would let me. But
>>> alas like the only other 2 jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and
>>> Cuba, we are not allowed private health care.
>>>
>>>
>
> Pretty soon, the powers to be will require a passport for those going
> to Canada to get back to the US. If that happens it is said Canada
> will require the same. This is another pain in the ass for the
> occassional traveler.

I think they just did, i.e., require a passport to
get back into the U.S. Probably illegal, unless
they put it under some emergency act, but they may
get away with it. Wouldn't make any difference,
since any halfway able and intelligent person
could easily get back to the U.S. from Canada
without going through any kind of official port.

Certainly the U.S. can't require a passport to
leave the U.S. People seem to forget that a U.S.
passport is just an official introduction of a
person to another government. There has never
been any limit on a U.S. citizen leaving the U.S.
I doubt that the U.S. would ever be able to
implement a requirement of any sort to leave the
U.S. Keeping people out is a bit different.

Oh yes, to keep on track, Canada also has
warehouses. What country doesn't?

 

[gary]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I would like to be able to pay for it here. Why should I not be able to if
I want the service? If a doctor or hospital wants to set up privately, what
business is that of the state to say no? I'm not saying I want to pay out
of pocket but I would like the option to buy the insurance with possibly a
deductible. Canada is only one of 3 countries in the world that do not
allow the individual this option.


"Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
news:iPu5e.8637$yV3.7959@clgrps12...
> Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what it
> really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my family
> lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable, particularly if
> hospitalization is required).
>
> But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of in
> reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say you want
> to pay out of pocket, right?
>
> So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when the
> solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at the
> border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe you can
> stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any lodging costs.
>
> Art
>
> gary wrote:
>
>> "Pavel Dvorak" <ah772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> news:d2p37o$c5c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>>
>>>[lot nuked]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try
>>>>>it,
>>>>
>>>>Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
>>>resist:
>>>
>>>Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
>>>months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
>>>replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
>>>diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too
>>>late
>>>when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
>>>to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
>>>is wrong, isn't there?
>>>
>>>(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
>>>and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
>>>because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>>>
>>>Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>>
>>>(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>>>(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention,
>>>or
>>>(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
>>>from time to time.
>>>
>>>Pavel
>>>
>>>[rest nuked]
>>
>>
>> I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That
>> is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the
>> drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players
>> get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to
>> the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see
>> a specialist about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she
>> would be in under a week. I would pay for that service here if the
>> communists in power would let me. But alas like the only other 2
>> jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed
>> private health care.
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

You want it both ways. The reason so many people in the US cannot
afford health care, why the cost of medical insurance is so high, and
why the quality is so variable, is due to the business model used. The
"market" determines the value, and since most of us eventually require
healthcare of some sort, we are willing to pay whatever it costs, even
allowing ourselves to get bankrupted doing it.

By constraining costs by maintaining a socialized medical system, where,
at least, in principle, all doctors get the same base wages within a
category, and all people have equal access, the playing field remains
relatively even.

Once you allow individuals to opt out of the plan and go private, the
best doctors will tend to leave the nationalized health plan because
they can make more by opening private clinic. That leaves the mediocre
doctors to care for those who can't afford private medicine or private
insurance.

They tried this in England, and the system is completely failing. There
are two distinct tiers of medicine now, the "national plan" for those on
fixed incomes, the poor, those out of work, and the "private plan" which
is for those who have money in the bank or good benefits.

Health care in Canada is rationed. It's not some service like getting
your nails done. When people need it, they need it. I agree that
waiting periods are too long. This is part of the sabotage going on to
make people demand something else (like private or pay as you go services).

Canada still has one of the best nationalized health services in the
world. Our population lives longer and is healthier, and dollar per
dollar our system is cheaper than the US by quite a bit, and the
services there aren't great in most cases. Mal-practice insurance fees
are out of the stratosphere, pediatricians are all but giving up because
the cost of the insurance due to the high risk and liability of
delivering children is not affordable.

Creating a two tier health system will eventually be the end of
nationalized health care in this country, and when that occurs you will
be at the mercy of the private companies exclusively.

We need to put more money into healthcare and clean up Ottawa, so that
the money that is earmarked for health goes there.

Unless you have lived in the US and had to pay a few hundred bucks every
time you go to the doctor and lab, you might obtain a different
perspective as to how valuable the health care system we have is.

Art




gary wrote:

> I would like to be able to pay for it here. Why should I not be able to if
> I want the service? If a doctor or hospital wants to set up privately, what
> business is that of the state to say no? I'm not saying I want to pay out
> of pocket but I would like the option to buy the insurance with possibly a
> deductible. Canada is only one of 3 countries in the world that do not
> allow the individual this option.
>
>
> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:iPu5e.8637$yV3.7959@clgrps12...
>
>>Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what it
>>really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my family
>>lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable, particularly if
>>hospitalization is required).
>>
>>But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of in
>>reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say you want
>>to pay out of pocket, right?
>>
>>So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when the
>>solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at the
>>border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe you can
>>stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any lodging costs.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Pavel Dvorak" <ah772@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>>news:d2p37o$c5c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>>>
>>>>[lot nuked]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try
>>>>>>it,
>>>>>
>>>>>Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
>>>>resist:
>>>>
>>>>Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
>>>>months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
>>>>replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
>>>>diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too
>>>>late
>>>>when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
>>>>to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
>>>>is wrong, isn't there?
>>>>
>>>>(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
>>>>and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
>>>>because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
>>>>
>>>>Canadian health care system is OK for you if you are:
>>>>
>>>>(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
>>>>(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention,
>>>>or
>>>>(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
>>>
>>>>from time to time.
>>>
>>>>Pavel
>>>>
>>>>[rest nuked]
>>>
>>>
>>>I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That
>>>is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the
>>>drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players
>>>get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to
>>>the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see
>>>a specialist about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she
>>>would be in under a week. I would pay for that service here if the
>>>communists in power would let me. But alas like the only other 2
>>>jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed
>>>private health care.
>>>
>>>
>
>