Question:
Heres a letter posted on M Mentzer's web site.
For all the lefties out their pushing Hiltery care this is what you have to look foward to!
Althought I refrain from cutting and pasting others material. Mainly for copyright reasons. I belive this is a great exception.
"M,
Thanks for your reply. In response to your questions, I believe that the first time I heard of you was when I was a boy watching ABC's Wide World of Sports when you won the Universe beating out Kalman Szkalak. For decades, I had known that you advocated high intensity weight training. Unfortunately, I did not really understand this until approximately five years ago. I misguidedly applied high intensity in the form of forced reps etc. compiled on top of high volume training and therefore it never worked for me. I was successful building an impressive physique with the blind non-theoretical approach but only because I misguidedly turned to steroids. At a bodyweight of 216 I onced benched 520. Imagine if I had trained properly!
During my first two years of medical school, I competed in bodybuilding winning the 1985 Ottawa-Hull and Eastern Ontario Championships. In my final two years of med school I gave up competitive bodybuilding because to the enormous time commitment to my medical training. Of course, I was labouring under the delusion that I had to be in the gym up to two hours daily 5 days per week. If only I had known that 15 minutes per week was sufficient.
My physique is now much more modest. At age 42, I am 5 ft 9 inches and about 180 with quite low bodyfat. To be honest, I feel better about my current state knowing that what I have achieved is not a false accomplishment inflated by unhealthy drugs. Also, what I have achieved with my bodybuilding currently is within the context of a very busy career, marriage and family life. Bodybuilding is no longer the obsessive center of my life, but a hobby that enhances my life.
I have found that as I get older, I have a less obsessive relationship with my body and bodybuilding and I am moving the focus of my life more into the world of ideas. After reading Atlas Shrugged, I have a much keener insight into the events in my daily life and world wide current events. As I mentioned before, reading Atlas Shrugged in conjunction with my experiences working in socialized medicine, has prompted us to move to the U.S. (hopefully by fall). My public comments on socialism and medicare have resulting in media attention. To my surprise, I have become involved with the Progressive Conservative Party at their request. Because of the ideas that I have expressed at these functions, spawned by Ms. Rand, it has been suggested that I would make a good political candidate. I don't think that I am interested in that. Besides, I'm moving anyway. It is amazing to know that there are some people interested in truth.
A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with our provincial Minister of Health. I expressed to him the reasons why I am leaving which is the basic lack of freedom in this country. I had the opportunity to talk with him both publicly and privately. Privately, this guy agrees with my ideas. Why can't these politicians have the strength to simply state the truth publicly? As you have said, the truth is everyone's friend whether you acknowledge this or not.
Clearly, my interest in both bodybuilding and Objectivism are very deep. I have not yet mastered all of the concepts of Objectivism and may need to re-read Ms. Rand material several times. Atlas Shrugged scar such a chord of truth within me, that it was literally traumatic to read. I actually had difficulty sleeping at night because of it. The parallels with my daily life are chilling. Socialism trickles down and affects every second of our lives in Canada. We don't have enough quality x-ray equipment, waiting lists are horrendous (a colleague of mine who is a cardiologist has a 2 year waiting list for an appointment), equipment malfunctions constantly and is years out of date, logistically the hospital is a mess, men are pitted against one another for resources, administration is the enemy of the medical staff because our delivery of care depletes their budget, everyone is stressed to the max trying to do more and more with less and less. The angst is such a system trickles down to the lowliest clerk. Such are the perils of Collectivism. I too have read material my Leonard Peikoff about Canadian medical care and things are far worse since he put out this material. Things are degenerating to a surrealistically bad level. Our regional hospitals emergency department has 180 shifts coming up this summer in which they cannot find doctors to fill. When I resign, my two colleagues will also resign, leaving no full-time radiologists in the hospital. Staffing will have to be entirely with locum tenens and I am sure that they will never be able to get enough.
Atlas Shrugged has given me profound clarity in my life. I shouldn't ramble on too long because I am sure that you are busy as am I. If we were ever to meet face to face, I am sure that we would have a wonderful conversation due to our strong mutuality of values."

Answer:


But what about the "Canadian problem" -waiting lists? In the US, people without money or insurance do not even get on a waiting list. Access is rationed by ability to pay, not by waiting. (They may be able to get care at some public facilities; but THEN they wait.) If the Canadian waiting lists indicate a problem, it is not one for which the Americans have an acceptable solution. Canada could do a better job of managing patients waiting for surgery. Most provinces don't have systems in place to priorize patients (Ontario's Cardiac Care Network is a notable exception.) However, reviews of waits in Canada have found the system to provide immediate access for emergency cases, and rapid access for urgent care. Since there have been remarkable increases in the numbers of cataract, bypass, hip and knee procedures performed in Canada in recent years, rationing of care here is not a real issue.
Claims of excessive waiting lists are the "political theatre" of publicly funded health care everywhere in the world. In fact when asked, most Canadians on waiting lists do not find their waits problematic. Claims of underfunding play an obvious role in the bargaining process between providers and governments. The former cry "More money for health!" when they mean higher incomes for providers.
Why, then, do American notions keep pushing north? There is a great deal of money to be made by wrecking Medicare. All the excess costs of an American style payment system represent higher incomes for the insurance industry and for providers of care. The extra $45 billion it would cost us to match American expenditure patterns is a big enough carrot to motivate those who promote the illusion of American superiority.
So what's really right about the Canadian health care system? Well, compared to the American, just about everything. We do have problems, but the Americans don't have the solutions.

Answer:

In Canada, we have decided that it is....
A couple of months ago, on a clandestine trip to the GS, I watched a man walk across the parking lot from his car to the restaurant where I was enjoying my breakfast. I noticed that he had something on his face so when he sat down a few tables away I took a closer look.
Despite the glorious advantage of being able to pay for medical attention, this sorry 'hand' had to walk around, and work, with a baseball sized cyst hanging off the end of his nose.
End of breakfast!
When are you going to recognize propaganda, sausageseller....?????? As for Objectivism, (as previously discussed) it is merely a cult to promote greed and selfishness and I am sure you wouldn't want to be associated with those kinds of people.

Answer:

Sausageseller = CRAP POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer:

BCalm,
This doctor pens a truthful, honest letter.
The truth and you can't handle it!
And you follow up with a fake letter from dumbocrap underground.
Get up from your knees and quit worshiping at the feet of the Klintoons and Condidits and killer Ted.

Answer:

WHAT'S RIGHT ABOUT CANADA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
--------------
Appeared in CentrePiece Issue 7; Fall, 1998
(First Appeared in the Toronto Star September 21, 1998
by Robert Evans and Noralou P Roos)
Canadians are remarkably masochistic. Year after year, the UN says Canada is the most livable country in the world; yet, we seem to discuss nothing but how to dismember it. Canada has one of the world's most successful health care systems. Yet, we cannot shake the belief that, despite all evidence, the grass is always greener south of the border. While our fundamentally sound system has some problems, we dwell on them and insistently look for magical fixes from the Americans, whose health care system is generally recognized to be among the least satisfactory in the developed world.
The truth is, there is no shortage of good news about the Canadian health care system; why we hear this so rarely is something that should concern us.
For example, Canadians are healthy. On average we are among the healthiest peoples in the world, and becoming healthier. Wide variations exist by region and social group, and we rightly hear much about these. But the overall health of Canadians is high and rising. In particular, on the standard measures of life expectancy and infant mortality, we outperform the US. The US has 8 infant deaths per 1000 live births - in the same league with the Czech Republic and Greece - while Canada has 6 per 1,000. Canadians also live longer and our advantage is growing. From 1990-95, the gap in life expectancy between Canadian and American males grew from 2 to 2.8 years; for women, it went from 1.6 to 1.9 years.
Different health care systems are not the whole, or even the principal explanation for Canadians' better health. The whole American social environment is more brutal for the less successful. In simple economic terms, for example, everyone knows that Americans enjoy higher incomes, on average, than do Canadians. Little known, and rarely reported in either country, is the fact that in the United States a much larger (and growing) proportion of total income is received by those at the very top of the income distribution. This means that most Canadians are actually better off than most Americans; only among the top ten percent of income earners are American incomes substantially higher. The difference is largely attributable to Canada's structure of tax-financed social programs. Why is this important? There is strong evidence of a link between income distribution and overall health status - inegalitarian societies, those like the American, who concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, tend to be unhealthy.
But obviously health care also matters, and the Canadian health care system is very good at getting care to the people who need it, whether or not they can pay. Cross-border comparative studies suggest that both the Canadian and American systems serve people in middle and upper income groups well, but that there are marked differences in access to care and outcomes for people with lower incomes. It would be very surprising if this were not so. About forty million Americans have no insurance at all, and those who do increasingly face large user fees.
OK, so Canada does a better job of looking after poor people, and getting what care there is to where it is needed most. But most of us are not poor. Aren't we being short-changed by an underfunded system that is simply incapable of meeting all our needs? The United States may not distribute care equitably, but at least it delivers the goods, and ours does not. Or does it?
Americans certainly spend a lot more on health care than we do, or than anyone else in the world. One seventh of their national income, 14.2%, goes to health care, compared with 9.2% in Canada, and 8%-10% in most developed countries. This works out to $3708 per capita the Americans spend on medical care yearly, compared with $2002 (US) spent in Canada. It is not that Canada spends so little, - it has long been among those countries at the highest spending levels (in 1996 only Switzerland - $2412, Germany - $2222, and Luxembourg -$2206, spent more and not much more), it's that the US spends so much. To match these levels, Canada would have to add $45 billion a year to our health care spending.
But do we really want to do that? The truth of the matter is that more money does not necessarily buy more health care, any more than it buys more health. Americans do not receive more hospital care and they don't receive more physician services, though they pay a lot more for what they do get. (Yes, their rates of some types of surgical procedures are higher, but overall, Canadians get more surgery than do Americans.) Americans do not get higher-quality care for their money; follow-up studies of patients on both sides of the border usually show similar outcomes. There is no clear advantage to either side.
The Canadian health care system is also remarkably efficient. Lamentations about our bloated, inefficient administrative bureaucracies are pure fiction. A universal, comprehensive, tax-financed public insurance system with negotiated fee schedules is administratively "lean." The American multi-payer system with diverse and complex coverage restrictions and elaborate forms of user payments is "fat." The American private insurance bureaucracy is huge; its excess administrative costs, compared with a Canadian approach, are estimated to be between 10% and 15% of total system costs, that is, well over $US 100 billion per year.
But what about the "Canadian problem" -waiting lists? In the US, people without money or insurance do not even get on a waiting list. Access is rationed by ability to pay, not by waiting. (They may be able to get care at some public facilities; but THEN they wait.) If the Canadian waiting lists indicate a problem, it is not one for which the Americans have an acceptable solution. Canada could do a better job of managing patients waiting for surgery. Most provinces don't have systems in place to priorize patients (Ontario's Cardiac Care Network is a notable exception.) However, reviews of waits in Canada have found the system to provide immediate access for emergency cases, and rapid access for urgent care. Since there have been remarkable increases in the numbers of cataract, bypass, hip and knee procedures performed in Canada in recent years, rationing of care here is not a real issue.
Claims of excessive waiting lists are the "political theatre" of publicly funded health care everywhere in the world. In fact when asked, most Canadians on waiting lists do not find their waits problematic. Claims of underfunding play an obvious role in the bargaining process between providers and governments. The former cry "More money for health!" when they mean higher incomes for providers.
Why, then, do American notions keep pushing north? There is a great deal of money to be made by wrecking Medicare. All the excess costs of an American style payment system represent higher incomes for the insurance industry and for providers of care. The extra $45 billion it would cost us to match American expenditure patterns is a big enough carrot to motivate those who promote the illusion of American superiority.
So what's really right about the Canadian health care system? Well, compared to the American, just about everything. We do have problems, but the Americans don't have the solutions.