KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/2/05 12:28 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
BCITORGB at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:31 PM:

Tink, I'm fairly sure you didn't read this one:
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf

Could not read all of it for all the reading I have been doing, but
read enough of it!


I quote: "In short, patients get on wait lists in Canada through
a
poorly understood, haphazard, unaudited, entirely private process
largely controlled by individual physicians."

The authors tell us that the notion of a waiting list and the
notions
of waiting and waiting times are hard to define. For example,
when
"exactly" does a patient (and, in this case, I don't care if it's
in
Canada, the USA, the UK, or whereever) get "on" a waiting list?
Tink,
when you call your family doctor, and the receptionist informs
you
that
you can come in on Thursday, you're on a waiting list (if this is
a
day
other than Thursday).

But what is particularly interesting in the statement in question
is
the part about it being an "entirely private process largely
controlled by individual physicians." So, no big bad government
determining who gets to wait. It is the physician, using his/her
best
knowledge, who determines the nature of our wait. I think this is
exactly what KMAN, Michael, and I have been trying to say.
Doctors
in
Canada operate privately.

Yes and the Drs are employees of the Canadian Gov, employed to make
those decisions.


Tink, your source goes on to say: "Wait times tend to be, in
statistical jargon, highly skewed. This means that very long
waits
are
the exception. A few long waits can have the same misleading
effect
on
wait time statistics as a few palatial mansions on average
housing
prices." NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"

To complete that thought, the authors say: "But in the world of
selling
papers and tv advertising spots, the exception often makes the
story.
This gets an unassuming public understandably concerned, playing
nicely
into the hands of those seeking to get more money into the
system."

Is that not EXACTLY what KMAN has been saying? This is hype!

NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY (IT TAKES THE CANADIAN PULSE): "Some
recent
Canadian research has found that not all patients are unhappy
about
waiting. Very
few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times (although this
may be
related to the procedures they were waiting for and may also now
be
changing, as Canadians seem increasingly concerned about access
to
care). Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra money
personally to reduce their wait time."

NOTE CAREFULLY: "Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out
extra
money personally to reduce their wait time." That's us, cheap
Canadians
(just ask the folks in Florida)!

Anyway, Tink, thanks for the link. It goes on, and on, and on,
supporting KMAN's points.

frtzw906

Dang. I owe Tinkerntom and apology. I never should have assumed he
understood the information he was posting. Sorry Tinkerntom!

KMAN and frtwz, I do know how to read, and I understand that the
above
link supports much of what you have been saying about the Canadian
Medical System, and it has been educational to me to do this
research.

Cool.

I have learned more in the last few days about Canadian Medical
System
than I probably know about US system, and I've learned about the US
system as well, in comparison to Canada. These issues are pertinent
even here as there are movements to modify our Medicare and Social
Security programs. In doing this research, I have read regarding
systems in Sweden, Nederlands, UK, Aus. and Nz. I have collected
several hundred links, and have a lot of reading to do on a cold
winter
night, next year, since winter is just about over here! And it will
be
time to go boating!

Now wrestling with statistics is not my strong suite, being an
ENTP,
but I have tried to present various sides of the discussion, and
recognize that there are alot of biased voices yelling out their
viewpoint. I am aware as I said that a number of links support your
contentions, and there are some that do not support you. Some are
happy
with the system, some are unhappy, such is the nature of man. Even
the
Gorsuch case was closely linked to the Tory political party, which
if
you are a Tory, was probably acceptable. However if you were of
Doers
ND party (?), you would probably not be so sensitive.

The "Tory" party was the "Progressive Conservative" (PC) party which
no
longer exists (sadly, I think) and now we have the Conservative party
(which
was formerly the Reform party and then the Alliance party and then
riding a
groundswell of right-wing social conservatism mainly in the west of
Canada
managed to swallow up the PC party) the Liberal party (which is a
party of
big business in a country where "liberal" has far different
connotations
that it does in the USA) and we also have the New Democratic Party
(NDP)
which is not "new" at all and although failing to develop broad
appeal
remains an important voice on such issues as health care and
individual
rights. In what is truly a fascinating twist, we also have the Bloc
Quebecois (BQ) which is based only in the province of Quebec and
shares some
similarities with the NDP but they only run candidates in Quebec and
as a
rule must make some sort of stupid statement about Quebec sovereignty
on a
weekly basis.

I also posted some international links, regarding the general
condition
of socialized medicine, that had studied the Canadian system in
part. I
tried t present various viewpoints that would not necessarily be in
agreement with my conservative political position, but which I felt
presented a cognitive approach that could be studdied.

As I said before, in fairness, I did not post organ donor list, or
folks waiting to get their ingrown toenails taken care of, that may
have died of some other cause that was not related to their being
on
this particular list. I was impressed that it appears that the
Canadian
system is especially good at providing preventative care that
raised
the general health of the society at large, and especially in the
segment of poor and indigent that would not have health care other
wise.

That's probably what we are most proud of. For the most part, one's
race and
economic status does not prevent access to very good medical care.
This
contrasts strongly with countries like the US. On the other hand,
rich
people have to wait longer than they would in the US, and some argue
that it
would be better if they could just purchase the services they want
and free
up space for the less fortunate. The problem with that is that once
people
of means are no longer part of the system, they are probably going to
be
less thrilled about paying into it, and the whole thing falls apart.

I also read that even on the list of seriously ill, that those on
the list receive some modicum of medical care, that if they
survived
the initial event, they could be expected to continue healthier
until
their eventual medical procedure, with an accompaning reduced
mortality
rate. This would be little consolation for someone like Sean
Gorsuch
who's mother died while on a wait list, which brings us to the
point of
this whole discussion, the other discussions will have to wait.

Sigh. As you konw, this case was rare, and the government is
responding to
it.

The question that was being ask by KMAN regarding claims by rick
about
sick people dying while waiting for a medical procedure, is a
different
issue altogether. rick is not comparing to US privatized medicine,
or
that there are wait list here as well, or even saying that the wait
list in Canada are too long. In fact I have seen no where, where
rick
made any qualitative assessement or comment on the quality of care
eventually provided. He has made no comment about whether any
Canadians
are happy or unhappy with the timeliness of the medical care
provided.

Right. He's a weasel. Which is why I was trying to pin him down on
something. Unfortunately I did so in haste and he's jumped on a badly
posed
question, presumably for his own amusement, and completely taken away
from
what could have been a useful discussion about health care. Although,
we are
sort of having one now :-)

FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical
Test or Procedure.

That is not to say that they were very ill, and would not have died
anyway. They may have died in the US wait list, but that is not the
point of what he is saying. He is not saying there were not
mitigating
factor, or bad doctors. Just that for whatever reason, they died
before
they received the prescribed procedure, and that in these cases,
the
wait time was too long. Whether it was 1 day, 10 days, 10 weeks, or
2
years, the patient died with their name on a list. I understand
that
the wait times may be skewed and the particular person who dies, is
the
exception, but that does not change the fact that they are now
dead.
There may be private medical service available, that could have
saved
their life, but for whatever reason, they did not avail themselves
of
it and they are now dead. It may be a physician that puts them on a
list, but they are now dead none the less. I understand that the
media
loves a nasty story cause they can sell more airtime or newspapers.
Politicians love these stories so they can point the finger at the
other politicians. Unions can leverage some more money. And it
gives
academics to research, and statiticians something to figure out how
to
count, and to happily count. And Usenet writers to hack about, but
it
does not change the fact that a person died while listed, and that
is
all rick was saying!

Other links have been supplied to support this statement by rick,
and
it is time for KMAN to concede that he was asking the wrong
question
again, and apologize to rick. Concede, get it over with so we can
move
on!

I already did it, Tinkerntom. You are right. I was trying so hard to
get
rick to argue in some sort of an honest way that I pushed him on a
question
that wasn't well conceived.

I would take an apology as well if one is on the table! You
insisted
that I join this dance, and then stepped on my toes when I didn't
dance
the way you expected me to dance. I was content to set this one out
as
I stated before, and I will bow out now, before I get my nose broke
or
bent out of shape. TnT

You actually did a nice job of pointing out that the a technical
arrangement
of my question (clearly not the spirit of my question, however) was
flawed.

Now I'm after an apology from rick for repeatedly claiming that I
said no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment. Stay tuned. Or maybe even
turn your
talents to bringing that to a close, since you did a nice job on this
one
(seriously).

I heard a concession in their someplace, but may I suggest that you
post a reply in this thread that would be unambiguous, and with out all
the other accompaning overburden of top post so that rick will have no
excuse to misunderstand! and rick be nice!

On my account, I accept your apology and look forward to a continuing
dialog!
Eh, you Canadians are not so bad either, understanding that your
Canadians TnT

KMAN wrote:
in article t, rick
at
wrote on 3/1/05 10:58 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:18 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM:


"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message


snippage...

Or are you going to be consistent and be a liar and a
coward
on
this issue
as well?
====================
Anything you open your mouth about, like Canadians
never
waiting
for treatment.

I never said that. Every health care system requires
that
people wait.
==========================
Yes, you did liar. Do try to keep up with your own spews,
dolt.


What part of your claim:
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." don't you
undersatnd?
You said it fool, 2/20/2005


Big lie there fool...

Never said it. Prove that I did.
================
See above fool. You made the claim, liar.

Why none of your pithy spews here, fool? Finally realixed
how
stupid you really are, and how much you lie?

Post the entire quote, and reference it, weasel.
============================
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

That's is a quote by you fool. feb 20, 2005. That you are
still too stupid to fully use your computer is no surprise,
liar.

Post the entire quote.
==================
What I posted stands by itself. You lied.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

Still afraid to look things up for yourself, eh liar?

Only a scumbag posts the middle of a quote with no context or
reference.
==========================
It wasn't from the middle, liar, it was'nt out of context, liar.
I provided the the reference by date and time you said it, liar.
Thanks for proving yet again that lies are all you have, since
the facts are not on your side.

You could have easily pasted the entire context, including headers.
Instead
you posted a piece of a statement without the information that
preceded it
or came after.

A scumbag tactic.

KMAN, I went back and reviewed the exact post in context, and I agree
with you both on this one. You did say that "No one is waiting for
treatment." And as I copied it to this post, I took it completely out
of context in order for it to say what rick wanted it to say. Obviously
the power of cut and paste is being abused!

However I also realize that in the heat of battle, you may again have
spoken (written) to quickly, and left yourself vulnerable to rick to
make this assertion. At the same time I have seen you attempt to
clarify your statement, which rick should be willing to accept, since
we all have made similar missteps. Lord knows I have!

rick, I would encourage you to allow KMAN to modify and clarify his
previous statement inasmuch as he has acknowledged that it is not what
he meant to say, and then if desired, discuss that as a new issue.

As someone said earlier, Geesus! You guys must have been on a real
bender on 2/20, since both of these misunderstandings started at the
approx. same time. Hopefully we can now put this behind us, having
learned the power of misspeak and misstep. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
Now wrestling with statistics is not my strong suite, being an ENTP
================

You can't get off that easy Tink. I'm an ENTP as well and, at one
point
in my career, a long, long, time ago, I taught statistics. Please
note,
the N & T portions of ENTP lend themselves quite nicely to an
appreciation of stats. Now if you'd said S & F, then I would have
bought your explanation. But NT? Nope. You're reading your MBTI all
wrong.

frtzw906

I did not say I can't do numbers, just that I would rather be messin
with my new boat motor. I realize that is OT heresy here on RBP, but
hey what the heck. I graduated top in my class in Math, Physics, and
Chemistry, but that was a long time ago, and now I try to restrict my
math to making sure I have one paddle, one PFD, and one kayak when I go
to the lake by myself. That way when the physics come to play I float
right side up on top of the water. I've tried other versions of
floating but they did not work so good. Usually I would end up in the
water which is a mix of Chemistry and Biology as it reacts and grows on
your skin. I kayak in a not so pristine lake at times.

I am working on getting my Folbot Super set up to paddle, sail, or
motor, and it promises to be a nice spring and summer. Especially if
rick and KMAN don't tie one on again!

I am not surprised that you taught Stats, and will keep that in mind as
I continue to expose myself to the wild wild RBP. If you notice, I try
not to get involve in posting alot of specific numbers like Scott W and
a few others, since they can be twisted every which way and end up
proving very little. But if you enjoy them I will let you have all of
them you want from others. TnT

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment,
yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim,
===========================
Yes, you did.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm
Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but".

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete
statement.

Example:

What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true.
He's got to be
the biggest idiot on the planet!

To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't
think rick is
an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing
with my
sentence about waiting.

Here is more of the context:

======

As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits
for
the
high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait
is
"less than
ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated
and
followed by
other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency
scan
gets one.
======================
LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency
treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the
list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more
than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond
treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment.


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment.
======================
Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to
that, now.



It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.
====================
Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment.



=====

What I am saying (clearly) is that nobody is waiting 2 1/2
years to get
treatment. They get treatment the day they walk into the
hospital. What they
are waiting for, as the article says, is a specific type of
high-tech scan.

Note from the above: "While the wait is "less than ideal," he
said patients'
conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical
means, and
that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one.

Now, let's get back to what you have been saying:

rick: kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for
treatment, yet
another lie
==================
Nope. You clearly made that statement, liarman.



I never made the statement that no one in Canada waits for
treatment.
==================
Yes, you did. You even posted it yourself above, liarman.


You owe me an apology.
====================
No, fool, you are the one that has been lying all along, and have
been proven to have been doing so.



But I bet you are too weak to do it.

as I've told you a dozen times (but you are such a
scumbag that you keep on lying) there are wait times in every
health care
system, including Canada.
=======================
That's not waht you claimed earlier, until your lies were
exposed, liarman.

No, I didn't. You owe me an apology.
====================
No, fool, you are the one that has been lying all along, and have
been proven to have been doing so.



In fact, you will recall that you yourself posted
an article about people waiting for a specific test in
Newfoundland.
========================
Which is where you denied that Candaians are waiting for
treatment. You lied then, liarman...

As you can see above, clearly I was explaining that those
people were not
waiting for treatment, they were waiting for a specific type of
high tech
test.

You owe me an apology.
====================
No, fool, you are the one that has been lying all along, and have
been proven to have been doing so.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/2/05 12:28 AM:


snip...




Now I'm after an apology from rick for repeatedly claiming that
I said no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.
====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! No, fool, you are the one that has
been lying all along, and have been proven to have been doing so.



Stay tuned. Or maybe even turn your
talents to bringing that to a close, since you did a nice job
on this one
(seriously).
=================
yes, he proved you have been lying. You really are that stupid,
aren't you?

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:

snip...


rick, I would encourage you to allow KMAN to modify and clarify
his
previous statement inasmuch as he has acknowledged that it is
not what
he meant to say, and then if desired, discuss that as a new
issue.
=====================
He has already modified his ststement. After he was caught in
his lie. the ststement was not out of context. It sauid exactly
as I claimed. If you are waiting 2 years for a test ot
proceedure that your doctor has already determined you need, then
you are waiting for treatment. That is not what he said. He
made the direct statement that no one waits for treatment.




As someone said earlier, Geesus! You guys must have been on a
real
bender on 2/20, since both of these misunderstandings started
at the
approx. same time. Hopefully we can now put this behind us,
having
learned the power of misspeak and misstep. TnT
==============================
And he still continues to lie, despite the fact the you and I
have provided many mnay sites that prove people have died waiting
for treatment. Died specifically from not getting the treatment
thay were waiting for in a timely manner.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:01 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:20 PM:



snip...



Here, let me restore your dishonesty again, liar..

"No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the
determination whether or not people should have them.
You lost, again, and now have you resort to your
ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..."

What is the need for assault weapons to the general public?
It's a valid question. They are only useful for spraying
bullets. Why else do you need them? In response to this YOU
brought up the fact that people get killed by cars. But
cars
have many other valid and valuable purposes.
================
So do weapons.

What are the valuable purposes of assault weapons that are
comparable to the
valuable purposes of cars?
========================
LOL Tap, tap, tap. First it's does it have a need? As if
'need' is the determenat as to whether an object can be owned.
Now it's a 'valuable' need! You really don't have a clue, do
you, liarman.

What a surprise, the coward isn't going to answer!

Here's what you said: see above!

===

KMAN: cars have many other valid and valuable purposes.

rick: So do weapons

===

So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name
those valid and
valuable purposes of assault weapons?
======================
Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the arbiter
of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is the
perogative of eack person, liarman.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:04 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:21 PM:


snip...


You did not quote me.
======================
Yes, I did. see other posts for today... Here, want
to
see
it again?
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

You need to quote without the "... and ..." and you
also
need
to provide a
link to the message so it can be verified. What a
scumbag
you
are!
================
There was no "and" fool. You made that statemnet. Too
abd
you're a proven liar, eh?
YOU made the statement. Now you're claiming you can't
find
it?
You really are a loser, aren't you, liar?
restore end

Post the entire quote. Why did you need to delete the
beginning and end?
Weasel.
======================
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."
Why are you concerned about whole quotes while you
dishonestly
delete whole ones, fool?

Provide the entire quote. Scum.
====================
What I posted says it all. You lied.

It says nothing because you have engaged in the ultimate
scumbag tactic of
posting a partial quote with no context and no reference.
========================
Then post the entire thing if you think it will change the
statement, liarman. As it is, it stands alone as the
statement
you made

It isnt' a statement. It's only six words that may or may not
be part of an
entire statement that you say I made.

Post the whole thing, including headers. What are you afriad
of?
====================
Nothing liarman, I posted your statement. Your lie. Too bad
for you.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:
in article t, rick
at
wrote on 3/1/05 10:58 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:18 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM:


"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message


snippage...

Or are you going to be consistent and be a liar and a
coward
on
this issue
as well?
====================
Anything you open your mouth about, like Canadians
never
waiting
for treatment.

I never said that. Every health care system requires
that
people wait.
==========================
Yes, you did liar. Do try to keep up with your own spews,
dolt.


What part of your claim:
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." don't you
undersatnd?
You said it fool, 2/20/2005


Big lie there fool...

Never said it. Prove that I did.
================
See above fool. You made the claim, liar.

Why none of your pithy spews here, fool? Finally realixed
how
stupid you really are, and how much you lie?

Post the entire quote, and reference it, weasel.
============================
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

That's is a quote by you fool. feb 20, 2005. That you are
still too stupid to fully use your computer is no surprise,
liar.

Post the entire quote.
==================
What I posted stands by itself. You lied.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

Still afraid to look things up for yourself, eh liar?

Only a scumbag posts the middle of a quote with no context or
reference.
==========================
It wasn't from the middle, liar, it was'nt out of context, liar.
I provided the the reference by date and time you said it, liar.
Thanks for proving yet again that lies are all you have, since
the facts are not on your side.

You could have easily pasted the entire context, including headers.
Instead
you posted a piece of a statement without the information that
preceded it
or came after.

A scumbag tactic.

KMAN, I went back and reviewed the exact post in context, and I agree
with you both on this one. You did say that "No one is waiting for
treatment." And as I copied it to this post, I took it completely out
of context in order for it to say what rick wanted it to say. Obviously
the power of cut and paste is being abused!

Right. He was deliberately dishonest. He knew I was responding specifically
to the story about Newfoundland, where the people are not waiting for
treatment, they are waiting for a specific type of test while continuing to
receive care.

However I also realize that in the heat of battle, you may again have
spoken (written) to quickly, and left yourself vulnerable to rick to
make this assertion. At the same time I have seen you attempt to
clarify your statement, which rick should be willing to accept, since
we all have made similar missteps. Lord knows I have!

rick, I would encourage you to allow KMAN to modify and clarify his
previous statement inasmuch as he has acknowledged that it is not what
he meant to say, and then if desired, discuss that as a new issue.

As someone said earlier, Geesus! You guys must have been on a real
bender on 2/20, since both of these misunderstandings started at the
approx. same time. Hopefully we can now put this behind us, having
learned the power of misspeak and misstep. TnT

I've moved on from the statement about "wait lines" and dying, Tinkerntom.

But rick owes me an apology for being deliberately dishonest in stating that
I claimed no one in Canada has to wait.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:27 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 9:34 PM:

kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment,
yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html

I never made that claim,
===========================
Yes, you did.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." 2/20/2005 2:14pm
Complete sentence. No "and", "or", "but".

Just because it is a sentence doesn't mean it is a complete statement.

Example:

What do you mean rick is a bit of an idiot, that's not true. He's got to
be
the biggest idiot on the planet!

To paste only the first sentence and then claim that I don't think rick
is
an idiot would be just as dishonest as what you have been doing with my
sentence about waiting.

Here is more of the context:

======

As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for
the
high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is
"less than
ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and
followed by
other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan
gets one.
======================
LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency
treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the
list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more
than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond
treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment.


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment.
======================
Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that,
now.

Nono. Stop being dishonest.

I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment.

See the context above again. It is not that complicated.

I responded to your claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment. They are not.

It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.
====================
Nope. You claimed that no Canadians were waiting for treatment.

I made no such claim, you are a liar and a scumbag. There is no such thing
as a health care system where no one waits for treatment.

You owe me an apology.