"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"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.
================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in
your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in
fact they were all in current receipt of care.

Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are
too weak and too much of coward to do it.
======================
Nope. Where's yours, liarman?

BCITORGB wrote:

rick, nobody gives a ****!

Amen!







(To stay in the general direction that some of this thread has been
steered ;-) )

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle
on this
situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some
reading about
various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with
a variety
of European models (I now know the difference between the
Beveridge and
the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense,
all of
this has been useful for me.

It's too bad rick could never see the value in such
discourse.
====================
LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic
chest-thumping lies.

Perhaps you should stop telling them, then.
=====================
I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink says:
==============
FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a
Medical
Test or Procedure.
==============

Tink, thanks for what you've done here; you've provided a
conciliatory
tone. Look, I don't know KMAN, but from his posts, I can
well imagine
where he was coming from (insofar as I felt the same way but
was
disinclined to carry on a discussion with one as one-tracked
as rick).
Over here, in the Great White North, inundated as we are
with American
media, we constantly hear the ignorant bleatings of the
American
right-wing. And this nonsense about people "dying while on a
waiting
list" is one of those bits of nonsense.

So let's step back a bit. Do people die on waiting lists? Of
course
they do. We're talking about illnesses and medicine. How
could people
NOT die on waiting lists. And that applies to waiting lists
in Canada,
Sweden, Germany, and the United States. People die on
waiting lists
PERIOD. OK, we've gotten that out of the way.

I'll not speak for KMAN, but from where I'm looking at the
discussion,
I suspect KMAN is smart enough to realise this as well. I
react (I
suppose KMAN does) to the nonsense we hear from south of the
49th -- it
is exactly as the one article you recommended says;
exceedingly long
waiting lists are very rare and talk about them is just
media hype.

For us (and for citizens of all nations) the public debate
about
medicine is part economic, part ethical, and part
philosophical. As you
pointed out, after doing extensive reading about our system,
you've
learned that our system is quite good at early intervention
(nobody has
to ask whether or not they can afford it), it is good at
providing for
the poor and the indigent. And, as you so eloquently put it,
good at
raising the general level of health care in the populace. On
principle,
we believe that need, not money, should determine where you
are in the
waiting list.

As with most systems, there is an economic component.
Emphasis on one
element of healthcare generally means that another aspect
gets fewer
resources. So, given the emphasis and benefits listed above,
there are
likely to be waiting lists in some other parts of the
system. The
question that we, as a society, have to answer is, "Are we
willing to
tolerate a 3 month waiting time for joint replacement
surgery if it
means that we'll have generally higher health standards or
greater
accessability for the entire populace?" We've answered
"Yes". Americans
continue to answer "No".

To sum up: I think KMAN's responses are less "jingoistic
chest
thumping" as rick likes to call it, and more frustrated
responses to
right-wing nonsense fed by a media machine.

Tink, I hope you brought this ping-ponging to and end.
Thanks.

frtzw906

What would make things easier in the future is if I could
send you my posts and you could edit them for me before
posting!

You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's
spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on
his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that
happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking
on the wording of my attempts to make him focus.
=====================
No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording,
liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you
cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1)
no one is waiting for treatment in Canada,

Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people
in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for
treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a
coward to admit it.
======================
Nope. that's not what you said then, liarman. You can explain
it now all you want, but your are still a liar, liarman.


I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

Michael Daly wrote:

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely
bogus. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the
statements into something they are not. There are your deliberate
misquotes. You have not conducted yourself in any way that would
lead anyone to trust anything you write.

It's called trolling... Scott has been doing that for many years,
sometimes being more effective, often becoming ever less effective over
time, except towards newbies, because the regulars here started to
ignore him. He thrives on creating discord and tension, savouring
attention and responses.

Looks like every new generation of posters learns the same lessons about
Weiser eventually: Don't feed the sick puppy!

http://wilko.webzone.ru/troll.html

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

riverman wrote:
"Larry C" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let's start on the easy stuff. The only two educational
groups that are consistantly Democratic are the people with
no High School education and the Post Graduates. High School
Dropouts and College Professors.
The College Educated have consistantly supported the
Republicans by a large margin.


I'm not sure where you got this statistic, or its relevancy.
If it IS true, then it says that the more educated you are
(dismissing the HS dropouts, who we can agree are 'uneducated',
yes?), the more likely you were to register Democrat, not
necessarily to vote Democrat. Do you have any stats about
the correlation between education level and how people voted?
I looked, but kept getting that "IQ" red herring. Anyway,
looking at the urban distribution of how people voted this
last time (overwhelmingly, the urban areas were proKerry)
I'd think that the tilt of the college educated (BA and
MA) vote this time went to Kerry. Let me know if you have
a source. I'll be absolutely stunned if the majority of
people with college diplomas voted for Bush.


You may find what you need he

http://www.geocities.com/blue_vs_red_2004/

Scroll down to where it says voting and education.
Interesting, isn't it? People with higher education voted for Kerry.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I'll do as I please, not as you please,

How about respecting the charter of the newsgroup.

Pot, kettle, black.

If you want to discuss invasive species, take it to
a relevant newsgroup - there are such groups in the
sci.* categories.

This is a relevant newsgroup for the discussion of the New Zealand Mudsnail
in Boulder, CO. When I'm prepared to discuss the issue, you will immediately
discover why this is so.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott, I've got sites for you....

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/27/St..._on_decl.shtml
and
http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2004/04-109.htm

"Criminal cases decreased by 10,000 in the first half of 2004. Gov. Jeb
Bush
credits tougher sentencing laws."

Tougher sentencing laws, NOT possession of guns is considered to be the
relevant factor.

"However, murders increased 5.3 percent in the first half of 2004 to
456,
compared with 433 in 2004. Guns were used in 62 percent of the
slayings, the
FDLE report said."

WOW!. Less crimes with possession of guns, eh?

"The FDLE report comes on the heels of the FBI's Uniform Crime report
for
2003, which showed a drop in violent crimes nationwide, although
Florida's
murder rate was up slightly in 2003, climbing to 5.4 per 100,000 people
compared with 5.3 per 100,000 in 2002."

Soooo.... Nationwide drop in violent crimes but murder rates up in
Florida. I forget now, do they have liberal gun laws in Florida or
not?

Compare Florida with a gun-control state like California...

Florida: murder rate up slightly in 2003. BUT

California: Overall, violent crime offenses decreased by 3.4 percent
from
2002 to 2003. Homicides decreased 1.5 percent.

Whaddya thinking, Scott?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of
God in the Bible,

Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of
your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God _as_God_"

Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does,
your statement is non sequitur.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Canada [...] prove that

Really? Please provide a reference that clearly proves that
guns in Canada have been confiscated as a result of registration.

If it hasn't, which I doubt, it will.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser